here is proof that the president lied and had evidence fixed with the help of the british to go to war in the "after downing street memo" which was printed in the [b]times of london [/b]please look at this site and sign the petition for impeachment here is the story about the memo and the reasons for impeachment

[url]http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/[/url]

MEMORANDUM To: Rep. John Conyers, Jr. From: John C. Bonifaz Date: May 23, 2005 RE: The President?s Impeachable Offenses

The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: ?The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.?

READ MORE In light of the emergence of the Downing Street Memo, Members of Congress should introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States.

The Downing Street Memo

On May 1, 2005, The Sunday Times of London published the Downing Street Memo. The document, marked ?Secret and strictly personal ? UK eyes only,? consists of the official minutes of a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then-director of Britain?s CIA equivalent, MI-6, to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials. Dearlove, having just returned from meetings with high U.S. Government officials in Washington, reported to Blair and members of his Cabinet on the Bush administration?s plans to start a preemptive war against Iraq.

The briefing occurred on July 23, 2002, months before President Bush submitted his resolution on Iraq to the United States Congress and months before Bush and Blair asked the United Nations to resume its inspections for alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The document reveals that, by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by launching a war which, Dearlove reports, would be ?justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction].? Dearlove continues: ?But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.? Dearlove also states that ?[t]here was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.?

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw states that ?[i]t seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.? ?But,? he continues, ?the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, and Iran.?

British officials do not dispute the document?s authenticity, and, on May 6, 2005, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported that ?[a] former senior U.S. official called [the document] ?an absolutely accurate description of what transpired? during the senior British intelligence officer?s visit to Washington.? ?Memo: Bush made intel fit Iraq policy,? The State, Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 6, 2005.

Why a Resolution of Inquiry is Justified

On May 5, 2005, you and 88 other Members of Congress submitted a letter to President Bush, asking the President to answer several questions arising from the Downing Street Memo. On May 17, 2005, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that the White House saw ?no need? to respond to the letter. ?British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics,? The New York Times, May 20, 2005, A8.

The Framers of the United States Constitution drafted Article II, Section 4 to ensure that the people of the United States, through their representatives in the United States Congress, could hold a President accountable for an abuse of power and an abuse of the public trust. James Madison, speaking at Virginia?s ratification convention stated: ?A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.? James Iredell, who later became a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, stated at North Carolina?s ratification convention:

The President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, - in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him.

On July 25, 1974, then-Representative Barbara Jordan spoke to her colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee of the constitutional basis for impeachment. ?The powers relating to impeachment,? Jordan said, ?are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the Executive.? Impeachment, she added,

is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to ?bridle? the Executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. The framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the Executive.

The question must now be asked, with the release of the Downing Street Memo, whether the President has committed impeachable offenses. Is it a High Crime to engage in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for taking the nation into war? Is it a High Crime to manipulate intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States as a means of trying to justify a war against another nation based on ?preemptive? purposes? Is it a High Crime to commit a felony via the submission of an official report to the United States Congress falsifying the reasons for launching military action?

In his book Worse Than Watergate (Little, Brown and Company-NY, 2004), John W. Dean writes that ?the evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense.? Id. at 155. Dean focuses, in particular, on a formal letter and report which the President submitted to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to ?protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq...? Dean states that the report accompanying the letter ?is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president?s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law.? Worse Than Watergate at 148.

If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo is true, then the President?s submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. ? 371, which makes it a felony ?to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose...?; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. ? 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.

The United States House of Representatives has a constitutional duty to investigate fully and comprehensively the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo and other related evidence and to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States. A Resolution of Inquiry is the appropriate first step in launching this investigation.

The following is suggested language for this resolution:

Directing the Committee on the Judiciary to undertake an inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States.

Whereas considerable evidence has emerged that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people as to the basis for taking the nation into war against Iraq, that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has manipulated intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States by Iraq, and that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has committed a felony by submitting a false report to the United States Congress on the reasons for launching a first-strike invasion of Iraq: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is directed to investigate and report to the House of Representatives whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States. Upon completion of such investigation, that Committee shall report thereto, including, if the Committee so determines, articles of impeachment.

Conclusion

The Iraq war has led to the deaths of more than 1,600 United States soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Thousands more have been permanently and severely injured on both sides. More than two years after the invasion, Iraq remains unstable and its future unclear. The war has already cost the American people tens of billions of taxpayer dollars at the expense of basic human needs here at home. More than 135,000 U.S. soldiers remain in Iraq without any stated exit plan.

If the President has committed High Crimes in connection with this war, he must be held accountable. The United States Constitution demands no less.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

The case for impeachment will be built over the next year. There is more than ample evidence that all of the senior administration officials lied about everything in the leadup to war.

Once there are enough votes in the House to pass articles of impeachment, rest assured that it will happen. I cant wait!

I hope that these maniacs dont invade Iran or Syria in the interim.

If it just so happens that Bush gets impeached, who would take over?

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

everyone knows that the president lied to start his war, and no one has done anything about it. we knew BEFORE he got re-elected. what makes us think people will just decide to impeach him now? what's the point? the damage has been done.

million to one he doesn't get impeached. not even censured.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

its never gonna happen. but you have to admit, 2 in a row for impeachment trials doesnt make me feel even remotely happy about the gov't.

i actually find it funny watching the far left trying to hang on for one last glimmer of hope. they are so desperate to take down bush they ignore what they should really be doing....rebuilding thier party which is even worse off than it was the day after the election. even i thought Dean was a good choice, but he is actually ripping the party in half. a lot of the party have a big problem with what he says and where he wants to go. and what's even more funny in a sadistic way, and quite sad as well, is that the far right feels what they are doing is correct. god they all need to be locked in a room for a few months without press so maybe they can actually accomplish something.

the only thing i say about it is, why the fuck cant everyone get over it. we are stuck with the guy, why distract the man from what he already does half assed. i hate all the conspiritists and extremeists from both sides. instead of whining about him, work on a solution to get around the guy, and focus on next term. one other thing, the lying about WMD..... does anyone realize that we gave the baath party over 3 months to move things. think long and hard with out breaking a blood vessel about how long he booted out the inspectors and moved things around. the WMD's [b]were[/b] there before the invasion, but in an attempt to cover his ass, he moved em. its not that hard to move shit in a truck and send it off to a neighboring region that cant control its borders.

[quote=MJDub]If it just so happens that Bush gets impeached, who would take over?[/quote]

Some of these names have changed, like John Ashcroft, etc...

Here is the Presidential line of succession, as specified by 3 USC 19 (and the current officer holder):

1. Vice President (Richard B. Cheney)
2. Speaker of the House of Representatives (Dennis Hastert)
3. President pro tempore of the Senate (Ted Stevens)
4. Secretary of State (Condi Rice)
5. Secretary of the Treasury (John W. Snow)
6. Secretary of Defense (Donald H. Rumsfeld)
7. Attorney General (John Ashcroft)
8. Secretary of the Interior (Gale Norton)
9. Secretary of Agriculture (Ann M. Veneman)
10. Secretary of Commerce (Donald L. Evans)
11. Secretary of Labor (Elaine L. Chao, ineligible)
12. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Tommy G. Thompson)
13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (vacant)
14. Secretary of Transportation (Norman Yoshio Mineta)
15. Secretary of Energy (Spencer Abraham)
16. Secretary of Education (Roderick Paige)
17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Anthony J. Principi)
18. Secretary of Homeland Security (Tom Ridge)

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=thesightless]its never gonna happen. but you have to admit, 2 in a row for impeachment trials doesnt make me feel even remotely happy about the gov't.

i actually find it funny watching the far left trying to hang on for one last glimmer of hope. they are so desperate to take down bush they ignore what they should really be doing....rebuilding thier party which is even worse off than it was the day after the election. even i thought Dean was a good choice, but he is actually ripping the party in half. a lot of the party have a big problem with what he says and where he wants to go. and what's even more funny in a sadistic way, and quite sad as well, is that the far right feels what they are doing is correct. god they all need to be locked in a room for a few months without press so maybe they can actually accomplish something.

the only thing i say about it is, why the fuck cant everyone get over it. we are stuck with the guy, why distract the man from what he already does half assed. i hate all the conspiritists and extremeists from both sides. instead of whining about him, work on a solution to get around the guy, and focus on next term. one other thing, the lying about WMD..... does anyone realize that we gave the baath party over 3 months to move things. think long and hard with out breaking a blood vessel about how long he booted out the inspectors and moved things around. the WMD's [b]were[/b] there before the invasion, but in an attempt to cover his ass, he moved em. its not that hard to move shit in a truck and send it off to a neighboring region that cant control its borders.[/quote]

This is wrong on almost every point.

1. The "far left" is not desperate to "take down Bush". In fact AP/Ipsos poll this morning says that 55% of the US feels that Bush is doing a poor job, and that the country is heading in the wrong direction. 57% feel that the Iraq war was a mistake. How is this a "far left opinion?

2. The democrats are doing a great job of FIGHTING BACK. Howard Dean won the office of DNC chair with overwhelming support. He is the first democrat to stand up for the truth in years. Since 82% of the GOP considers themselves "white and christian", why is it wrong to point it out?

3. If this party is being "torn apart", why did Harry Reid and Richard Durbin invite reporters to their monthly meeting yesterday, where they pledged public support for Dean. The people making noise about Dean and the democrats falling apart are, for the most part, republicans or republican owned media; MSNBC, Fox, CNN, NBC, etc...

4. If you think for a minute that our satellites didnt see the Baath party "moving WMD's" in the 3 months before the war, you are totally delusional. Also Saddaam didnt "kick out" the inspector, Bush Did! He gave them time to leave before we attacked. Further, when the US and UN had inspectors in Iraq they found absolutely nothing. Moving "stockpiles" of WMD with satellites and inspectors in country would be extremely difficult.

5. The final report from the US government about WMD, called the Duelfer Report concluded that Iraq "had no program to develop or use WMD past 1991". Period.

The bottom line is that Clinton had articles of impeachment drafted against him for lying about sex with an intern, while Bush has clearly lied about WMD's and every other thing, which has cost this country over 1700 lives and $300 BILLION.

The sooner you start questioning what you see on TV news, the better informed you will be.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote]. Howard Dean won the office of DNC chair with overwhelming support[/quote]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGG!!!

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

1. i agree with eye here. it's not about "giving up" or "holding on" or trying to get bush because dems are bitter. it's about doing the right thing.

2. it would be ironic if bush were to be impeached, considering he just got reelected for a second term. he deserves it, but do most people realize it? who knows...

the first president to take us to war and still try to cut taxes. my hero! :oops:

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=face]it's about doing the right thing. [/quote]

Like it's the right thing to go after some despot dictator who was responsible for ten of thousands, if not more, deaths, who had a string of Security council resolutions against him to ensure he was disarmed, who hampered those investigations into checking his weapon capabilities for 12 years breaking the agreement which ended the gulf war.

It amazes me how so many of you forget who this man was and what he did, and the fact that Sadaam was a constant threat to world security. It amazes me almost as much as the inaction and appeasment of the UN at the time.

Say what you like about Bush, and Blair, going into Iraq was the best thing either of them have done for this planet. Its a shame that some of you cant see it.

The possibility of Bush being impeached for doing this is almost as insane as impeaching Clinton.

For a country that is striving to bring democracy to the middle east is it not a joke that this whole process of impeachment, leading to the possible remove of a President, is the least democratic thing you can do? In a democracy should the ballot box not do the talking?

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

Well then is it OK that Bush lied?

By your logic, the US should invade Isreal; after all, Israel is currently in violation of 68 UN resolutions. Thats right, 68.

