BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 05:05 PM

I am not overlooking any of those "trifles", Teribus, regardless of your bland assumptions that I am. I know it would be very handy for your rhetorical purposes if I did overlook such things, but I am not. It would be handy for your rhetorical purposes if everyone who disagreed with you about Iraq was a drooling, obviously insane, and gibbering lunatic, but they are not. No, life is just not that convenient for you, sir, and it's never going to be. Your adversaries will never be the uniformed prats and morons you wish they all were. ;-)

I am simply saying that Iraq was far better off never being invaded by Bush's armies in 2003, regardless of the rotten things Saddam did to his people over the years (while the USA supported him through most of that time). And I hold to that. George Bush has done more harm to Iraq and Iraqis in general than Saddam was ever able to. Far more. He has killed more of them than Saddam did and ruined more lives there than Saddam and done more harm to the country than Saddam, AND he's trespassing, because he is NOT an Iraqi, and his soldiers have no business messing around in that country at all.

They are committing unprovoked aggression against a country that was no threat to the USA in 2003...or indeed, at any time.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 05:08 PM

In the action forum on Dennis' campaign website, already there's a new member who said he previously supported Hillary, but has permanently switched his support to Kucinich because of Dennis' impeachment bill. I think there will be quite a few people who will switch their support to Dennis for that reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 05:56 PM

"I am simply saying that Iraq was far better off never being invaded by Bush's armies in 2003,"

Your opinion Little Hawk which is completely and utterly clouded by your almost pathological hatered of all things American, because they gave you a rough time as a child.

"regardless of the rotten things Saddam did to his people over the years"

Please do tell us about the rotten things that Saddam did to his people, give it some dimension and scale.

"(while the USA supported him through most of that time)"

Popularly believed left wing myth Little Hawk. Let's take a detailed look at that:
1967 - Diplomatic ties cut between the USA and Iraq
1978 - Saddam's coup where he murders 684 party members still no ties diplomatic or otherwise between US and Iraq
1980 - Saddam attacks Iran
1984 - December, the "Rumsfeld Handshake"
1989 - November diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US re-established
1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait
1991 - US led Coalition Forces attack Iraq and drive Iraqi Forces from Kuwait ending in the Safwan Ceasefire Agreement
1991 - 1998 - UNSCOM attempt to supervise Iraqi disarmament process
1998 - December US attacks Iraq in Operation "Desert Fox"
2002 - US goes to UN in order to get previous resolutions enforced, Iraq given one last chance with UNSC Resolution 1441
2003 - US plus it's Coalition Partners invades Iraq and sweeps Saddam from power.

Now what was yuour contention again Little Hawk that "the USA supported him (Saddam) through most of that time". Now that time would be from 1978 to 2003, correct? Thats 25 years Little Hawk.

Did the US support him between 1978 and 1984? - No it did not.
Did the US support him between 1984 and 1990? - Yes.
Did the US support him between 1990 and 2003? - No it did not.

So how do you work out that the US supported Saddam for most of his time in power when it can be clearly demonstrated and established that for all but six years of that 25 year period the US and Iraqi Governments were completely at odds with one another.

"And I hold to that."

By all means "hold to that" if you wish to believe in lies

"George Bush has done more harm to Iraq and Iraqis in general than Saddam was ever able to."

Now that I would very much doubt, I know you certainly cannot substantiate that claim, which may be shown by your reluctance to actually look in detail at the extent of Saddam's crimes against his own people

"Far more. He has killed more of them than Saddam did and ruined more lives there than Saddam and done more harm to the country than Saddam,"

Where is your proof and what are your grounds for making that ridiculous and totally false statement.

"AND he's trespassing, because he is NOT an Iraqi, and his soldiers have no business messing around in that country at all."

MNF Troops are present in Iraq at the specific request of the elected government of Iraq and under the terms of a United Nations Mandate, so unfortunately Little Hawk nobody is trespassing at all.

"They are committing unprovoked aggression against a country that was no threat to the USA in 2003...or indeed, at any time."

US intelligence community disagrees although they identified the threat early in 1998

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 06:47 PM

Well, it's a matter of opinion, isn't it? We differ on our opinion of who has done more harm to Iraq, George Bush or Saddam Hussein. And I suspect we will always differ on that. Your support of the American policy in Iraq is just as worthy of criticism as my opposition to it. Your perceptions of good and bad in the world were also formed by your growing up experiences, but you haven't been open (or foolish) enough to reveal much about them on this forum, so I can't take cheap shots at you about your childhood. Again, it's strictly a matter of opinion. Every invasion has its fervent supporters and its fervent opponents. I oppose the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I oppose it utterly. You don't. You support it. We will continue, obviously, to disagree about that, and we will both be sure that the other person has fallen for misleading propaganda.

And one day we'll both be gone, and someone else can argue about it in our place. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: DougR
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 07:46 PM

Neither Bush or the VP will be impeached. Why? Because neither of them have commmitted an impeachable offense. If they had, they would have been drawn and quartered by the left-wing of the Democratic Party long ago.

The Republicans would welcome a vote for impeachment in the Senate because they know they would win. The Democrats don't want a vote in the Senate because they know they would lose. The Democrats are making a show of it to please their left-wing base. After all, some of them will be up for election in 2008 and they certainly want to be able to say, "Well, I tried."

Anyone who does not recognize that the surge in Iraq is improving conditions in Iraq simply has his/her head in the sand.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 07:59 PM

The Democrats are pretty much as bad as the Republicans, DougR. A lot of them have committed impeachable offenses themselves. I tend to suspect that for a lot of them, one of the reasons they're so adamantly against impeachment hearings is because they're afraid their own bad behavior will come to light, if hearings take place.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 08:27 PM

Now, as for Iraq being better off these days, where do you get your information, T-Bird???

I mean, lets face it, in these days of McCartyism and media running from real news in favor of entertainment and the governemnt controlling what is "real" *(haha) news, how can nayone say that things are better???

All you are doing, T, is propagating mythology that the governemnt has furnished you... You are not in Iraq... You don't have a friggin' clue what is going on... Nor do too many folks becuase the so-called news that is coming out of Iraq is being wriiten purdy much by the occupiers... The have the microphione and they want you to think that thinks are peachy...

What I have gleened from the occupier's story is that the US military has purdy much given up in many areas of Iraq and has circled the wagons in the Summi areas and is trying to buddy up with them seein' as they are scared they will be innialted without some protection... This may seem like a success but, geeze, you still have a civil war going on and when the US ever pulls out the Sunnis are going to have to fend for themselves...

(But, Bobert, if the US pulls out and the Sunnis all get killed, then wouldn't this be looked at as the US allowing genocide???)

Well, fair question and one that Bush should have considered ***before*** going to war since there were folks out there saying that this would happen if Bush ordered up an invasion...

But to answer the question... Let's be frank here... We have two choices... Stay forever until our own existence is about to go down the tubes from a spending so much of our money on an Iraq occuaption that threatenes our very existence or get the heck outta a place we shouldn't be, revamp a foriegn policy that isn't based on wackin' folks and deal with our faltering economy... This, at least to me, is a no-brainer....

Got the heck out... There is no victory to be had... No Bush legacy to save... Just get out!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 08:47 PM

Dennis sent this letter to Representative Conyers, who is the head of the Judiciary Committee...


Dear Chairman Conyers

I am writing in support of H. Res. 799, the Articles of Impeachment which were referred to the committee relative to the Impeachment of the Vice President of the United States of America.

Recent reports indicate that the Vice President is attempting to shape the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran to conform to his misperceptions about the threat Iran actually poses. Much like his deceptive efforts in the lead up to the Iraq war, the Vice President appears to be manipulating intelligence to conform to his beliefs.

If the reports are true, they add additional weight to the case for impeachment. I believe impeachment remains the only tool Congress has to prevent a war in Iran. This information relates directly to the Article III charges in the resolution. I urge your timely consideration.

Sincerely,

/s/

Dennis J. Kucinich

Member of Congress

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 07 - 09:39 PM

I bet half the people in BOTH the Democratic and Republican parties have committed impeachable offenses by now. ;-) They're scoundrels, and they're in it together, as Carol has suggested, so why be surprised by what's going on?

They're (almost) all just playing politics...angling for advantage as the next election approaches. The usual thing, in other words. It's a game. People who are silly enough to believe the game is what it pretends it is...real democracy and a real choice...well, I guess maybe they deserve the government they get. Not that they really have any choice, because the $ySStem is set up so they can only realistically elect more Democracts and Republicans...meaning almost no real choice at all.

