Should President Bush by impeached?

[brianleahy]

it's physically impossible for him to ever be a spinster.

I think he meant that Bush puts a lot of "spin" on things, not that he's an old, unmarried woman...

 

[chevy]

I don't want to give democracy lesson to anybody, but instead of speaking about impeachment for things that have nothing to do with treason... if you don't like your president don't elect him on the next occasion, if you like him (or his job) elect him. That's what a democracy is: you have election times to tell who will lead you, and then let him do his job as he can.... it's up to you to elect the right one.

 

[brianleahy]

instead of speaking about impeachment for things that have nothing to do with treason... if you don't like your president don't elect him on the next occasion

I'd planned to do both. Is that ok?

 

[ElDiabloConCaca]

I don't want to give an English lesson to anyone, but...

You don't have to commit an act of treason to be impeached. You just have to do something illegal. Actually, you don't have to do anything illegal at all -- impeaching someone is simply accusing them of something.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=impeach

Many people mistakenly believe that impeaching someone is throwing them out of office. Nothing could be farther from the truth. "Impeach" is almost synonymous with "accuse." It doesn't mean that they're guilty, nor does it mean they've committed a high crime, nor does it mean that they'll be thrown out of office, nor does it mean that being thrown out of office is even a threat to them.

 

[chevy]

Very go point ElDiabloConCaca... I learned something today.

 

[Cat]

As I have not followed the american news regarding Kerry previously to this election, could some please point out (shortly) what exactly is meant by this flip-flopping thing? I am not sure I've understood the problem ... I mean, I can understand not voting for Bush because he illegally invaded a country for false reasons which he changed repeatedly ("Saddam has ties with Al-quaeda" - "Saddam has WMD" - "Saddam was a ruthless dictator", the first two of which have been proven false.), but I don't see the same kind of thing with Kerry. What are his flip-flops? Are they on the same level, or, as far as I could understand, do they just merely refer to a certain interpretation of his voting history? As many regard the flip-flop thing as a major issue, I am interested in understanding more fully what is meant.

 

[brianleahy]

What most people mean by "flip-flopping" is that Kerry has changed his stance on some issues (or seemed to) and they try to infer from this that Kerry is indecisive or hypocritical.

Kerry voted to give the President the right to invade Iraq (hoping, like most Americans, that Bush would only exercise this right as an absolute last resort, and even then based on solid, reliable, factual information.) Kerry now believes it was a bad idea to invade Iraq - and this is termed flip-flopping by some of Bush's supporters.

Kerry also voted to approve the Patriot Act, which he also now opposes. While I detest Bush, I do fault Kerry - and most of the rest of Congress - for this. Few of them more than glanced at the Act before voting it in, and none asked for more time to study it before voting.

This too has been called flip-flopping, with perhaps a bit more justification, but I disagree. It feel it is not so much an example of indecisiveness as it is a failure to exercise proper diligence before voting for a new law - a failure of which most of Congress is guilty. Still, it is a failure that is not too surprising in the emotional context of post 9/11 America.

 

[mdnky]

He's changed his stance numerous times on certain issues, which by itself doesn't necessarily qualify as a flip-flop to me.

However, when he changes that stance multiple times on the same issue for no rhyme or reason, that's a flip-flop. He's been well know to say: "I'm for it." then "I'm against it." then "I'm for it." then "We need to look at that matter more." about the same issue over time, or something like that. It's also a flip-flop when he specifically states he's going to do or not do something, then turns around and doesn't or does do it.

Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. “Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we’re going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 10/23/03)

Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. “We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.” (MSNBC’s “News Live,” 7/31/03)

But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)

-----

In 1996, Kerry Attacked Governor Bill Weld For Supporting Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.” (1996 Massachusetts Senate Debate, 9/16/96)

In 1996, Kerry Said, “You Can Change Your Mind On Things, But Not On Life-And-Death Issues.” (Timothy J. Connolly, “The ‘Snoozer’ Had Some Life,” [Worcester, MA] Telegram & Gazette, 7/3/96)

But, In 2002, Kerry Said He Supported Death Penalty For Terrorists. KERRY: “The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096540
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/perkins/20040312-9999_mz1e12perkin.html
http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/read.aspx?ID=2439 (This list goes way back and actually provides sources for the info)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/06/p...ex=1393909200&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all
http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=Defensor&static=295385
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040307-104357-9446r.htm

 

[delsoljb32]

