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

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.....

Bush has never said 9/11 was caused by Saddam. Get your facts straight. Name one crime Bush has committed. Are you one of the baseless "Bush lied" folks? Have you ever read the Silberman-Robb report? No? It basically states that the Bush Administration was given faulty information by the intelligence community including those of other nations which agreed with our own CIA's assessment. Would you suggest he ignore what at the time appeared to be overwhelming evidence for WMD's? I'm sure you would because now you have the benefit of hindsight and could not possibly objectively put yourself in the position of having to make that enormous decision. It's easy for those who bare no burden to criticize those who do!

As far as Katrina, you're wrong! Local shelters are the mayor's responsibility. Blanco is the one who delayed the federal take over during those first few days. Additionally she sent in only about 4-5,000 Nat'l Guard to begin with. I don't fault her or Nagin though as this was a natural disaster and unlike what many people believe, we, the U.S. are not more powerful than nature. Bush has pushed and gotten billions upon billions of dollars(>100)to help this area recover. There has been more money allocated for us than any other disaster in history. If it's not fast enough for you why not focus on Blanco's LRA which is most definitely the hold up for some of the people I know.
 
Last edited:
Having said that, I'm sure there are advisors and possibly members of the administration who will be indicted and convicted for breaking laws. The President is as teflon as President Clinton.

TPS
Please tell us what advisors and members of the admin will be indicted and convicted.

Care to make a bet on your shrill comments?
 
He was far from socialist in the common definition of the term.

Let's see:

"So some of the promises made in Hitler's various election campaigns are also therefore instructive: The limitation of income to a thousand Marks per head, the nationalization of trusts (business conglomerates) and department stores, agrarian reform, the confiscation of war profits, the elimination of "unearned income" and employment for all were all promised at one stage or another by Hitler or his henchmen.

It is of course true that, as he came closer to power, Hitler did reject the outright nationalization of industry as too Marxist. As long as the State could enforce its policies on industry, Hitler considered it wisest to leave the nominal ownership and day to day running of industry in the hands of those who had already shown themselves as capable of running and controlling it. This policy is broadly similar to the once much acclaimed Swedish model of socialism in more recent times so it is amusing that it has often been this policy which has underpinned the common claim that Hitler was Rightist. What is Leftist in Sweden was apparently Rightist in Hitler! There are of course many differences between postwar Sweden and Hitler's Germany but the point remains that Hitler's perfectly reasonable skepticism about the virtues of nationalizing all industry is far from sufficient to disqualify him as a Leftist.

When in power Hitler also implemented a quite socialist programme. Like F.D. Roosevelt, he provided employment by a much expanded programme of public works (including roadworks) and his Kraft durch Freude ("power through joy") movement was notable for such benefits as providing workers with subsidized holidays at a standard that only the rich could formerly afford. And while Hitler did not nationalize all industry, there was extensive compulsory reorganization of it and tight party control over it. It might be noted that even in the post-war Communist bloc there was never total nationalization of industry. In fact, in Poland, most agriculture always remained in private hands.

And what about the conservatives of Hitler's day? Both in Germany and Britain he despised them and they despised him. Far from being an ally of Hitler or in any way sympathetic to him, Hitler's most unrelenting foe was the arch-Conservative British politician, Winston Churchill and it was a British Conservative Prime Minister (Neville Chamberlain) who eventually declared war on Hitler's Germany. Hitler found a willing ally in the Communist Stalin as long as he wanted it but at no point could he wring even neutrality out of Churchill. Not that Churchill was a saint. In 1939 Churchill exulted over the Finns "tearing the guts out of the Red Army" but, despite that, he later allied himself with Stalin.

Hitler's strategy for popularity was not lost on Stalin. Quite soon after Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin reopened the Russian Orthodox churches and restored the old ranks and orders of the Russian Imperial army to the Red Army so that it became simply the Russian Army and stressed nationalist themes (e.g. defence of "Mother Russia") in his internal propaganda. As one result of this, to this day Russians refer to the Second World War as "the great patriotic war". Stalin may have started out as an international socialist but he ended up a national socialist. So Hitler was a Rightist only in the sense that Stalin was. If Stalin was Right-wing, however, black might as well be white."
 
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.


...No offense- but you're really missing the boat on this. Since you're ostensibly on this board because you're a Saints fan, you should recognize the "Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda" argument- we could speculate for years about what Hussain coulda, woulda done based on things he'd done a decade earlier and the fact that he's as looney as Terrell Owens; there still wasn't NEARLY enough evidence for us to lower the boom the way we did. I agree that decisive action needed to be taken after 9-11- that's why I didn't have a problem with us going to Afghanistan. Listen- I'm not saying that being POTUS is an easy job- Lord knows I'd never want to do it- it's just that when the mistakes are so numerous and over-the-top like Dubya's have been- you need to pay the piper......
 
...No offense- but you're really missing the boat on this. Since you're ostensibly on this board because you're a Saints fan, you should recognize the "Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda" argument- we could speculate for years about what Hussain coulda, woulda done based on things he'd done a decade earlier and the fact that he's as looney as Terrell Owens; there still wasn't NEARLY enough evidence for us to lower the boom the way we did. I agree that decisive action needed to be taken after 9-11- that's why I didn't have a problem with us going to Afghanistan. Listen- I'm not saying that being POTUS is an easy job- Lord knows I'd never want to do it- it's just that when the mistakes are so numerous and over-the-top like Dubya's have been- you need to pay the piper......

Actually there was. Have you seen the UN's assessment of what he possessed? Tons upon tons of biological weapons. Madeline Albright, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton had all made statements that they felt there was enough evidence to oust Saddam.

And, was it really a mistake to take Saddam out? Would we be better off with one more billionaire, with a history of funding terrorist bombings and a plot to assassinate a former president, staying in power? Do you really think he would not have been willing to take a shot at the U.S.? Guess what, we'll never know and for that I'm grateful to our President and our troops!
 
...No offense- but you're really missing the boat on this. Since you're ostensibly on this board because you're a Saints fan, you should recognize the "Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda" argument- we could speculate for years about what Hussain coulda, woulda done based on things he'd done a decade earlier and the fact that he's as looney as Terrell Owens; there still wasn't NEARLY enough evidence for us to lower the boom the way we did. I agree that decisive action needed to be taken after 9-11- that's why I didn't have a problem with us going to Afghanistan. Listen- I'm not saying that being POTUS is an easy job- Lord knows I'd never want to do it- it's just that when the mistakes are so numerous and over-the-top like Dubya's have been- you need to pay the piper......
If Bush deserves to be impeached for the reasons you have mentioned then all of the Democrats and Republicans that voted to authorize the Iraq war should be removed also. I know, the idiot Bush tricked all the Democrats into voting for the war and even the Democrats on the intelligence committee who had access to the intelligence were tricked by the idiot Bush. The WMD intelligence fiasco was a big mistake, but to act as only Bush and the Republicans are responsible for the mistake while Democrats were saying the same things is disingenuous.
 
Oh for the love of history...I know what Nazis stood for. I also know how loosely "conservative" and "liberal" can be defned respectively. I also know what Hitler initially proposed (socialism) and what he actually developed (nazism) are two different beasts.

El Lay...there's no way under the sun Bush would ever be impeached over Iraq. If LBJ could get away with getting us into Vietnam (to the tune of a whole helluva lot more than 2,000 dead), this is small time.

Now...on the subject of Katrina, you have some ground to stand. Some. But in order to follow through, you'd have to take down several more in his past and present staff AND Blanco AND Nagin.

Now, before I'm erroneously labled a Bush apologist and/or a pinko-commie-liberal (yes...I could make the argument for both "and" and "or"), I'll kindly refer anyone to my prior rants over the last State of (Everywhere But) The Union address where the President of the United States talks about every corner of the earth except the hurricane ravaged Gulf South until near the very end of the speech....58 minutes into the speech to be exact. That is something I will never, ever forget.

But again, I'm not sold on that being grounds for dereliction of duty...not when the charges would come from a Congress full of Republicrats, non of whom made a pressing issue out of their Constitutional responsibility to "declare war". No sir. Not our august group of elected representation.

Pass the buck.

It's democracy...21st century American style.
 
...Derliction of duty on two counts (Iraq and Katrina), for starters... I don't have the Federal Code or Statute, but feel free to look them up if you're so inclined.......