It's like the silly elections they used to have in the Soviet Union where you could choose this Communist or that Communist (the "liberal" or the "conservative" Communist?) to vote for in your region. Wow! Great choice, eh? In the USA you can vote for this corporate stooge or that corporate stooge. One is a Democrat who might pretend to be "liberal", the other is a Republican who definitely WILL pretend to be "conservative". They will BOTH pretend that they are more patriotic than their opponent!

In Canada, on the other hand, it's entirely different! (joke, okay?) We normally get a choice between as many as 3 or 4 corporate stooges (Liberal Stooge/Conservative Stooge/NDP Stooge/etc.)! And they ALL pretend various unlikely things in their effort to snag votes. LOL! Yup, real democracy in action..."Uh-huh, yup, pass the chip dip, eh? Tell me when it's over."

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 01:21 AM

"Well, it's a matter of opinion, isn't it? We differ on our opinion of who has done more harm to Iraq, George Bush or Saddam Hussein. And I suspect we will always differ on that. Your support of the American policy in Iraq is just as worthy of criticism as my opposition to it." - Little Hawk

The main difference is that facts and circumstances upon which I base my opinions can be backed up. As I pointed out in my post of 11 Nov 07 - 05:56 PM yours are either dowright lies at worst or complete and utter misrepresentation (e.g. "while the USA supported him through most of that time")

Doug R is perfectly correct there will be no impeachment proceedings because no impeachable offence has been committed, those in the Senate and House of Representatives know that. Kucinich is bleating on about this for one reason, and one reason only, it helps his Presidential election campaign for the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 09:50 AM

DougR also assured us that the US would not invade Iraq a few months before it actually did, so I don't see any need to take his predictions very seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 11:58 AM

Well, I can understand why he would have thought so, Carol...there was no rational or sane reason for invading Iraq at the time, and Doug probably assumed that the Bush administration was rational and sane, not to mention morally upright.

DougR is a gentleman. He may well be wrong on occasion, but at least he's not a complete and utter tosser, like someone else I could mention. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 12:43 PM

An impeachable offense is whatever Congress decides it is. Certainly the impeachment of Clinton proved that. Congress could impeach if it wanted to. It just doesn't want to. Too many powerful corporations are getting rich off this little escapade and, as Little Hawk points out, both parties are beholden to them.

As far as the surge working, we already know that millions have fled that country which certainly cuts down on casualties and we know that Muqtada al-Sadr has agreed to have the Mahdi army stand down for a while. The Sunnis are getting arms from the US now so they don't want to upset that and al-Qaeda's presence was always an exaggeration. And the army admits it kind fudges numbers when it calculates the death toll (not to mention that "contractor" are never counted).

What this means is that al-Sadr has been promised Iraq and it will be his as soon as we leave. There is no other reason he would agree to stand his army down. As we can see, they were the primary insurgents in this whole thing. We were not fighting al-Qaeda, we were fighting the Shiites--the very people we put in power.

The deal is this: the US has told all the parties to give us time to convince the American people that the surge has worked so that the US can declare victory and get out. We will be leaving by election time, folks. We're out of people--we just can't stay. Not only are we running out of soldiers but Blackwater is history and this war cannot continue without them. So the administration is swinging deals to give us time to get out in a way that we don't lose too much face.

So al-Sadr has bought into that. Why not sit back and wait for the Americans to leave? Al-Maliki wants us gone because he is furious that we armed the Sunnis. Probably the ONLY group that doesn't want us gone are the Sunnis. We're a big screen for them to hide behind now. But now they have plenty of American arms to carry on the conflict after we're gone.

So that is how it will shake out. Iraq will fall into al-Sadr's hands and the Republican party will crow about having achieved the objective. Whether the public buys it or not remains to be seen. After all, this war was never about al-Sadr or al-Qaeda or the Sunnis--it was about Saddam's non-existent WMD and Iraq's non-existent ties to al-Qaeda that we were told was such an urgent matter that Iraq had to be invaded right now at this moment. And, of course, bin-Laden is as elusive as ever.

The idea that we liberated Iraqis (whom the majority of Americans feel only the deepest hatred and contempt for) would be laughable were the whole thing not so tragic.