Before you go slandering and smearing the leader of our country (the country many of you live in, and enjoy the freedom it provides), lets all make sure that we are speaking in an intelligent manner (at least typing in an intelligent manner, with spell checking! For God's sake, you started the thread with a typo in the title!). Keep in mind that the one of the infallible truths to ANY government (up to and including the United States of America) is that the public WILL NOT know EVERYTHING that goes on. In terms of the safety and defense of the country, consider yourselves on a "Need To Know" basis. And we as general public, DO NOT NEED TO KNOW. Just know that the safety and defense that we expect from our government is entrusted to those we elect. Sometimes the result of an election is not what we wanted, it happens. But know that the system of checks and balances in place ensures that a madman is neither asleep at the wheel, nor white-knuckle driving us into oblivion. Trust the system, cast your vote, and accept the consequences (the same way you accept your freedom to sleep in peace w/o bombs dropping on your head, or other atrocities accepted in most of the world). Everyone speaks of this upcoming election as if it is the last step on solid ground before boarding Charon's boat across the River Styx. Whichever way the election goes, it IS NOT THE END OF THE COUNTRY. Life will go on, the United States of America will go on. If you don't feel that way, and like to think of this as the end of the world, then place your pennies on your eyes, pay the boatman, and tell him to have a nice day. But before you drink your special Kool-Aid and pray to the angels behind the comet to sweep you away in your Nike's, cast your vote, be part of the system, instead of slandering it and sleeping comfortably in your little beds...

 

[delsoljb32]

I want to know what would happen if another huge hurricane hit Florida on election day.

It emerged recently that the constitution has NO provision for rescheduling the presidential election FOR ANY REASON.

(This came out as part of a debate about delaying the election if there was a terror attack - answer: no can do, unless the constitution was amended.)

Don't even begin to wish things like that dude, I just went through a category 4 hurricane, my city is in ruins, people are dead. Not to mention the central part of the state got a double barrel shotgun blast a few weeks ago. Not a wound you would want to throw salt on at this point.

 

[MDLarson]

Yup, it's VERY sickening, and it's even more pathetic that he's been able to fool at least half of the United States into believing all that BS. He's a spinster, alright.

What an incredibly small-minded and insulting thing to say. Nevermind the principaled reasons I am voting for Bush.

Let's start with the "Bush lied" thing. I am SICK of this. What SPECIFICALLY is it that Bush lied about? Keep in mind the actual meaning of a "lie."

WMDs? Everybody's best intelligence (including France's) believed Saddam had WMDs. There was no reason for Bush to doubt it, given the fact that Saddam had thrown out the UN weapons inspectors and was generally extremely antagonistic. Now was Bush lying, or was he simply mistaken? I've heard some liberals say that Bush, as president, should be held to a higher standard. But sadly, the White House does NOT include some magical palantir where the President can gaze into Saddam's eyes and see the stockpiles in the mad man...

Bah... Please don't insult 1/2 of America. I don't categorically pass off liberals as easily as you do republicans.

 

[ElDiabloConCaca]

I'm not categorizing Republicans at all -- just Bush. I disapprove of Bush's presidency as strongly as you support it -- that's politics. You probably get sick when Kerry opens his flip-flopping mouth, and I can't stand it when Bush talks about Iraq -- that's our right.

I didn't mean to offend half the United States -- what I said was a harsh comment about what I think about Bush, and others share that view along with me -- just as others share your view. I don't know what else to say, but I'm part of the anti-Bush crowd, and you're part of the pro-Bush crowd, neither of us being in the wrong.

I have reasons for not supporting Bush, and, I must say, I do not wish him re-elected. I apologize for my comment, and I'll rephrase it, "I do not support Bush and I don't like it when he talks -- I do not believe him to be genuinely truthful, and I think many people share my view (which doesn't make it any more right or wrong)."

 

[Ricky]

DON'T even get me started about Bush.

 

[adambyte]

Let's start with the "Bush lied" thing. I am SICK of this. What SPECIFICALLY is it that Bush lied about? Keep in mind the actual meaning of a "lie."

WMDs? Everybody's best intelligence (including France's) believed Saddam had WMDs.

Go watch "Uncovered: The Truth About The Iraq War." There's plenty of experts testifying about Iraq's lack of WMD's, and whatnot.

So, really, all Bush had was a bunch of half-ass information that his administration TWISTED into being evidence for their war agenda.

So, alright, maybe Bush didn't lie, because he was simply BELIEVING WHAT HE WANTED TO BELIEVE.

