OT: Should We Impeach Bush Or Just Jail Him?

[Wow]

Your trying to turn the table on me, YES character counts, but just because dick has personal flaws does not mean he is lying about what went on in the White House. Here is the truth. Dick Morris is PISSED OFF as hell at the clintons and he has written a book telling ALOT. Is it lies? Bill and Hillary have not came foward and said so and they go after everybody.

[alcohol]

Who knows if Morris is a liar. Does his character have any bearing on whether he's honest or not? Does his ability to think logically have any bearing on his veracity? Those are the points I was making. And I quoted Morris on the issue germane to this thread. Iraq! And finally, what does Clinton have to do with Bush?

[Zeke Smith.]

Hmmm, I DO miss 1999...

[Wow]

[quote] And finally, what does Clinton have to do with Bush? [/quote]Insert joke here(______). I can think of about 5 right now. :D

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Wow: [b]Now, with that said, I think I will back off this thread some. The thread itself has dropped pretty low, no one person particular, hell maybe it was me(NOT). The entire point is this, If we want to debate then fine but when we start using propaganda(micheal moore) as sources of info for debate, then we are at a low. [/b][/quote]Gee. You post more after you announced that you were "backing off" this thread than before... Interesting concept of "backing off"

[StoneinaPond]

[quote] And finally, what does Clinton have to do with Bush? [/quote] [quote] Insert joke here(______). I can think of about 5 right now. [/quote]So, bring them on. Share a laugh with the rest of us. :) They better be good!

[Wow]

GRIFF, [quote] You post more after you announced that you were "backing off" this thread than before... Interesting concept of "backing off" [/quote]You have been trying to pick a fight with me for a week now, OK fine, you have no clue about politics and you post WEAK stuff and then get out of it by saying "I have no intention of getting involved in the discussion".You have NO CLUE about shit and that is a polite observation. :wave: [quote] Initiating aggression against a sovereign state without UN approval is violation of international law. [/quote]WHAT LAW, tell me, be specific. You dont know and you post this crazy shit. Do you even know about 1441?

[Wow]

[quote] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And finally, what does Clinton have to do with Bush? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Insert joke here(______). I can think of about 5 right now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, bring them on. Share a laugh with the rest of us. They better be good! [/quote]I'll leave that to you pro jokesters. Where is the Wewus when you need him.

[StoneinaPond]

[quote] I'll leave that to you pro jokesters. [/quote]You loose 50 points!

[Wow]

[quote]and who died and made you moderator? [/quote]DAMN, I got promoted to moderator? I didnt see that coming. Does it come with a dental plan?

[Wow]

[quote] You loose 50 points! [/quote]Oh goody, now my points are at -1000 . :)

[Dave Bryce]

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b]Someone brings up the FACT that Mr. Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, the UN, all stated in no uncertain terms that Iraq had WMD. You completly ignore the point and continue to attack Mr. Bush. [/b][/quote]Probably because Mr. Bush is the one who actually had people killed in the name of WMDs. Lots of people. Even more continue to die every day. You seem to ignore that point. ...and you can say anything you want about the information that he was being fed possibly being inaccurate, and that it's not his fault if he was fed bad info. I am utterly amazed by the people who have chosen to spout this nonsense. He's the President. He's the one who pushed the button. He's the one with the blood on his hands. dB

[Wow]

[quote] Probably because Mr. Bush is the one who actually had people killed in the name of WMDs. [/quote]Come on here, PRESIDENT Bush is trying to install peace in a region and its loooooong over due. PRESIDENT Bush is trying to defend us from these tin-pot dictators that now have WMD. So, yes, it IS in the name of WMD. Does N.K. have WMD? Should we be held at gunpoint by them like we have in the past?

[StoneinaPond]

[quote] Should we be held at gunpoint by them like we have in the past? [/quote]Aren't we?

[Wow]

[quote] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Should we be held at gunpoint by them like we have in the past? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aren't we? [/quote]Not for long if that short CRAZY little fucker keeps it up.

[Franknputer]

As for the Pres being fed inaccurate info, there have been several sources as of late from the intelligence community (including the CIA) who have publicly stated that they gave the best information that they had - and the the administration didn't want to hear it, because it didn't jibe with what they wanted to tell the public. :wave:

[Wow]

[quote] , there have been several sources [/quote]WHO ? Names please. Several sources have said hillary is a man, is it true? Hey several sources said.