But anyway, expect the press (that liberal press that never reports about all the GOOD things in Iraq--remember that?) to play up on this "the surge is working" crap for the next few months. It's necessary in order for a victory to be declared so that we may then cut & run because we have discovered that Humpty-Dumpty doesn't go back together very well no matter how much money and lives you waste trying to achieve it.

The Brits know it and that is why they left. The same goes for the Japanese and the Italians and the Dutch and everyone else. It's funny, a few weeks ago I read about Iraqi refugees returning to Iraq because they are out of money and cannot find work. One Iraqi girl likened it to returning to death row. NOW I'm reading that Iraqis are returning because the streets are safe!!! Funny too how the surge is working while at the same time 2007 has been the most deadly year for American soldiers yet. And if Iraq is now so secure why is the Bush admiinistration is begging Congress on the sly for another $23 billion for "security."

In the end, I don't care. Let's just get out. Declare your little victory and get our people out of there.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 12:56 PM

"...here will be no impeachment proceedings because no impeachable offence has been committed,.."

piffle! There are several 'probable causes' for believing that impeachable offenses HAVE been committed, but of course it won't happen, because it would take beyond the end of his term to go thru the processes and have the trial, and it would consume the congress when little is getting done anyway. And if we impeach Bush, we get Cheney, and in my crowd, that's worse.

No, Bush will finish his term....I just hope he doesn't get us into another war before he's done.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 01:03 PM

This impeachment isn't for Bush, BillD. It's for Cheney. Didn't you even bother to read the thread? Not even the opening post?

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 03:43 PM

Actually, I do think things are going slightly better in Iraq since the surge. From cataclysmically bad, they have gotten merely intolerable. The fact that Bush deemed it approrpiate to dig the U.S. into such a deep hole in the first place is not easily forgiveable, given the other options he had. The means he used to persuade the country to back him are not easily forgiveable and constitute false testimony. His biggest offense is being far more ignorant than he had any right to be given the responsibililties he was stealing. Going from -100 to -95 is not a recommendation in any kind of work.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 05:54 PM

Little Hawk, the fair, the impartial, the "open-minded", the self-examining, what's up?

How come that you are incapable of detailing some of the "rotten things that Saddam did". You must have some idea or notion to so fervently declare that what GWB and the US has done in 4 years amounts to so much more than Saddam achieved in 24. Or are you just naturally reluctant to go into details.

How come that you are incapable of explaining how you manage to work out that the US supported Saddam for most of his time in power when it can be clearly demonstrated and established that for less than six years of that 25 year period the US and Iraqi Governments were completely at odds with one another.

You blythely state - "He (GWB) has killed more of them (Iraqis) than Saddam did and ruined more lives there than Saddam and done more harm to the country than Saddam". And we are supposed to take this onboard as truth? Why just because you say so?? Give you a little clue Little Hawk, GWB and the US have got one hell of a lot of catching up to do before your statement has any substance (Saddam's total fatality tally lies somewhere between 1,349,040 and 2,470,320). Even if the ludicrous and fictitious Hopkins figures are taken into account you'd still not be anywhere close.

Trespassing Little Hawk??? Still say that MNF Troops are not there at the specific request of the elected government of Iraq Little Hawk? Do you still say that MNF Troops currently stationed in Iraq are not there under a perfectly legal and duly approved United Nations Security Council Mandate?

With reference to your PM, this, for my part, is not, nor has it ever been, about winning anything. It has been more about exposing lies such as yours, repeatedly trotted out in order to misrepresent, deceive and to sustain the ludicrous myths you seem to hold so dear in order to sustain your downright prejudice and bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: DougR
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 06:01 PM

Bill D.:If either the president or vice-president had committed an act that could be considered impeachable the Democrats would be on him like flies on you-know-what. And they would do it regardless of the amount of time they both have in office. Holding hearings and investigations is about all the new Congress has been done since they took control of the house and senate anyway.

As to whether or not the surge in Iraq has improved conditions, I really don't think most on this forum could be convinced there has been improvement by anything or anyone. To argue that Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam is ...well, just plain dumb. For proof try Googling mass graves found in Iraq (sticking my neck out because I haven't Googled it either but I will). More and more Iraqi citizens who fled Irag are returning to their homes and that is reported by the drive-by media or mainstream media if you prefer (a group not friendly to the Bush administration regardless of what you refer to them as).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 06:14 PM

>>More and more Iraqi citizens who fled Irag are returning to their homes and that is reported by the drive-by media or mainstream media if you prefer (a group not friendly to the Bush administration regardless of what you refer to them as).<<

HAHAHAHA!! What did I just get done explaining?

