Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Mar 17, 2007.
Somebody slipped acid into this boy's oatmeal.
Why did you say that?
While I agree that impeachment is highly unlikely if not politically impossible, Hagel's comments are incorrect why?
Well duh, if you don't support George W. Bush, you must be on LSD.
Chuck Hagel is running for president.
So what, he knows what to say to increase his popularity?
Ok, I agree with you.
Because it would be the most absurd and destructive thing imaginable. Iraq and the Middle East would almost certainly become far worse than things are headed now, and it would divide the country as much as the Civil War did.
Bush has not only started a reformation in Iraq and the Middle East, he is the first U.S. president to open up to ending the 57 year old impasse of the divided Korean peninsula by beginning negotiations directly with North Korea.
There are many other reasons, but these are more than enough.
You have a gift for overstatement. Maybe it would only divide the country like the Clinton impeachment did?
You've not been paying attention: Clinton had to be impeached for what the left did to Nixon.
Bush absolutely does NOT deserve it. Quite the opposite, as history, at least, will surely attest.
Does your God teach vengence? If we're going to get revenge for past generations, we can go round and around for a long, long time. Eventually and eye for an eye will leave us all blind. Maybe someone's still steamed about the Andrew Jackson impeachment.
Johnson, Andrew Johnson, not Jackson. Johnson's biggest mistake was that he pushed a heavily "Southern" agenda, including vetoing many civil rights bills that appeared for him to sign into law. Thus, there was no need for any repercussion for his impeachment, since he clearly deserved it. The times demanded better treatment of black Americans, and Johnson was "old South", which wanted none of it.
This is not about vengeance; it is about keeping balance and order in the body politic. What the radicals did to Nixon was unconscionable, and it had to be righted. Carter was bad enough -- allowing some 12 nations to go under the Soviet and Communist Chinese sway during his tenure -- but his losing the 1980 election was enough.
Clinton, on the other hand, personally defiled the presidency and the White House far more than any other president. Kennedy's antics with Marilyn Monroe and other women was bad, but Clinton took it to an all-time low when the nation was in need of moral leadership. So, he had to pay, and he rightly did.
Bush has done nothing near the damage to the presidency that Clinton did, and thus does not deserve the kind of abuse an impeachment would be. In fact, I believe in ten to fifteen years, people will be hailing GW Bush as the pioneer of a new age of American leadership in the world: working for world peace while not being afraid to take on those who would destroy those efforts.
I don't know that I can find enough common ground with you on this to even debate you. I'm in bizzaro world, someone's telling me Nixon was the good guy.
I guess the only thing I can ask you is, who determines what rights a wrong? What if people feel what was done to Clinton was twice as bad as what was done to Nixon? Who are you to say it wasn't? They may feel like they're still behind and deserve to settle the score. This is where we weed out the hacks.
I'll have to ask the Lords forgiveness and probably make an appointment to see my Pastor but all I can say to that is, What the F???
Nobody ever said it would be easy.
All I can say for now is: Nixon was the only credible member of either chamber of Congress to speak out clearly and forthrightly about the Soviet and Chinese Communist threat back in the late 1940s.
This happened after the American press, led by the "official paper of record", the "venerable Gray Lady" (aka The Wicked Witch of the North) New York Times had spent the entire 1930s paying homage to the "great advances of the Soviet system", primarily via the propaganda shill for Sovietism, Walter Duranty, who even one a Pulitzer for his efforts, as he praised "Papa Joe" Stalin for his "wonderful reforms"!!! You should read how Duranty spun the starvation of 13 million Ukrainians; it will make a healthy man sick. So much for "checks, balances, and diversity" in the American media.
When Nixon took point on revealing the emerging menace of Sovietism and Chinese/East Asian communism, he awakened America to the real future immediately after WWII: the life or death struggle between communism and democracy, the "Cold War". While democracy was based upon both spiritual and physical values -- with spirituality having a traditionally respected position because it dealt with eternal life, life after death -- communism did away with any spiritual concerns by saying: "if you want to believe in life after death, you can but you are a fool since you cannot prove it; if you don't believe in it, you are smart because atheism and materialism are the bases of the future communist world." It should be noted that Marx, Lenin, and all communists drew heavily from the theories of Darwin who said all life was just a big "accident" that "just happened on its own", thus effectively "killing" God in the process. Makes communism's materialistic view of life so much easier to sell when one teaches that all life is just one big "accident", random event.
Nixon was greatly responsible for awakening America and the West to the irreconcilable conflict between communism and democracy. That was an unpardonable sin in the eyes of those influential Americans, like those who ran/run the New York Times, who had a completely different -- and very hidden -- agenda prepared for America.
Watergate was never about a third rate burglary; it was from the beginning until the end always about getting Nixon. The game plan is thus: first, go after underlings: VP Agnew, AG Mitchell, Chuck Colson, HR Haldeman, and others; then, after momentum has built up and the air is filled with cries of "corrupt Nixon administration", and the piranhas are attracted by the scent of blood in the water, biting and attacking anything that moves with Nixon, then, finally, go after the man himself.
