• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Impeach Bush?

bob_kark said:
Why impeach him when he just wants to clear brush at the ranch? I say it's time to offer him early retirement, a nice severance package, and backstage passes to the Alabama concert. I don't see how he could resist.
Click to expand...
I suppose one could always give Bush a retirement job of head of an Institute for Non-Divisive Diplomacy, Alliance-Building and Negotiation Skills.

Hey. Or head of FEMA.


20050910-georges-bush-disaster-katrina.jpg
 
latent aaaack said:
There should be consequences that fit the offense of portraying as a known fact that Iraq had WMDs when it wasn't so. The president should be allowed to stake his credibility and the lives of countless people on the existence of a claimed threat, but that means if the claim is proven false then everything you put on the line is forfeited.
Click to expand...
Good point. You've won me over; an impeachment would actually be a very good idea if done along those lines.
 
Woo Hoo, a thread of mine that got more than zero responses. I like it. I don't want to jinx this but it looks like two pages is even possible.

A few small observations:
1. The president has already been partially impeached in the sense that he has lost more than half the power he had when he was first elected. Between his widespread unpopularity, the susceptibility of his administration to investigations that could reveal damaging information, the limiting effect of massive deficits and a congress not of his party Bush probably has less practical power than any president in my memory. What will be the effect of this situation on the nation? Maybe Bush acts like a petulant jerk trying to prove he's still the guy in charge or maybe Bush figures out that his options are limited and he picks the right ones to begin to reduce the impact of some of his screwups?

2. Rove lost big time in the last election but as a political operative, I'm not so sure that he did that badly. It is hard to imagine a worse set of facts for the Republican party than the Iraq war, but on top of that there was the Foley scandal, several criminal cases against congressman, the huge national deficit, widespread dissatisfaction by the seniors with the medicare drug program, some last minute scandals that all cut against the Republicans and a president who comes across as something of a boob with his speaking ability. Despite all that, it took several very close elections to go the Democrats way to give them the large number of congressional seats they gained. Maybe Rove is still a genius even if he is a sneaky little SOB.
 
No, impeachment seems not necessary, really. Shrub and his team are already exposed fully and clearly for what they are, and the US populace has already indicated they WILL be "moving onwards and upwards" in 2008. Not so much lame duck as totally shredded duck.
 
Impeachment doesn’t mean he’d be thrown out of office. Clinton was impeached and remained in office.

If Bush is the worst President of your lifetime, I guess you weren’t around for Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford.
 
RandFan said:
I give Bush mixed marks as president. I don't think he was the worst president in my lifetime by any stretch of the imagination. To be frank he was not my favorite either. For quality of life I have to give that to Clinton, though I don't know how much he contributed to it.

In any event, I think impeachment would be a dumb move. It will make Dem's look divisive when they have been bemoaning divisiveness. Bush is going on his way out the people don't want another impeachment they want to get on with life. They want solutions. If Pelosi can deliver or at least make it look like the Dems are working for to fix things and the Republicans are do nothing but being road blocks then the Dems stand to make huge gains in the next election.

We will see.
Click to expand...
Sorry I can't immediately provide the source - will get it from my wife who passed it to me a couple of days ago - but according to the source, he considers Bush the fifth worst president of all time (Andrew Johnson is one of the others but I just don't remember the list - because I didn't think it would be useful this soon. Found: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101475.html
 
The Painter said:
Impeachment doesn’t mean he’d be thrown out of office. Clinton was impeached and remained in office.

