Misleading Congress is an impeachable offense
I wonder if they can get Cheney too. And then who would be president? The speaker of the house?
Come on congress. Impeach Bush!
Forget Congress…They are already under the mindcontrol of Mr.Doom and Co.:loco:
Let’s see if Monica Lew. Has it in her for one more good run, maybe that’ll get him impeached…
What is your proof that Bush misled congress? Would you like to review all the similar statements made about Iraq by Gore? Kerry? Senator Clinton? President Clinton? Clinton administration officials? Wouldn’t that be fun? Perhaps, Bush could sue them for misleading him? Oh what fun all the lawyers will have. hee hee hee
Does it say that in the constitution? “A sitting president cannot be impeached if he can find predecessors or former opponents who did the same thing or worse.” I thought you were against situational morality.
I realize that there is no way that this congress is going to impeach. I am glad that the minority party is at least showing some backbone and bringing it up.
We should “impeach” the CIA too for giving faulty information to the President and the congress. Maybe behead all those that collected faulty intelligence. Yes.
I am quite surprised that you have any knowledge of the constitution at all. Score one for you. No, in fact that sentence or something like it is not in the US constitution.
I am. That is why I am not nor have I ever criticized Clinton for recognizing Saddam for what he was: a serious threat. Bush finally dealt with what had been a problem for 12 years and was only getting worse. So things are messy. Leaving them alone would have resulted in a bigger mess farther down the line. People conveniently forget that don’t they?
Yes, some backbone. We don’t see a lot of backbone do we from the Democrats these days. I am merely pointing out that these same concerned “elected representatives” were making all sorts of similar statements when Clinton was president. Now, Bush is not only making them but actually doing something about them and they are shocked! horrified! incredulous! that the president could have made them believe Saddam was a threat! That never occurred to them before Bush came along. How dare he lie to them and lead them astray. Right? Come on. Who’s shoveling what?
[quote=“fred smith”]
Yes, some backbone. We don’t see a lot of backbone do we from the Democrats these days. I am merely pointing out that these same concerned “elected representatives” were making all sorts of similar statements when Clinton was president. Now, Bush is not only making them but actually doing something about them and they are shocked! horrified! incredulous! that the president could have made them believe Saddam was a threat! That never occurred to them before Bush came along. How dare he lie to them and lead them astray. Right? Come on. Who’s shoveling what?[/quote]
hypocrisy is not the issue Fred, there’s never a shortage of that on either side of Congress. if Bush tried to mislead Congress, and that is against the rules, he has to consider himself fair game.
Didn’t Clinton bomb Iraq as well? Although not to the scale as the Bushes, he did so none the less.
Anyone here believe Saddam was not a threat? Raise your hands. I didn’t think so.
Threat to whom? He wasn’t a threat to me.
Kim Jong Il is a threat to me because he has nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction and the missile technology to deliver them to any U.S. or U.S. ally target in the Pacific basin. He also has a record of proliferating his WMD to terrorism-supporting nations.
If Bush had been totally honest about the threat, and taken action on that basis, there wouldn’t be an issue.
It’s clear to me that that wasn’t done. the strategy was to string along as many as possible, the decision was made in advance. Look at the way the UN was handled in the beginning. We begged and cajoled, but none of it was in good faith, we were going in no matter what. That stunk, and the American people were dealt with in the same manner. That this approach could come back to bite Bush in the ass isn’t surprising to me.
Threat to whom? He wasn’t a threat to me.
Kim Jong Il is a threat to me because he has nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction and the missile technology to deliver them to any U.S. or U.S. ally target in the Pacific basin. He also has a record of proliferating his WMD to terrorism-supporting nations.[/quote]
Hey, I just had a brainstorm…North Korea is stocked with nuclear weapons. Why don’t we take military action against them!
Now let’s see here…a conventional attack would mean military forces would get nuked, along with some 40 million South Koreans. If you can live with that, then great! If not, then we can nuke them first. If we’re quick enough maybe only 20 million South Koreans will die from radiation poisoning in the first few days.
Sarcasm over.
Just how would you have proposed ending an intolerable (for the Iraqis) state of war begun in 1990? Ending the sanctions? Letting him get back into business?
You know, maybe that would have been a good idea after all. Saddam would have learned the error of his ways, and would have become a good global citizen after all, right? He certainly wouldn’t have had any enmity against the US for kicking his arse out of Kuwait, surely? And, secular though he was, he certainly wouldn’t have continued nurturing his relationships with and supporting jihadist bad boys. Right?
Sarcasm over again.