[Dave Bryce]

[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Wow: [b]Come on here, PRESIDENT Bush is trying to install peace in a region and its loooooong over due. PRESIDENT Bush is trying to defend us from these tin-pot dictators that now have WMD. So, yes, it IS in the name of WMD.[/b][/quote]I fully inderstand that you believe this. I'm afraid that I don't, due to the lack of physical evidence. I mean, c'mon - the man said: [i]"The Iraqi regime . . . [b]possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.[/b] It is seeking nuclear weapons." "We know that the regime [b]has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents[/b], including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq [b]has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles[/b] that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States." "The [b]evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program[/b]. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. [b]Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.[/b] Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." [b]Cincinnati, Ohio Speech October 7, 2002[/b] "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as [b]500 tons[/b] of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." [b]State of the Union Address January 28, 2003[/b] "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves [b]no doubt[/b] that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." [b]Address to the Nation March 17, 2003[/b][/i] That's pretty straightforward. Based on those comments, you'd figure that maybe there'd be some physical evidence to back those very strong statements up...wouldn't you? dB

[Wow]

[quote] I fully inderstand that you believe this. I'm afraid that I don't, due to the lack of physical evidence. [/quote]If the past twenty years has not shown you enough proof about saddam, then nothing will. Besides, when we do find WMD, there WILL be a thread on this board accusing the U.S. of planting the evidence. So, if you think saddam should have stayed in power and made more mass graves, more power to ya.

[Dave Bryce]

[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Wow: [b]If the past twenty years has not shown you enough proof about saddam, then nothing will.[/b][/quote]The past 20 years has shown me that Hussein was a very, very bad guy. No one (that I know) disputes that... I respectfully submit that this point has very little to do with the President apparently attacking a country under what appear to be false pretenses. I believe that the main reason that he gave for doing so was that Hussein was an immediate and serious threat to us and our national security. It appears to me that this may not have been the case. dB

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Wow: [b]You have been trying to pick a fight with me for a week now[/quote]I assure you I have no idea what you are talking about. [quote]WHAT LAW, tell me, be specific. You dont know and you post this crazy shit. Do you even know about 1441?[/b][/quote]Don't even throw 1441 at me. Bush never proved the existence of WMD's in Iraq, therefore he failed to prove that they were in violation of 1441. Let's see. What law? UN Charter, Chapter I, Article 2, rule 4: [quote]All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. [/quote]Nope, he certainly didn't refrain from threat or use of force against Iraq's territorial intergrity or political independence. I can list more, if you'd like, but I'd say that a fundamental disregard of the UN charter counts as a violation of international law.

[Wow]

Dave, Where are you getting all of this "intelligence" that CNN and FOX dont have? You got connections? The fighting is still going on in Iraq and you sound like a broken record,"were are the WMD, were are the WMD" If we dont find WMD in Iraq, we have a BIGGER problem. Its already on the market. :(

[Dogfur]

[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Wow: [b] The entire point is this, If we want to debate then fine but when we start using propaganda(micheal moore) as sources of info for debate, then we are at a low.[/b][/quote]Micheal Moore's main source for the first chapter of "Stupid White Men" is Greg Palast's work in Florida uncovering the fraudulent election. To date, NO ONE within the Republican machinery in Florida has denied his accusations of voter role manipulation, only tried to spin their way out. He thoroughly chronicles and documents his findings in his book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". Another excellent book, although more hard hitting and less humorous than Mr. Moore's fine work. I find it interesting that both of these publications are extremely critical of the Clinton administration as well as pointing out the criminal dealings of the Bush family. [quote][b]....and dont put Dick Morris in the same category with mr. Moore......one was the advisor to the President and the other MAKES HIS MONEY off propaganda and bullshit. :wave: [/b][/quote]And there is a difference? :D

[Wow]

[quote] Don't even throw 1441 at me. Bush never proved the existence of WMD's in Iraq, therefore he failed to prove that they were in violation of 1441. [/quote]There have been a several violations of 1441. You dismiss 1441 because it kills your argument. ALL countries signed on to 1441, so if the U.S. lied then they were fibbing' also. That brings us back to the UN. Were they wrong when ALL of them voted for 1441? I dont understand this flip-flop stuff, before the war, the U.N. was the end all be all, but now what they say doesnt matter to you. SO, does the U.N. count or not?

[Dave Bryce]

[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Wow: [b]Dave, Where are you getting all of this "intelligence" that CNN and FOX dont have? You got connections?[/b][/quote]:confused: To what "intelligence" do you refer, sir? Do you mean my assertion that no WMDs nor evidence thereof have shown up so far? Did I miss something somewhere? It seems to me if any evidence had shown up, we'd have heard about it (pretty loudly, I'm guessing), yes? Look at the quotes from Mr. Bush's speeches above that I cited - I noticed that you ignored them. Would you care to comment on any of those? [quote][b]The fighting is still going on in Iraq and you sound like a broken record,"were are the WMD, were are the WMD"[/b][/quote]I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record to you... ;) I'm sure that you'd like to hear all the people calling for hard evidence of the main reason that we attacked Iraq be silenced. It seems to me there's only one way that's going to happen...for some evidence to show up. Otherwise, I imagine that the "broken record" is going to get louder (and not just from me). A lot louder.... dB

[Wow]

[quote] Look at the quotes from Mr. Bush's speeches above that I cited - I noticed that you ignored them. Would you care to comment on any of those? [/quote]I didn't ignore them at all, I think he made his points well and we will see how all of this pans out over the next few years. NEVER FORGET, this war is not over. [quote] Otherwise, I imagine that the "broken record" is going to get louder (and not just from me). A lot louder.... [/quote]OH, the media will put the "Waves L1" on the Prez. :D or maybe even the C4.

[SFOracle]

Funny how the pres seemed to think that 2 months was more than enough time for the UNMOVIC and IAEC weapons inspectors to have turned up the weaspons of mass deception - but now 2 months after we declared victory, we have found the same as Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaroudi - specifically, nothing. Our foreign policy record since Bush took over is abysmal. For the first 9 months of his term, the President completely withdrew America from any sort of mid-east peace process. He went golfing while palestine exploded in a cycle of terror and retribution. We are only now re-engaged in a peace process because the body count since Bush took over and handed Israel a pass has become staggering. We went into Afghanistan with noble goals. We had a smoking gun connecting the Taliban to El Queda and El Queda to the 9/11 attacks. Our goals were to dismantle El Queda, capture Bin Laden, topple the Taliban, capture Mulah Omar and install a western sympathetic, moderate democracy in Afghanistan. But we had no plan to do anything except to bomb a bronze age nation back into the stone age. We pulled out of Afghanistan to focus on Iraq leaving a shaky coalition of former warlords with virtually no security support beyond the center of Kabul and small portions of Kandahar. We have so far failed to capture Bin Laden, El Queda is still operative (the bombings in Bali and Saudi Arabia prove this) Mulah Omar is still at large in Afghanistan and the Taliban is once again in control of most of southern Afghanistan - with the exception of Kabul. Even in Kabul, government ministers can not travel in safety in the city core and the suburbs are out of the question. So since we have done such a fine job of liberating the Afghans, let's go after Iraq. We went into Iraq with the goals of deposing and killing or capturing Sadam Hussein, finding and destroying the weapons of mass destruction, and installing a western friendly progressive democracy in Iraq. We have managed to depose Hussein, but nothing else. Two months after we declared victory, US soldiers and Iraqi civilians are still being killed in hostilities in Iraq, we have found no evidence of WMDs and Hussein, his 2 sons and top leutenants are still at large. We have finally re-engaged in a peace process in palestine. Arafat probably had to go - so bravo on that front. But where was the vision in disengaging for 2 years? Does the White House not realize that conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is the root cause for 90% or the anger and terrorism directed at the US from the middle east? On the campaign trail, Condoleeza Rice said something to the effect that we don't want the 82nd Airborne escorting children to kindergarten - an obvious reference to our prolonged military presence in Kosovo. But look at Kosovo - no one is being killed there and democracy is breaking out all over the place. Would anyone argue that Serbia and Kosovo were better off before we went in? We bombed Afghanistan after promising to rebuilt the country, but skipped town so we could bomb Iraq. Could anyone argue that Afghanistan is better off now - or that there is a realistic prospect for stability in Iraq? Bravo George! This is not just mistakes, this is gross incompetence and outright discete. Don.

[Wow]

We will never settle the Palestinian v. Israel conflict with saddam in power. He had to go and now we might actually get something done. THAT is why we were dis-engaged for a year or so. :wave:

[Franknputer]

Woah, now THAT'S a unique claim - saddam had to go so Israel & Palestine could talk... I think you need to open a window & get some air, dude.

[StoneinaPond]

[quote] Woah, now THAT'S a unique claim - saddam had to go so Israel & Palestine could talk... [/quote]I'm no expert, but certainly Saddam was an active financial donor to the suicide bombers. I don't think it's quite that simple, unless behind the scenes the US managed to (or will) extract bigger concessions from Israel as to Palestinian territory. Lets all hope that this process does stay on track. Although.....