Bush/Cheney Impeachment

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

>Difference is you refuse to admit the guy that cheated on his taxes
>is a criminal.

If he was taken to court and acquitted he is NOT a criminal, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. It's how our justice system works.

If the IRS then still fines him he IS still guilty.

It's interesting to me how you define guilt in terms that leaves loopholes for him who you wish hadn't done what he very obviously has done. Guilt isn't reserved for those who have been convicted by a court of law. Likewise, innocence is not defined by lack of conviction. The offense is in the act itself.

"Wish I may, wish I might have the wish...." won't make it so. Can't wish it away.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Lindsey 0]

I myself don't believe scale determines the grossness of a crime.

I do. I don't like Clinton either. What Bush did has nothing to do with what Clinton did. I think both are plenty pitiful. I DO think that the scale determines the grossness of the crime. I think the fact that Bush lied to gain support for his invasion makes him worse than a creep. He, unlike Clinton, is a very dangerous person to have in a position of power. Clinton's a creep and unscrupulous. Bush is a creep and unscrupulous and reckless and stupid.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Clinton's a creep and unscrupulous.

...and horny and a bit of a coward.

Quote

Bush is a creep and unscrupulous and reckless and stupid.

...and ruthless and bloodthirsty and dictatorial and power-mad.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

Clinton's a creep and unscrupulous.

...and horny and a bit of a coward.

Quote

Bush is a creep and unscrupulous and reckless and stupid.

...and ruthless and bloodthirsty and dictatorial and power-mad.

yeah...that too.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Instead of saying, "Yes, that's a good idea. I'll show you how dignified we can be," you continue to attack unrelated points to distract from the main issue.

I guess you're not ready yet.

We can all wait. Take your time.

It is not us that bring up the "unrelated points to distract from the main issue".

It seems that the sexual misconduct of Clinton is always brought up by the lib posters in this forum, not conservatives. Typically, it is like, "Oh yeah, and Clinton got a BJ" in order to trivialize what happened. Liberals will bring up the subject, and then someone like me reminds everyone that it wasn't about a consentual BJ, it was about the allegations of a woman that didn't want to have Clinton impose himself upon her. Quite different, I think.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[narcimund 0]

Quote

It is not us that bring up the "unrelated points to distract from the main issue".

It was mnealtx who introduced Clinton into this thread -- no surprise here.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I myself don't believe scale determines the grossness of a crime.

I do. I don't like Clinton either. What Bush did has nothing to do with what Clinton did. I think both are plenty pitiful. I DO think that the scale determines the grossness of the crime.

So what's the scale, then?

1 versus 10 versus 100s vs 1000s vs millions.

The last has only been obtained by a few - Hitler, Stalin, Japan in the 30s, possibly the Turks and the Serbs.

Bush is anywhere from the thousands to the hundreds of thousands, depending upon who you believe and how much blame is given the to Iraqi leadership.

Clinton is in the hundreds to thousands for his bombings, and 1-10 for alledged acts of sexual misconduct. (Ask any dad if his daughter is one too many or not)

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

I myself don't believe scale determines the grossness of a crime.

I do. I don't like Clinton either. What Bush did has nothing to do with what Clinton did. I think both are plenty pitiful. I DO think that the scale determines the grossness of the crime.

So what's the scale, then?

1 versus 10 versus 100s vs 1000s vs millions.

The last has only been obtained by a few - Hitler, Stalin, Japan in the 30s, possibly the Turks and the Serbs.

Bush is anywhere from the thousands to the hundreds of thousands, depending upon who you believe and how much blame is given the to Iraqi leadership.

Clinton is in the hundreds to thousands for his bombings, and 1-10 for alledged acts of sexual misconduct. (Ask any dad if his daughter is one too many or not)

Trying to boil it down to a number of casualties ignores a HUGE part of the current problem. The method by which he brought us into this conflict (lying) and the likely motivation for him to do this (personal gain) resulting in the thousands to hundreds of thousands of casualties definitely put Bush beyond that magic marker on the scale. Without a doubt in the world.

There is no number of casualties, alone, that makes a leader (again, I use that term loosely in Bush's case) culpable. His lies and greed along with the casualties and terror that he has brought to another country for his own gain are what tips the scale for him.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[sundevil777 94]

He wasn't lying anymore than Kerry or Bill and Hillary Clinton or anyone else that thought he had WMD. Even SH thought he had stuff that he didn't have, because his underlings were too afraid to tell him.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Amazon 7]

Quote

He wasn't lying anymore than Kerry or Bill and Hillary Clinton or anyone else that thought he had WMD.

So is that the best excuse for this??


I read the PNAC documents and see it all laid out right there... all he and his buddies needed to enrich themselves at our... and the Iraquis expense was an EXCUSE....so I guess that is what they used...WMD

[matthewcline 0]

If he truly believed that SH had the WMD's (as he stated on 60 minutes last night) would that take away the "he is lying" argument?

Since He (The POTUS), Kerry, Clinton (SEN and Former Pres.) and a whole host of others, at the time they voted in congress, believed that Iraq was a threat and did have the weapons, I think the argument is moot (about the initial invasion).

