Ok, I have to ask it. Is it time to impeach Bush?

His crime? An incompetent liar. He ordered the invasion and occupation of another country based on false pretenses. He lied to the American public and the world to garner support. He lied to the UN in an attempt to get support. And lastly, he's destroyed almost everything he's touched.

In my opinion, we need to remove him quickly before he causes more damage to our country. I will admit I was wrong. I voted for Bush, thought Gore was a horrible choice (and still do), and after 9/11, couldn't be more thrilled to have Bush as our leader. I fell out of grace on him over a few issues (steel tariffs, amnesty to illegals, etc), but gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Bush said the war was about and had always been about WMD. He stated in a May 29, 2003 interview with TVP, Poland:


But nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. It's being reported that George Tenet has already received the much anticipated David Kay report and has classified it and shelved it. Hans Blix is repeating what Scott Ritter has been saying for two years. UNSCOM helped destroy all the WMD. There is no way for Saddam to move all the WMD just before the war started without leaving a trace.

Bush's incompetence has destroyed our intelligence community's credibility, destroyed the UN's importance to the world, is further destroying our economy by attempting to rebuild a country we destroyed, but can't afford to rebuild, has made our government bigger (i.e. federalizing airport workers, etc) instead of smaller, got Blair kicked out of office (it won't be long), turned passive Muslims into active terrorists, and eliminated our ability to preempt a clear and present danger from a REAL threat.

Failing to remove him now could cause 5 more years of damage.

By booting Bush, we acknowledge our intelligence community gave adequate information that was misused. They become credible again. Our new leader abandons Bush's failed Iraq strategy and starts pulling all troops out. If the UN ponies up the help we ask for, we let our forces stay to help. Also, we get back to fighting the war on terror - not the ones we hate. Dismantle Bush's GWOT, throw out his personal interest in getting rid of Saddam, and focus our resources where they actually belong.

Personally, I don't want a Republican in the White House at the expense of our country.

There comes a time to hold and a time to fold. I vote fold. How about you?

First, you would need to prove that a CRIME took place (high crimes and misdemeanors being the requirement).

There have been no crimes. Like it or not, perjury is a crime. Lying (if you want to cite this as Bush's "crime") is not.

EDIT to add: Impeachment is not the same as "Recall". In a recall, you can do that because someone is unpopular (since it is basically a new election...). "Impeachment" is a legal proceding based upon crimes committed. Since the Senate has already determine that lying under oath is not an impeachable offense, I guess lying while not under oath would not rise to the level of "impeachable" either.

If we impeached Bush wouldn't Cheney just take his place? It's bad news all the way down the line. Besides, Congress is just as bad as he is right now and they wouldn't do it anyway.

OK, you impeach Bush and he is replaced by Cheney. If the Bush administration is guilty of all the above, what would change?
Cheney would keep in place the same policies, if not enact some of his own that may be less palatable than what we have now.
I think if we are unhappy with Bush, we vote him out in 2004.
Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

Bush sent our troops into Iraq based on lies and deciet. Our troops are getting killed everyday. This appears to be reckless homicide to me. Or at least, manslaughter.

I'm not a lawyer, but a charge along those lines is probably up to the level of lying about INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL REMARK REMOVED in court.

We do not NOT do anything about it because the next in line is worse or as bad. We do it because it's right and it's the law. Period.

Throw the bum out, but use the electoral system.

There is no reason for an impeachment or conviction of Bush at this point.

this is why cheney needs to be impeached as well.

bush's crimes are: murder, attacking another country in violation of international law, violating the UN charter (which under article 6 clause 2 of the constitution is US law) thus US law, criminal negligence, allowing the use of banned weapons (US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq - Napalm bombs in the Iraq war ) imcompetance, tampering with evidence, conspiracy, and lying to the american people on matters of national security.

cheney's crimes are: accessory to murder, accessory to attacking another country in violation of international law, accessory to violating the UN charter, thus US law, criminal negligence, accessory to allowing the use of banned weapons, tampering with evidence, conspiracy, and lying to the american people on matters of national security. (he says he misspoke. according to thesaurus.com:

misspoke is a verb form of misspeak which is the same as lie! )

there is easily a case to impeach both of them, thus making the speaker of the house the president. I say we impeach them, then hang them in times square or some equally public place.

also, for those unfamiliar with the impeachment process, here is a link to American Bar Association: FAQs and Web Resources on the Impeachment Process and MARSHALL UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES: Presidential Impeachment: Procedures and Rules for Impeachments for info on it.

