MSNBC: Of 330,000 plus responses over 85% want Bush Impeached... (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I don't see how this is even debatable; as egregious as his crimes have been, Bush should have been impeached long ago. He led us into a war when there was not ONE SHRED of evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 (because they didn't) or that Iraq was a terorist threat to us IN ANY WAY. Sure, Hussain was/is a despicable guy, but if we spent our time removing every tyrant from every far-flung country, we wouldn't have any resources left..... And the way that Bush "handled" Katrina, letting our people rot for a week on rooftops and at the Convention Center and Dome without sending sufficient help for almost a week- that is the very definition of dereliction of duty. The fact that our great American city still sits largely in ruins 15 months after the fact is testament to Bush's inaction and ineptness. Not to hold Blanco and Nagin et al blameless, but it all starts at the top. Step back for just a second and think about what Bill Clinton was impeached for: Lying about sex. If Congress saw fit to impeach Clinton, than Bush's impeachment should be a no-brainer.

 

[Waymer]

Katrina and other "worst president" items are not impeachable offenses. Bad leadership, sure...impeachable offenses...I don't believe so.

I see no need for an impeachment. Putting politics aside, an impeachment would only continue to further divide this country. You don't like the president? Ok, just ride out the last two years and cast your vote elsewhere.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Katrina and other "worst president" items are not impeachable offenses. Bad leadership, sure...impeachable offenses...I don't believe so.

I see no need for an impeachment. Putting politics aside, an impeachment would only continue to further divide this country. You don't like the president? Ok, just ride out the last two years and cast your vote elsewhere.

...I hear what you're saying- I really do. And I'm not about revenge- not that you implied that, I just want to make that clear. What I AM about is accountability. What kind of precedent does it set if we allow a President to lead us into a completely unfounded, unjustified war resulting in the loss of over 2,000 American lives already?? Or if we allow a President to ignore an unfolding crisis of Biblical proportions like Katrina until other people in his administration have to go to him and MAKE him pay attention. It basically says that you can neglect your duty and lie all you want- as long as it's not about sex... All I'm saying is let's think about this logically.......

 

[Waymer]

I agree with what you're saying El Lay...and I'm not a Bush fan. I don't get into the political debates on the forum, mainly because I don't have time to read all the threads and associated articles to make my own opinions...and I hate to speak on something I haven't had the time to educate myself about. You're right, accountability is big, personally I just wouldn't waste time with an impeachment.

 

[CT Saints Fan]

I don't see how this is even debatable; as egregious as his crimes have been, Bush should have been impeached long ago. He led us into a war when there was not ONE SHRED of evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 (because they didn't) or that Iraq was a terorist threat to us IN ANY WAY. Sure, Hussain was/is a despicable guy, but if we spent our time removing every tyrant from every far-flung country, we wouldn't have any resources left..... And the way that Bush "handled" Katrina, letting our people rot for a week on rooftops and at the Convention Center and Dome without sending sufficient help for almost a week- that is the very definition of dereliction of duty. The fact that our great American city still sits largely in ruins 15 months after the fact is testament to Bush's inaction and ineptness. Not to hold Blanco and Nagin et al blameless, but it all starts at the top. Step back for just a second and think about what Bill Clinton was impeached for: Lying about sex. If Congress saw fit to impeach Clinton, than Bush's impeachment should be a no-brainer.

A) Cite the law Bush broke? High crimes and misdemeanors and such.

B) Clinton lied to a Federal Grand Jury. Federal offense. It doesn't matter what he chose to lie about. That's his own stupidity for chosing to lie about something you think is trivial. The fact of the matter is that he lied to a Federal Grand Jury. You could like to them about stealing a pack of gum, and it still wouldn't matter. It would still be a federal offense.

 

[Dave]

Waxman Set to Probe Areas of Bush Gov't

The Democratic congressman who will investigate the Bush administration's running of the government says there are so many areas of possible wrongdoing, his biggest problem will be deciding which ones to pursue.

There's the response to Hurricane Katrina, government contracting in Iraq and on homeland security, political interference in regulatory decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, and allegations of war profiteering, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., told the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce.

"I'm going to have an interesting time because the Government Reform Committee has jurisdiction over everything," Waxman said Friday, three days after his party's capture of Congress put him in line to chair the panel. "The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose."
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/10/D8LAEECG1.html

 

[champ76]

I don't see how this is even debatable; as egregious as his crimes have been, Bush should have been impeached long ago. He led us into a war when there was not ONE SHRED of evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 (because they didn't) or that Iraq was a terorist threat to us IN ANY WAY. Sure, Hussain was/is a despicable guy, but if we spent our time removing every tyrant from every far-flung country, we wouldn't have any resources left..... And the way that Bush "handled" Katrina, letting our people rot for a week on rooftops and at the Convention Center and Dome without sending sufficient help for almost a week- that is the very definition of dereliction of duty. The fact that our great American city still sits largely in ruins 15 months after the fact is testament to Bush's inaction and ineptness. Not to hold Blanco and Nagin et al blameless, but it all starts at the top. Step back for just a second and think about what Bill Clinton was impeached for: Lying about sex. If Congress saw fit to impeach Clinton, than Bush's impeachment should be a no-brainer.

Okay, where to begin. No one, and I repeat, no one in the Bush administration ever said Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Let's back up a moment. Hussein invaded a sovereign country(Kuwait) and threatened to invade another(Saudi Arabia). A decade earlier, he had picked a bloody fight with Iran. We can all agree he was an unstable nut. Worse, he was a nut with a treasure trove of nasty weapons. We know that because of what happened in the Iran-Iraq war(chemical weapons used) and what he did to the Kurds after the first Gulf War(again, chemical weapons used). Incidentally, when the first Gulf War ended and the inspectors were allowed in for awhile, we found out that he was much further along in developing nuclear weapons than anyone imagined. His son-in-law defected, told us horror stories about what was going on, was lured back to Iraq with promises of immunity, and was assasinated. Fast forward to 2002. For a decade, Saddam had played hide and seek with the UN inspectors. He kicked them out on occasion. He lied, failed to comply with UN mandates, and for sport took an occasional pot shot at coalition aircraft patrolling Iraq in accordance with the cease-fire agreement we worked out with him. After 9/11, every intelligence service in the world was in agreement that Sadam was still developing weapons of mass destruction. On 9/11/01, 3000 citizens died when terrorists, who had been picking away at our overseas assets with occasional bombings, brought the fight to our shores. At that point, the president no longer had the luxury of waiting for something to happen to take action. Saddam hated the US. He is a was a nut. He had every reason in the world to make life miserable for us. Whether he did something directly or simply handed a case of ricin to a willing terrorist group to do his dirty deed, we could not afford to wait to see if that would happen. You know, when these people rant and threaten us now, we can't just ignore them. We have to believe them. Even if Saddam was playing a bad hand of Texas Hold Em we had to take him seriously, and he had to go. Let me ask you this, if you were president and knew all this, could you sleep at night if you had failed to act and thousands, perhaps millions, more died. That's what's at stake now, and there is no room for error. Whether or not you agree with impeaching Clinton for lying to a federal court under oath, this is no time to impeach a president who did what he did for you, and me, and everyone else in this country who lives under the islamist threat of death.

 

[SoonerJim]

I don't see how this is even debatable; as egregious as his crimes have been, Bush should have been impeached long ago. He led us into a war when there was not ONE SHRED of evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 (because they didn't) or that Iraq was a terorist threat to us IN ANY WAY. Sure, Hussain was/is a despicable guy, but if we spent our time removing every tyrant from every far-flung country, we wouldn't have any resources left..... And the way that Bush "handled" Katrina, letting our people rot for a week on rooftops and at the Convention Center and Dome without sending sufficient help for almost a week- that is the very definition of dereliction of duty. The fact that our great American city still sits largely in ruins 15 months after the fact is testament to Bush's inaction and ineptness. Not to hold Blanco and Nagin et al blameless, but it all starts at the top. Step back for just a second and think about what Bill Clinton was impeached for: Lying about sex. If Congress saw fit to impeach Clinton, than Bush's impeachment should be a no-brainer.

Let's not confuse incompetence with criminality. If we impeached for the former, there'd be no one left. Elizabeth Holtzman, a former NY Congresswoman who sheparded the Nixon investigation, wrote the primer on the Bush impeachment. No one in Democratic leadership circles wants to create a real political persecution complex in Republicans who constantly whine about the fictional complexes.

Henry Waxman will conduct an administrative death by a thousand cuts, leading back to the energy panel and continuing through health, environment, Katrina, Iraq, and so on and so forth. Democrats want to build a majority in 2008 and beyond, and get a President in the process.

 

[Wombat]

like hooking up with an intern lol

No, like perjury. But keep on with the "it was just sex."

 

[d3cyph3r]

hahaha, i'd hate to see how long this thread can get!

 

[BullDawg]

...I hear what you're saying- I really do. And I'm not about revenge- not that you implied that, I just want to make that clear. What I AM about is accountability. What kind of precedent does it set if we allow a President to lead us into a completely unfounded, unjustified war resulting in the loss of over 2,000 American lives already?? Or if we allow a President to ignore an unfolding crisis of Biblical proportions like Katrina until other people in his administration have to go to him and MAKE him pay attention. It basically says that you can neglect your duty and lie all you want- as long as it's not about sex... All I'm saying is let's think about this logically.......

FWIW, the precedent for unfounded and unjustified wars was set a very long time ago...and many times over. Iraq is child's play in comparison with most of them.

 

[BullDawg]

Can we please get this thread deleted? Or moved to the EE board? This is SPORTS not politics. This thread can go on and on. Let's get back to what really matter, our Saints!

Errr...it is on EE.

 

[d3cyph3r]

The buttons are so close together now

 

[Wombat]

>>MSNBC has a loyal communist following.

Humor noted with the caveat that Fox is the choice of the Hitler elite who want someone who agrees with them to deliver their news.

TPS

That's funny. Wasn't Hitler a socialist as was his Nazi party?

 

[BullDawg]

That's funny. Wasn't Hitler a socialist as was his Nazi party?

He was far from socialist in the common definition of the term.