Kuahji Posted February 12, 2006 #1 Share Posted February 12, 2006 (edited) Why hasn't George Bush been impeached? I really don't understand why Bush hasn't been impeached yet... I mean the last president almost got impeached for lying about sexial relations. Yet it appears Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction Iraq (yeah I know he says it was faulty intelligence), the whole torture issue in Iraq, illegal wire taps (again Bush says he has the right to spy on Americans at will), & so much more. Anyway, I just don't understand why Bush hasn't been impeached yet. I mean we went after Clinton for lying about sex, but yet we just believe Bush about Iraq, wire taps, etc.? Edited February 12, 2006 by Kuahji Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__Kratos__ Posted February 12, 2006 #2 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I think you should just do a search on the forum. This topic has been done over and over again and beaten to death by the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurtingSpirit Posted February 12, 2006 #3 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Why hasn't George Bush been impeached? I really don't understand why Bush hasn't been impeached yet... I mean the last president almost got impeached for lying about sexial relations. Yet it appears Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction Iraq (yeah I know he says it was faulty intelligence), the whole torture issue in Iraq, illegal wire taps (again Bush says he has the right to spy on Americans at will), & so much more. Anyway, I just don't understand why Bush hasn't been impeached yet. I mean we went after Clinton for lying about sex, but yet we just believe Bush about Iraq, wire taps, etc.? I guess people are just afraid of Bush.. Either that, or they are too stupid... Myself included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella-Angelique Posted February 12, 2006 #4 Share Posted February 12, 2006 The Republicans pushed for the impeahment of Clinton. Any questions as to why the same has not been done to Bush should be directed to the Democratic leadership of the party that polls say the US people view as weak when it comes to defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuahji Posted February 12, 2006 Author #5 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I think you should just do a search on the forum. This topic has been done over and over again and beaten to death by the masses. I did do a search but the only thread I found was under "conspiracies" & I guess in theory that's one idea, but I'm not really much for conspiracies. I was more curious to hear if it was something like public opinion or say a weak democratic party rather than Bush caused 9/11 & he is really part of the illuminati. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamboIII Posted February 12, 2006 #6 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Why hasn't George Bush been impeached? I really don't understand why Bush hasn't been impeached yet... I mean the last president almost got impeached for lying about sexial relations. Yet it appears Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction Iraq (yeah I know he says it was faulty intelligence), the whole torture issue in Iraq, illegal wire taps (again Bush says he has the right to spy on Americans at will), & so much more. Anyway, I just don't understand why Bush hasn't been impeached yet. I mean we went after Clinton for lying about sex, but yet we just believe Bush about Iraq, wire taps, etc.? what do you mean by torture issue, i hope you arent talking about what i think you are talking about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted February 12, 2006 #7 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Why hasn't George Bush been impeached? I really don't understand why Bush hasn't been impeached yet... I mean the last president almost got impeached for lying about sexial relations. Yet it appears Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction Iraq (yeah I know he says it was faulty intelligence), the whole torture issue in Iraq, illegal wire taps (again Bush says he has the right to spy on Americans at will), & so much more. Anyway, I just don't understand why Bush hasn't been impeached yet. I mean we went after Clinton for lying about sex, but yet we just believe Bush about Iraq, wire taps, etc.? It's probably because there is nothing impeachable. The last President did get impeached...not almost. He got impeached for lying under oath. Of course, the case was basically partisan politics, had little to really back up the severity of the action, and failed miserably, as it should've. It does not appear at all that Bush lied about anything. There is no proof whatsoever that he lied. That will require a heck of a lot more than people saying he did. The "torture " issue in Iraq? There's only talk, nothing substantive. And there are no illegal wiretaps going on. Bush does not say he has the right to spy on Americans at will. Where do you get this stuff? Bush says, and he would be correct, that he has the right and the duty to collect intelligence in war-time to protect the people of the United States. He is spying on phone and other communications between terrorists and people in the U.S. If you're one of those people, you may assume you're being listened to, and if you're one of them, you are the enemy. Duh? Sure, lets hold another impeachment circus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted February 12, 2006 #8 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Well, you have to realise that the republicans had something more solid to go on. Clinton lied, but he did it under oath. Bush maybe lied, but if he did, he didnt do it under oath. Plus, right now for the democrates to try to impeach Bush could just hurt them for the next election. I think it'd be best for them to lie low for now, and start fresh in 2008. Then they can use the whole "Republicans lied about WMDs" again without it seeming to be too repetitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamboIII Posted February 12, 2006 #9 Share Posted February 12, 2006 this is going to get nasty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
et's daddy Posted February 12, 2006 #10 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Why hasn't George Bush been impeached? Yet it appears Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction Iraq (yeah I know he says it was faulty intelligence), even you yourself say it appears he lied about WMD's not good evidence the whole torture issue in Iraq, he may be the commander in chief, but he cant babysit the entire military if you run a company of 1000 people, and one of those people turns out to be a serial killer, should the board of directors fire you ? of course not illegal wire taps (again Bush says he has the right to spy on Americans at will), the wire taps were approved by congress guess we have to impeach everyone & so much more. what is "so much more" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goingcrazy Posted February 12, 2006 #11 Share Posted February 12, 2006 The Republicans pushed for the impeahment of Clinton. Any questions as to why the same has not been done to Bush should be directed to the Democratic leadership of the party that polls say the US people view as weak when it comes to defense. Yeah I agree, I'm ashamed to have to be a democrat -no backbone at all; they're letting Republicans have an orgy on the hill and so NOTHING about it. Anyway seeing as how I think we're really just a few months away from being secretly arrested for postings