POLL: He should be impeached!!!!!! - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Impeach or Not based on the Six Points?
Yes 20 71.43%
No 8 28.57%
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-20-2003, 08:59 AM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:35 PM
He should be impeached!!!!!!

1) He attacked another sovereign nation.
2) He did this at a time of domestic crisis, possibly to take our minds of of the domestic problems we were having.
3) He launched his attack without UN Security Council approval.
4) He accused them of being linked to Osama Bin Ladin.
5) He had intelligence/proven faulty that led to the attack.
6) He lied to the American people.


What more do we need?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 09:06 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 08:35 PM
Normal

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
What more do we need?
for him to be a Democrat.
__________________

__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 09:31 AM   #3
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 01:35 AM
"What more do we need?"

A malcontented, press-seeking whore.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 05:20 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Egads, who knows how this thing is going to turn out.......stay tuned.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 06:33 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Dreadsox,


"What more do we need?"

Not the 6 points mentioned above.

"1) He attacked another sovereign nation."

How many Presidents haven't attacked a sovereign nation since World War II?

"2) He did this at a time of domestic crisis, possibly to take our minds of of the domestic problems we were having."

It is not a crises. When presidents conduct foreign policy, there is enevitably someone that will accuse that president of simply "taking our minds off domestic problems".

"3) He launched his attack without UN Security Council approval."

This is incorrect. The attack was launched with UN Security Council approval from resolutions 678, 687, and 1441.

"4) He accused them of being linked to Osama Bin Ladin."

He mentioned possible links to Al Quada. It would be impeachable, in the post 9/11 era, not to mention such links no matter how remote they might be.

"5) He had intelligence/proven faulty that led to the attack."

The small amount of intelligence that has been disputed DID NOT lead to the invasion. Rather it was the sum total of a large amount of intelligence and facts that led to the need for an invasion.

There is no such thing as perfect intelligence and every single President in US history has used a piece of intelligence at one time or another that was not 100% correct.


"6) He lied to the American people."

Its not been proven that he has lied to anyone.

"What more do we need?"

Indisputable proof of wrong doing that a majority in the House and Senate would believe rises to the level of of a high crime.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 06:37 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:35 AM
I have no doubt that in a place as far to the left as FYM, that Bush will be impeached in FYM.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 06:43 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 08:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
How many Presidents haven't attacked a sovereign nation since World War II?
Indeed and how sad that is.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 07-20-2003, 07:08 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:35 AM
To me, these sound like a reason to cast a vote for a Democrat next year but not to impeach. But then, I'm not a lawyer.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 09:06 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Anitrim,

"Indeed and how sad that is."

What is sad are European Countries that fail to properly respond to dictators and Genocide in Europe itself.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 10:05 PM   #10
Refugee
 
Foxxern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 1,284
Local Time: 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
What is sad are European Countries that fail to properly respond to dictators and Genocide in Europe itself.
Is the proper response then a military strike without the support of the UN? Talk all you want to about resolution 1441, but it didn't authorize any sort of military attack on the nation of Iraq. I agree that some horrible things were going on under Saddam's regime, but Bush has set a very dangerous precedent by launching an unauthorized attack on another sovereign nation.

While I don't in any way support Bush's actions either at home or abroad, I'm not sure he has blatantly abused his power, which is the only situation in which I support impeachment. I don't believe that is true in this case. Of course if it is revealed that this war really was over helping his oil interests, I would probably change my mind.
__________________
Foxxern is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 05:46 AM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Foxxern,

Its not just 1441 that authorizes the military operation, but also resolutions 678 and 687. But lets say as you believe that resolution 1441 did not authorize military action. What did it authorize and what was meant by the term "Serious Consequences"? Please be specific.

If as you say, Bush launched an attack that was not authorized by the UN, he is still not setting a precident at all. Bill Clintons military action launched into Kosovo was not authorized by the UN at all. No one disputes that point.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 05:53 AM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 02:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Foxxern,

Its not just 1441 that authorizes the military operation, but also resolutions 678 and 687. But lets say as you believe that resolution 1441 did not authorize military action. What did it authorize and what was meant by the term "Serious Consequences"? Please be specific.

If as you say, Bush launched an attack that was not authorized by the UN, he is still not setting a precident at all. Bill Clintons military action launched into Kosovo was not authorized by the UN at all. No one disputes that point.
Correct me if i am wrong but was France one of the big supporters of actions in Kosovo ?
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 11:45 AM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 09:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
To me, these sound like a reason to cast a vote for a Democrat next year but not to impeach. But then, I'm not a lawyer.
No need to ruffle feathers or get people who might be be critical of Bush to defend him. Rather, continue exposing the truth of situations and let people decide if Bush has been a good leader or not, based on the FACTS. And run a strong Democratic canidate for the upcoming election.
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 12:33 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
Rather, continue exposing the truth of situations and let people decide if Bush has been a good leader or not, based on the FACTS. And run a strong Democratic canidate for the upcoming election.


Boy, what a world this would be if we could actually elect a leader based on facts. My guess is the best leaders of this country play no part in politics.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-21-2003, 12:39 PM   #15
Registered User
 
U2andPolitix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA all the way
Posts: 231
Local Time: 08:35 PM
speaking of strong democrats to win, my bid is senator John Kerry. www.johnkerry.com i believe he is the stongest of all the dems running, he is bush's biggest threat on national security issues, he's also very good with domestic agenda, and his wife is a major enviornmentalist. i encourage everyone to go out and vote for john kerry on primary day if we want a good strong leader to clean up the horrendous mess that bush has made.
__________________

__________________
U2andPolitix is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com