I am still hopeful that they will have to pay for taking this country to war on false pretenses in some kind of trial for war crimes in the future.

Taking the country through another draining and eventually pointless impeachment is not my idea of the best way to spend that kind of time, energy, or money. The process was used and abused last time and so is no longer as effective as it should be now.

It all comes down to this, then. The American left has put its stock in revenge—they never got over the Clinton impeachment, they never got over the election of 2000, and now the rest of us have to put up with ignorant cries for impeachment—never mind the complete lack of merit; this is about payback—and screwy conspiracy theories. I wondered why so many were so quick to sign on to Clarke's campaign without having the first idea about his politics or policies, and so quick to abandon Dean, and now I know why: because the left wants President Bush to get beat, and they don't care who does it.

Bush won't get impeached. Those who are shrieking for impeachment should take a step back and think about doing something constructive (maybe rebuilding the bankrupt Democratic party, for instance), rather than spending all their time seeking revenge for past slights.

If you had read my post you would see that it isn't about trying to pay anyone back...it's about what's best for this country.

We will have to agree to disagree on the merit's of his crimes. And I've never supported any of the current candidates...I've known for months that Clark would run and I've done extensive research on him. I have believed all along he was the best man for the job. Getting rid of Bush is not about revenge...it's about the destruction he's brought to America since he took office.

Okay...so now you are blaming a whole party for a disaster caused by ONE man. That is not a good idea. Unless you want to blame the whole party for nominating him, i suggest you back off that stance because not all Republicans are failures. Reagan balanced the budget for example.




In that case, we'd have to impeach and kick out every politician in D.C.

So he lied? maybe. We don't know. He used the same intell Clinton used in 1998 when Clinton bombed Iraq.


Danya:



In that case, you'd have to recall Bush like the Californians are doing to Davis to get rid of both of them simitaniously.

Danya, I actually wasn't responding to your post; you just happened to post as I was composing mine. However, while I can't speak to you personally, I do believe there is a sizable chunk of disgruntled dems who are seething with resentment from the Clinton years, and who, when given a hypothetical choice between a. success in Iraq and kudos to Bush, vs. b. horrible casualties and bloodshed in Iraq and shame for Bush would choose B in a heartbeat, which IMO is loathesome.

Iraq was a failure of leadership from day one. We were led into a war of aggression without proof that Iraq was legitimately part of the war on terror. Success is not possible. For this embarrassment to our nation and damage to our reputation, the Bush administration should be voted out of office.

The Clinton impeachment and White Water investigations were motivated by the Republican desire for payback after having suffered through humiliating sandals perpetrated politicians in their official duties (not in their pre-office business dealings or extramarital actions) in the election of 1972 (and the series of crimes done on behalf of Nixon against people on his enemies list) and the Iran-control scandals.

I see at least two liberal democratic voices on this thread that do not advocate misusing the impeachment process again.

I was e-mailed a link to an interesting poll in the Washington Monthly, The Mendacity Index outlines some of the whoppers told by the last FOUR PRESIDENTS. It then asks you to rank the lies, so that they can determine which of them is the biggest liar. Even if you don't vote in it, it's a very amusing link to read. It makes a clear point that none of them would feel at home in an "Honest Abe Club."

Does anyone have a link to a site that might help us to judge the honesty of the Democrats jogging for President in 2004, or have we simply accepted that "Honest Politician" has become an oxymoron because it won't make entertaining news?

This post approved by Spell Check

It all comes down to this, then. The American right has put its stock in revenge—they never got over the Clinton election, and now the rest of us have to put up with ignorant cries for impeachment—never mind the complete lack of merit...

Don't like that? Then don't make blanket statements about other people's motives. Some of the people who think Bush should be impeached could not possibly care less about Clinton, and would think the same way had Clinton never existed. When it comes to "high crimes and misdemeanors" the case again Bush stands on its own merits. Bush has sent our soldiers to die on the basis of distorted and fabricated claims, while his friends get rich(er) on no-compete contracts and targeted tax breaks. That's worthy of investigation and trial. Such actions are already under way in the UK for merely accepting those distortions and fabrications; how much more culpable should the instigators of those lies be for their actions?

