This whole Presidency and it's failure couldn't be any clearer if it was written in braille by someone speaking Swahili. I have always questioned the logic and motives of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the sanity of Ashcroft from the early days. The real difficulty of this is that a lot of the world didn't like US politics or economic interests ****** on them, and now are uniting because they like US politics even less because of these guys and their special interests.
Should Bush and Cheney be Impeached?
- Thread starter negator
- Start date
They are non-politician politicians.No tact, no smooth talking,no smart dimplomacy.Everyone thinks we are a bunch of heavy handed short sighted buffons who think things are as simple as good vs evil and were right and anyone who disagrees is the enemy or un-important.Hopefully the next group of people in govt will have some political skills and can get to repairing all this damage
Putin says wtf you need to put new missles in countries that border me for.He see's how we conduct foreign policy.I love the way we spoke to pakistan when were gearing up for Afghanistan.Richard Armitage(one of the Plame leakers btw) gave the message personally to Musharef the pakistani leader."Your eitheir with us or your country will be back to the stone age".It's the old make em an offer he can't refuse diplomacy lol.
100% of NATO member countries want missile defense in Europe ...
But as we've repeatedly covered ... every single NATO nation is FOR their deployment!
It's 0% about Bush, as Clinton and every President (even Carter to a point) helped fund the same programs and technology being deployed as well.
Why oh why do we re-cover this?
In fact, why don't we just destroy our B-2s while we're at it?
I mean, the B-2 is an offensive weapon designed for a PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE!
No, that's because it's 100% about politics, 0% about technical facts and reality.
And as long as the people are ignorant of the fact that the system is 100% defensive and upsets MAD 0%, it can be used for political capital.
At the same time, NATO will deploy it, and are even talking about "gaps" in the US system that they want to plug as well.
You don't develop a 100% defensive capability and then don't deploy it.
Not with Patriot or prior systems and not certainly with PAC-3, THAAD, SM3 and NMD!
Then again, we've used the same tactics before -- Clinton, Reagan, others, etc... even Carter!
You continue to demonize things about the Bush administration that are not unique to the Bush administration.
Short-term memories?
No, he says more than that.
But as we've repeatedly covered ... every single NATO nation is FOR their deployment!
It's 0% about Bush, as Clinton and every President (even Carter to a point) helped fund the same programs and technology being deployed as well.
Why oh why do we re-cover this?
In fact, why don't we just destroy our B-2s while we're at it?
I mean, the B-2 is an offensive weapon designed for a PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE!
No, that's because it's 100% about politics, 0% about technical facts and reality.
And as long as the people are ignorant of the fact that the system is 100% defensive and upsets MAD 0%, it can be used for political capital.
At the same time, NATO will deploy it, and are even talking about "gaps" in the US system that they want to plug as well.
You don't develop a 100% defensive capability and then don't deploy it.
Not with Patriot or prior systems and not certainly with PAC-3, THAAD, SM3 and NMD!
Which is an alleged, unconfirmed remark.
Then again, we've used the same tactics before -- Clinton, Reagan, others, etc... even Carter!
You continue to demonize things about the Bush administration that are not unique to the Bush administration.
Short-term memories?
why do you always clinton bash as a response to bush bashing professor?
while I do agree that clinton both sucked, and that the (american) people are pretty ignorant of history and politics, I fail to see how that is really any context to the situation at hand. Just because there is someone that is bad, just as bad, or worse, doesn't excuse the misdeeds and bad actions of anyone else.
while I do agree that clinton both sucked, and that the (american) people are pretty ignorant of history and politics, I fail to see how that is really any context to the situation at hand. Just because there is someone that is bad, just as bad, or worse, doesn't excuse the misdeeds and bad actions of anyone else.
The ultimate irony ...
I don't think it really has a lot to do with the incompetence of the Presidency, but whether the Presidency gives the approval.
In fact, that's really the history of the United States -- a civilian leader either giving or not giving approval to various, military proposal.
Clinton chose wisely in a sense.
Bush chose poorly in a sense.
Then again it is rare any 2 term President doesn't see a radical change in his own party by the 6th year, if not in his first 2 years to begin with.
And by the end of his 7th year, his own party disowns him prior to the elections -- even happened to Clinton as most distances themselves from him too.
Republicans are favorited by those with high school diplomas to college graduate and possibly some post-grad.
It's really about high income (very high discretionary - Democrats) and little income (no discretionary - Democrats) versus moderate income (little to moderate discretionary - Republican).
The exit polls have continually shown this every election since 1992, which was the first election I voted in and started to watch such.
The ultimate irony is that the exact same strategy implemented was developed under the Clinton administration for the planned 1998 invasion.
I don't think it really has a lot to do with the incompetence of the Presidency, but whether the Presidency gives the approval.
In fact, that's really the history of the United States -- a civilian leader either giving or not giving approval to various, military proposal.
Clinton chose wisely in a sense.
Bush chose poorly in a sense.
More interesting has been how even Congress' approval ratings have slipped even after the Democrats came to power.
Then again it is rare any 2 term President doesn't see a radical change in his own party by the 6th year, if not in his first 2 years to begin with.
And by the end of his 7th year, his own party disowns him prior to the elections -- even happened to Clinton as most distances themselves from him too.
Actually exit polls always show Democrats favored by those with terminal education levels (e.g., PhD) as well as no high school/GED completion.
Republicans are favorited by those with high school diplomas to college graduate and possibly some post-grad.
It's really about high income (very high discretionary - Democrats) and little income (no discretionary - Democrats) versus moderate income (little to moderate discretionary - Republican).
The exit polls have continually shown this every election since 1992, which was the first election I voted in and started to watch such.
I'm not "Clinton bashing" any more than I'm "Reagan bashing" or "Carter bashing" and so forth.
I'm just pointing out that this has happened before!
Dozens upon dozens of DOJ firings, including during Whitewater, over 140 pardons, etc...
People act like this is "*******" yet it is every right of the Executive branch executed by those before W.!
Short-term memory.
I watched the Hillary "chat" all those years ago -- I was wondering when she would just take the 5th and get it over with.
true, but we weren't surfing porn and talking politics on freeones back then.
Speak for yourself!
I was on the UseNet back in 1989, before I could even vote!
And I was on in 1992, a couple of years before the Internet, when I could.
Porn as free, rampant and even less protected, copyright-wise, on the UseNet.
I was also a good friend with a House page from high school through early college.
I got fed a lot of info, so nothing shocks me from what I see in the media.
If anything, it tells me our system -- despite its inefficiencies -- actually works.
Right down to the irresponsible media.
Huh? Speak for yourself!
I was on the UseNet back in 1989, before I could even vote!
And I was on in 1992, a couple of years before the Internet, when I could.
Porn as free, rampant and even less protected, copyright-wise, on the UseNet.
I was also a good friend with a House page from high school through early college.
I got fed a lot of info, so nothing shocks me from what I see in the media.
If anything, it tells me our system -- despite its inefficiencies -- actually works.
Right down to the irresponsible media.
I'm looking more at the social trends, than the actual political details, so don't mind being corrected on that with another opinion. I think there is little faith in government at all on any level because it does not represent the average person. While saying that, I don't know if the average person's value system is what I would want in effect anyway. I think the society is a mess.
Ahh ...
There is a reason we don't have simple, majority rule, we have Amendments to the Constitution that take years and a supermajority to create (or override), etc...
I don't like W., let alone Cheney, and what he has done scares me more than Clinton any day.
But we also have our system, and it seems to be working -- but it doesn't move fast, as that is incompatible with due process.
What you're seeing between the Congress and Executive has happened before -- from George Washington on-ward
(no joke -- GW took a schlacking from the very Representatives that put him in power!)
It's not "*******" and no President will be impeached for merely interpretation, until the Supreme Court rules and then the Executive is bound by that ruling.
Due process keeps us from succumbing to the simple whims of the simple, popularist majority overnight, and destroying our nation just as fast.
No one is "right" or "wrong" -- with certainty -- without due process.
People talk about the "Constitutional Showdown" -- I'm personally looking forward to it, just like I did the 2000 election, the Ten Commandments rulings, etc...
Now you're thinking like an American who knows his civics.
There is a reason we don't have simple, majority rule, we have Amendments to the Constitution that take years and a supermajority to create (or override), etc...
I don't like W., let alone Cheney, and what he has done scares me more than Clinton any day.
But we also have our system, and it seems to be working -- but it doesn't move fast, as that is incompatible with due process.
What you're seeing between the Congress and Executive has happened before -- from George Washington on-ward
(no joke -- GW took a schlacking from the very Representatives that put him in power!)
It's not "*******" and no President will be impeached for merely interpretation, until the Supreme Court rules and then the Executive is bound by that ruling.
Due process keeps us from succumbing to the simple whims of the simple, popularist majority overnight, and destroying our nation just as fast.
No one is "right" or "wrong" -- with certainty -- without due process.
People talk about the "Constitutional Showdown" -- I'm personally looking forward to it, just like I did the 2000 election, the Ten Commandments rulings, etc...
Okay... in a press conference, Bush was asked about Tribal Sovereignty, and how it applies to the 21st Century, and Bush had no clue what the fuck Tribal Sovereignty even meant; he just rehashed the question in the same words, never even beginning to answer the question... is that enough of a reason to impeach his ass???
I'll counter ...
If you know it without looking it up, then you're point is taken.
If you don't, then maybe Americans should look at themselves first.
I'll counter ... define impeachment, the terms and the proceedings.
If you know it without looking it up, then you're point is taken.
If you don't, then maybe Americans should look at themselves first.
You just can't impeach someone on ground of what you think is ignorance. Hey I don't like Bush or what his administration has done, but we need to to allow reason to guide our decisions and nor our emotions. I mean what's next? lets lit up some torches and go after Frankenstein? This is what all these call for impeachment sounds like to me. If you are so mad at him, then wait for him to finish his term, walk right out in front of his car, get hit by it and sue him then. Is like the prof has said before due process can take a while in this country but something will happen, hidding the truth sometimes is harder that covering it up with lies after lies, eventually the **** will hit the fan. Next time you vote, look for the quality and dedication for thsi country of the candidates and not their moral values, do a better background check for these individuals and hopefully we will have a transparent White House one that respects and follows the Constitution and answers to 'we the people"
Just to **** of liberals around here, I voted no. Like the guys from South Park once said "I **** conservatives, but I fucking **** liberals" 
Just to **** of liberals around here, I voted no. Like the guys from South Park once said "I **** conservatives, but I fucking **** liberals"
I like independents who aren't wrapped up in this quota of how they are supposed to act. Conservatives and liberals are all a bunch of douche-bags if you ask me.
You know who I like....Ron Paul. This guy - if elected President - would turn America neutral in world politics. He would focus on the domestic front and get us out of the global mess of things. I sure wish he would win, but it's so unlikely.
Never say never. People laughed about Lincoln. People made fun of Reagan's nomination.
They all ate crow.
The country is fed up and frustrated.
The time is ripe for change.
Hell, I broke a promise I made to myself years ago: I registered to vote as a Republican just so I can vote for Paul.
Strike, while the iron is hot. Us old fogey's can only advocate - but we depend on young shoulders like you out there to keep the torch of liberty shining bright.
cheers,
Similar threads
