Much of US favors Bush impeachment: poll

[Chrislit18]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

Impeaching isn't stupid; it is a vital and treasured recourse in a democracy. As for wasting taxpayer dollars, it's not like Congress is getting a hell of a lot done these days, so I'm fine with them spending some of my $$ to get to the truth and hold Bush/Cheney accountable.

You're right about motives. If it's just to get them out of office or end the war, impeachment isn't the way to go. If it's to get to some truth and help ensure all of this never happens again, then I support it.

I just dont think we should waste the money, but if its what most of america wants then it shoud be done. sorry if i came across rude
I do think that Bush/Cheney need to come clean about thier actions though, like if they really did go into the middle east JUST because of 9/11. I think that at least Bush wanted to go in to finish what his father started in the late 80s-early 90s. thats JMO though

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Chrislit18

I do think that Bush/Cheney need to come clean about thier actions though, like if they really did go into the middle east JUST because of 9/11.

Hate to sound like a broken record but you do know that 9/11 and Iraq have nothing to do with each other right?
Also they were planning to get into Iraq well before 9/11. Supposedly it's what Cheney's secret energy meetings were about.

Originally Posted by Chrislit18

I think that at least Bush wanted to go in to finish what his father started in the late 80s-early 90s. thats JMO though

Maybe that's how they sold it to Junior. But Cheney and his associates made a hell of a lot of money off of this war.

[BlackWidow]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Hate to sound like a broken record but you do know that 9/11 and Iraq have nothing to do with each other right?
Also they were planning to get into Iraq well before 9/11. Supposedly it's what Cheney's secret energy meetings were about.



Maybe that's how they sold it to Junior. But Cheney and his associates made a hell of a lot of money off of this war.

The whole thing is a disgrace. Shame on anyone who voted for this administration!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

. . . You're right about motives. If it's just to get them out of office or end the war, impeachment isn't the way to go. If it's to get to some truth and help ensure all of this never happens again, then I support it.

In a perfect world maybe. But, getting to the truth will never happen in this world. Moreover, if we got to the truth, then it is likely the D party would fall as well as they were involved in the bombing of Iraq for the same reasons before W's administration and during W's administration. I get that W manipulated the evidence perhaps more than the Clinton Administration did, but that will make little difference in a trial because innocent people died as a result of both; granted perhaps more died under W. In the end, W cannot be impeached on Iraq because Clinton and the D's screamed for SH's head and killed in the name of the alleged WMD for eight years prior to W's administration. How will the D's then say that the WMD were all a big fabricated ruse the day W took office, especially considering the world via the UN unanimously thought SH had them for those eight years and longer? In many ways, W just finished what Clinton could not do but wanted to do in Iraq.

So, we have to find something else. The Attorney General thing is not enough as no crime was committed. The spying is not enough because I submit all administrations have done it - just not as overtly.

Finally, this President was elected again by a rather large majority even if the voting fraud took place. In other words the people spoke and they wanted another term with W. I hate that, but it is what it is.

In the end, impeachment is not an achieveable goal.

And, to me, the almost laughable thing is that when I say this reality, people think I am some sort of conceited, hard line right wing Bush sympathizer, when I can assure you nothing is further fromt he truth. I despise W and think he is a crook. I just think history supports my proposition that the problems with Iraq did not start with him and the US has used Iraq as a twisted shell game killing field for years. W just did it on a larger scale.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Hate to sound like a broken record but you do know that 9/11 and Iraq have nothing to do with each other right?
Also they were planning to get into Iraq well before 9/11. Supposedly it's what Cheney's secret energy meetings were about . . . .

That is not exactly true. Yes, SH had no culpability in the 9/11 attacks. anyone who says he did is wrong.

But, the US' policy and the world's policy through the UN prior to 9/11 and prior to W was that SH was a terrorist sitting on a stockpile of WMD. It made sense then after the US was attacked to go after SH, along with Al-Q, because of the potential threat - the entire world agreed to this through the UN. W, however, could not stop at the newly ordered inspections in Iraq. So, he invaded Iraq. If W had succeeded in the invasion and all had gone well, which the events during and after the first Iraq war suggested would be the case, then W's anxious invasion would have been overlooked by the vast majority of the world. Again, much if not all of the Arab world had been chomping at the bit to oust SH and this was their vehicle to do so without blood on their own hands. Things did not go well however; so, W is hated.

I suppose it all boils down to the war on terror and what that is. Surely SH according to unanimous world opinion via the UN fit the definition of a terrorist and a player in the war on terror. So, would it have been enough not to do anything in Iraq after 9/11 and, thus, ignore all of the prior 10 + years of killing in the name of ridding the world of the threat of SH? I suppose that is a conclusion we may all differ on.

Personally, I take Pres. Clinton's view of the inspections should have been allowed to conclude. Any subsequent military action should have been based on the results. That position solidly supports that the events of 9/11 effected how the world viewed Iraq and SH's refusal to cooperate in the hunt for the WMD. Thus, 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq are related even though SH was not responsible for bombing the US on 9/11.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

. . . But Cheney and his associates made a hell of a lot of money off of this war.

I don't think Cheney made any significant amount of money off the war

But, clearly his associates did.

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Also they were planning to get into Iraq well before 9/11. Supposedly it's what Cheney's secret energy meetings were about.

I absolutely believe this as well. The company I work for is very involved in Iraq. One of the worlds largest oil fields lies underneath southern Kurdistan, which I think is the real reason we're in Iraq.... Also, I don't believe the US has any intention of pulling out of Iraq. I find it ironic that the company I work for was just awarded 35 million to begin construction of a military command center. In Iraq. A command center - LARGER THAN THE VATICAN CITY. And the Democrats are gonna get us out of Iraq? Uh-huh, yeah, sure.

And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

[Rickypt]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Finally, this President was elected again by a rather large majority even if the voting fraud took place. In other words the people spoke and they wanted another term with W. I hate that, but it is what it is.

This is actually the most shameful thing about all of this.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

This is actually the most shameful thing about all of this.

No shiitte my friend - HORRIFYING!!!!!!!

[Rickypt]

Originally Posted by Chrislit18

I just dont think we should waste the money, but if its what most of america wants then it shoud be done. sorry if i came across rude

I did not think you were rude. I was just disagreeing with you.

[BlackWidow]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

This is actually the most shameful thing about all of this.

I blame everyone who voted for him...AGAIN!!!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by BlackWidow

I blame everyone who voted for him...AGAIN!!!!

I blame Kerry for not having a fukcing sac to stand up to W and his policies - which BTW essentially were the same in Iraq as W's. So, voters had to clear choice. In the end, I truly think if Kerry had grown a spine and called out W and Cheney for never serving in a war yet sending with glee and frenzied anticipation other peoples' kids - that would have gone a long way to helping establish him as a "vote for" candidate as opposed to a candidate of last resort.

Maybe BO or Hillary will clue in on this. Certainly Bill did in 92.

I also think it will take a candidate taking down Hannity and O'Reilly. Sadly, few, other than Bill C. , have ever accomoplished that. The trick is to beat them at their own game and never lose your cool - which is exactly what Bill C. did.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I blame Kerry for not having a fukcing sac to stand up to W and his policies - which BTW essentially were the same in Iraq as W's. So, voters had to clear choice. In the end, I truly think if Kerry had grown a spine and called out W and Cheney for never serving in a war yet sending with glee and frenzied anticipation other peoples' kids - that would have gone a long way to helping establish him as a "vote for" candidate as opposed to a candidate of last resort.

Maybe BO or Hillary will clue in on this. Certainly Bill did in 92.

I also think it will take a candidate taking down Hannity and O'Reilly. Sadly, few, other than Bill C. , have ever accomoplished that. The trick is to beat them at their own game and never lose your cool - which is exactly what Bill C. did.

Yes! Stand for something dammit and don't back down. Let them sling mud. But if you're right you're right, no matter how they try to spin it. People will see that. Well, most will. You can't be a people pleaser in politics, you will never get everyone's vote.

[Chrislit18]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Hate to sound like a broken record but you do know that 9/11 and Iraq have nothing to do with each other right?
Also they were planning to get into Iraq well before 9/11. Supposedly it's what Cheney's secret energy meetings were about.



Maybe that's how they sold it to Junior. But Cheney and his associates made a hell of a lot of money off of this war.

thats true. they did make a lot of money off the war, plus bush did also, as he has oil plants [srry forgot the official name], and with the gas prices rising as they did/still are he must have made a quick buck. and 9/11 took us into afaganistan right? [im sorry if im getting my facts messed up, i was like 8 when this happened, im just going off memory.-dont yell at me for it LOL-]

I think it was alright though-not completely-but we did get hussein out of power, and that was a good point of invading.

[JWS]

Originally Posted by Chrislit18

thats true. they did make a lot of money off the war, plus bush did also, as he has oil plants [srry forgot the official name], and with the gas prices rising as they did/still are he must have made a quick buck. and 9/11 took us into afaganistan right? [im sorry if im getting my facts messed up, i was like 8 when this happened, im just going off memory.-dont yell at me for it LOL-]

I think it was alright though-not completely-but we did get hussein out of power, and that was a good point of invading.

Christine, Saddam was an evil person and the world is better off with him gone. But, that is not a good reason for invading a country. Kim Il Jong of North Korea boasts of a nuclear weapons program with missiles that could hit Seattle. Lets go invade that country. How about Cuba? Or Iran? I'm sure we could find a few more countries whose leaders we don't like.

All the reasons given to justify going into Iraq have proven to be false. And now we're bogged down and can't get out.