How about Sudan, or Darfur?

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

saddam was only a threat to his own people and nominally to israel. that's about it.

if being a threat to your own people is grounds for invasion, there are dozens of countries--some with and some without oil--that we could "democratize."

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=eye-p]Well then is it OK that Bush lied?

By your logic, the US should invade Isreal; after all, Israel is currently in violation of 68 UN resolutions. Thats right, 68.

How about Sudan, or Darfur?[/quote]

We're not talking about Israel here because the nature of the resolutions were/are different. If you dont believe me look at the difference between Chapter VI and Chapter VII resolutions.

Israel has not started wars with its neighbours, or invaded other countries. There is a clear difference between Iraqi aggression and occupation of Kuwait and Israels wars of self defence.

At the end of the first Gulf War Iraq had to open itself up to the UN to ensure that any programs of WMD were not only halted but any such weapons were also destroyed. For more then a decade he failed to do this.

Now if you want to ask did he have weapons. . . . well thats open to opinion and fact i guess. My hunch is that most of WMD were nothing more than fabrications, but by hindering the search for them he defacto caused this war, which in my opinion should have probably happened four or five years earlier.

As for whether its OK if Bush lied or not. . . well you have your own moral code, you decide. But remember, when we elect our politicans, we the people, know that the majority of them will at some stage or another be economical with the truth. Thats the greater injustice here, that politicans don't respect the electorate enough to be truthful with them. . . but I guess if they did then many of them would be out of work next time round.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

The nature of the resolutions are not the issue. I personally think the issue is that Israel is still in possession of WMD's, with tacit approval of the US.

While I am well aware of Israel's difficult position in the ME, as a country they must share in some of the blame. This is today more true than ever before. Sharon's hard line stance is making an already difficult situation virtually impossible.

Also, to say that Israel has not invaded any country is absurd. What is the West Bank? How about invading Egypt in 1967?

Now, with regards to Iraq's WMD's...this is not, "open to opinion and fact I guess". This is open to nothing. I have more WMD's than Iraq did. We invaded a country that was no threat to anyone. And now, we are losing our citizens at an alarming rate. This says nothing of the Iraqi citizens, whose death toll is estimated to be between 15,000 and 100,000.

And lets remember, we sold Iraq every bit of WMD's they ever had. We gave the OK for Saadam to gas the Kurds- hell we told him where to strike! We gave them satellite images!

Those are citizen fatalities. You, me, citizen.

This needs to stop, and people need to be accountable. Period.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=eye-p]The nature of the resolutions are not the issue. I personally think the issue is that Israel is still in possession of WMD's, with tacit approval of the US.[/quote]

Wrong my friend the nature of the resolution are essential.

Chapter VI resolutions are implemented through a process of negotiation, conciliation, or arbitration between the parties to a dispute whilst Chapter VII resolutions deal with threats to Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression; with regard to Iraq the UN Security Council adopted all its resolutions against Iraq under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The implementation of those resolutions was not contingent on Iraqi-Kuwaiti negotiations, for Iraq engaged in a clear-cut act of aggression. Moreover, UN resolutions on Iraq are self-enforcing, requiring Iraq alone to comply with their terms. However, the UN recognized, under Article 42 of the UN Charter, the need for special military measures to be taken if a Chapter VII resolution is ignored by an aggressor.

[quote=eye-p]While I am well aware of Israel's difficult position in the ME, as a country they must share in some of the blame. This is today more true than ever before. Sharon's hard line stance is making an already difficult situation virtually impossible. [/quote]

Don't get me wrong, there are many things i blame my country for (look through some of my previous posts on the subject), but unlike many people I firmly believe that both sides in our conflict have a lot to answer too, and after 38 years its insane to just blame one party. As for Sharons hard stance, please note that the only reason we have that bloody man as our PM is because of the Intifada - more specifically remember that Barak offered the PA almost everything they demanded and instead of accepting the offer they refused and didn't even make a counter proposal (you know through negotiations), Arafat decided it would be more fruitful to send his homicide bombers back to our streets.

[quote=eye-p]Also, to say that Israel has not invaded any country is absurd. What is the West Bank? How about invading Egypt in 1967?[/quote]

Please read the history of the start of the 1967 conflict, from reliable sources. (I can supply you with some pretty neutal one should you need them.) Israel never invaded anyone in 1967. Prior to war with Egypt Israel asked, almost begged, Jordan not involve itself, their response was to bomb Jerusalem, so like any nation state in the same position Israel defended itself. The West Bank, rightly or wrongly, became spoils of war.

[quote=eye-p]Now, with regards to Iraq's WMD's...this is not, "open to opinion and fact I guess". This is open to nothing. I have more WMD's than Iraq did. We invaded a country that was no threat to anyone. And now, we are losing our citizens at an alarming rate. This says nothing of the Iraqi citizens, whose death toll is estimated to be between 15,000 and 100,000.[/quote]

I repeat what i said earlier, had Sadamm allowed the inspections to continue and for the relevant bodies to say categorically that there were no WMD's then there would have been no basis for the war, however, his pontification on the subject caused the conflict. If he had admitted he didn't have any, instead of hampering the inspectors at every turn, we would be in a very different situation. But his pride did not allow him to do that. Instead he claimed time and time again of his capabilities and threats to use them against the west.

If he cared one iota for his people, which we know he didn't, he would have been honest, but then he most certainly would have faced an internal revoultion.

I'm not sure what your WMD capabilities are but if you have weapons that can gas 5000 plus at a time and the missiles to launch them, as well as a history in using them against your detractors, then maybe you also need to be invaded!!!!!

[quote=eye-p]And lets remember, we sold Iraq every bit of WMD's they ever had. We gave the OK for Saadam to gas the Kurds- hell we told him where to strike! We gave them satellite images! [/quote]

The west is entierly to blame for the mess in the region, dating back to the end of the Ottoman empire and the British mandate.