Interesting theories, though I would argue that many conservatives objected to Clinton because of his behavior and/or absence of character, not because of perceived slights from two or three decades ago. And some would argue that the true embarrassment to our nation lies in those who dismiss the humanitarian qualities of our mission in Iraq, who essentially supported enabling Hussein in his continuing mission to rape, kill and plunder the nation of Iraq. Some people start to yawn when the children's gulags, rape rooms and mass graves are mentioned--not enough red meat for them, I guess. That moral bankruptcy, evident in so many partisans who are obsessed with Mr. Bush and who could care less about the people of Iraq, is what I find particularly odious, and I'm certain I'm not the only one.

It sounds like you're describing your own party. Pot, Kettle, Black.

Sorry folks, I'm gonna have to rain on the impeach Bush parade, if napalm is all that you guys have got than that's that. There is no proof of a lie, or anything. There is absolutely no real reason to impeach GWB.

CP

It always seems, when mentioning justification for entering Iraq, that conservatives merely say that Saddam was " a really bad guy."

No, no one wanted Saddam in power. But we'd all like some proof confirming the WMD claim. With Cheney on the PNAC, it's hard to believe (or at least a big coincidence) that we went into Iraq for humanitarian effort.

The People of Afghanistan need our help just as much and Iraq is recieving 95% of our attention. There is NO evidence connecting 9/11 to Saddam, further cause to be suspicious.

And if Bush really was concerned about people with WMD who wanted to kill us, North Korea would have been a far better place to start. More cause to be suspicious....


Back on topic, I'm not really all that aware of what "crimes" Bush has committed so far. Bush never lied under oath, so you can't impeach him for that. The USA more or less lets Britian take the fall for bad information... well done there.

I'd have to look into it more, but from what I have seen so far, I'd say Bush is pretty clean. If he could be pinned on something; the democrats must really be in real
disarray to miss it.

You should know better than to toss out one-liners like that, CP. There might not be enough evidence for a conviction, but there is enough for a trial and that's what an impeachment is. Requiring absolute proof before the trial can occur is simply absurd.

It's quite difficult to debate such vague generalizations. It would be much easier if you would actually address the debate question and/or rebut some of the actual debate responses rather than address "some people" and "so many"

Debate Question:

I'm still not sure on what grounds Bush can be impeached.

If it's about his supposed "lies." What are they and where is the Proof?

there are any number of reasons why wmd have not been found if that's what the crux of the impeachment cry were to be made on...besides accusations of it all being based on "lies."

Want a lie from Dubya? How about this?

President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - disputing an impression that critics say the administration tried to foster to justify the war against Iraq.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

The president's comment was the administration's firmest assertion that there is no proven link between Saddam and Sept. 11. It came after Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday clouded the issue by saying, "It's not surprising people make that connection" between Saddam and the attacks.

For months now anyone who DARED to question why the U.S. was going after Saddam Hussein was shouted down as a pinko peacenik weenie who had forgotten 9/11.

Well, as is par for the course for this secrecy-obsessed Adminstration, they tell the American people one thing while meaning something entirely different. Yesterday it's major hostilities are over in Iraq, but hey we never said the war was over! Yesterday it's Iraq's oil reserves will pay for the country's reconstruction and now we need another $87 billion smackers to keep this house of cards from collapsing (with no guarantee they won't be back for more in another few months) and now this bald-faced LIE from Bush and his cabal of neo-conservative nutcases.

If this were Bill Clinton pulling this same crap Republicans would be howling for his impeachment, unleashing Congressional investigations and truckloads of rabid special prosecutors would be pounding on the front door of the White House.

But because we have a Republican-led Senate and House, there's nothing coming out of Washington but a embarassed silence.

Bush won't be impeached. Not by the gutless wonders of this Congress. Unfortunately, we still have another 14 months before we can shock and awe this moron of a Chief Executive and his gang of thugs with some homegrown regime change.

There is no grounds to impeach Bush. If you had evidence that there was no WMD's in Iraq, and Bush knew this, you might have a case. This is one of them things that is only discussed in highly particsan meetings and websites. You could have impeached Lincoln,Wilson,FDR, Kennedy and Johnson under the Presidential lies that lead to war claim.

Have we not had a post that shows the general retraction of most all the statements bush and company made as time went on, how many lies can you tell, do we allow for such behavior to go on by our elected leaders, in light of the fact its costing many lives and a small fortune.

I liked it when he said the war was over, but that we need more troops and money and we don’t know for how long, yes, the war is over.