If Bush is the worst President of your lifetime, I guess you weren’t around for Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford.
Click to expand...
Well, I was. And they were not half as downright scary as this guy. Maybe they were bumblers, but they weren't deliberate self-serving thugs.
 
latent aaaack said:
There should be consequences that fit the offense of portraying as a known fact that Iraq had WMDs when it wasn't so. The president should be allowed to stake his credibility and the lives of countless people on the existence of a claimed threat, but that means if the claim is proven false then everything you put on the line is forfeited. This administration has not owned up to that, while thousands of young servicemen and civilians have been forced to with their lives and there needs to be a way that can happen besides just impeaching the president which wouldn't accomplish much.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like the President just made it all up. Almost every nation in the civilized world beleived Saddam had WMD's. Maybe that's because he kept telling the world he had them. Of course it doesn't matter that they actually have found some the of the banned missles he was supposed to destroy. It doesn't seem to matter that he lost a war and refused to uphold his surrender terms. It doesn't matter that Bush had a U.N resolution passed and that just like the ump-teen resolutions before it, Saddam refused to act.

The Bush haters have one doctrine, and it certainly clouds the history of the Iraq of the situation.

Was it the wrong reason to go to war? Sure, hindsight is 20/20. Was it a good enough reason at the time? Yeah, given the WMD information that the world (not just the United States) was circulating, it probably was. Besides, I'd say 17 resolutions and repeated acts of non-compliance should have been enough for the world to step up and remove the guy. That we didn't shows world impotence and all that human rights stuff is just smoke and mirrors.
 
Unfortunately, but accurately, my assumption also was that he had the WMDs -my big problem is they did not properly prepare before sending in troops. Since I have covered this in several threads, I won't elaborate.
 
fuelair said:
Sorry I can't immediately provide the source - will get it from my wife who passed it to me a couple of days ago - but according to the source, he considers Bush the fifth worst president of all time (Andrew Johnson is one of the others but I just don't remember the list - because I didn't think it would be useful this soon. Found: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101475.html
Click to expand...

from the last paragraph of the article:

Why did Bush do it? Did he really believe that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?

Yes, most nations believed it. Hussein said he had them. How easy it is to just simply re-write history.

Was it about oil?

No doubt oil was a major factor. It's the fundamental resource of all modern economies.

Israel?

Hussein was paying the families of suicide bombers and thereby helping to finance murder in a unstable region of the world, so sure.

Revenge for Hussein's alleged attempt on Bush's father's life?

Maybe. That the United States would take such an assaisnation attempt lightly is a new page in our history. If the French had tried to kill Madison, I suspect we would have gone to war with them.

The war will join the sinking of the USS Maine and the grassy knoll among the topics to exercise conspiracy theorists for generations, and the photos of torture at Abu Ghraib will join images of the napalmed Vietnamese girl and executed Filipino rebels in the gallery of U.S. atrocities.

Probably. But it wouldn't have to if the world had stood by its commitments issued in the form of 17 UN resolutions. Iraq would be a different place if the Russians, Chinese, and French let the convictions find something other than cold feet. The current insurgency has a powerful weapon to support their murdering death squads-- they have the backing of powerful nations with U.N. voices. Those nations could care less about Iraq. They are more interested in seeing the United States struggle. This whole friendly world thing is an illusion. And at the same time they squander their responsibilities, they are the ones getting attacked.
 
stamenflicker said:
You make it sound like the President just made it all up. Almost every nation in the civilized world believed Saddam had WMD's. Maybe that's because he kept telling the world he had them. Of course it doesn't matter that they actually have found some the of the banned missiles he was supposed to destroy. It doesn't seem to matter that he lost a war and refused to uphold his surrender terms. It doesn't matter that Bush had a U.N resolution passed and that just like the ump-teen resolutions before it, Saddam refused to act.

The Bush haters have one doctrine, and it certainly clouds the history of the Iraq of the situation.

Was it the wrong reason to go to war? Sure, hindsight is 20/20. Was it a good enough reason at the time? Yeah, given the WMD information that the world (not just the United States) was circulating, it probably was. Besides, I'd say 17 resolutions and repeated acts of non-compliance should have been enough for the world to step up and remove the guy. That we didn't shows world impotence and all that human rights stuff is just smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...