[quote=eye-p]Those are citizen fatalities. You, me, citizen.

This needs to stop, and people need to be accountable. Period.[/quote]

I agree, but i'm not sure the process of impeachment is the correct way for a democracy to behave. Just my opinion. Maybe the US needs to re-visit their constitution and put the question to a referendum. If the referendum calls for impeachment proceedings to begin then obvioulsy that would be the will of the people.

Lets face it, we all know that the impeachment of Clinton was nothing more than the right wing having a go, and whether Bush's impeachment is justified or not, i worry about how the process can be abused and make a laughing stock of what is, constitutionaly anyway, a great democracy.

[b][i]edited once for really bad grammar and typos.[/i][/b]

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

I think so many of you people who have been educated to believe what you think is true is a sad case of manipulation in the worlds Socialistically based educational arena all around the world.

Educators are working harder and harder today to 'make' the mindset of our young similar to their own. Not much different than how Hitler manipulated his own people, and the communist manipulated their masses. This time it is systematic manipulation of the young toward liberalism through education.

Liberalism is an emotion based thought process, which overrides all logically based thought processes. Uncontrolled emotion always leads people in the wrong direction. Balanced thought processes are more difficult, take more time, require more effort, and always go against the grain of thought most people are willing to believe. Liberalism equals Laziness.

Why does Bush have a low rating. Because Americans are lacking memory of the past; are intellectually lazy; and are willing to follow the feeling of the moment. We have always gotten tired of important issues over time, since the changes of the 1960's. Prior to the 60's, we were a different people. Today we are too busy with our life to be bothered with research and understanding about what is happening in other cultures. Willing to follow the emotion of others, without thought for ourself, and the lack of desire to think based on FULL research of issues. All this and yet, liberalism is dieing in America. So an approach has mounted to change the mind of the young in order to keep a party and thought process alive.

Some of you who would luv to see Bush impeached are still harboring resentment for the Clinton being impeached for his lies to protect his integrity.

If you use reason, in your thought processes, and separate your desires from the discussion here, you might REMEMBER the past. I'm not going list all the issues which led up to the invasion of Iraq, you can research it if you can't remember the events. Instead my approach is in a different direction.

There were so many scenarios for the need to get Suddam out of the leadership of Iraq. The world is blessed that he is in prison, where he needs to stay. The Iraqi people tell you this everyday with their actions. Most of the Iraqi dead, were men standing in line to help defend their country. Think about it, if they did not support the changes, why do they stand in dangerous lines to apply for dangerous jobs of police and/or military work.

Why did families take children out to the streets under threat of bombings to vote? Why do the men KEEP ON standing in lines to sign up for duty?

Use 'reason' in your thought process. Try to remove your personal opinions and look at the BIG picture. The change is excellent for the entire region, and especially the Iraqi people, mainly women and children. FREEDOM from tyranny is needed in the world. Look at the people who try to stop the change. They are butchers without any care of human life, and with their own hands and a big knife cut off heads of anyone who stands in the way. I have seen and kept the videos. Have you seen the beheading of men? Do you like to place yourself on their side? That is truly what you are doing, you are siding with the enemy. People willing to cut your throat while you lie there awake and bound with a rope, on video. Then they place the removed head on the chest and video it upclose. TRUE SICKNESS, and you are siding with them because of your lack of full understanding.

Put aside your HATRED for Bush, or the conservative party, or republicans, and look deeper into the whole situation. Don't just listen to your educators, read both sides of the issues. Listen to those who will give you the other side and then make your decisions based on a full knowledge. Don't be ignorant because of your personal bias, or the bias taught to you by your friends or educators. Question some of what you read.

This change is good in Iraq, just like it has been good in Afghanistan. And in the future, could be good if it can happen in Iran. I personally know Iranians who want to see this change in their country. Well, another issue, but based on the same NEED AND DESIRE these oppressed people have for FREEDOM.

I'm not going to list all the facts for going to war with Saddam and the Islamic Western haters. But, I believe if we were not fighting this war in the middle east, we would be fighting it in the Western countries, primarily the USA.

The fight was brought to us, now we have taken it the them.

Think about it this way. If you were a father, had a daughter who was raped by a boy in a neighborhood 1 mile away. Had the knowledge of this boy raping your daughter, and this boy was threatening to rape other girls unless someone stopped him. Would you sit back and say; let some time pass, lets see IF he does it again. Of would you TAKE THE STEPS necessary to get him in court to be held responsible for the crimes, and remove the threat from your community.

Middle Eastern normal everyday people cannot make this change without our help, and they are being held hostage to the ideals of EXTREME religious views, which most of them do not hold in their hearts. They only want to live like we live, with freedom to make their own choices, and have the opportunity to make a better life for their families.

I live in a city of 4 million people. 40,000 are Iranian here, 40,000 are Russian here, 100,000 latinos here, 10,000 each of many peoples including Czech, Polish, other European. Also many African countries are represented here now. Thousands of Ethiopian, Sudanese, Indian, Middle Eastern, Albanian and Serbian. Chinese, and Korean communities are spreading quickly here. We have a huge Brazilian people group here now. I could keep on listing them. Why are they here ... they want opportunity and freedom to improve their lives.

The middle east hardly has that chance today without our help.

Review the facts please. Search for knowledge on both sides of the issue. Look at the world with a LONG TERM view, in stead of the typical 'short term view' for this season of irrational uncontrolled emotion.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=davetlv]more specifically remember that Barak offered the PA almost everything they demanded and instead of accepting the offer they refused and didn't even make a counter proposal (you know through negotiations), Arafat decided it would be more fruitful to send his homicide bombers back to our streets. [/quote]

that is complete BS and you know it. if you believe the "official" accounts of ross, indyk, malley, albright, et. al. then you might believe that. how could ross publish his memoirs with anything but the "official" truth in it? they all have to stick to their story. ross himself kept the onyl existing records of what transpired at camp david. read clayton swisher's riveting account (the truth about camp david); he was personally there, watching the whole thing from the background, and later interviewed hundreds of persons involved, including all the major players.

his conclusions: just like the failed negotiations with syria, israeli officials purposefully made arafat's team an offer they knew would never be accepted, in order to initiate a smear campaign of blame. clinton's last-ditch effort was a thinly guised attempt by ihm to receive the nobel peace prize; barak's popularity domestically was waning and he could not make any deal with the palestinians. so before you go spitting out the old rhetoric that everyone has been trained to do, look at what really happened. barak offered arafat a swiss cheese map of bantustans knowing very well that he could never accept that deal. albright and barak and other officials openly admitted they used the media and other methods to tarnish the image of the palestinians and lay all the blame on them. why the palestinians never rebutted these horrid accusations is beyond me, however. do yourself a favor: read this book.

[quote]Please read the history of the start of the 1967 conflict, from reliable sources. (I can supply you with some pretty neutal one should you need them.) Israel never invaded anyone in 1967.[/quote]

a LOT has been written about the bizarre 1967 six-day war. many of these accounts are conflicting and it is hard to actualyl decide what is real and what is fabrication. so, i'm curious to see what your suggestions are for "neutral" sources. my friend just wrote a 20-page study on the historiographical state of the literature about the '67 war; her conclusions were not suprising. many different players were involved in this war--not just israel and the arabs. russia and the united states, and other european countries such as france, also played significant roles in this conflict.

funny that russia secretly informed nasir that israeli troops were marching towards damascus (this never happened, and why would they tell the egyptians and not the syrians themselves???). the herut party in israel then formed a coalition government and agreed to implement a preemptive war, once nasir closed off the strait of tiran--the israelis had a three-front war plan on the shelf for at least 5-10 years prior. one of the most disturbing accounts presents proof that president johnson (LBJ) gave israelis the okay to engage in a preemptive war; however, he urged them to avoid getting blamed for having started the war. soon, the israeli government leaked a fake press release and before you know it, all the morning papers had the headline "egyptians marching towards border" (also not true at all). the details after that are fairly accurate in many accounts, but it is specifically what sparked the war that is so controversial--and i've heard dozens of explanations and combinations thereof.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=robprunzit]I think so many of you people who have been educated to believe what you think is true is a sad case of manipulation in the worlds Socialistically based educational arena all around the world.

Educators are working harder and harder today to 'make' the mindset of our young similar to their own. Not much different than how Hitler manipulated his own people, and the communist manipulated their masses. This time it is systematic manipulation of the young toward liberalism through education.

Liberalism is an emotion based thought process, which overrides all logically based thought processes. Uncontrolled emotion always leads people in the wrong direction. Balanced thought processes are more difficult, take more time, require more effort, and always go against the grain of thought most people are willing to believe. Liberalism equals Laziness.

Why does Bush have a low rating. Because Americans are lacking memory of the past; are intellectually lazy; and are willing to follow the feeling of the moment. We have always gotten tired of important issues over time, since the changes of the 1960's. Prior to the 60's, we were a different people. Today we are too busy with our life to be bothered with research and understanding about what is happening in other cultures. Willing to follow the emotion of others, without thought for ourself, and the lack of desire to think based on FULL research of issues. All this and yet, liberalism is dieing in America. So an approach has mounted to change the mind of the young in order to keep a party and thought process alive.

Some of you who would luv to see Bush impeached are still harboring resentment for the Clinton being impeached for his lies to protect his integrity.

If you use reason, in your thought processes, and separate your desires from the discussion here, you might REMEMBER the past. I'm not going list all the issues which led up to the invasion of Iraq, you can research it if you can't remember the events. Instead my approach is in a different direction.

There were so many scenarios for the need to get Suddam out of the leadership of Iraq. The world is blessed that he is in prison, where he needs to stay. The Iraqi people tell you this everyday with their actions. Most of the Iraqi dead, were men standing in line to help defend their country. Think about it, if they did not support the changes, why do they stand in dangerous lines to apply for dangerous jobs of police and/or military work.

Why did families take children out to the streets under threat of bombings to vote? Why do the men KEEP ON standing in lines to sign up for duty?

Use 'reason' in your thought process. Try to remove your personal opinions and look at the BIG picture. The change is excellent for the entire region, and especially the Iraqi people, mainly women and children. FREEDOM from tyranny is needed in the world. Look at the people who try to stop the change. They are butchers without any care of human life, and with their own hands and a big knife cut off heads of anyone who stands in the way. I have seen and kept the videos. Have you seen the beheading of men? Do you like to place yourself on their side? That is truly what you are doing, you are siding with the enemy. People willing to cut your throat while you lie there awake and bound with a rope, on video. Then they place the removed head on the chest and video it upclose. TRUE SICKNESS, and you are siding with them because of your lack of full understanding.

Put aside your HATRED for Bush, or the conservative party, or republicans, and look deeper into the whole situation. Don't just listen to your educators, read both sides of the issues. Listen to those who will give you the other side and then make your decisions based on a full knowledge. Don't be ignorant because of your personal bias, or the bias taught to you by your friends or educators. Question some of what you read.

This change is good in Iraq, just like it has been good in Afghanistan. And in the future, could be good if it can happen in Iran. I personally know Iranians who want to see this change in their country. Well, another issue, but based on the same NEED AND DESIRE these oppressed people have for FREEDOM.

I'm not going to list all the facts for going to war with Saddam and the Islamic Western haters. But, I believe if we were not fighting this war in the middle east, we would be fighting it in the Western countries, primarily the USA.

The fight was brought to us, now we have taken it the them.

Think about it this way. If you were a father, had a daughter who was raped by a boy in a neighborhood 1 mile away. Had the knowledge of this boy raping your daughter, and this boy was threatening to rape other girls unless someone stopped him. Would you sit back and say; let some time pass, lets see IF he does it again. Of would you TAKE THE STEPS necessary to get him in court to be held responsible for the crimes, and remove the threat from your community.

Middle Eastern normal everyday people cannot make this change without our help, and they are being held hostage to the ideals of EXTREME religious views, which most of them do not hold in their hearts. They only want to live like we live, with freedom to make their own choices, and have the opportunity to make a better life for their families.

I live in a city of 4 million people. 40,000 are Iranian here, 40,000 are Russian here, 100,000 latinos here, 10,000 each of many peoples including Czech, Polish, other European. Also many African countries are represented here now. Thousands of Ethiopian, Sudanese, Indian, Middle Eastern, Albanian and Serbian. Chinese, and Korean communities are spreading quickly here. We have a huge Brazilian people group here now. I could keep on listing them. Why are they here ... they want opportunity and freedom to improve their lives.

The middle east hardly has that chance today without our help.

Review the facts please. Search for knowledge on both sides of the issue. Look at the world with a LONG TERM view, in stead of the typical 'short term view' for this season of irrational uncontrolled emotion.[/quote]

You need to turn of Fox News. :roll:

Im surprised you didnt say "freedom is on the march". Maybe you could take a swipe at the ACLU while you are at it.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

since when is liberalism defined as emotional and conservatism as rational?

oh, and...

[quote]islamic western haters[/quote]

what?

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

I'm usually intrested on what you have to say face, i find your post most informative and up until now most balanced.

However on reading this:

[quote=face] the herut party in israel then formed a coalition government [/quote]

i realised that you actually dont have a clue about this subject.

A simple search would show you that Herut (and subsequently Likud) did not come to power until Begin a whole ten years after the 6 day war of 1967.

The Prime Minister at the time was in fact Levi Eshkol and the party in power was Mapai (who in 1968 merged with other left wing parties to form the Israeli Labour Party.)

Such a mistake on your part kind of dismisses the rest of the post for me.

Think what you like about me and my views, but know this, I know the history of my country far better then you. Additionally i am able to admit the injustices that my country carries out and i know what the only solution to the conflict can be. I also recognise the injustices of the other side, and am big enough to know that it takes two to tango.

Stop this incessent blame on everything wrong here on Israel, we never started this conflict - that doesnt mean we're blameless for our actions during it - just acknowledge that both sides have handdled the situation badly and maybe, just maybe, we can then move on to a just settlement for all.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=davetlv] i realised that you actually dont have a clue about this subject. [/quote]

ouch. that hurts, man. so i realize i was way hungover when i was posting that message this morning, but i should have noticed my error. yes i know eshkol was pm at the time, as he suggested overthrowing the syrian regime in may 67. in my notes from class i have herut written down but as you say this is impossible--could be that i just wrote down what my senile professor was saying--so yes, my mistake.

so give me a break...the rest of my post was pretty on point if i may say so myself.

and the whole israel blame game would be done with if people were more candid and honest about what happened.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

and yes, you do know more about your country than i do, as well you should.

but that doesn't mean i'm clueless about it.

i just want it to end. 19, 20, or 22% of palestine would be enough. you have the power to end it.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=face] i just want it to end. 19, 20, or 22% of palestine would be enough. you have the power to end it.[/quote]

No mate, WE BOTH have the power to end it. Its that simple.

And lets not talk about percentages of palestine, because that opens up a far greater can of worms. . . .

For this senseless and bloody conflict to end BOTH parties have to give. At this moment in time I dont see that, do you?

As for your previous point about your last post being 'pretty to the point' - i disagree, the main cause of the 1967 war you have omitted. What you wrote was nice conjecture but thats it.

If you want to read about look up the six day war on Wikipedia (pretty neutral i'm sure you'll agree) Heres the link [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War[/url]

Enjoy!!!!!

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

Bush won't be impeached. The Republicans have a majority in Congress and if I recall correctly it takes a majority or 2/3 to convict.

So, we're stuck with President Bush unless he decides to do a Nixon and resign. Better hope he doesn't resign then Cheney will be in charge and really let you liberals have it. Cheney is a hawk and would be quick to tell the world and especially liberals to go fuck themselves.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

i didn't say that israel's bellicose intentions were the sole reason for the war. in fact, i explicitly noted that there were several other factors and combinations thereof which led to the war. the sinai peninsula and the strait of tiran were main bodies of contention here. egypt, syria, and jordan were equally involved in this mess, and as i mentioned the US and USSR cannot be left out either.

i read oren's take on the six-day war, among others, and agreed with much of it.

as for the power to end this, i think it's simple. as you said, willingness to give on all sides is a must. however, i don't think the gaza withdrawal would count as a "give"--maybe a step towards one. and as i said, i think truth and honesty play a large role in this. the things that no one can admit are the things that hurt the most right now. the inability and unwillingness to speak candidly is a main hindrance to the process. the refugee issue, for example, will never be discussed because if the refugee problem is admitted or recognized, then it is implied that israel was born in sin. just one example, there.

the reason i said you have the power to end this, and not we, is because our government supports you no matter what your government does. despite this being a democracy, both parties in this country could be crippled severely if they did not give heed to israel's wishes. therefore, the change can only come from within your country and the lands it occupies--palestinians included. the palestinians want this more than anything. they just want it to end, but they are powerless.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=eye-p][quote=robprunzit]Review the facts please. Search for knowledge on both sides of the issue. Look at the world with a LONG TERM view, in stead of the typical 'short term view' for this season of irrational uncontrolled emotion.[/quote]

You need to turn of Fox News. :roll:

Im surprised you didnt say "freedom is on the march". Maybe you could take a swipe at the ACLU while you are at it.[/quote]

:? :? Excuse me, but turning on FOX and other medias where you can hear other the leftish slant is exactly what I'm implying many of you NEED to do, so that you can at least HEAR the other side, whether you want to believe it or not.

And you know what is a sad truth, but most slanted comments (like the ACLU comment) come when one know deeply inside that he hasn't a clue.