I don’t know about the impeach process, i mean that i don’t think it could happen. Not because he is a liar and such, just the buddy system and corruption of power. I just hope he does not get re elected, but even voting is scary these days.

BTW, does anyone have info on pnac before they took office, all that seemed to wash away or only found in small useless traces

Project for the New American Century
Is this what you're looking for? It has all of their old and official stuff going back to their 1997 beginnings.
Some noteworthy points from a very long and excellent article on the group:

link

Using the administrations own guidelines for determining rogue or terrorist states would mean adding themselves to the list if they weren't such hypocrites and if it weren't for the fact that this had been their goal way in advance of 9/11 and the 'war on terror'. This should be proof enough that the WOT has little to do with 9/11, and it really never did. Wouldn't it be more honest for them to come out and tell everyone, "go to our website, this is the new plan for America, this is the direction we are going in case anyone doubts it." Instead they just put it out there and follow their game plan and when people are smart enough to figure it all out and cry foul it all sounds like science fiction conspiracy theory until it's too late. The beauty of it, and why they get away with it, is all in it's unbelievable insanity. By the time people notice something is really wrong it's too late.

Doesn't it seem odd that the 'liberal press' isn't constantly grilling these guys about PNAC...especially when they have the main players, like Kristol, on their programs every other day?

These people are truly dangerous and need to be removed from office. Turning the USA into a terrorist nation and breaking every law and treaty we're bound to should be enough to impeach these guys (not that I'm willing to go through all that garbage again with the deck stacked in their favor. Truth would not win out with the GOP ruled House and Senate being just as morally dysfunctional as the Administration.)

Still, as far as I'm concerned the Administrations job is to protect the Constitution...none of these plans have anything in common with the Constitution as I read it.

I still have not seen any evidence of a crime committed.

The PNAC argument is pure garbage. First, BUSH is not a member, that should be clue #1. Clue #2 is that even though the PNAC may advocate certain tactics, those tactics were NOT used during the Afghan or Iraq conflicts. That seems to indicate that Bush himself does not subscribe to the tactics which the PNAC finds legitimate.

If the Veep, the Sec. of Defense and Undersecretary of Defense all advocate using tactical nukes and then those weapons are not used, who do you think is making the final call?

The PNAC argument is completely off-topic. Again, BUSH IS NOT A MEMBER.

The war with Iraq was legitimate. I have defended it on many threads. It was legal, since it was an on-going conflict, not a new one. There was a cease fire, not a peace treaty. Saddam did not live up to the terms of the cease fire, hostilities resumed.

So, war with Iraq is out. PNAC (whatever the spectre argument is there... ) is irrelevant.

Let's see: no-bid contracts. Again a legitimate (not to mention ubiquitous) phenomenon. Here is a link that shows the state of California has billions of no-bid contracts last year alone.

I am sure I could dig up a hundred examples of other government bodies using no-bid contracts.

Anything else that is actually a crime going to be forwarded?

EDIT: By the way, the results of this poll show just how irrational the hatred of Bush is. 18 to 14 FOR impeaching. What a crock.

Irrational? Says who? You?

I've given a clear reason (along with many others) INAPPROPRIATE PROFANITY FILTER BYPASS REMOVED. You may disagree, but that hardly makes it irrational. Personally, I think discounting clear reasoning (no matter how much you disagree) as a "crock", is far more irrational.

Where is the evidence? There is none! Bush used the same Intel Clinton did for Iraq in 1998. So technically, he DID NOT LIE.

Yeah, here's your reason:



Where is the crime there? You can claim you think it is homicide or manslaughter, but even you prefaced it by saying, "to me."

See, this isn't a "to me" issue. This is a "to the constitution and the law" issue.

Regardless of whether or not Bush intentionally lied, or merely made decisions based on the information he was provided, I am amazed that there are folks here who are surprised that politicians lie. Hello? Are we paying attention here or what?

Congress is the only body empowered to impeach the president, and this topic is a perfect example why.

...and by the way, impeachment doesn't mean removal from office... we should all know that by now...

Mike

DR,

Impeachment is a legal issue.

Your yelling and swearing should be construed as irrational.

I still have yet to see a credible crime forwarded.

I know you've all read Dayton Rocker's multiple posts on statements that Bush has made that turned out not to be true.

And just in case you've let it slip your mind here.