Good god, we're doomed.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 06:25 PM

Well, well, well...

Another absolutely ***taken-on-faith-from-the-exactly-whom?-T-bird dact***... 1.3M to 2.4M people killed by Saddam??? Ahhhh, who were these folks, T??? Do you have a list of their names and nationalities??? This is another bogus number that you couldn't prove if your life depended on it... Oh sure, you can finf links of folks who have come up with these numbers but the folks who ciome up with these numbers have agendas...

What was the agenda of the Johns Hopkins folks??? Do they hate Bush??? Or Cheney???

I really don't believe anyone, given the facts when Bush booted the inspectors out or the facts a month later, a year later or even today could possibly still, in their heart of hearts, not know that they are were and are still wrong on this invasion...

It has achieved nothing but death, destruction, regional instability and hatred of the United Sates...

As for impeachemnt of Dick Cheney, okay, in spite of my stated reservation, what the heck, go for it!!! He still a very dangerous man and maybe it will take his impeachemnt to stop him from influencing Bush to bomb Iran so...

Impeach away!!! I'm now on board...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 06:59 PM

You can add some weight to your feelings asbouty the issue by filling this out.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: DougR
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 07:56 PM

I just Googled "Mass graves found in Iraq" and it was as I predicted.

RA282:Pardon me. I didn't realize you were addressing me.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 07:56 PM

Missing me, are you, Teribus? ;-) Awww....poor lonely chap, you are.

I'm gonna let you fight with some other people here instead for a bit, you pathetic tosser. Hold that thought, okay? We've got to keep your kind off the street, you know, and I figure appealing to your obsessive-compulsive need to endlessly defend the indefensible is the perfect way to do it. Carry on, mate. Cheerio and all that...until I feel like wasting more of my time trying to teach the pig to sing.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 08:14 PM

Yo, LH...

T doesn't care who he is fighting with... You, me, TIA, Dianava,, Carol, 282... We are all interchangable in T's eyes... He just plugs in the SOS, no matter... He only has one song in the repetoire and it's gettin' a tad stale...

He spouts off "facts" as if they are, ahhhhhh, "facts"...

But lets look at the history of T-facts and where they have gotten us... Look around... Don't take a weaterrman to tell which way the wind blows and Georege Bush has just about blown the entire planet up on a "war of choice"... Things are very much out of control... Every earthling who is paying half-attention is worried about the consequences of Bush's policies... He has indeed made a real mess of everything... And to make things worse, he changes the goal posts regulary... It ain't all about Irag but one dasy he's for democracy (he says) and the next day he's cozyin' up with dictators??? I mean, there is nothin' consitent with the man... He's a loose cannon...

Yet, the T-Bird will always find a silver lining in Bush's sh*t storm because the T is on Bush's payroll... Why Bush thinks that paying T to shill for him here in a site of folk singers is well beyond my powers of comprehension but then again Bush's policies are likewise...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 10:28 PM

No, Doug...even with my silly mistake of coming back to the thread and forgetting what I had read earlier, (advanced CRS), I do NOT believe that the Democrats would start impeachment procedings against EITHER of them at this point, even with suspicions that they 'might' win.....for the reasons I cited.

My opinion....but not mine alone. Many pundits with better credentials than I have noted that impeachment procedings could be justified, but are not likely.

Name one? Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington law school and "J.B. and Maurice Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center"

Can't remember the several others right now. (semi-advanced CRS)

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 10:55 PM

The Democrats have started proceedings against Cheney. At least one of them has, with the help of a lot of Republicans. The bill is in committee. The only question now is how long it will take for them to take the next step, which is to start hearings. Dennis has already accomplished the near impossible by getting a bill past the motion to table. I won't be surprised if they start hearings before too long.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 01:59 AM

As I thought Little Hawk - (12 Nov 07 - 07:56 PM) - No answers at all - Just lies to fuel your prejudice. And as you have done so often before when faced with a reasoned arguement and facts that dispute and call into question your so dearly held myths you resort to personal attack.

Aye turn and run little man, go hide under your rock for a while, that has been your style from childhood, go and create another fictitious character to appear here as. How many do you post as on this forum at the moment little chap three or four? Stick to your wargaming and comic books where you really can make your lies appear "real". You are a compulsive "knocker", to whom life has been unfair, a "tooth-sucker" capable of offering nothing constructive, but only too eager to point out the faults of others. Alternative perspectives you wouldn't recognise one if it bit you on the arse, your own prejudice prohibits you from looking at any situation from any other perspective but your own.

Tosser, up until a few months ago you didn't even know what the term meant - that's strange really when all you actually ever had to do was look in a mirror.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 04:48 PM

There won't be any impeachments. Let's not kid ourselves. The dems don't have the guts to go through with it. Quite frankly, the stupid public doesn't really want it either. It will only be about 5 years from now when the whole stinking truth comes out about this administration that the public will be infuriated the way they should be now. And only THEN will they demand to know why Bush&Cheney weren't impeached.

Meanwhile, the State Department is still having trouble getting diplomats to serve in the now so safe and secure Iraq. One of them called it "a potential death sentence." Apparently he hasn't gotten the word that the surge is working. Neither did Condi rice when she testified before Congress about Blackwater's behavior a few weeks ago. She justified a Blackwater piece of shit gunning down an Iraqi security guard after bragging that he felt like killing somebody. Ms. Rice said that in a war zone it's a life or death thing and people have to act quickly and sometimes can't put good judgment to use. She was reminded that this occurred within the Green Zone to which she replied that it made no difference. Hmmm, Condi--Condi, baby!--haven't you heard your husb---er, I mean--the president? The surge is working, old girl!!!

The surge is working so well that a DynCorp mercenary has gunned down a taxi driver in cold blood. You know, I'm starting to believe that the mercenaries' job is to create such hatred for Americans that the Iraqis will demand we leave and then we can just walk away from the whole thing and justify it with, "But they told us to go!!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 05:57 PM

LOL, T-zer...

You know callin' LH a liar...

My mother used to say, "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"...

You have set the bar when it comes to misrepresentation of facts... You make LH look like a Boy Scout and you should be ashamed...

(Well, Bobert, if Terrible does respond to this, then he'll prolly call you a liar, too...)

Oh, how friggin' scarey...

B;)

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 06:28 PM

Ho hum.

The Terrible Tosser is trying to get under my skin, Bobert... heh! As if it mattered. As if any of the political yak-yak in this place really mattered.

But it's fun for idle minds, right? ;-)

I think it's really too late in the Bush term of office to be trying to impeach Cheney, but I may be wrong. I certainly can't blame Kucinich for at least attempting to get it to happen. The reasons given for doing so can easily be ascertained just by reading the motion brought forward, so why should I or anyone need to repeat them once again?

Just more yak yak is all that would achieve.

Life has been good to me, Tossibus. Quite good. But it's not been very good to the Iraqis.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 09:59 PM

"... At least one of them has, with the help of a lot of Republicans.."

sure...Dennis is being joined by Republicans who want to embarrass the Dems by HAVING hearings that will go nowhere. When I said above that the Dems would not push impeachment, I should have been clear that MOST of them knew better. Dennis either does NOT know better or he is just making a point. Perhaps he has Don Quixote syndrome...it is not that rare.

I repeat ..there will be no impeachment... as much as there SHOULD be a reckoning for both Bush & Cheney, most Democrats are being more careful where to choose their battles, preferring to concentrate on being sure to win the next election instead of conducting a referendum on the last one.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 10:11 PM

You are correct, Bill...

However, should the Dems find the necessary balls to do the deed, I am with them...

That purdy much sums up what alot of folks feel...

Most of us are resolved to having to endure another 14 months just hoping that Bush doesn't start any more wars... And, unfortunately, that is not a given...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Amos
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 10:35 PM

It's easy to pundit and decree that there won't be an impeachment. But let me point out that we could have the bastard out of office (Cheney) in ninety days, and possibly have Bush out in another thirty. That would spare the country ten months of his interference and possibly prevent another war. That's a chance worth putting punditry aside and making a boid for, wouldn't you say?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:21 AM

Somewhere I read that there are Generals who have said that if they are given the order to attack Iran, they will refuse to comply if there is an impeachment process underway, but that they won't refuse to comply if there isn't. That alone, in my opinion, makes it imperative that we have an impeachment process underway, regardless of how that effects the outcome of the next election. No, Bill, Dennis is the one who knows better, and the others are complicit in the war mongering.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:42 AM

If you cannot answer the questions that have been raised in reponse to some of the wildly inaccurate and incorrect statements that you have made on this thread little hawk, why not just admit it, or is that too much of a wrench.