 

[brianleahy]

Don't even begin to wish things like that dude,

No, no, I don't wish it - I have family and friends in Florida, and I would never wish such a thing on them.

I was thinking hypothetically, but on reflection perhaps it was bad taste. My condolences to all Floridians.

 

[Cat]

So the main flip-floppings I have read about on the previous page refer to changes in his positions occurring over 5-6 or more years and specifically him advocating no death penalty for terrorists before 9-11 and approving of death penalty for terrorists after 9-11 (which is disagreeable but understandable). Interesting that such a high and long degree of consistency is required from a candidate, while the president in office changed his mind a dozen times or so about the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Off the top of my head, it all started with "Iraq harbors terrorists" then "Iraq is not complying with UN sanctions", then when Iraq gave in to the inspectors returning it was "Iraq has WMD", for which there was no evidence, then again "Iraq bought Uranium from Nigeria", which was soon proven false and fabricated, then "Iraq will give WMD to terrorists", which was irrational as the terrorists being referred to were religious fundamentalists while Iraq had a secular regime (you do know what "secular means", right?), then the climax about the ultra-fast deployment of unspecified WMD, which resulted to be battlefield weapons and not ICBM's, and also up to now have not surfaced. In the end the argument became "Saddam is a ruthless dictator", which is true, but not sufficient reason to lay waste the whole of Iraq.

If you want to claim that Bush didn't lie, then you have at least to concede that he is either undecided or heavily misinformed. In either case this is a blame that hits the whole administration, military and intelligence. If you do not have enough information or no accurate information you should be very cautious to start a war. A hothead as president is not a good thing IMO.

As Kerry personally partecipated in a war, nevermind the whole pro and anti war discussion, he knows what it is like to be a soldier in combat, in enemy territory. Bush did not have this experience, nevermind the details of his record. If I were an american and I had to choose which candidate would be the best in a situation of war, I would honestly prefer the veteran soldier to the trained but unproven. Kerry knows what's it like to shoot and kill and be shot at, Bush not. A veteran soldier will be more cautious and not rush into battle: this is not cowardice or lack of determination. Caution and calm judgement are better that fanaticism.

If there is one thing I suppose all can agree on it is that Iraq right now is a complete mess. Bush put us (it affects us all) in this mess, but can he pull us out? Can Kerry pull us out? I don't know, but I would be reluctant to let Bush carry on since he is responsible for the whole thing.

 

[delsoljb32]

Again I will state that we as the public are not, and will not, ever be privy to the same information that the administration and military officials have. We should not expect to have this information. Bush made these decisions based on information provided to him.

Do you honestly think they would tell the public if they ever, or already have, caught Bin Laden?? He has people here in this country just waiting for those words and images to flash on CNN and Fox for their time to strike. These sleeper cells will lash out at the very moment he is made a martyr. Think about it. We may have gotten him months or even years ago, but they can drag it out in a bit of mis-information in order to root out these cells before they can strike. Look at what happened in Iraq, much of the violence shot up AFTER we had caught Hussein. He had laid down with his fellow regime conspirators and said: When I get captured, make them pay. It is the last effort of a desparate man and his ideals.

And as for Kerry, he renounced his military medals and sold out on his fellow soldiers, so I don't count his "military time" as credible at all. He is a coward and a sell out. That little snake in the grass and his teenage sidekick should not be given the keys to the country.

 

[RGrphc2]

The war on Terror as well it's bull,it's not going to stop. If american does manage to stop terrorists now (2004-2008), guess what, the children in Iraq and Afganastan are going to hate american for what it did now. Terrorism is not going to stop and Bush is an idiot for thinking we can police the world.

Iraq, there was no reason to goto war with that country, there were no WMD's. Saddam had nothing but oil and that's how Bush made his money. Partnerships with the Saudi Goverment, and even the Bin Ladens. Disturbing but true.

If he paid attention and did his job, he would have known about Osama's attack, and well he knew Osama attacked, then why did he let his Family out of the country??? Because Bush made money with them.

I'd hate to bring up another very touchy subject, but when authorites learned of Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing, did we let his family out of the Country? No, we stopped his family and asked.

Money that's what it all boils down to, Bush is a Greedy son-of-a-*, thats all he cared about, he's making money off this war, and we all know it.

 

[MDLarson]

Politics as usual. Not interested. [unsubscribes from thread]

 

[RGrphc2]

i'm afraid of what i've started...i cant believe what i have started by asking a simple question.