Like JFK didn't do many of the same things Nixon did, and worse!! But JFK was "untouchable" because he got killed. Even the Marilyn Monroe episodes, and all the other women visiting the White House -- while Jackie was away, of course -- never became public news, was never broadcast by the "great" Walter Cronkite or anyone at CBSNBCABCTheNYTimesWashingtonPost because John Kennedy was a "protected species" due to the myth of "Camelot", Kennedy's minority status as a (very nominal) Roman Catholic, and then finally his death.
Like LBJ didn't spy on people or tape them or any of the things Nixon did!! He did exactly the same, or more.
Bottom line: Nixon (Rep) was destroyed by the Left, and Clinton (Dem) was the liberal/Left sacrificial offering needed to balance the sheet.
You may not want to accept it, but all things must be balanced in the grand scheme of things. It's not a question of any person's judgment, not even God's; it is cosmic law. Know it, follow it, and be happy. Or deny it, ignore it, and pay the price. Your choice. Everyone's choice. Everyone gets what they deserve. It's never based on anybody's whim; it's always according to the *law* of the universe.
Clinton deserved what he got. He lied under oath. If people are permitted to do so without punishment, then why should the common man be held to a different standard? What was appalling to me about Clinton's lying, is that he was the farging president, and he pissed on the oath. I can tolerate a president fudging his position in a press conference, but under oath is unacceptable. Had he just said I got a BJ, he would have been crucified sure, but people do forgive for that stuff. One way or another, people were going to find out the truth. Lying under oath is a serious offense to me. It should be to everybody. The very fabric our our judicial system is built upon honesty while under oath.
What about Nixon?
Nixon should have come clean about what he knew and when he knew it. The people would have forgiven him, too.
But the entire reason he was put through his ordeal was because there were those who wanted to off him, and they rode him until the end.
So nobody has any right to complain about what happened to Clinton because he got called on exactly the same kind of thing the anti-Nixon crowd did. Fair is fair.
Bush, on the other hand, has not lied about his reasons for going into Iraq, or about any phase of the operation to establish a stable democracy there. His only goof was under-estimating the strength of the resistance. But because these resistors are opposing democracy they are enemies of what is good; Geo Bush is not an enemy of what is good.
Richard Nixon's resignation August 8, 1974
I wasn't even born yet. I'll defer to the older fellas, or those of you who've studied what went on back then. I'd opine, but as my dad would say "it's not my cup of tea". At any rate, what about Nixon? Are you asking whether or not he should have been impeached?
The crux of the problem is that he did lie. At some point into the operation, the purpose became "freeing the Iraqi people", where as I remember it being sold as a campaign to rid Iraq of WMD's.
Then you have a very selective memory because he said initially *one* of the reasons we went into Iraq was because of a belief that Saddam was holding WMD, but it was never the ONLY reason.
No lie on Bush's part.
So Scooter Libby should not be pardoned then?
That all depends on whether Marc Rich should have been pardoned.
He didn't lie any more than Roosevelt did in securing his 3rd term, and getting us involved in WW II. Some would call it lying, others would call it leading. Regime change has been the signed policy of our government since 1998. I think most knowledgable people had an inkling of what the overall purpose was. Furthermore, I think most people felt we were certain to find weapons. I know I thought we would.
Absolutely not. I wouldn't pardon him, and I am opposed to doing so. The man should be punished, and held accountable. He lied while under oath. All he had to do was tell the truth, and he wouldn't have been indicted at all. What message are we sending the populace if we simply pardon, or don't punish, politically affiliated individuals who lie while under oath? Why should I tell the truth in court if a president, or an aide to one, doesn't? I think a crime by the politically affiliated is more egregious than that of a common citizen. The political are elected, and are entrusted by the people, and therefore abuses of that trust, to me, are more severe.
I hope the White House uses that at some point.
So I guess your all for impeaching the following liars too......
Bill Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
Madeleine Albright, (Clinton Secretary of State): "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
Sandy Berger, (Clinton National Security Advisor): "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. â€¦ The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."
Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility thatâ€¦Iraqâ€¦may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."
John Kerry: "If you don't believeâ€¦Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."
A Letter From The Senators: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton.
Here are some more LIES>>>>>>>>
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force â€” if necessary â€” to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!
Everyone you quoted is a loser and a liar, but even many of them didn't outright say he had weapons (as opposed to weapons programs). I agree with Kerry, good reason not to vote for him.
Most of those Democrats quoted are not liars.
They were MISLED by the LIES perpetrated by George Bush and his administration.
The Democrats believed George Bush when he told the nation: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
The Democrats believed Colin Powell when he told the United Nations about Saddam's WMDs: Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries.
But it turned all the information provided by the BUSH Administration were LIES.
Separate names with a comma.