1) Rotten things that Saddam has done

2) Less than five years of contact between Iraq and the USA in a period spanning nearly 24 years = US supported Saddam for most of his near 24 years in power. How is this contention supported by fact or logic.

3) GWB killed more Iraqi's and did more harm to iraq than Saddam - Some substantive evidence to back that claim up please.

4) Trespassing in Iraq by MNF troops. Please state whether or not they are there at the specific request of the elected and universally recognised Government of Iraq. Please state whether or not that all MNF forces currently in Iraq are present under the direction of a perfectly legal United Nations Security Council Mandate.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 11:56 AM

Eh? You called me a liar, Tossibus. Remember? One doesn't idly call someone else a liar in an online political discussion if one expects to be responded to in a decent oivilized manner...or even responded to at all. Retract that statement.

If not, go kindly fuck yourself. I don't have to answer any of your questions. Why should I even give a damn? I can't take you seriously, given your attitude toward people you disagree with in political matters.

I have seen no shred of any sense of humour in you. None. Not about yourself, not about anyone else. That makes you a real pain to talk to.

I call you a "tosser" because it's funny-sounding to a North American. No North American would be insulted by being called a "tosser". It just sounds downright hilarious to our ears. So I say it back to you, with tongue firmly in cheek, because it sounds so damn funny...Tossibus.

If I was really going to insult you, I'd call you an asshole. I haven't done that yet. ;-) But I would never call you a liar. I would never call anyone on this forum whom I am discussing politics with a liar, because private people (people other than politicians, that is) DON'T lie when they talk politics...

They do make errors sometimes. They do state untruths sometimes, unaware that they are stating untruths. They may repeat untrue things that they have gleaned from some supposedly reliable source and imagine that those things are true...but they don't consciously lie...and it has to BE conscious and deliberate to be a lie.

You have been attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill over a couple of things I said away back....something you apparently consider vitally important, although no one else in the world, including me, gives a holy toss about it... LOL!

Get a grip, man. You are engaging in the usual obsessive-compulsive need to prove others wrong. Me, in this case.

Who fucking cares? What difference could it make? You should get a life. Go outside, walk around, breathe the fresh air. Do some cardio-vascular workout. Take your wife out to a nice restaurant. Take the dog for a walk. Clean up your office. Anything.

No one in this world gives a shit about something I said about Saddam or Iraq several days ago you, my dear fellow. You are giving it far too much importance. It simply doesn't matter. They should put you under sedation for a bit for your own sake, if not for the rest of us, because you are verging on some sort of psychotic state in your zeal to prove that you are right and I am wrong.

No one cares. We aren't running for office here, old sport, and the press is not hanging on our every word.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 12:27 PM

>>It's easy to pundit and decree that there won't be an impeachment. But let me point out that we could have the bastard out of office (Cheney) in ninety days, and possibly have Bush out in another thirty. That would spare the country ten months of his interference and possibly prevent another war. That's a chance worth putting punditry aside and making a boid for, wouldn't you say?<<

Don't tell us--tell Congress. They're the ones bullshitting around. Between Conyers and Kucinich, we could have the resolutions ready to impeach both turds in the White House. Then Pelosi should sit down with the pubs and ask, "What do you want from me that will secure a yes vote for impeachment?" And, yes, it's really that simple. She hasn't done that because she either supports Bush or she is too lazy. I'll let the individual decide on that.

I can tell you this, though: If I ran Congress, there would impeachment proceedings going on right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 12:53 PM

282RA FOR CONGRESS!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 01:43 PM

Wow Little Hawk, what a TWAT you prove yourself to be. That (lay apart the language) is the sort of outburst one would expect from an infant - keep taking the medication - open one of your comics - or go paint another tank and pretend your Rommel.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:10 PM

Boys, boys, none of these ad hominem attacks, now. Stick to the issues.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 02:53 PM

*GRIN* reminds me of an old pop song..