I don't mean to come across in an ugly manner, I don't mean it that way, really. I just don't hear the Left leaning toward balance, only emotional responces based on personal opinions. I sadly think that many of you, only want to hear the left side, and can't handle digging into the thought process of hearing opposition with clarity, instead of emotion and cute 'out of place' comments. Comments which are devised to take away from the debate, not add to it.

By the way, CNN's ratings are down the tube. About the only thing you hear on CNN, is leftish slant, so when there are two opposing opinions on FOX, you consider it right sided. :?

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

this left-right talk is just bullshit.

and if cnn is left-wing, then "god" help us, because i can't even describe what my views are.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=face]since when is liberalism defined as emotional and conservatism as rational?

oh, and...

[quote]islamic western haters[/quote]

what?[/quote]

FIRST: Who said it had to be defined as anything correct or incorrect, prior to my view?
Does someone of stature have to say it first for you to HEAR it? Does some definition make it valid?

Is that the way your taught in school, ie, not to use your own BRAIN, and formulate your own VIEWS, based on the truth as you see it?

Maybe I am right, or wrong. I don't need someone to define it sometime earlier, for me to say it as I see it. We should be educated to think first, and follow second. Not follow first, and decide later. Thats how Hitler dominated millions of people. History follows patterns, cycles, and loops around eventually, in different but similiar ways. Get it?

SECOND: Oh, Face, since you didn't understand my terminology, ie, ''islamic western haters''. Only a 'politically incorrect' comment on my part, but still a truthful fact. That is, in Islam, they are taught to hate the WEST, that the West is of Satan. Haven't you heard that from them before? (Maybe not, since your probably only watching CNN.) :) So I only termed what I have heard come from many of the militants mouths. More could be said, but there isn't a need here for a different discussion. Oh, before you call me a racist, please know that I almost married an Iranian girl, and one of my best friends is Muslim from Libya. So, lets not go there please.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=face]this left-right talk is just bullshit.

and if cnn is left-wing, then "god" help us, because i can't even describe what my views are.[/quote]

You see this is the problem, you are not even capable of seeing it. Maybe you are left of CNN and the way their media is broadcast. Your entitled to your choices, and beliefs, and thats fine and great.

The problem is the Left doesn't like it that some THINK at all, much less differently than they believe. Thats why you can't even see it, or HEAR it, on a network which strives to give both sides of the story and allow debate from qualified people on both sides of the issues.

Thats near sighted, and shows a lack of interest on your side to look past your own emotion based belief structure, which was probably taught to you.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote] Senator Ted Kennedy has raised his powerful voice on this issue.

Please thank him, and ask him to address the constitutional consequences of this evidence by endorsing a full congressional investigation via the House Judiciary Committee on whether the President has committed impeachable offenses.

Read Kennedy's statement: [url]http://tedkennedy.com/journal[/url]

Sign his petition: [url]http://www.tedkennedy.com/page/petition/downingstreet[/url]

Also contact him here: [url]http://tedkennedy.com/page/s/contact[/url]

Or call: 202/224-4543 or 617/565-3170

Or write to:

315 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510

or

2400 JFK Building Boston, MA 02203[/quote]

And I should trust this guy? This is defintaly a call from the far-left, Moveon.org was discussing impeachment in the works before the re-election. However I believe a lot of people are disgusted with our President since becoming re-elected. A lot of policy has just been slipped through with little or no restraint. The general public has no voice and has done nothing to dispute this. You can always expect this to happen during any incumbent's second term. I agree with what someone said about this far-left, far-right bullshit. It comes hand in hand, at this point I believe both Democrat and Republican are bad for this country.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

i dunno where you're getting this from but i think you've got your sides mixed up.

by the way, the very definition of liberalism is being open to change, not thought control as you would have it.

oh, and screw cnn AND fox. people think everything is all black and white. there's more to the world than the media monopolies.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

Sides? Who takes sides? :NotMe:

Our elected officials are supposed to be making decisions that benefit public interest, not themselves. I don't see anything being done for the american public. This will never happen with our two party system. Bigger things have to happen other than just impeaching Bush.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=Balanc3]Sides? Who takes sides? :NotMe:

Our elected officials are supposed to be making decisions that benefit public interest, not themselves. I don't see anything being done for the american public. This will never happen with our two party system. Bigger things have to happen other than just impeaching Bush.[/quote]

yup, im tired of arguing about this stuff, i like to play devils advocate, and thats why i throw out the views of both sides, particularly the slight right. i hate the radicals from both sides. they do nothing good and just cause more separation in the gov;t. i wish they would come together sooner than later. we cant have everyone being a mike moore or Toby Keith (is that the country star psycho?). we need more people who give both sides without slants on the info.

few more things.

1. dont trust a kennedy, go read about their family got into the bootlegging and somehow worked out a deal where they get money from nearly every spirit/alcoholic beverage inported to the US.

2. and i know dean got elected with overwhelming support, but then why do i have CNN/MSNBC/CSPAN on every morning and hear numerous politicians from the party complaining about what he does. i'll start keeping track if you want. they did like him, but even Lieberman said the guy is a bit out of control.

3. liberalism isnt morally wrong or evil. it neccessary, because if we let the far right take over we will end up in a military state where your every minute will be accounted for. letting them take control for any extended period of time will lead to nothing good. there needs to be a balance in the US gov't that embraces both ideals for the right reasons, and abandons the wrong reasons.

lastly, im in complete agreement with robo about learning about the "other side". i started to watch and read a lot more about the right once Bush beat Gore. i knew he had the appeal to win because a lot of the US(i guess about 50%) found him to be thier candidate and got him elected. you wont learn anything about your enemy if you dont study him. i used to be a little leftist kid who hated govt', but by taking some time to learn about things they want, i moved to the center of things realizing how far apart this country's political parties are. we cant have either party doing what they want to in terms of turning the country entirely to the left or right. it just isnt good for anyone in the long run.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

For the record, John Conyers is great! His district is right next to the one I am in and he is THE oposition to GWB in the House.

The nation should thank John Conyers for standing up for Americans.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

Agreed. In fact, please go to [url]www.johnconyers.com[/url] and sign his petition.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=thesightless][quote=Balanc3]Sides? Who takes sides? :NotMe:

Our elected officials are supposed to be making decisions that benefit public interest, not themselves. I don't see anything being done for the american public. This will never happen with our two party system. Bigger things have to happen other than just impeaching Bush.[/quote]

yup, im tired of arguing about this stuff, i like to play devils advocate, and thats why i throw out the views of both sides, particularly the slight right. i hate the radicals from both sides. they do nothing good and just cause more separation in the gov;t. i wish they would come together sooner than later. we cant have everyone being a mike moore or Toby Keith (is that the country star psycho?). we need more people who give both sides without slants on the info.

lastly, im in complete agreement with robo about learning about the "other side". i started to watch and read a lot more about the right once Bush beat Gore. i knew he had the appeal to win because a lot of the US(i guess about 50%) found him to be thier candidate and got him elected. you wont learn anything about your enemy if you dont study him. i used to be a little leftist kid who hated govt', but by taking some time to learn about things they want, i moved to the center of things realizing how far apart this country's political parties are. we cant have either party doing what they want to in terms of turning the country entirely to the left or right. it just isnt good for anyone in the long run.[/quote]

Well, sightless, I think you have the key. An open mind to investigate the other side. Much of the people are clueless because they don't take the time to listen and learn what the other side is saying. It is truely the only way to know where you stand on an issue, otherwise we are only standing for what someone else believes to be true.

I agreed with much of your thoughts and appreciate the comments. Its not the side one is on that pisses me off, its the lack of understanding the BIG picture.

America is at war. Like it or not. We are, and we are fighting it on foreign soil. I personally like that stragedy, it is keeping those guys busy, where they live, not busy trying to hit us on our soil again. Terrorism is a fact. It has been for the past 2 decades, and it isn't going away until dictators who support them and fund their aggression are stopped.

Personally, I think Bush as well as the rest of the world believed the WMD's were in Iraq. Suddam never showed proof of getting rid of the stuff. So is it gone? Who knows?

This Iraqi War and War for Freedom in the Middle East is bigger than most really seem to think about. I personally believe MOST Muslims are by far great people with a desire just to live like the rest of the World. The majority in Iran want freedom, but they cannot act on it without risking their life and the life of their whole family if they in some way stand up against the government. So it is truely hard for them to make change.

Afghanistan was the same. Now democractic free thanks to the fight for change. Iraq was the same, and now democratic free thanks to the sacrifice of so many innocent Iraqis, and volunteer Iraqi police and Army. and other countries including Americans. The change has started, it cannot be stopped. 100 years from now, a free democratic Iraq will tell stories of how their fathers fought, so they could vote, go to school, travel, trade, and live like the rest of the world. So women could live the same as the men. All the people Free from any controllers over them.

This is what America has ALWAYS stood up for in the world, starting with our own country and its ancestors for the last 400 years. It takes time, and there is never a perfect place.

Back to Iraq, there is new evidence that shows so much of the insurgency in Iraq is actually coming from not just Syria, but Iran. They have to stop us, we are a threat to them. Think about the big picture!

Imams have control in Iran. Had control in Afghanistan, and a dictator in Iraq who really didnt care about his on people.

Change is happening in this region of the world, for the first time in 1500 years, since Muhammed started the religion and swept across North Africa, South-Europe, and the Middle East. Luckily Europe pushed them back, but not in Africa or the Mid East. So now change is happening. There will be much sacrifice. A volunteer American military is dealing with it, and helping an Iraqi people take their country back.

We should support what most Iraqi people want for their country. The only reason we have this debate is because of POLITICS, and a filthy lieing hatred from both sides of the spectrum. But, in the end, I think we have to take a stand on one side or the other, with full knowledge of the issues and voice our concerns.

Right, Left, or Center. Another discussion entirely. Just get knowledge of the issue from many sources and try to understand it from an 'other side of the world' perspective. Try to see the BIG picture in all of this craziness.

And, lastly, yes the Kennedy's are fools. I believe more an enemy to this country than many other politicians. Same for Joe Biden, and several others too.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

They have found more shocking revelation in the Downing Street Memo.... Brace youselves for this, but it turns out that water is wet, the sky is blue, and Christmas is in December.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

Check out the Live Q&A on the Downing Street Memo at Washington Post's Web site:

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/14/DI2005061401261.html[/url]

questions will be answered by michael smith, who initially broke the story in the Sunday Times.

(you might have to register to read, it's free)

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=superdave]So, we're stuck with President Bush unless he decides to do a Nixon and resign. Better hope he doesn't resign then Cheney will be in charge and really let you liberals have it. Cheney is a hawk and would be quick to tell the world and especially liberals to go fuck themselves.[/quote]

Living with Bush is hard enough, however I can wait another three years than see Cheney succeed Bush.

Downing Street is a lingering dream that the Democrats have been holding onto since Gore. It's time to let go, restructure and pray for another Clinton (cough Kennedy) to come sweep America off it's feet with his good looks.

It's hard to find a middle, while politicians keep pulling each end of the strings. But I believe robprunzit is correct and we all need to look at the BIG picture and standup for ourselves. I love my freedoms and understand what the Iraqi people fight for, but I only see Americans following Britains right into a police state. Fourty years ago, this would have spawned a revolution.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

up until bushs re-election i must admit to being politically apathetic. i would get my political news updates from bill maher and dennis miller and politics would be funny and quirky, nothing more. but since bush has been around things arent so light-hearted. his presidency is characterized by arrogance and recklessness. If you have any hesitation in agreeing with that, read Robery Byrds diatribe, Losing America`. He presents a pretty (albeit longwinded) convincing case.