At this point in time, we have the Downing Street Memo, Karl Rove's implication in the Valerie Plame affair, and a multitude of other shit on Bush. At no point has anyone ever been able to make this shit STICK on him in a meaningful way. So the question is, is there any particular basis, at present, for moving toward an impeachment process against Bush?
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-10 11:28
No. The Republicans control the senate.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-10 22:21
rats.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-11 1:03
Some idiot once had the idea that esscence of what we were was now, that it was all set up so that the way things are now could exist, with dualities of male and female and stuff, and din't believe it came out of the random noise, says he thought that the past which led up to now was merely the pattern of what exists now retroactively inventing itself, because time was an abstraction. His basic point is that the reason why the meat reacts like it does is because there's "cosmic energy" as he called it behind every cause and effect in the world. I barely understand what he's talking about, and I think it's BS and that he was a crazy SOB but it's interesting. Make a good fiction story.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-11 2:45
>>1
Well, this just in: Newsweek confirms and so does he, that Rove is the Traitor. Harsh word?. Well the rules get tighter when America's in a state of declared war. Look them up for extra credit.
Even IF the democrats had both houses and we impeached and tried his preppy ass—and he was found guilty—then what? President Cheney? I don't see where that would help much.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-11 5:47
The whole administration is at fault. Impeaching the president would not be enough. He is probably the most innocent of the group anyway.
The successful removal of a president implies vindication in finding that an entire adminstrattion is at fault. Everyone would be skeptical of Cheney anyway, but it would be a great political victory for those determined to wage it.
Not like it could ever actually materialize at this point in time. I've no illusions about that.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-27 21:09
>>6
agreed, I say everyone else is tried in court, i would squirm with joy to watch rove get the needle, that man is scum if i have ever seen it.
on a non-ralated note:
i really wish the UN had some spine.... i really do...
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-27 23:52
Almost every country has connections to someone powerful in the UN. Almost every powerful criminal has connections in a government.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-31 5:50
Here's the latest: The Special Prosecuter has his sights set on--Uncle Dick. Rove never had the clearences to access that info although he IS the one that passed it on. Cheney told him to. Funny isn't it how we haven't seen nor heard from him in a while?
The Vice-President will resign soon for "health reasons" and Bush will issue a blanket pardon within minutes. After all, with Billions still to be looted, Cheney's needed back at Halliburton full time.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-31 5:56
And They will nominate for interm VP Gonzalas or Rice.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-01 20:41
why have we let these bvastards win...why cant the democratic party not have a jackass run for president?
WHY GOD WHY!
>>15
The stuff that doesn't get reported would stick, but both parties are filled with sensationalistic jackasses right now.
When Clinton was around what did they try to impeach him for? Sex in the white house.
Bush, if brought to impeachment, I can only imagine the prosecution will be bringing up the AWOL/Cocaine/Arbusto thing like crazy until his term has been officially served out anyway. After all digging into a president's past worked SO WELL when the other side did it, and they seem to want to immitate the Reps on all fronts to appeal to 'Middle America.'
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-10 6:01
>>17
Yep.
But it's not about cocaine—it's about TREASON! The Corporate Media are silent because they are also culpable to the charge. They sold out for market share.
Treason, Treason, Treason! Look it up. Any and all involved are guilty. Try'm, convict'm--string'm up!
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-10 16:41
Blindly driving a country into the ground by spending all of its money on things other than its people isn't the same as treason.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-10 22:17
>>17
I wasn't aware that "perjury" was "having sex in the White House." A lot of people have had sex in the White House, then.
>>18
Every time I hear someone use the phrase "sold out," I die a little more inside.
>>19
The problem with federal finances isn't that we spend all of our money on things other than ourselves, it's that we spend /too much/ money on ourselves. Or too much money period, depending on how you look at it. Read the recent energy and highway bills for an example. Pork, pork, pork for everyone! And in this, pretty much everyone is complicit, certainly both major parties. For some reason, human brains tend to shut down when they spend others' money.
Name:
illclinton2005-08-11 5:17
Nah- nothing to use for impeachment. The Senate determines if a hearing can be held and Reps control both houses of the legislature.
I can empathize though: Rumsfeld signed a letter to Clinton with his cronies in 2000 advocating force in Iraq. Please remember: 2000 comes BEFORE 2001 and the attack.
The "planning" for wasting Iraq started the moment the supreme court ruled. Remember please that all the REAL players are ALL Nixon alcolytes and they, like Anonymous do not forgive (or forget). >>21
One. It's all we need. Senate best but the House will do fine, thank you. At least 10 Articles Of Impeachment. Without the Senate they go nowhere, but it would be great fun eh?
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-11 13:12
You are retarded. You have to have both houses. The House votes to impeach, the Senate conducts the trial (or maybe the other way 'round).
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-12 22:51
>>21
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." --President Clinton, 1998
Name:
illclinton2005-08-13 0:10
8/11 at 12pm on CNN's "The Situation Room"
Wolf Blitzer: Looking back with 20/20 hindsight was the war in Iraq a mistake?
BILL CLINTON: Well, at the time Wolf, I THOUGHT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE IN WITHOUT LETTING THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS FINISH THEIR JOBS.
Also: CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll - Poll taken from 8/5-8/7
Has the Iraq War Made US Safer from Terrorism?
Yes: 34%
No: 57%
Margin of Error: 5%
Blitzer asking Clinton about the poll:
Blitzer: How would answer that question?
Clinton: Well, I agree. I never thought the war had anything to do with the war on terror...I thought the UN inspectors should have done their jobs, but uh, it was clearly not gonna have anything to do with Al Qaeda.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-13 3:22
Clinton is a fucking liar. The fucking spineless democrats were chearing Bush on trying to look patriotioc while making CYA comments on the down low. Few democrats had the balls and forsight to oppose the war like Kucinich and Dean. they were adding to the bullshit and "OMG TERRAR" atmosphere that bush was creating. I was pissed off about it then, and i'm pissed off about it now.
Name:
illclinton2005-08-13 9:05
>>26
yeah i gotta give credit where it's due- dems were fags. dems let the republicans get away with fucking murder for years- NO OPPOSITION. i think only one congresswoman voted against the war (back when the invasion was JUST starting in afghanistan), barbara lee from oakland (which means kucinich voted for it). but in the beginning i think everyone was scared shitless about terrorism.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-14 5:27
>>26 >>27
So what did happen to the Dem's spine? One fucking word: ANTHRAX! Highly weaponized ultra pure ANTHRAX! Who were the letters sent to? Ranking Dems and the press. Progress made in solving the only bio-terror attack on America? Zip. The implication was and IS stark and clear--your loved ones will be NEXT!! In return for passivity they are allowed to remain alive and psudo-members of the elite. How ironic, that Anthrax is a bug that comes from sheep.
Yes kiddies, that's exactly the accusation I'm making. To take full advantage of 9-11, the degenerate Traitors that pull the strings of Puppet Bush murdered innocent people (remember the postal workers?) If things go badly for those Murders--look for it to happen again--about Three weeks before the 2006 elections.
Unless they decide to declare Martial Law.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-14 5:33
>>28
how can they do martial law with all the national guard bleeding and dying in Iraq? easier to queer the election again
The fact that I actually seriously considered the angle >>28 is coming from for a few moments is a sad testament on the current state of the nation.
It's far-out conspiratorial whackery, but it sounds almost plausible. I no longer believe in coincidences, not when it comes to politics.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-16 13:17
There are very few places to get high grade weaponized anthrax, and they haven't fucking solved the case yet. That's fucking ridiculous.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-16 13:21
>>22
Planning for iraq started in the mid-90's with PNAC. Neoconservatives are a plague on democracy and should be destroyed.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-16 16:56
they should have never impeached clinton for lying about his sex life
thats bullshit, rebublicans were desperate and proved they had no respect for the office of the president of the united states
you know how many mistresses every world leader has, you know how its completely irrelevant to their politicial responsibilites, you know how theyd lie unmaliciously if questioned about it
nixon was impeached for something real, a crime
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-31 12:56
Nixon's crime wasn't a real crime, he was persecuted by leftist revolutionaries because they don't understand the service sector thus believe everyone in the country with an education is evil.
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-31 15:12
ITT tinfoil and whining
But seriously, Bush is a shitty president who really fucked up but you would have a hard time proving anything actually criminal against him. The whole Valerie Plame thing was basically exhausted and all they managed to get out of it was scooter libby, that's pretty much a dead angle now.
As for invading Iraq, it was a seriously stupid move but there wasn't anything criminal in how it was started. Saddam kicking out the weapons inspectors was actually enough legal justification to start the war, because it violated the 91 ceasefire that ended the first gulf war.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-01 7:16
>>37
So when I state facts you don't like it's tinfoil hat nonsense and whing? Sounds more like you are the one crying.