like these I'm going to go practice kowtowing to our Republican overlords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella-Angelique Posted February 12, 2006 #12 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Yeah I agree, I'm ashamed to have to be a democrat -no backbone at all; they're letting Republicans have an orgy on the hill and so NOTHING about it. Anyway seeing as how I think we're really just a few months away from being secretly arrested for postings like these I'm going to go practice kowtowing to our Republican overlords. Just remember not to go quail hunting with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twpdyp Posted February 13, 2006 #13 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I am not surprized, most of the left wing liberal Democrats are barely literate. What do you expect from a party lead by the likes of Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Hillary Clinton? Senator Kennedy is by all accounts a murderer. Senator Clinton is a classless leader wanna-be. The real reason President Bush has not been impeached, he has done nothing to be impeached for. So it is good times and high tides until 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedEyeJedi Posted February 14, 2006 #14 Share Posted February 14, 2006 The Republicans pushed for the impeahment of Clinton. Any questions as to why the same has not been done to Bush should be directed to the Democratic leadership of the party that polls say the US people view as weak when it comes to defense. America is a one-party state. The real reason President Bush has not been impeached, he has done nothing to be impeached for. So it is good times and high tides until 2008 Good times? I seriously doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted February 14, 2006 #15 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Good times? I seriously doubt it. Well, thats your opinion, and thats why you have a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedEyeJedi Posted February 14, 2006 #16 Share Posted February 14, 2006 (edited) Well, thats your opinion, and thats why you have a vote. I'm not American, so I don't have a vote. Wouldn't matter if I did. It would, most likely, be lost due to a 'voting error' or changed by a Diebold machine. Democracy in America died a while ago. Edited February 14, 2006 by RedEyeJedi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuahji Posted February 14, 2006 Author #17 Share Posted February 14, 2006 what do you mean by torture issue, i hope you arent talking about what i think you are talking about... Guantanamo... for one. Inside Iraq for another... I'm really not some liberal left-wing person but torture is unacceptable. I mean it goes against everything we believe in (at least in America). All we're doing is trading our freedoms for safety. These people are being held too long without trial. But then again I guess it's ok because they aren't Americans (sarcasm). Some peolpe say they are terrorists but we really don't know for sure because they haven't even had a chance to have a trial. The military is not a court nor should it be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedEyeJedi Posted February 14, 2006 #18 Share Posted February 14, 2006 (edited) You forgot the secret CIA 'rendition' flights, that have been secretly picking up people from around Europe (possibly further afield) and sending them to countries where it is known they would be tortured. Edited February 14, 2006 by RedEyeJedi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedEyeJedi Posted February 14, 2006 #19 Share Posted February 14, 2006 (edited) George Bush admitted recently when asked how many innocent civilians had been killed in Iraq: '... Oh I don't know - about 30,000.' The estimates have been much higher, but if you take that figure, which is probably a minimum of innocents killed. Think about this: 3000 died in WTC. Is Bush ten times more of a terrorist than Bin Laden? IMPEACH BUSH! Edited February 14, 2006 by RedEyeJedi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted February 14, 2006 #20 Share Posted February 14, 2006 3000 died in WTC. Is Bush ten times more of a terrorist than Bin Laden? Bush didnt kill them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ciraxis Posted February 14, 2006 #21 Share Posted February 14, 2006 the number of innocents that have died in this war, are far far below any other war. This is a war against cowards, and innocent people will die, but a whole lot more will die unless we kill every one of these radicals. And if our men have to torture and spy then let them, because it is for the greater good of innocent people, not just americans, but anyone who does not fall into their ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted February 14, 2006 #22 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Yet it appears Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction Iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuahji Posted February 14, 2006 Author #23 Share Posted February 14, 2006 the number of innocents that have died in this war, are far far below any other war. This is a war against cowards, and innocent people will die, but a whole lot more will die unless we kill every one of these radicals. And if our men have to torture and spy then let them, because it is for the greater good of innocent people, not just americans, but anyone who does not fall into their ideology. Yes but the Iraq war is illegal to begin with... Yes congress approved force but here's the catch "Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction." Which Bush clearly did not do... Not only in the war illegal by American laws but it's illegal internationally. The UN did not approve the use of force. Anyway I'm not anti-American, in fact I'm pretty proud to be an American. It's just this Bush & his lackeys clearly seem to be out of control... I'm curious to see how Bush handles Guantanamo now that the UN demanded it be closed... It's about time. Who knows how many innocent people are in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuahji Posted February 14, 2006 Author #24 Share Posted February 14, 2006 even you yourself say it appears he lied about WMD's That's not the point though "if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html We can play games on whether or not Iraq did or did not have weapons of mass destruction. We had to have proof first off that he had those weapons which clearly the UN was unsure about which is why force wasn't approved. Even congress stated we needed proof before using force... now I ask where is that proof? If there is none, it's an illegal war... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phobes Posted February 14, 2006 #25 Share Posted February 14, 2006 It is absolutely amazing to me that some people can have such a selective memory!! Anyone who makes the claim 'Bush lied' should have to answer the following questions: 'How can you say that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, when Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Russ Fiengold, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and the United Nations (just to name a few) said EXACTLY THE SAME THING before George W Bush was even elected? (Yes, I said elected) 'Did all of those democrats lie, too?' Anyone that continues to believe that Bush lied, and does not acknowledge that all of those mentioned above said the same thing, is so blinded by their hate for this administration, that they will believe anything that makes Bush look bad - Just ask Dan Rather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now