Deriliction of duty how? If anyone should face those charges, it would be Brown. Bush, no way.

If the democrats initiate impeachment proceedings, you can kiss the dem party goodbye. The people would be infuriated with this baseless claim.

C
 
Deriliction of duty how? If anyone should face those charges, it would be Brown. Bush, no way.

If the democrats initiate impeachment proceedings, you can kiss the dem party goodbye. The people would be infuriated with this baseless claim.

C
Brown? The better choice would be his former boss.
 
You guys have some good points, but this post by Dave is encouraging, don't you think??


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
 
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) Intelligence reports said there were WMDs. America's saviors, your own liberal hero's, voted to go to war.

B) FEMA botched Katrina first and foremost. You know, that agency that is supposed to deal with natural disasters. And dont give me that "Yeah but the president is over fema" stuff, because you know they had their own power structure there that runs the agency and they blew it. Its like saying you had a bad experience at a Wal Mart and now you want the CEO of all Walmarts fired. But hey, why blame fema when you can throw it all on Bush. Besides, its not like Katrina was a once in a lifetime thing that has never happened before that totally overwhelmed our unprepared disaster management agency.

C) A big part of the reason your great American city is still in ruins 15 months later might have a lot to do with your incompetent local government. Thats what happens when you reelect a racist crackpot mayor who completely failed in his duty in the days before, during and after Katrina. No, thats Bush too.

D) The whole Clinton sex deal was stupid and overblown IMO, but he made it bad on himself when he chose to lie about it and turn it into a federal offense.


You seem to think Presidents are a whole lot more powerful than they really are in domestic matters. There is so much bureaucracy, so much red tape that even the simplest of things must go through before they are acted on that I dont think any President deserves as much credit or blame as is put on them. Its not like they snap their fingers and say "500 billion to rebuild New Orleans. Make it so." and their will be done. They appoint people, they sign/veto bills, they travel with the nuclear football, but most of the time they're just a title. A figurehead, making speeches and appearances, laying the rhetoric on thick and trying to say the right things to buy time while everything goes through the process. Sure they have ideas for what they would LIKE to see happen during their 4-8 years, but it takes a whole lot of begging, bartering and compromising to get anything done.
 
And, was it really a mistake to take Saddam out? Would we be better off with one more billionaire, with a history of funding terrorist bombings and a plot to assassinate a former president, staying in power? Do you really think he would not have been willing to take a shot at the U.S.? Guess what, we'll never know and for that I'm grateful to our President and our troops!


...No offense, but I really hate this argument. No, Hussain was not a good guy and, yes, he's probably better off in jail- but at hwhat cost?? Thousands of American troops' lives, that's what... There are lots of countries with heathens running them- by this logic, is each of them worth a couple thousand American lives? We (America) cannot control everything on the planet, so to say that we're better off with Hussain in jail is a half-truth, at best.........
 
bop said:
B) FEMA botched Katrina first and foremost. You know, that agency that is supposed to deal with natural disasters. And dont give me that "Yeah but the president is over fema" stuff, because you know they had their own power structure there that runs the agency and they blew it. Its like saying you had a bad experience at a Wal Mart and now you want the CEO of all Walmarts fired. But hey, why blame fema when you can throw it all on Bush. Besides, its not like Katrina was a once in a lifetime thing that has never happened before that totally overwhelmed our unprepared disaster management agency.

C) A big part of the reason your great American city is still in ruins 15 months later might have a lot to do with your incompetent local government. Thats what happens when you reelect a racist crackpot mayor who completely failed in his duty in the days before, during and after Katrina. No, thats Bush too.
Sorry...but what happened to "The Buck Stops Here"? I guess having a President who takes responsibility for the actions of his subordinates is unheard of anymore. Clinton was good at that. So is Bush. Republicrats Unite!

I am so sick and tired of folks on both "sides" of the R/D argument running around with their blinders on. The moment folks start realizing the breakdown crosses party "lines" (personally I don't see much difference when push comes to shove), the better off this country will be.

Bush is, by far, one of the worst Presidents in our history. And I helped vote him into office the first time. But I'll tell you this much, I don't honestly believe Gore or Kerry would have been any better. Hey...let's not think outside the box. Instead, let's keep our eyes focused on the letters R and D.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom