Shotgun 1 #1 July 18, 2003 From Yahoo News Are we gonna have two Presidents in a row impeached? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lazyfrog 0 #2 July 18, 2003 get the bloody bastard and burn him ---------- Fumer tue, péter pue ------------- ourson #10, Mosquito Uno, CBT 579 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,071 #3 July 18, 2003 Impeachment? No, there are just no grounds for it. There are grounds for an investigation into misleading use of intelligence resources, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #4 July 18, 2003 I think if he *knowingly* led us to war under false pretenses then that would be grounds for impeachment... but I guess that's what they're now trying to determine... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #5 July 18, 2003 It will never happen. Impeachment is an act of Congress and this Congress only impeaches for blowjobs. Not that W couldn't use one... Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #6 July 18, 2003 he has to violate a law to get impeached. You can't impeach a president because you don't like him. Sorry. --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,071 #7 July 18, 2003 >I think if he *knowingly* led us to war under false pretenses then >that would be grounds for impeachment... Well, perhaps. But investigation _first_, then we can decide whether impeachment makes sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #8 July 18, 2003 Quote>I think if he *knowingly* led us to war under false pretenses then >that would be grounds for impeachment... Well, perhaps. But investigation _first_, then we can decide whether impeachment makes sense. As much as I don't like the current administration, I doubt this will happen. It feels more like the Dems are positioning themselves for the next election with this. Or just a bit of "you impeached our guy, now it's your turn." I do believe, and have voiced many times, that Bush mislead this country into war. However, I doubt that enough proof will be found to start the process. The Old Washington two-step._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #9 July 18, 2003 QuoteYou can't impeach a president because you don't like him. I never said I didn't like him. Just thought it was interesting that they're considering impeachment... If it turns out he did lie about reasons for going to war, that would be a pretty big "no no"... worse than Clinton's lying under oath... but I hope that turns out NOT to be the case... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #10 July 18, 2003 I think you'd be suprised how often the other party "considers" grounds for impeachment --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laurel 0 #11 July 18, 2003 Sounds like kindergarten antics to me. Democrats are basically telling Republicans: You pulled my ponytail, so I'm going to pull yours...................................................................... PMS#28, Pelogrande Rodriguez#1074 My Pink M Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,071 #12 July 18, 2003 >I do believe, and have voiced many times, that Bush mislead this >country into war. However, I doubt that enough proof will be found to > start the process. I would be happy with a bipartisan (or completely independent) investigation into the issue. >The Old Washington two-step. Yep. The last impeachment set the bar pretty low. It's now a political tool rather than the final check on the president's powers. It will be interesting to see if repubs still use the "He lied under oath! What don't you understand?" comeback any more. Might just backfire on them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #13 July 18, 2003 Quotehe has to violate a law to get impeached. You can't impeach a president because you don't like him. Sorry. Impeachment if for "high crimes and misdemeanors" according to the Constitooshin'. It's been done only twice, almost three times, but Nixon resigned when he realized the jig was up. Without getting embroiled in Watergate all over again, the House was ready to vote for impeachment and the Senate looked like it had the 2/3 majority to convict, so Dick split. The other two impeachments were both brought about by Republican congresses that were considered "radical" in their day, and both were far more political. Andrew Johnson was a Democrat and the Republican House leaders were pissed off that he'd dared to fire War Sec'y Stanton. Johnson survived his trial by a single vote from a brave Republican seator from Kentucky (?) whose career was destroyed on the spot. Bubba Bill was of course impeached for lying about late night hummers in the Oval Office. Considering that the escort business in DC would collapse without the US Congress, I'd tend to think the charges were of a political nature, and of course Bubba walked. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #14 July 18, 2003 Totally agree with you and I am a GWB supporter. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #15 July 18, 2003 Well, I think the standard set by Congress has been set by what went on with the Clinton administration -- lying to Congress was considered to fall within that category. Since, by definition the State of the Union Address is a direct statement to Congress . . . well, if GWB lied in the SOTU address, then he -should- be impeached. Sounds pretty cut and dried to me. Now all we have to do is figure out if he knew the statement was false. If he knew the statement was false, then he lied and should be impeached. If he didn't know the statement was false . . . why the fuck not?!?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #16 July 18, 2003 QuoteWell, I think the standard set by Congress has been set by what went on with the Clinton administration -- lying to Congress was considered to fall within that category. Since, by definition the State of the Union Address is a direct statement to Congress . . . well, if GWB lied in the SOTU address, then he -should- be impeached. Sounds pretty cut and dried to me. Sure, in a perfect world. I think the main issue with Bubba Bill was that he'd lied under oath in a deposition. As with Watergate, it wasn't so much the hummers or the burglary, but the lying that didn't sit well with Congress. It can be argued that Bush lied to Congress to mislead them. Personally, I believe he did and it should be impeachable. But the facts of life are that impeachment is and historically has been a political act. There's simply no way a Republican House is going to impeach W, or a Republican Senate come up with the 2/3 majority to convict. He could sodomize a goat in front of both houses and they wouldn't impeach him. It would be better to just vote his sorry ass out of office next year. Impossible you say ? That's what they said about his dad.... Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #17 July 18, 2003 No way.... George will not be impeached. There are no real grounds for it. He was led astray byt the real people who are running the government anyway. Not only that.. the Supreme Court would never allow it to stand.. no matter what he may do, or the Congress may do. In my opinion anyway... most of the current crop of politicians dont need to get blow jobs... they need to be handing them out en masse to get a LITTLE dignity back to politics. Amazon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bhammond 0 #18 July 18, 2003 Everyone is getting upset by a single sentence in the State of the Union speech... it was not testimony under oath in court, the sentence was true , British Intelligence did say sadam was trying to get fisable material. If Sadam didnt plan on restarting his Nuclear program why did he have his scientist bury items that they had already developed , and were hiding from inspectors??? I personally think GW was doing what he thought best for the security of the USA , as opposed to BJ bill who was trying to save his ass .... big difference here !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,071 #19 July 18, 2003 >Everyone is getting upset by a single sentence in the State of the Union speech... Mainly because it was the last uncontested thing in the speech at that point. Every other point had been contested by intelligence they received. >it was not testimony under oath in court, He was speaking to Congress. Is lying to congress OK? >the sentence was true . . Take a skydiving example. I want to sell my rig. I give it to a rigger. He does a thorough inspection. He says it needs a new reserve PC, reserve's in bad shape etc - $300 to fix it all. I walk by another rigger and ask him "how's this rig look?" He glances at it and says "looks fine from here." I sell it to you and tell you "it was inspected by a rigger and he said it was fine." Did I lie? If not, is it OK to do that? He said something he knew to be wrong. Our own investigators determined that Iraq was not trying to buy uranium from Africa. If you say something you know to be false that's a lie in my book. >I personally think GW was doing what he thought best for the > security of the USA , as opposed to BJ bill who was trying to save >his ass .... big difference here !!! Yep, big difference. A few hundred US troops died as a result of what GW did, and a few thousand innocent Iraqis. How many people did Clinton's blowjob kill, again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laurel 0 #20 July 18, 2003 "Yep, big difference. A few hundred US troops died as a result of what GW did, and a few thousand innocent Iraqis. How many people did Clinton's blowjob kill, again?" For crying out loud!!!!!!!! Why don't we try to get the whole story before we start tossing stones like psudo-evolved neandertals? Your pal, Bill Clinton, wasn't a choir boy, either. I personally don't care who's blowing him and where he is putting his cigars, but I do care if all of that is effecting his work - and I think that it was. Please do not forget the US soldiers and countless others died on Clinton's watch, too...................................................................... PMS#28, Pelogrande Rodriguez#1074 My Pink M Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bhammond 0 #21 July 18, 2003 >Yep, big difference. A few hundred US troops died as a result of what GW did, and a few thousand innocent Iraqis. How many people did Clinton's blowjob kill, again? So its OK to lie under oath if nobody dies? yes people die in war, its a sad fact. its very easy monday morning quarter backing when you dont have the security of a entire country resting on your shoulders. I believe Gw was doing what he thought was best for the security of the USA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,071 #22 July 18, 2003 >Why don't we try to get the whole story before we start tossing >stones like psudo-evolved neandertals? Hey! I consider myself a well evolved neanderthal. >Your pal, Bill Clinton, wasn't a choir boy, either. Uh, you're correct, he was a liar. Not correct in that he was my pal, any more than Nixon was your pal. >Please do not forget the US soldiers and countless others died on >Clinton's watch, too. How many? And how many innocent people in foreign countries did the US kill during that time? A rough number would be enough, if they're really 'countless' that is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,071 #23 July 18, 2003 >So its OK to lie under oath if nobody dies? Neither is OK. People dying is worse than no one dying. Most people realize this. If you drive drunk and kill two people, that's worse than just driving drunk and getting pulled over, although both are illegal. >its very easy monday morning quarter backing when you dont have > the security of a entire country resting on your shoulders. And next to impossible to make informed decisions before the war if the people of the united states and their representatives are told lies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #24 July 18, 2003 From my other angry thread on this, everyone should know I'm ticked off. However, this speech hoopla doesn't negate all of the other intel we had in any manner. I'm going to be pissed off at this and formulate my overall opinion later. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laurel 0 #25 July 18, 2003 Granted, I do not have exact numbers for all, but I am aware of the foreign involvement during the Clinton administration as follows: Somalia: 10 Somalians dead, 18 Americans dead and 84 wounded. Sudan: U.S. military destroyed the only pharmaceutical factory in the impoverished country. Iraq: According to Baghdad, U.S. and British air strikes on an almost daily basis over the two years during Clinton's administration have caused deaths of 323 Iraqis and more than 950 wounded. In his last days in office, Clinton ordered an air strike on Iraq. Witnesses said 6 were killed and 3 wounded Kosovo: NATO bombings destroyed much of Yugoslavia's infrastructure and caused the deaths of Serb and Kosovar people. One missile hit Yugoslavia's TV headquarters and killed 16 employees. Russia: Clinton's support of Yeltsin contributed to Russia's impoverishment. Mid-East: Seven years of Clinton mediation resulted in war and violence rather then peace. Latin America: Violence and insurrection continue in Columbia, Peru and Ecuador. Ex-president Carter prevented a Clinton invasion of Haiti with a last minute compromise. Mexico still delivering drugs to the United States. No defined Latin American policies in all of Clinton's years. Note that these may not be completely accurate, as I would need to do further research, but it is a taste of what went on during the Clinton years. As for Nixon - he was not my pal - I never even mentioned Nixon in any of my previous posts. I am not a Democrat and I am not a Republican. I think Clinton did a lot of good during his stint as president and I think GWB is doing a lot of good, too. We will never have a perfect president until we live in a perfect world...................................................................... PMS#28, Pelogrande Rodriguez#1074 My Pink M Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
