POLL: He should be impeached!!!!!!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Impeach or Not based on the Six Points?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 71.4%
  • No

    Votes: 8 28.6%

  • Total voters
    28

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
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,


"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.
 
I have no doubt that in a place as far to the left as FYM, that Bush will be impeached in FYM.
 
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 said:
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,

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 said:
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 ?
 
verte76 said:
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.

:up: :up: 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 said:
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. :)

:up:

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.
 
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.
 
I just went to Kerry's campaign site. If he wins the nomination he gets my vote. Nowadays our primary here in Alabama isn't until June. :censored: :censored: I think it's stupid. The damn nominees have already been nominated by the time we cast our votes. We used to be part of "Super Tuesday" in March, then some brilliant--NOT--people decided to change it. Ridiculous.:mad: :mad: :censored: :censored:
 
Rono,

France did support the action after some arm twisting by the Clinton administration. The USA provided 90% of the combat power to free Kosovo of the Serbian military.
 
Ahhh yes another thread with the Resolution 1441 derailing.

Anyways.....back to the subject of the thread.

The President I was referring to was President William Jefferson Clinton.

The Six Criteria above were met by William Jefferson Clinton in 1988 when he attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sudan.


I'm outraged. I can't believe the president would try to distract attention from his domestic problems by attacking foreign regimes based on suspect intelligence. He should be impeached!

Actually he already was. I'm referring of course to Bill Clinton, who in 1998 bombed terrorist bases in Afghanistan, a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan and various sites in Iraq in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky mess.

The evidence that the Sudanese plant was actually making nerve gas for Osama bin Laden -- as Clinton claimed -- was subsequently discredited. Yet Democrats rushed to his defense. "We believe the president acted correctly and responsibly," House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said in a joint statement.

It's worth recalling this 5-year-old incident as the controversy over President Bush's radioactive State of the Union speech sputters on.

Politically opportunistic Democrats are invoking preposterous comparisons with Watergate because of the president's statement that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Democrats smell blood because the administration has admitted that its own findings about Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium in Niger were based on forged documents. But it's quite a leap to go from faulty information to charges that the president deliberately lied. The real problem is that intelligence seldom provides certainty; it can only offer hints or clues that policymakers have to interpret as best they can.

That's precisely what Bill Clinton and his national security advisors did in 1998. In August, after Al Qaeda bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, they launched preemptive attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan because they didn't want to risk having poison gas released in the New York City subway. Even though the evidence was hardly conclusive that the Sudanese plant was working for Bin Laden, they decided to err on the side of safety. Based on the same precautionary principle, the administration bombed Iraq a few months later, even though there was no hard proof that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6128
 
Dreadsox,

That was good! Interesting thing is, most of my answers would still be the same. Except for maybe #5 and #6. Clinton lovers here will not be happy. Very cool experiment.
 
You should have waited though until nearly everyone had voted to post that it was Clinton you were talking about. It will be interesting to watch the poll swing away from impeachment.
 
Well i guess 1 - 3 are good reasons for impeachment - no matter which President it is. So if 1-3 are all proven there is a good reason to get rid of a president.
4 isn't a real reason ;)
5 is only a reason if he knew that the sources weren't really reliable
6. i guess every president did - just take a look what they promise when they start the election campaign.

Klaus

p.s. i voted with yes
 
just as an FYI, Clinton WAS impeached. :sexywink: The fact that it was sex and not military lying is perhaps more a commentary on the focus of the Republican controlled Congress who impeached him.
 
sulawesigirl4 said:
just as an FYI, Clinton WAS impeached. :sexywink: The fact that it was sex and not military lying is perhaps more a commentary on the focus of the Republican controlled Congress who impeached him.

Clinton did do some military lying as the article stated. He attacked Sudan and spoke to the nation with false intelligence. That was the point.
 
Yes, Yes, Yes!
I can't ever vote in polls but YES! Before he starts another freakin war. Today's comments:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/21/international/middleeast/21CND-PREX.html?hp

Bush Again Accuses Iran and Syria of Harboring Terrorists
By DAVID STOUT


ASHINGTON, July 21 ? President Bush today accused Syria and Iran of continuing to "harbor and assist terrorists," and he warned that they would face consequences.

"This behavior is completely unacceptable, and states that support terror will be held accountable," Mr. Bush said at a news conference with Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy at Mr. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Tex.

Let's start another war to take the heat off the home team AGAIN!
 
Last edited:
Dreadsox,

"Clinton did do some military lying as the article stated. He attacked Sudan and spoke to the nation with false intelligence. That was the point."

