NCclimber 0 #26 October 9, 2006 He got a "mandate" from the American people about two years ago. Was that before or after he commited those "impeachable" offenses? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #27 October 9, 2006 Gosh .... that'll piss off the right wing septics (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #28 October 9, 2006 The theoretical reason is a good one. Your real reason? In today's political world? If the congress was controlled by the opposing party he would have been impeached if he coughed lightly during a movie. Or got a BJ from a fat chick. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goofyjumper 0 #29 October 9, 2006 Quote> I just don't get why Bush has not been Impeached! The theoretical reason? Making very bad decisions is not an impeachable crime. (Neither is having sex in the oval office and lying about it.) We have a way to change our president if we don't like him, by voting for someone else. That should be our primary way to change the presidency (no matter which party is in power.) The real reason? The senate and house are currently controlled by the president's party. Then why was Clinton even called to a grand jury? Making bad desicions with knowledge that it may not be true and still sending troops to die is IMO impeachable, or at least a grand jury!----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #30 October 9, 2006 >Then why was Clinton even called to a grand jury? Because the house and senate were controlled by his opposition's party. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goofyjumper 0 #31 October 9, 2006 Quote>Then why was Clinton even called to a grand jury? Because the house and senate were controlled by his opposition's party. Ya, that makes sense. I guess the mother who lost her son in Iraq and sat in front of the Crawford Ranch just meant nothing. Very sad!----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #32 October 9, 2006 QuoteTo prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the Iranians. In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory. Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president's recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld. It just makes me happy when someone else knows accurate unbiased history. People get pissed at me when I say all the government values is money, but as they say the prof is in the pudding. I wonder if there are still people who can say they hate us because we are free with a straight face. Yes Bush should be impeached. For lies or absolute incompetence you can choose.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #33 October 9, 2006 Quote but as they say the proof is in the putting. actually they say the "prof is in the pudding" In other words, Kallend really likes his desserts ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #34 October 9, 2006 >In other words, Kallend really likes his desserts I thought it meant that Kallend _was_ a dessert. (Not a floor wax; that's something else.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #35 October 9, 2006 QuoteQuote but as they say the proof is in the putting. actually they say the "prof is in the pudding" In other words, Kallend really likes his desserts I would sound so much cooler if i could spell.Thanks for the catchI'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #36 October 9, 2006 Quote>Then why was Clinton even called to a grand jury? Because the house and senate were controlled by his opposition's party. Tell that to Scouter Libby. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #37 October 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteWe have a man (and his administration) who made a bold face lie about going to Iraq. "Hussein has WMD and we know for sure!" That is a lie right there. Could you provide a link. Here's one I found. http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html Now, now, don't you go on citing fact that flies in the face of left-sided-shrill...they'll say you're a mere sheep...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #38 October 9, 2006 Quote>Then why was Clinton even called to a grand jury? Because the house and senate were controlled by his opposition's party. Incorrect. The correct answer is: "Special Prosecutor"So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #39 October 9, 2006 QuoteTell that to Scouter Libby. There has to be someone to take the blame for the President and the VP..he was just the most likely to fall on his sword for their plausible deniability. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #40 October 9, 2006 QuoteQuote but as they say the proof is in the putting. actually they say the "prof is in the pudding" In other words, Kallend really likes his desserts I'm not so sure! Have you seen that man? He's skin and bones! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #41 October 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteTell that to Scouter Libby. There has to be someone to take the blame for the President and the VP..he was just the most likely to fall on his sword for their plausible deniability. I take it you still believe the outing of Valerie Plame was a malicious and intentional act of Bush & Co. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #42 October 9, 2006 >The correct answer is: "Special Prosecutor" Right. And if the house and senate switch parties, they may also learn how to spell "special prosecutor." Doesn't make it right in either case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #43 October 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteTell that to Scouter Libby. There has to be someone to take the blame for the President and the VP..he was just the most likely to fall on his sword for their plausible deniability. Now that Richard Armitage has "admitted" for being the one to leak Valerie Plame's identity...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #44 October 9, 2006 Quote>The correct answer is: "Special Prosecutor" Right. And if the house and senate switch parties, they may also learn how to spell "special prosecutor." Doesn't make it right in either case. ...and special prosecutors are appointed by the Justice Dept. Congress has nothing to do with it.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #45 October 9, 2006 >and special prosecutors are appointed by the Justice Dept. Congress >has nothing to do with it. Actually they can be appointed by the attorney general or congress. A good overview from Wikipedia: "A special prosecutor is a lawyer from outside the government appointed by an attorney general or Congress to investigate a government official for misconduct while in office. The reasoning is that the Department of Justice may have political connections to those it might be asked to investigate. Inherently, this creates a conflict of interest. The solution is to have someone from outside the department lead the investigation." "The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, or (more commonly) the House Judiciary Committee, is a standing committee of the United States House of Representatives. It is charged with overseeing the administration of justice within the federal courts, administrative agencies and Federal law enforcement entities. The Senate version of the committee's most public role involves the approval process of the President's nominees to the Federal benches, including the United States Supreme Court. The Judiciary Committee is also the committee responsible for impeachments of federal officials, and approved articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson in 1868, Richard Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #46 October 9, 2006 I stand corrected on that, I didn't read it all the first tme.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #47 October 9, 2006 Kenneth Starr was appointed Special Prosecutor when the Democrats contolled the White House and both houses of Congress. Hmmm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #48 October 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteWe have a man (and his administration) who made a bold face lie about going to Iraq. "Hussein has WMD and we know for sure!" That is a lie right there. Could you provide a link. On this issue, the link you need is to reality.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #49 October 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteWe have a man (and his administration) who made a bold face lie about going to Iraq. "Hussein has WMD and we know for sure!" That is a lie right there. Could you provide a link. On this issue, the link you need is to reality. I do believe we have the Quote of the Thread right there folks!!! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #50 October 9, 2006 QuoteThe theoretical reason? Making very bad decisions is not an impeachable crime. (Neither is having sex in the oval office and lying about it.) We have a way to change our president if we don't like him, by voting for someone else. That should be our primary way to change the presidency (no matter which party is in power.) Agreed. QuoteThe real reason? The senate and house are currently controlled by the president's party. Or maybe there is not enough real evidence to prove he commited anything close to a crime? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