Was it (the Iraq Fiasco) worth somewhere between $1 to $2 Trillion US Dollars? Was the Iraq Fiasco worth destabilizing the Middle East and alienating our allies as well as creating new enemies? Was the Iraq Fiasco worth the lives of thousands of our servicemen and women?

Couldn't the enormous wealth (of the USA) thrown down the drain in Iraq have been better spent and shouldn't Bush also be held accountable for wasting this enormous fortune on an ill fated venture purely of his own making? For example, wouldn't $1 Trillion US spent on developing alternative energy sources to rid both the US and World's dependence on Middle Eastern oil also accomplished a similar strategic objective. Namely to defang the Islamic Fundamentalists and win the War on Terror. The Pentagon talks about Asymmetric warfare against the Terrorists. How about taking away ALL of the terrorists funding by not buying anymore Middle Eastern oil?
 
joe1347 said:
Was it (the Iraq Fiasco) worth somewhere between $1 to $2 Trillion US Dollars? Was the Iraq Fiasco worth destabilizing the Middle East and alienating our allies as well as creating new enemies? Was the Iraq Fiasco worth the lives of thousands of our servicemen and women?
Click to expand...

No, no, and no. But that's a pretty easy position to take 4 years later. The decision was made months after 9/11. The guy was parading around the world as if he had a gun in his pocket threatening lives and causing mayhem, and the world continued to try to reason with him to verify what was in his pocket. This only emboldened him. At some point, one lonely cop said "You know if you don't take your hands out of your pocket, I'm going to have to shoot you." And we did.
 
stamenflicker said:
No, no, and no. But that's a pretty easy position to take 4 years later. The decision was made months after 9/11. The guy was parading around the world as if he had a gun in his pocket threatening lives and causing mayhem, and the world continued to try to reason with him to verify what was in his pocket. This only emboldened him. At some point, one lonely cop said "You know if you don't take your hands out of your pocket, I'm going to have to shoot you." And we did.
Click to expand...
That's a horrible analogy. You're talking about assasination as a political tool. Also, if you think he has a gun, cornering him will be more likely to make him use it. (Fortunately, he didn't have a gun.)

But I will say that if we had gotten rid of Saddam and then got the hell out, things would be better now, even though Iraq might still be a shambles. Killing (or removing) a strong leader is bound to destabilize a country unless there is another strong leader to step in and take his place.

Lots of people mentioned this before the invasion. Many loudly. They got shouted down and called traitors and worse. Don't you remember?
 
latent aaaack said:
There should be consequences that fit the offense of portraying as a known fact that Iraq had WMDs when it wasn't so.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Republicans should have impeached Clinton over that rather than Lewinski. Glad we're on the same page on that one.
 
stamenflicker said:
Besides, I'd say 17 resolutions and repeated acts of non-compliance should have been enough for the world to step up and remove the guy. That we didn't shows world impotence and all that human rights stuff is just smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...

IIRC, in the end, Hussein allowed full access to NRC inspectors, and produced the required report stating that all WMD's had been destroyed. This report, though it undoubedtly had some errors in details, was far more accurtate than the fiction promoted by Bush. So how is that Hussein was not complying? Because he did not comfirm Bush's lies?

IXP
 
IXP said:
IIRC, in the end, Hussein allowed full access to NRC inspectors, and produced the required report stating that all WMD's had been destroyed. This report, though it undoubedtly had some errors in details, was far more accurtate than the fiction promoted by Bush. So how is that Hussein was not complying? Because he did not comfirm Bush's lies?

IXP
Click to expand...

The NRC wasn't the relevant organization. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
 
bob_kark said:
Why impeach him when he just wants to clear brush at the ranch?
Click to expand...
Hollywood has offered a chance for me to play a cellulecephalic rebel who heads a team of young craniate xylographologists at Wood University Teaching Hospital in a series to be titled Dubya: MD.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
The NRC wasn't the relevant organization. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

You are correct, NRC was wrong.

Please substitute "United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission" for NRC then dispute what I am saying instead of nitpicking.

Thank you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom