Impeach Bush?

[taks]

I use irrationality and illogic to a fault.  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OMG! i agree with you.

 

taks

[Judge Hades]

YAY ME! (w00t)

[SteveThaiBinh]

That was fun. Can we impeach Mr. Bush now? How do we even do that?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That was fun.  Can we impeach Mr. Bush now?  How do we even do that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was in hysterics then I realised I'd missread it...

[Judge Hades]

*Hades begins to sing a old song from the Presidents of the United States*

 

Millions of impeaches! Millions for me! Millions of impeaches! Impeaches for free!

[Dark Moth]

Those who actually believe Bush deliberately lied about WMD's are either ignorant, misinformed, foolish, or all three. (that applies to you too, Hades) Sorry, but that's the way it is. Bush made a decision based on faulty intelligence he was given by those around him. I admit, having read some of the evidence given myself, I too was convinced. But that would make the current situation the fault of those responsible for the intelligence (CIA, FBI, etc), not President Bush himself.

 

I am not 100% behind Bush. I don't think he's all that great a President. I think he had great objectives, but probably wasn't the man for the job. However, he did far more globally than Clinton ever did. The only reason Clinton is viewed so positively by some is because he didn't get this country in a mess with other nations and presided over a great economy. He was the one who let bin Laden get away. He was the one who had a chance to prevent 9/11, but he didn't. And now, that same guy is criticizing the President for not doing enough beforehand to prevent 9/11.

[Judge Hades]

So you are saying that Bush was incompetent then. You just don't make decisions to invade a country unless that country is a clear and present danger of harming US citizens on US soil by some sort of assault that would put thousands if not tens of thousands of lives at risk.

 

There was no way Saddam Hussein could launch such attack on the US.

[taks]

still your fantasy world, hades.

 

taks

[Dark Moth]

So you are saying that Bush was incompetent then.  You just don't make decisions to invade a country unless that country is a clear and present danger of harming US citizens on US soil by some sort of assault that would put thousands if not tens of thousands of lives at risk.

 

There was no way Saddam Hussein could launch such attack on the US.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not necessarily. As a whole, I do not believe he is incompetant. But I think he did make certain mistakes leading up to the war. As for WMD's, the incompetance lies with those responsible for the intelligence. In other words, the evidence showed Saddam Hussein had WMD's and was a danger. Maybe not to us, but definitely those around him.

 

It wasn't until afterward that we found out they did not have those weapons. And for the record, Saddam did have WMD's. He used them against his own people. And while he may not have been able to strike the U.S., I for one would not have wanted to wait around long enough for him to have the ability. And evidence does show he had sought WMD's before the war. Even the 'yellowcake' intelligence that was supposed to have been faulty (the one the dems were using to blast Bush with) now may have actually been authentic, according to re-examination. (that according to the Butler Report)

 

I don't think we should have went to war the way we did, though. We already had a job to do in Afghanistan, and clearly we weren't prepared to stay there for as long as we are now. But no - Bush never lied.

Edited November 3, 2005 by Mothman

[Commissar]

I am not 100% behind Bush.  I don't think he's all that great a President.  I think he had great objectives, but probably wasn't the man for the job.  However, he did far more globally than Clinton ever did.  The only reason Clinton is viewed so positively by some is because he didn't get this country in a mess with other nations and presided over a great economy.  He was the one who let bin Laden get away.  He was the one who had a chance to prevent 9/11, but he didn't.  And now, that same guy is criticizing the President for not doing enough beforehand to prevent 9/11.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clinton was a great president, actually. I didn't like him much at the time, but in hindsight, I'd have to say he was pretty damned good.

[Judge Hades]

We haven't had a really good president since Kennedy.

[Commissar]

We haven't had a really good president since Kennedy. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He got involved in his fair share of foreign expeditions.

[Dark Moth]

I am not 100% behind Bush.  I don't think he's all that great a President.  I think he had great objectives, but probably wasn't the man for the job.  However, he did far more globally than Clinton ever did.  The only reason Clinton is viewed so positively by some is because he didn't get this country in a mess with other nations and presided over a great economy.  He was the one who let bin Laden get away.  He was the one who had a chance to prevent 9/11, but he didn't.  And now, that same guy is criticizing the President for not doing enough beforehand to prevent 9/11.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clinton was a great president, actually. I didn't like him much at the time, but in hindsight, I'd have to say he was pretty damned good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah right. Clinton made many mistakes that the media tend to overlook. Most noticeably his butchering of our nation's intelligence bureaus, and letting bin Laden literally get away with murder.

[Judge Hades]

He got involved in his fair share of foreign expeditions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At least they weren't his interns.

[LoneWolf16]

There are 6 billion people on the planet.  We are endanger of becoming extinct due to overpopulation.  1 death, or even a 1,000,000 deaths will not make a huge impact in the population of our species.  The only value we put on a human life is subjective at best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, clearly we're on different pages when it comes to the value of a human being's life. Or any life for that matter...

 

Agree to disagree?

 

you wouldn't happen to be the same lonewolf that posts over at badastronomy, would you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, it really is too common...I really ought to get this name changed. How would I go about doing that?

Edited November 3, 2005 by LoneWolf16

[taks]

At least they weren't his interns. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, just marilyn.

 

taks

[Judge Hades]

Norma Jean was indeed hot. What-her-face intern was not.

[metadigital]

On a more serious note, I'll say that "Conservative Christian" or "Christian Conservative" does, in fact, denote a very real political and social philosophy; I very rarely, if ever anymore, make the mistake of simply using "Christian" when I mean Christian conservative.  If you don't adhere to this particular philosophy, then you have nothing to worry about, just as I see no need to fly off the handle when someone rails against communists. 

 

That said, it is off-topic, and I suppose that if anyone truly wanted to debate the issue we could move it elsewhere.  Since it's been debated in at least a hundred different threads here, however, I can't imagine why anyone would really want to do such a thing.

 

But you know me.  I'm always game for an argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've told you once.

[Commissar]

I've told you once.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You've told me what once? The not arguing with fools 'cause folks might not be able to tell the difference bit? Pff. I'm here for the rumble, man.

[metadigital]

Taks, he either knew the information was false or he foolishly beleived his Intelligence staff who did a lackluster job in putting their report together.

 

Liar or incompetence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are ignoring a multitude of possibilities. Just because the cover story that the public was fed was incorrect, does not mean there wasn't a real threat and a real reason to attack Saddam Hussein. I don not for a moment think or expect the various secret services to divulge all their motives, methods, means and objectives to the hoi polloi.

 

Yes the stated rationale was proved false; since when does international politics deal in stated truths? It's like the US government indicting Al Capone, the biggest illicit bootlegger during Prohibition, extortionist, mastermind murderer and organised criminal boss, for tax evasion: it's just a means to an end.

 

The double standards come when other worthy despots aren't given the same treatment; then again, not many other countries have the poor military assets that Iraq has: North Korea has a formidable missle defence programme and a large quasi-ally in China bordering her and Iran has a not-insignificant military. I'm not sure the exact state of the African nations like the western African Ghana, Nigeria, Niger, Sierra Leone, etc, and Somalia and Zimbabwe, too. I suspect that the opportunity cost is too high to warrant any action presently, and there is no great compulsion (e.g. scarcity of resources), so these countries do not gain the burning glare of international attention. Ditto for the ex-Soviet satraps, like Kurdistan.

 

The biggest issue with US politics is the determined and significant process of opacification: Bush seems to have presided over the single most devolutionary period of government, where cronyism and corruption are okay as long as it works. It's only a small step to a republic like East Germany ...

[julianw]

At least they weren't his interns. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, just marilyn.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought there were a lot more. They don't call Kennedy "the President who never zip his pants" just because of one girl.

 

The story I heard is that the media heavily protected JFK even though many at the time knew about his extra-curriculum activities.

[WITHTEETH]

We haven't had a really good president since Kennedy. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He got involved in his fair share of foreign expeditions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of the greatest ideas Kennedy had, was to not push your enemy farther then you had too. Thats why the Cold War stayed cold.

 

He also had social programs he set up that saved our asses, for example the science program where he aided sudents aspiring to being scientists, so that the US would be the Industrial top dog. Now we must import great minds. Nothing wrong with that, I just wish there were more great minds all together.

How are we suppose to be great without great ideas?

[LoneWolf16]

At least they weren't his interns. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, just marilyn.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought there were a lot more. They don't call Kennedy "the President who never zip his pants" just because of one girl.

 

The story I heard is that the media heavily protected JFK even though many at the time knew about his extra-curriculum activities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why does it matter?

[julianw]

Why does it matter? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Differential treatment?

[WITHTEETH]

Gossiping i think is fine and dandy, i don't really care. Yea Marilyn is a rumor, nothing more i hear. Lewinsky was a fact with clinton. Even roosevelt Cheated on his wife so i guess its mandetory for all great leaders to cheat aye?

 

Anyways, Why do people insist on these guys confront the public with there personal affairs? That is morally wrong in my book. If a man on my crew is a good worker, hes a good worker, i don't care if he is a cheater, as long as hes not cheating me.