Those are some of the statements Bush had made that turned out not to be true. And now Donald Rumsfeld is stating this is no link with Saddam to 9/11 even though the majority of Americans believe it to be true. Why? Because every time Bush gave a speech about Iraq he mentioned 9/11 all throughout it. That and the huge stockpiles of WMDs that will never be found.

That's what I call misleading the public to get what you desire.

Rickmanx

OFF TOPIC COMMENTARY REMOVED - If you would like to discuss the moderation of this forum, take it up in a PM with a staff member or in the Comments & Suggestions forum - Jaime
Anyhow, back to the topic - The legalese behind "crime" used here is bogus. Bush was given authority to disarm Saddam based on the information Bush provided. So, Bush ordered our military - without the UN - to go disarm Saddam.

Ooops. Saddam wasn't armed. So, his intitial justficiation didn't exist. Folks, we don't have just our federal laws and local statutes. We have international law as well. I think what he's done raises to the level of war crimes. If he were retaliating against an attack or defending us from one, that's one thing. But neither exist and people are dying. We demand other countries honor international law the same as we do. And unilaterally invading and occupying a country that has done nothing to us seems to rise to this level.

You can use me as your punching bag on this issue, but more people agree with me than not.

Saying he lied is like stating "But he is a politician!!" It isn't enough.

Sending people off to war isn't equivalent to murder. If it were, virtually every President would be indicted.

You need to find something that is actually an impeachable offense...

No, but you do need a clear reason as to why this trial would be held, and there is no clear reason to do that.

CP

Deliberate deception leading to the deaths of American citizens, for the enrichment of a few friends? Maybe you don't think that's what happened, but don't tell me it needs to be proven beyond any possible doubt prior to impeachment. That's not how trials - of which an impeachment proceeding is a special case - work. "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to the verdict, not to the bringing of charges or initiation of a trial.

That said, it's still too soon for impeachment. We should have a special prosecutor build a case first. If we can spend millions of dollars on allegations of Clinton's sexual impropriety - and that's all they were at the time Starr was appointed - why should allegations of much greater crimes by Bush go uninvestigated?

that's good CP.

napalm is banned by the geneva conventions!! this make the use of it a crime, bush, as commander in chief of the military, should have known it was used, thus by not stopping its use is complicit in it , one down.

as this war was illegal, he is responsible for the (illegal) deaths of nearly 7000 iraqi citizens.(america doesn't do body counts) he is also responsible for the manslaughter of 300 american soldiers, as the war was based on lies and deceit. two down.

he violated the UN charter, (by attacking another country agressively) which under article 6, clause 2 of the US constitution is US law, thus he violated US law. three down.

by relying on information that was 4 years old he showed imcompetance. he has also shown that he is imcompetant in running the country, as our economy is in the toilet. four down.

by working with rumsfeld, cheney, powell, rice, britain (specifically blair) and others to illegally attack Iraq, bush is guilty of criminal conspiracy, which under american law is a felony. he may also be of guilty conspiracy to commit homicide. five down.

he lied on matters of national security, as rickmanx demonstrated. the DIA said prior to the war there was no evidence that Iraq had WMD, thus it is possible bush also tampered with evidence. six down. (if clinton can be investigated for lying about oral sex, bush can be investigated for lying about WMD) and thats six.

there at least FIVE seperate reasons, with the napalm thing being a possible sixth. (he could get away with passing it off as it was tommy franks' fault, he didn't know ) to impeach bush! cheney is guilty of at least criminal consoricay, and maybe a few others. both of these men committed offense that could EASILY be considered "high crimes and misdemeanors" there are several clear reasons top impeach the criminal in residence at 1600 penn. ave.

FIRE THE LIARS!!!

Bush used the same intelligence that Clinton used in 1998. (Why can't you people get that through your heads). By the way, at last count, which was July, AP said 3000




Congress passed a resolution allowing military force in Iraq in Oct. 2002




MUST READ!!

Goamerica if you like your link you will love this one.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/967844.asp

here's another link that shows some well convincing evidence on the lies we have been made to swallow from the Bush administration.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0808-15.htm

If not lying to the american people and the world putting us into a war under false pretenses using information from 1998 and spinning to make it sound like the information is current and accurate is not impeachable tell me what you think is impeachable, besides lying about sex ( get over that how did this effect our country in anyway) also this is the only thing the right wing could get Clinton on after spending millions of dollars and how many years?

Unabomber: Why weren't these reports on the other new stations? I'm a little skeptical about getting my data from those sites.