"I love she and she loves me -
Pardon if I boast.
Sometimes we fight
All the live-long night
'Bout who loves who the most!"

Only now it's "who hates Bush & Cheney the most" and we fight all night about how best to 1) Get rid of, 2) neutralize, 3) outwait them! (no 4), as assassinations are kinda frowned on 'round here.)

And while everyone dithers over whether to impeach them, ridicule them, ignore them or push legislation by them, they are spending more lives and billions of dollars we don't have.

I flatly do NOT believe we could carry off an impeachment in 90-120 days. The details and evidence and laws are just too complex...and the votes simply would not be there.

**DISCLAIMER** I would dearly love to SEE them tossed out on their ears...I just doubt it can be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 03:21 PM

The laws are actually quite vague. The Congress actually has quite a bit of latitude on this matter. As I said before, it's not a legal proceeding. It's a political proceeding.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 03:46 PM

Not a legal proceeding? Tell Nixon that...or Clinton..but, insofar AS it is a political proceeding, it will get bogged down beyond belief with hearings, foot-dragging, and accusations that it is ONLY a political ploy by Democrats...which could backfire at election time.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 04:13 PM

It's a political proceeding because the only consequences that can be imposed on the one who is convicted in an impeachment proceeding is removal from office. That makes it political and not legal.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 06:37 PM

It wasn't an outburst, Tossibus. It was a calm, quiet, if somewhat intense statement made with a wry smile on my face...as I chuckle at the folly of mankind in general and yourself in particular.

But you wouldn't know that, because you aren't here to see my face. You assume an "outburst". Oh, my! Dear me!   

I almost never get upset enough to make an outburst about anything on this forum, because nothing important enough ever occurs here to merit one.

It's just casual amusement posting here. Something to fill in the time when the work is done.

You're just too proud to apologize for openly calling someone else a liar, that's all. It would mean...giving in just a smidgen. Admitting to having overstepped the line a tad. That's too much for you, isn't it? I bet you've never apologized to anyone for anything you've said to them on this forum, have you?

I have. Several times. I'm not as afraid of that as you are. I believe my ego can survive such experiences. Perhaps yours cannot?

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: TIA
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 07:21 PM

Teribus,
You are a bully. A scared little boy who puffs up to compensate. While you were so busy dishing LH a heapin' helpin' of crap about not being able to back up statements, you forgot entirely about your own little full-retreat (that you hope everyone has forgotten). Before you dish out any more you better go visit this one again, or the hypocrisy meter will throw a rod.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 08:01 PM

It seems to me that any process that must follow certain steps laid down by law is, almost by definition, a "legal procedure".

I think it is worthy of note that the members of the House who voted to not table the impeachment bill were overwhelmingly Republicans. They really want to tie Congress up, so that "do nothing" finger can continue to be pointed. That is really their only hope to regain a majority in 2008.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 08:38 PM

The distinction, artbrooks, is that when someone is convicted in an impeachment process, one does not suffer consequences that would be imposed by our legal system (going to jail, paying fines, etc.). Instead, when one is convicted in an impeachment, one only loses his or her political office. And because it is a political body, not a judicial body that makes the determination to convict or not convict.

Also, it's the Congress who determine what constitutes impeachable behavior (on a case by case basis), not any particular legal code.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 08:44 PM

IMHO, you are wrong, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:56 PM

What, TIA said, T-zer except the "bully" part... You wish you were a bully but that would require you to have the strength to be one... No, in our country (the US) and even perhaps in Canada you would be considered a "punk"... Your arguments are week... Your focus is narrow... Your thinkin' lacks the critical part that allows you to sift thru partisan propaganda and see correct paths... That makes you a punk...

Oh yeah, you can ignore me... That's really fine with me... You can call me a liar because I once stated that the US had killed oevr a 100,000 Iraqis, a number you'd probably settle with these days... Heck, like LH has said... I couldn't care less... You are a miserable little man who was on the wrong side of the worst war of my life time and now you think you can just attack people who, unlike you, had the wisdom to see the falaccies in Bush's decision to invade Iraq....

You were wrong then and you are wrong now... But if your little punk ego needs a boost, fire away... LH and I can, unlike you, *calmly* sit back and watch you twist your ownself into a knot... So, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, in the words of your hero, "Bring it on"...

B;)