MrRain422 Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Well, what is to be gained from impeaching Bush? Personally I feel that not having a war criminal holding our highest office is a significant gain. are you kidding me? a prosecutor with indictable evidence moves. that is just plain silly. and the political angle would be uncalculable. cite ANY credible evidence that an indictment against Bush has been stymied by political pressure. Bush has stacked the Department of Justice with people who are loyal to him. What prosecutor are you speaking of here? Mukasey? Or Gonzalez before him? Anyone who would prosecute would lose their job, simple as that. There is no independent counsel right now. The other option would be through the House of Representatives, but Pelosi has stated explicitly that impeachment is off the table because she thinks it would hurt Democrats. The list of credible evidence against the Bush Administration, from the Red Cross report on torture, to the Downing Street memos and beyond, is astounding. Anyone who thinks there is no credible evidence either hasn't paid attention, or assumes that the media is doing their job and is accurately reporting the evidence. Link to post Share on other sites
Party @ the Moontower Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Get on it Sal. No Chubby's though, my belly still hurts. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Personally I feel that not having a war criminal holding our highest office is a significant gain. We've done this debate before, but it could probably be argued that damn near every President we've ever had could be a war criminal. We've done a lot of shitty stuff as a country. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 That's a bit of an exaggeration. Not all presidents have been war criminals, though certainly Bush isn't the first. But just because others have doesn't mean that Bush's crimes haven't been worse, and it also doesn't mean it was okay that others got away with it. I just don't buy the excuse that others doing it before, especially long ago, makes it acceptable now. And that's not even getting into Bush's many crimes that aren't related to war. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Well, it's sort of an ends justifying the means situation. Bush's ends sucked, so the means suck. Lincoln's (To name one of many) ends were cool, so his means were cool. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 That's a huge stretch and you know it. I don't recall Lincoln torturing anyone or committing criminal conspiracy. He did do some things that were outside the law, but citing extraordinary circumstances, consulting Congress. Bush said that Congress is meaningless and he can do whatever he want. He refuses to even acknowledge any limits to his power. The Lincoln comparisons is one of the most insane Republican talking points that have somehow gotten swallowed up by the mainstream. Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 We've done this debate before, but it could probably be argued that damn near every President we've ever had could be a war criminal. We've done a lot of shitty stuff as a country. So we should not only continue to do shitty stuff, we should do with the the utmost disrespect of the laws that govern our country? We should do this on all levels. Yes, the AG's office was full of patsies to overlook illegal acts among the hiring of employees throughout the central gov't. I just can't wait until they get Karl Rove's dumbass on the stand. They've failed in the past and I fear this situation with the AG will be swept under the rug due to the concentration on the election. Link to post Share on other sites
ShuckOwens Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Liberating millions of Iraqis? I think you have that backwards. We have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaced millions more. And for what? Saddam was our ally up until the day he invaded Kuwait. It is all about the oil and Bush's machismo. We also violated International law. Oh yeah, is President Moron still looking for Osama or does that take too much work?Our troops have gunned down and bombed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, or purposely put innocent bystanders in deadly harm's way? Proof please. BTW, proof does not constitute a lyric from a Green Day song. Link to post Share on other sites
Party @ the Moontower Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 We've done this debate before, but it could probably be argued that damn near every President we've ever had could be a war criminal. We've done a lot of shitty stuff as a country. OMG... Link to post Share on other sites
ShuckOwens Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Torture is a crime. So is conspiracy. So is contempt of Congress. So is lying to start a war. So is spying on Americans without a warrant. So is extraordinary rendition. So is preemptive war. So is destruction of White House records. etc Proof please. Lying about lying = lying. Link to post Share on other sites
Party @ the Moontower Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Proof please. Lying about lying = lying. OMG...night people.It's getting silly in here now. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 OMG... I mean, it's true. We've always had a view that the ends justify the means. We just went too far. Link to post Share on other sites
ShuckOwens Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Newsflash: he ain't on the ticket. Keep up. Oh, until the Enquirer proves me wrong, he is still married to his wife.Did I say that John Edwards is on the ticket? No. All I did was put up a picture when someone was claiming that scumbag politicians were exclusively Republicans. Link to post Share on other sites
ShuckOwens Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 OMG...night people.It's getting silly in here now.Proof is silly? Now that is scary. Link to post Share on other sites
Central Scrutinizer Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 McCain married the money. Maybe he was just trying to ketchup. Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Proof is silly? Now that is scary.no, your disingenuousness is silly. at least i hope that's what it is. if not, then i suggest you get your debate club team on the case, because it sounds like you've been on a serious vacation for a while. in the meantime, there's a baseball game to finish watching in my living room. good luck to you. Link to post Share on other sites
Party @ the Moontower Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Proof is silly? Now that is scary. dude google it.I don't have the energy or see the need in 2008 to argue the war in Iraq. Everyone knows it's for power and oil and has nothing to do with the safety of this country. Bush lied. Warning, very graphic.http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html#IRAQWARPIX Link to post Share on other sites
Central Scrutinizer Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 One guy lied under oath, that's why he was impeached. Whether George Bush broke the law is mostly a matter of opinion and would be pretty hard to prove.I don't think it would be hard to prove, but I think it would be messy and far more counter productive than holding Bush's -- or more likely Chaney's -- feet to the fire. Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 This thread is neither fun nor interesting to read anymore. Let's elevate the discourse a little bit, please? Link to post Share on other sites
Central Scrutinizer Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 are you kidding me? a prosecutor with indictable evidence moves. that is just plain silly. and the political angle would be uncalculable. cite ANY credible evidence that an indictment against Bush has been stymied by political pressure.Kucinich brought a resolution before Congress and the Dems told him to sit on it. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Kucinich is one of the few people on either side that I like. Link to post Share on other sites
ShuckOwens Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 dude google it.I don't have the energy or see the need in 2008 to argue the war in Iraq. Everyone knows it's for power and oil and has nothing to do with the safety of this country. Bush lied. Warning, very graphic.http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html#IRAQWARPIXWow. I googled "Bush lied", and landed on a streaming moive called "Loose Change". Shall I believe it first, and seek proof later? The power and oil schtick is your opinion. Bush lied... this is a statement that requires proof to become fact. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Lie is a difficult word to prove. Link to post Share on other sites
Party @ the Moontower Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Kucinich is one of the few people on either side that I like. Finally, something we agree on! What a dude.Him, not you . I loved how they tryed to hassle him on his wife's tongue-ring. As an organic chick I dig his stance on organic farming.I loathe factory farming and he supports local and organic farming. He is one of the only vegans in congress.I'm not a vegan, I do eat local organic meats, but I'm on board with his thinking on animal rights. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Wow. I googled "Bush lied", and landed on a streaming moive called "Loose Change". Shall I believe it first, and seek proof later? The power and oil schtick is your opinion. Bush lied... this is a statement that requires proof to become fact. Your search for the truth could start here: and then move on to here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/08/08/suskind/ Oh, and Knight Ridder did a fantastic job reporting the events leading up to the war, casting much doubt on the admin's justifications. The fact that virtually every justification for the war turned out to be false, should, in and of itself cast a great deal of doubt on the Admin's claims. There's tons and tons of great reporting out there, you just have to dig a little, now, go buy your own damn shovel. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts