Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

and you probably support Durban's comments too! :roll:

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

Shut the Fuuuu :evil:

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

well for the record, i do support durbin's comments.....instead of reading the 1-line, often sited blurb....read the whole text...understand the context. i mean, for god's sake, what is the difference between what we are doing and what those horrible regimes did in their prisons ? i mean, an unknown number of prisoners have DIED while prisoner ! wake up and look at what's going on.... we have lost our moral superiority....at least in the eyes of the world. and it will take us a long time to get it back.

as far as impeachment goes....if the dems had the house, we'd be watching hearings on cnn by now.... the writing could not be more clearly written on the wall.....they lied. bush has been quoted as early as 1999 saying if he had the chance, he would finish the job in iraq. and the downing street memo are our generation's version of the white house tapes during watergate.

we all need to say on this....

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

Durbin apologized about his comments, so I'm not so sure about you agreeing with him any longer.

As for impeachment, I doubt it's their true objective. I think the Democrats want to to do well in 2006 and/or 2008 by damaging the administration. They know impeachment is highly unlikely to happen.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote="polar"]well for the record, i do support durbin's comments.....instead of reading the 1-line, often sited blurb....read the whole text...understand the context. i mean, for god's sake, what is the difference between what we are doing and what those horrible regimes did in their prisons ? i mean, an unknown number of prisoners have DIED while prisoner ! wake up and look at what's going on.... we have lost our moral superiority....at least in the eyes of the world. and it will take us a long time to get it back.[quote]

Wow, I'm taken back by your 'thought' that what is happening in GITMO is somehow even able to be compared to: Gas Chambers, Killing Fields, and whatever the Communist may have done to prisoners during their time. I am actually having to restrain myself from spouting out comments which would not be appropriate.

Well, really think about it. I have heard 2 Senators comment that no one has died in GITMO. They have all been given their 'holy' book. Christians working in Saudi are not even allowed to possess a Bible on Saudi soil, while Americans give Saudi and Muslim prisoners a Koran. HELLO!

They are eating excellent dishes from a report I heard from a staffer who had been there for some time. I don't always eat three meals a day, because I work my ass off and don't take time to eat. Maybe they have it better in that regard than to be in an American prison like Alcatraz while it was open, or any other federal prison. Just a guess!

Sure they are interrogated ... we are at war, and they were caught trying to kill American and coalition soldiers in Afghanistan. I do believe the only way to get someone to talk (without physical torture ) is to sleep deprive them and play some mind games to weaken their nature and pull the info out that is needed to save the lives of people in combat. Maybe not nice, but it has to be done. Remember these people are KILLERS, can you relate to people who will do anything to kill you. And yes they will kill you too.

You made a false statement. Show resources for the line you wrote ''i mean, an unknown number of prisoners have DIED while prisoner ! wake up and look at what's going on....''

I think your the one who needs to 'wake up'. The world isn't a nice place. This isn't an Andy Griffith's city of Mayberry kind of world now. Terrorism is real, and these people don't like what the West does or stands for in any regard. They prefer to keep a male dominated slave minded society which they have had for 2000 years. They have been gearing up for a 'holy war' with us since before you and I were born. Learn some facts!

And as far as 'moral superiority' goes. America is losing it moral integrity, like much of the world has done so already. Still America does have a thread of common moral decency, though it is vanishing, and not because of this war.

Most major cities in America are behind the trend of the world. America is a little more Moral, if you want to make that your point. California leads the nation with NY, but even still, things happening in London, Madrid, Paris, Berlin, Praha, Budapest, Rio, and so many other great cities, that haven't even started in America. America is behind in fashion trends for example, and I think it is because of moral integrity. But, all that said, America is changing faster than ever now. If you haven't done so, please go travel the globe some and compare a little, then make your moral superiority comments. I saw fashion trends in Europe 5 years before they came to America, same for the Orient.

Your statements are typical 'left sided' BS. You all just say whatever without having facts, and you don't care who is hurt by the comments you make.

Durbin barely apologized. He believes what he said is true, and he only apologized for hurting some peoples feeling, including the troops overseas. He never stated that HE believed what he said was not true. Maybe he did the best he could to save his butt, tears and all. Different subject now.

Show me some comparison to 'killing fields', and 'torture rooms', and 'gas chambers'. You simply cant find any, because it was not a true statement from you or from Durbin.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=thesightless]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] [I] "'When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction." "And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."[/I] President Bush

Then why doesn't the Bush administration share your view that the WMDs were, in fact, moved? Is this another one of your unsubstantiated claims with no proof?

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

it will never happen

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

It's definitely wishful thinking.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=delirious][I] "'When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction." "And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."[/I] President Bush

Then why doesn't the Bush administration share your view that the WMDs were, in fact, moved? Is this another one of your unsubstantiated claims with no proof?[/quote]

Politicians from both sides saw the same evidence and concluded the same things:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." [B]President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998[/B]

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." [B]President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998[/B]

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." [B]Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998[/B]

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." [B]Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998[/B]

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: [B]Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998[/B]

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." [B]Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998[/B]

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." [B]Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999[/B]

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: [B]Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001[/B]

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." [B]Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002[/B]

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." [B]Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002[/B]

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." [B]Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002[/B]

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." [B]Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002[/B]

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." [B]Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002[/B]

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region." [B]Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002[/B]

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." [B]Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002[/B]

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" [B]Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002[/B]

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." [B]Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002[/B]

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." [B]Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002[/B]

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." [B]Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003[/B]

"I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn?t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people." [B]Sen. John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 13. 2003

[/B] [IMG]http://john-kerry.tonyspencer.com/images/spacer.gif[/IMG]

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

I'm not claiming to be on the left or right, I'm an American first. And I believe there's enough blame to go around for everyone on the Iraq issue. As an independent, I think it looks pretty bad for the Dems. to criticize, criticize, criticize without offering any solutions. And as an independent, it looks as though the Dems. would rather lose the war, cut and run, bash Bush, and not support our brave soldiers, just to regain power. This is plainly evident. On the issue of the wire taps, God forbid that our President try and protect our country. The fact is that if the would be Brooklyn Bridge bomber was allowed to carry out his plan, the Dems. would have said that Bush didn't do enough. But I agree that more needs to be done with the crisis at our borders. The Republicans have dragged their feet for far too long on this one. We all need to think about what's right for our country, not for a particular party. Drop the conspiracy theories, stop blindly supporting either side for the sake of supporting your side, and let's vote all these assholes out of office. We need to be rational about all this. I see this as the beginning of the end for the U.S. This shit is getting me sick...:evil:

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

4 More Years

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=guntaro]I'm not claiming to be on the left or right, I'm an American first. And I believe there's enough blame to go around for everyone on the Iraq issue. As an independent, I think it looks pretty bad for the Dems. to criticize, criticize, criticize without offering any solutions. And as an independent, it looks as though the Dems. would rather lose the war, cut and run, bash Bush, and not support our brave soldiers, just to regain power. This is plainly evident. On the issue of the wire taps, God forbid that our President try and protect our country. The fact is that if the would be Brooklyn Bridge bomber was allowed to carry out his plan, the Dems. would have said that Bush didn't do enough. But I agree that more needs to be done with the crisis at our borders. The Republicans have dragged their feet for far too long on this one. We all need to think about what's right for our country, not for a particular party. Drop the conspiracy theories, stop blindly supporting either side for the sake of supporting your side, and let's vote all these assholes out of office. We need to be rational about all this. I see this as the beginning of the end for the U.S. This shit is getting me sick...:evil:[/quote]

Lucid, objective, rational -- well said Guntaro, many could learn from your words here.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

Yep, good post guntaro...

however, i like to see the glass half full, and i don't see this as the beginning of the end for the US, but rather, the last straw so to speak. This last 8 years, especially the last 3, imo = the catylist America needs to finally make some BIG changes in government. And i think, hope, it'll come in 08. I've only been alive 30 years, but i've never seen americans this pissed off at government. Granted i was just a child in the vietnam era, but i imagine on some level we're equally pissed.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=Jenks]Yep, good post guntaro...

however, i like to see the glass half full, and i don't see this as the beginning of the end for the US, but rather, the last straw so to speak. This last 8 years, especially the last 3, imo = the catylist America needs to finally make some BIG changes in government. And i think, hope, it'll come in 08. I've only been alive 30 years, but i've never seen americans this pissed off at government. Granted i was just a child in the vietnam era, but i imagine on some level we're equally pissed.[/quote]

You're right with regards to now being the time to make some big changes...and yes, Americans are pretty pissed right now...the reason why I say it could be the beginning of the end is because I've never seen the world so pissed at us like it is now...what can happen to change that? I believe that the left has been hijacked by extremists (Biden, Polosi, Boxer, Kennedy)...I'm afraid that if they win the White House in '08, we'll be even more screwed than now...like I said in another thread, they'll be the one's dealing with the war...will they cut and run? will they take away my freedom of religion? will they try to sit down and negotiate with terrorists as Kerry has suggested? I don't know...scary stuff...

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

McCain is the answer imo.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=guntaro]You're right with regards to now being the time to make some big changes...and yes, Americans are pretty pissed right now...the reason why I say it could be the beginning of the end is because I've never seen the world so pissed at us like it is now...what can happen to change that? I believe that the left has been hijacked by extremists (Biden, Polosi, Boxer, Kennedy)...I'm afraid that if they win the White House in '08, we'll be even more screwed than now...like I said in another thread, they'll be the one's dealing with the war...will they cut and run? will they take away my freedom of religion? will they try to sit down and negotiate with terrorists as Kerry has suggested? I don't know...scary stuff...[/quote]

Your concerns about who wins the White House in '08 is one of the reasons Bush won in '04. Americans felt safer with Bush who they trust. Kerry didn't do enough to make Americans believe in him and vote for him and that is his fault not the voters.

I like McCain too, but his age is a liability. Also, he's seen as a maverick that doesn't stick to the party line like most politicians do. I think that's great, but some Republicans are anti-McCain.

I'm not sure that Pelosi, Schumer, Reid are radicals, but the Republicans have done a good job at branding and selling this idea.

The Republican party needs to get going and get a front runner for the party ticket going sometime this year.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

[quote=superdave]McCain... seen as a maverick that doesn't stick to the party line like most politicians do. [/quote]

This is a good thing imo. Does what's right, not what's Party.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

Egg-fucking-zactly Jenks.

It's those 'renegade' individuals that usually are the ones that truely want to work for their country and it's people, not themselves or their network. In my humble opinion, American politics could become less polarized and dominated by Reps/Dems if there would be a switch from First Past The Post to Proportional Representation: the latter one leaves much more room for some smaller movements, and will usually create more diversity in politics. There's more to it, but i should look that, some heavy studies have bene made examining the effects of both systems on a society. One of them was, I believe, that in FPTP systems abuse of power was seen more often. On the other hand, in proportional representation there was sometimes seen a lack of swift decisionmaking, which could of cours be hampering in a lot of areas.

Will try and find that part...but at this moment I personally think proportional rep would be an enrichment for American politics.

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

I swear...I knew I stayed away from this forum for so long for a reason. You people never get tired of trying to one up each other with your "I'm right...no, I'm right."

Here's what we should all just live with

1. George Bush is the devil (he is...I've seen it :shock:)

2. America is the cause of all war, struggle and strife in this world

3. The Republicans are wrong

4. The Democrats are right

5. Saddam is really a nice guy, once you get to know him

6. This the 102th version of the same thread I've seen posted here

7. How can you people not get sick of typing the same shit over and over?? So far I've seen the same "true" statements and "correct" point of view that were getting thrown around here 2 years ago. Literally...word for word.

8. WMDs have never existed....ever

9. You are all right....................in your own minds

10. I'll check back again in another year and you will still be talking about the same shit

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

hahahhaha

Re: Impeachment of George W. Bush

lol, but we like it Evangelion!

btw...i'm reading a book full with interviews from Noam Chomsky right now. [start bashing]

He does have a boatload of valid critiques, though while reading I constantly try to bring in arguments from the other side. As for people calling him an America-hater: I wouldn't go so far as to call him that, but he does put the finger on some very painful spots. He's actually more about revealing the hypocrisy in politics and it's relation with civil society, and he doesn't hesitate to mention similar things that have been done by other countries: the former European Imperial powers are getting their asses kicked just as hard, but does does draw the equation between them and present day US.

The thing that struck me most and is very very true IMO though is that he mentions that America is easily scared, and can therefore rather easily be influenced through propaganda. When looking at European attitudes towards politics and American, I gotta say he's probably very right: people here are much less prone to scare tactics here (I'm not saying not at all!!!), which might explain the difference in stance on the war in Iraq as well.

When talking about Iraq, my own question is: how is it possible that Afghanistan was abandonded so quickly as prime objective, and that Americans seriously believed at some point (around 50% actually) that it was Iraq that was behind the 9/11 attacks? Seriously...whatever bad thing you can say, it is still Bin Laden who is responsible, but somehow your administration managed to link Iraq to 9/11....I gotta say that that is a job well done for the propaganda machine.