Can you impeach a president for gross incompetence in the conduct of a war? Bush’s worst offence would be how badly he’s f**ked up Iraq.
A year or so old, but still timely:[quote]Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq?
Did you know that the Iraqi government employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?
Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq?
Did you know that Iraq
Somewhere today there’s undoubtedly a history book writer – probably somewhere in Texas – writing a history of Iraq that starts out:
"Modern-day Iraq is the cradle of human civilization stretching back over 10,000 years but it wasn’t until President George W. Bush and his Coalition of the Willing came along in 2003 that it really amounted to anything. That was the first time they had any schools, universities and an organized police, army and navy.
It was all pretty much just camels, palm trees and sand before then – lots of sand.
Now there are schools and hospitals and universities all over the place and the people are being taught how to drive cars and fly airplanes and read and write.
It’s really amazing what the Iraqi people were capable of when given a little expert ‘kick in the ass’ and . . . blah, blah, blah . . . "
I don’t doubt that some idiot somewhere may be writing that spook.
But let me ask you something: Do you honestly think that Iraq is not better of (or won’t be better off in 5 or 10 years) as a result of the change in government?
Assume that one were to agree with you that Bush lied about his true motivations. Assume that one were to agree with you that the liberation was wrongheaded from a US interest perspective, that all the coalition nations are guilty of violating “international law”. Assume it all. Just answer honestly whether you think that a democratic Iraq (even a very imperfect one – nobody is saying that we’ve got a model of democracy there yet) isn’t a better place for the Iraqis to live.
70% of the population free to practice their religion for the first time in decades. People free to say what they think (even if it’s “US go home!”) for the first time in decades. A massive net saving of innocent life – 5,000 children a month were starving to death. (And yes I know you believe that the UN was at fault for those deaths because they should have lifted the sanctions --but that’s going back to the political question-- all I’m asking is whether it is better that the starvations have been drastically reduced.)
You truly don’t think that getting rid of Saddam made the Iraqis better off?
Hobbes,
Do you honestly believe that Bush et al were motivated by the sincere desire to liberate the people of Iraq?
Would you agree that he may have fudged on the evidence in the lead up to the war but that if he did so it was truly because he believed the UN would get in the way of his fervent desire to better the lives of Iraqis?
Back to the original question: if Clinton could be impeached by lying about a blowjob, can’t Bush be impeached for leading a nation/world into a war under false pretenses?
One of the greatest philosophical/moral questions: Do the ends justify the means?
Hobbes – Considering the massive rancor over the Iraq issue and the current polls indicating how much the American people see this war as stinking to high heaven, the real question is whether getting rid of Saddam made Americans better off. Most Americans don’t think so – and that’s a realization that I think most of us realize is far from being the “path of least resistance” or of lazy thinking. Americans who changed their view did so with the realization that some 2 years ago many were optimistic about the war – changing one’s view on a matter of this gravity is, to say the least, quite painful.
To put it bluntly, we Americans fought our own damn war of independence, beat back the Brits again in the War of 1812, and managed to hold on through one hell of a Civil War. We beat the Kaiser, the Nazis and the commies in the years since then. We had our freedoms earned through the blood of our ancestors and our friends – and I don’t see “freedom given” as being anywhere near so sweet as “freedom earned.”
Having muddled our way to the present age with freedoms intact, I am not particularly happy to see those freedoms curtailed under the guise of the current terror threat. Between Gitmo, the Patriot Act, and the simple inability of normal American citizens to attend public, taxpayer-funded “townhall meetings” unless they pass some sort of GOP loyalty sniffing, I don’t think the past years have been good for the United States.
Now, if the namby-pamby radicals in the White House want to start using American troops all willy-nilly for all sorts of bizarre pet causes, then they should be upfront about that with the American people, don’t you think? Just suggesting that next time Bush & Co. want to start up a war, it might be good if we don’t end up dumping the other half of our combat capabilities into a useless chunk of desert. We don’t need to “give” anybody else any more freedoms – although we should be there to back those peoples who demand rights for themselves.
[quote=“mofangongren”]Having muddled our way to the present age with freedoms intact, I am not particularly happy to see those freedoms curtailed under the guise of the current terror threat. [/quote]Bravo…bravo…worthy of repro on DU where it will run with great self-pleasuring reception
Kindly tell exactly what freedoms you have had rescinded under the dread Patriot Act?
regarding this question and this war (a la Zinn):
the ends: unknown
the means: bloody, violent, deadly
So, in this case the debate would more appropriately be:
Do bloody, violent, and deadly means justify unknown ends?
Doesn’t exactly have the makings of a great philosophical enquiry…