CP

Well this is one definitely worth listening to:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/39351000...blix_blix08.ram

So let me get this straight Amlord, the Vice-President of the United States. the Secretary of Defense, the Under-Secretary of Defense, and the President's own brother are signees of the principles of the Project for the New American Century (along with other Bush Administration insiders like Elliot Abrams and I. Lewis Libby) and you don't think they have any undue influence upon George W. Bush's foreign policy decisions?

Okay. I guess that's possible...

The only thing "irrational" about the majority of posters favoring Bush's impeachment is your description of such a response as irrational. I am a extremely rational man and as far as I am concerned LYING to the American people about the reasons that we invaded Iraq IS a impeachable offense.

It is certainly far more serious than a Chief Executive lying about a tacky and illicit sexual interlude with a chubby intern.

Or is your "irrational" love for Bush blinding you to the possibility that the war in Iraq was waged for far less than a good and noble cause?

Cadman:

Yes i know about Blix's "spin and hype" statement but i also think Blix forgot about his report form my link.

Also, i don't think CommonDreams.org is a good source for info, as it seems a bit "left".

Lets start a new poll...It goes like this...

Should (Insert future Democratic President) be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors?

Lets vote NOW!!! Why not avoid the rush?

Democrats will defend the yet unnamed president...Republicans will attack...and so on and so on.........

Blind Partisanship....The true enemy. Are you infected???

P.S. How ya doin NT....its Hobbyman from YMMV...remember me???

Though Your enthusiasm is greatly appreciated and debatably warranted, I think you should stick to the topic and discuss the impeachment possibilities of Bush rather than question anyones partisanship.

Under exactly what circumstances is war ever legal? Isn't it really brought about because legal and other means have failed to resolve an issue? And, of course, we're ignoring the fact that all due process was followed and the war was appropriately approved by Congress.(One down)



You'd prefer we did it lackadaisically? (Two down)



Note to self--judicious use of spell check is often a good thing (Three down)



As noted above, the war is clearly not illegal. This defeats both premises here (four down).



Practically every source on earth agreed that Iraq did indeed have WMD. The pre-war debate centered on whether there was likely cause to believe they would be used against the United States. So, by your logic, I assume that you're stating that no threat against the US should ever be dealt with if there is at least 1 entity that disputes available information. That sounds very reassuring.... (five down).

I'm feeling generous, I'll give you the napalm issue.

Um... no GoAmerica Blix hasn't forgotten. He's stating the same thing he always has. He was unsure as to if there were weapons or not. Only now hes more leaning to not because of 5 months of finding nothing.

And Ringwraith, some seem to say comments like "Well its the same evidence Clinton used!" or something like that, but being truly honest if it were a democratic president who did what Bush has done I'd be upset with him.

I didn't really have any problems with Bush.. at first. But then with his policy of "We don't have to prove anything. Give us what we want or you're TOAST" attitude I started to lose respect.

Many don't remember this but before the whole Afghan war began the Taliban was asking for proof of Bin Laden's crimes, and if we would show some they would hand him over. But Bush told them either hand him over or face the consequences.

And don't get me started about the whole "no compliance" argument even though the inspectors were stating the opposite. Yes it didn't come all at first, but it did come. And the inspectors were not blocked from ANY site in their last visit. And towards the end almost every single stinking demand was met by the iraqis short of flat out admitting they have WMDs. And everyone on the Bush team was singing the whole "Not complying" song, yet never stating where they were not complying! It was like "They've now allowed the use of spyplanes, but still they are not complying." "Some of the scientists have come forth to be interviewed and still they were not complying." "Not once were the inspectors blocked from going to a site and STILL they were not complying!" "The over the limit by 20 miles Al Somoud 2 rockets were being destroyed and STILL no compliance!"

To me it seemed liked there was not a damn thing Iraq could of done to SHOW compliance, especially since the Bush Admistration never told them where they were not complying.

And then to watch the Bush Administration, knowing that they couldn't win the UN vote, completely pull out of the vote on their second resolution and attack without their support was the final straw the broke the camels back for me.

But let's not forget the FORGED nuclear documents, the false 45 minute claim, the Artillery weather balloon stations claimed as mobile weapons labs, the constant mentioning of 9/11 to justify attacking Iraq ( even tho Bush admits today there is no link ), the "Dark Actors in Play" statement from Dr. Kelly, and then his "suicide" afterwards.

And I'll never claim myself on either politcal side because I see both good and bad on both, and I'd rather vote SMART and pick the best man for the job, and not the party.

Impeachment literaly means "to bring charges against" - so it does not mean a conviction- both presidents IMPEACHED were found not guilty- clinton and jackson- so CP- proving the case AFTER the charges are brought is very similar to a normal trial- except it takes place in the halls of congress.

So, a special prosecuter should be appointed, AT LEAST 88million dollars and we should ABSOLUTELY NOT limit it to the topic of the original reason, if he is finally impeached for lying about doing coke, fine by me.......

[quote=goamerica,Sep 18 2003, 01:56 PM]
Congress passed a resolution allowing military force in Iraq in Oct. 2002
[/quote]

I'm afraid your wrong. the joint resolution on Iraq required a violation of UNSC 1441;

[quote]
From the War Powers Resolution Act:
(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority
of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties
[/quote]

Bottom Line: H.J.Res 114 authorizes force only if existing treaties are upheld.
This means that the U.N. Charter, The Nuremburg Principles, The International
Covenant On Human Rights, The Pact Of Paris can't legally be tossed aside.

[quote=wikipedia]
the act the "authorized" this war cited several factors to justify a war, among which were:

• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
  
  
• Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
  
  
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
  
  
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
  
  
• Iraq's connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda
  
  
• Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States

[/quote]

now that we have been there for several months, we find no evidence of WMDs, nor any evidence they could be deployed quickly, and hit america (thus they were no threat) the "firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War" is funny because there was no UN resolution authorizing any such zones, and we were pirating their airspace. of course their going to fire on us!(edited here: they WERE illegal BTW: (as my post is long already I will link to google result pages: google search: "no fly zones were illegal"- google search: "no fly zones were not UN approved") it has also been shown Iraq had no connection ti AQ, or that they would provide terror groups with WMD (as they had NONE) they had complied fully with the '91 cease fire agreement.

[quote=wikipedia]
It authorized him to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." [/quote]

it is now obvious that Iraq posed no "continuing" threat to america. and it is not the US's job to enforce UNSC resolution, but the UNSC's.

[quote=wikipedia]
Before being permitted to use force, the President was required to determine that further diplomatic efforts alone would not satisfactorily protect the United States or ensure Iraq's compliance with UNSC resolutions. [/quote]

it has been shown diplomatic efforts alone would have satisfactorily protect the US. it is also obvious that they were in compliance with UNSC resolutions.

[quote=CP] Unabomber: Why weren't these reports on the other new stations? I'm a little skeptical about getting my data from those sites.
[/quote]

I'm sorry to hear your skeptical to hear reports from a credible news source ( http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...sp?story=432201 ) ok how about the sydney morning herald, they're a credible news source; Napalm by another name: Pentagon denial goes up in flames I would think germany's monitor tv show is fairly credible (if you speak german: http://www.wdr.de/tv/monitor/real.phtml?bid=513&sid=100 ) and the article at infoclearinghouse.info is the transcript of that show. from news24.com;[quote]Washington - US forces used napalm-like MK-77 firebombs against Iraqi forces in their drive toward Baghdad last spring, a Pentagon official confirmed on Thursday, defending their use as legal and necessary. [/quote] (US used napalm-like bombs (note these bombs were kerosene based and not petrol (gas) based. they have the same effect though. a rose by any other name...) and from namibian.com.na;

[quote]WASHINGTON - US forces used napalm-like MK-77 firebombs against Iraqi forces in their drive toward Baghdad last spring, a Pentagon official confirmed yesterday, defending their use as legal and necessary.---
US Marine Corps jets dropped the firebombs at least once in March to take out Iraqi positions at the town of Safwan just across the Kuwait border from the US-led invasion force, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
[/quote]( US used napalm-like firebombs during Iraq invasion - Pentagon )
and the second page of google search for US used napalm in Iraq" with many more reports. it was all over international news, you really should use more the cnn, msnbc, and foxnews for your info.

[quote]Bush used the same intelligence that Clinton used in 1998. (Why can't you people get that through your heads). By the way, at last count, which was July, AP said 3000
[/quote]

then he is incompetent for relying on 4-5 year old intel to start a war, why can't you get THAT through your head? truth about the civilian body count is that there are no absolute numbers. as this war was illegal, bush is responsible for every civilian death, whether only 1 or 1,000,000, murder is murder! according to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ the minimum dead is 6131 maximum 7849 (oh and so you know, here is how IBC.net gets their numbers though the number is really irrelevant, as bush committed murder.

about you article: got something a LITTLE more recent? like lets say June 5, 2003? (click the date) [quote] (from that article) Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix warned Thursday against jumping to the conclusion that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction just because there is a long list of outstanding questions about its weapons program.
[/quote]
or how about
[quote]September 17, 2003(two days ago- click the date) [/quote]IRAQ had probably got rid of its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) 10 years ago but Saddam Hussein pretended otherwise to deter any attack, formed UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said today.

[quote]"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed all almost of what they had in the summer of 1993," Blix told Australian national radio.[/quote]

I notice you didn't address the criminal conspiracy charge, and only reinforced my imcompetance charge (by saying he relyed on OLD info to start a war)
it is time we impeach the criminals bush, and cheny. there is no reason NOT to and these men do not deserve to run this country anymore.

re-edited to add:
[quote]Note to self--judicious use of spell check is often a good thing (Three down)[/quote]first, HOBBES, personal attacks are not conductive of constructive debate

on to your other points:
[quote]Under exactly what circumstances is war ever legal? Isn't it really brought about because legal and other means have failed to resolve an issue? And, of course, we're ignoring the fact that all due process was followed and the war was appropriately approved by Congress.(One down)
[/quote]

when another country attacks you, and it is in self defense, (according to the UN charter) war is legal. as I pointed out to CP above: Before being permitted to use force, the President was required to determine that further diplomatic efforts alone would not satisfactorily protect the United States or ensure Iraq's compliance with UNSC resolutions. it was obvious to anyone not pushing for war that diplomatic efforts WERE working. Saddam was destroying his "illegal" missiles (they were legal with a warhead and such) and there was every indication that Saddam didn't have any WMDs. (the basis of the threat to america.) therefore the congressional approval was NOT in effect.

[quote]You'd prefer we did it lackadaisically?[/quote]

I'd perfer we did in DEFENSIVLY. this was a war of agression, but you knew what I meant, don't you?

[quote]As noted above, the war is clearly not illegal. This defeats both premises here [/quote]

actually, your wrong. this war was CLEARLY illegal. (and you demonstrated nothing more then OPINION) as I demonstrated with Wikipedia the war resolution was NOT in effect. bush failed to prove signifcantly that diplomatic efforts wouldn't have worked (and indeed they were) and 2 days ago blix stated that he believed tha Iraq had destroyed it WMD TEN YEARS ago! (Iraq arms went 10 years ago: Blix (dated sept. 17, 2003)

[quote]Practically every source on earth agreed that Iraq did indeed have WMD. The pre-war debate centered on whether there was likely cause to believe they would be used against the United States. [/quote]

do you have SOURCES for this statement, or are you listening to pixies? from what I remember blix warned warned Thursday (july 5, 2003) against jumping to the conclusion that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction just because there is a long list of outstanding questions about its weapons program. (he should know he was head inspector) france seemed to dispute that Iraq had WMD, as did germeny, russia, and our own defense intelligence aganecy!! [quote]http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/press/intell.htm - In October 2002, a classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared jointly by U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons. But one month later, the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a report stating that there was "no reliable information" showing that Iraq was actually producing or stockpiling chemical weapons, U.S. News has learned. [/quote]

[quote]So, by your logic, I assume that you're stating that no threat against the US should ever be dealt with if there is at least 1 entity that disputes available information. That sounds very reassuring.... [/quote]

the fallacy of this argument is two fold. first: THERE WAS NO THREAT TO AMERICA!! their longest range missile was hardly capable of reaching israel, let alone america!! the only "threat" was their fleet of UAVs. oh wait, they only had one and it was made mostly of duct tape and rope. and second: france, germany, russia, our DIA, and many others indicated that there were no WMD. there were QEUSTIONS about them, but blix and his teams were trying to solve them. and now blix is saying it is likly the WMDs were destroyed years ago. 1 entity
INDEED

I'M felling genorous, I will give you bushies the napalm thing as it wasn't TECHNICALLY nalpalm (it was made with kerosene, not gasoline)

re-re edited to fix width problem. also, I am again having problems with my quote boxes mot showing up.
edited by quarkhead to fix quotes

Though Your patronizing is greatly obvious and debatably insulting, I think you should stick to allowing me to discuss the impeachment possibilities of Bush in any way I see fit (including sarcastic irony) rather than question anyones posting style.