But it was not known that the intelligence used at the time was false or inaccurate. Clinton lied to a federal grand jury about his relationship to an intur. To the best of my knowledge its never been proven that he lied about anything else in regards to the military.

Scarletwine,

So what do you think of Hezbolah and the supplies from Iran that often ends up in Humas's back pocket in Israel?
 
So if clinton was just lying in public about his personal sexlife is less relevant to me than lying in election campaigns.
If he used his inteligence information and knew it was false or inaccurate - and therefore killed innocent men just to get the mediafocus away from domestic problems - they should have thrown him out of the office.

The US had better presidents before Mr.Clinton and will hopefully have better presidents after him again.

Klaus
 
STING2 said:
So what do you think of Hezbolah and the supplies from Iran that often ends up in Humas's back pocket in Israel? [/B]

I don't think the US has been able to tie the Hezbolah to any terrorist action for more than 10 yrs.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15601
The U.S. has also complained about Syrian, and indeed Iranian, sponsorship of "terrorist" organizations like Hizbollah. Although no one except Israel and Washington define Hizbollah as terrorists, the administration's liberal use of the adjective, "terrorist," is geared toward a domestic audience - a strategy that worked very well in the case of Iraq.

Some telling quotes:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11938
Osama: The Pentagon?s Battle With Powell Heats Up

By Jason Vest, Village Voice
November 20, 2001

And updating to the Wolfowitz Cabal the Reagan-era view of then CIA director William Casey that all terrorist groups were interconnected via the Soviet, the links between Saddam, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and just about every other Middle East Islamist group are clear?thus necessitating the speedy deployment of bombs, and possibly even troops, to Iraq as well as Syria and Lebanon.

At a meeting in the White House Situation Room last month, Feith was so impassioned on this point that he took to banging his fist on the table, saying it was essential that the historically Hezbollah-controlled Sheikh Abdullah barracks north of Beirut be bombed. Others interviewed by the Voice report that there have been "epic shouting matches" in White House meetings over the issue of war expansion, and personnel at both Foggy Bottom and Langley have found their patience increasingly tried by the Wolfowitz Cabal. Indeed, despite the CIA's cowboy image, the Agency's old Afghan and Middle East hands marvel at what they consider lunacy. "The Agency as an institution would never offer up a view of these people, but if you ask individuals, they think these guys are more than a little nuts," says a veteran of the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

Adds another longtime case officer: "I think there's a common view in the intelligence community that if we're really serious about dismantling Osama bin Laden's network, intelligence is key, and for that, we necessarily have to work with our allies to get the best intelligence we possibly can, which is going to take time and cooperation. Powell's done a good job of putting a coalition together and keeping it together?he recognizes the reality that any coalition will break apart in a nanosecond if there's a call to go after Iraq. And going after Hamas or Hezbollah would be a terrible mistake?neither has broad-based support in Palestine, neither is an exclusively terrorist organization, neither is attacking Americans, and if we do go after them, they'll start targeting Americans. Attack those places and there will be consequences that we simply will not be able to deal with. But Perle and Wolfowitz are absolutists, and they're stupid."

According to both Pentagon and intelligence sources, in mid September the Project for the New American Century?a hawkish private policy group whose membership overlaps with the official Defense Policy Board?sent President Bush a letter after a two-day conference, declaring that failure to promptly remove Saddam would constitute a "decisive surrender in the war against terrorism." Ominously, it also held that if Syria and Iran refused to drop all support for Hezbollah, "the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism."

This is once again "Peace thru War" initiatives of Perle and Rummy & Wolfy being brought back as the next step. Jan. 2005 may be to late to stop these insane warmongers.


I'd venture to say that Saudi is a much more likely source of support, with much more $ than the Hezbolah.
 
I was well aware that Clinton fulfilled most if not all of the criteria provided, and I do not disagree with his subsequent impeachment.

My 'complaint' is that not every American president, or indeed, not every politician, gets what they deserve. I do not argue that Clinton's impeachment was just, my only wish is to see Bush impeached, as well.

Dreadsox, that 'was' good. Not to mention sly. :sexywink:

Ant.
 
top.bushkill.ap.jpg
Liberians dumped mangled, bloodied bodies today outside the gates of the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia to vent their anger at the U.S., some of them saying, "If you had intervened, this would not be happening."

What the hell is goin' on here?

Bush said he would send in U. S. soldiers only after the dictator, Charles Taylor left.

Why did he not say the same thing about Iraq?
 
Back
Top Bottom