To single out the POTUS (when he and the others saw the same classified material to base their decision on) out of all of the legislative and executive branches, is following straight down party lines and turning a blind eye to the left and right politicians making the same initial mistake.

The only Politicians who should remain from blame in the initial decision for Iraq are those who voted NO in the beginning, not changed their minds after the vote was cast.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Quote

He wasn't lying anymore than Kerry or Bill and Hillary Clinton or anyone else that thought he had WMD.

So is that the best excuse for this??


I read the PNAC documents and see it all laid out right there... all he and his buddies needed to enrich themselves at our... and the Iraquis expense was an EXCUSE....so I guess that is what they used...WMD

For those with a limited or selective memory of how almost everyone thought he had WMD and that he had to be removed from power, even if it meant war:

http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/IR041003.html

So what was Kerry's excuse?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Trying to boil it down to a number of casualties ignores a HUGE part of the current problem.

Then why are we constantly talking about scale? If the issue is with the decision making, then it doesn't matter if one person died or a billion. We execute people for merely planning the killing of another person.

Reread post #124.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

It's interesting to me how you define guilt in terms that leaves loopholes for him who you wish hadn't done what he very obviously has done.

No, I define guilt as did he do it, and can it be proven. YOU are the only one here with a sliding scale based on how YOU feel about the level of the crime.

Quote

Guilt isn't reserved for those who have been convicted by a court of law. Likewise, innocence is not defined by lack of conviction. The offense is in the act itself.

Just to state some facts:
Guilt is a black/white, on/off, 1/0 issue. Either you did or did not do something.

Level of punishment varies depending on the seriousness of the offense.

GUILT does not adjust based on how bad you think the crime was.

Lack of proof means you cannot prove guilt. Evidence that proves guilt, does mean they are guilty.

Now you may think that a crime is not equal to another, and you would be correct. Which is why we don't kill people who run red lights. But they are guilty and the fact the crime is not "big" does not mean they are innocent.

So using logic, Billy is guilty even though his offense is not the worst thing ever. Bush is innocent till you can provide proof. Charge him, provide proof, and if found guilty, then he will be guilty.

And as I said before if guilty I will stand by you and others to see punishment. Also, I am not trying to prevent impeachment either. I say impeach him and have a nice trial and see what shakes out. If found guilty I want punishment based on the level of crime.

But to claim that a crime as not being big, or not being AS big as an imaginary set of proof to another crime, so it is not really a crime is wrong.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

It was mnealtx who introduced Clinton into this thread -- no surprise here

Incorrect. Unformed did

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2614782#2614782

[Lindsey 0]

A person's guilt is dependent only on his actions. Whether a person is found guilty is a judgment by the court, but is not necessarily a reflection of a person's actual guilt or innocence.... Just because Bush hasn't been found guilty doesn't mean he's not. I'm certainly not willing to overlook his actions and pretend all is peachy until some ruling. To do that would be to walk around with my head up my ass....

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

A person's guilt is dependent only on his actions

Yes.

Quote

Whether a person is found guilty is a judgment by the court, but is not necessarily a reflection of a person's actual guilt or innocence

True, but admitting guilt is a good sign.

Quote

Just because Bush hasn't been found guilty doesn't mean he's not.

The fact he has not even been charged says a good bit. But you are right, I guess we should just shoot the people we THINK are guilty!

Quote

I'm certainly not willing to overlook his actions and pretend all is peachy until some ruling. To do that would be to walk around with my head up my ass....

Thats it, ignore the people who ADMITTED GUILT and shoot first when it fits your mood.

[shropshire 0]

<>

Repeatining it over and over does not make it any less false.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[sundevil777 94]

Speaking of repeating, it seems that it is necessary to repeat the fact that there is a distinct difference between lying and saying something that you didn't know was false.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[ScottishJohn 25]

Quote

But you are right, I guess we should just shoot the people we THINK are guilty!

Or you could give them orange jumpsuits and lock them up at Gitmo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers

[matthewcline 0]

Look at what I wrote, if he TRULY BELIEVED.

But we can not sat what is in a mans mind, this isn't a bad Tom Cruise movie.

All we have is the Intel items he used for his decision, maybe even from as far back as 90/91 (if not earlier).

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

If he truly believed that SH had the WMD's (as he stated on 60 minutes last night) would that take away the "he is lying" argument?

Since He (The POTUS), Kerry, Clinton (SEN and Former Pres.) and a whole host of others, at the time they voted in congress, believed that Iraq was a threat and did have the weapons, I think the argument is moot (about the initial invasion).

To single out the POTUS (when he and the others saw the same classified material to base their decision on) out of all of the legislative and executive branches, is following straight down party lines and turning a blind eye to the left and right politicians making the same initial mistake.

It all depends on how he got to that belief. There are certainly some indicators out there that Bush and his direct reports specifically pushed or at least made it very clear that information that did not follow their "belief" was not to be released or followed up on. In then end, to me at least, it is very plausible that his underlings told him and subsequently congress only what he wanted to hear and what supported his goal.

Hence, he may well believe that they had WMD, but then he told them to make him believe. It is relatively common in relationships with a powerful person that the underlings will do what it takes to please that person, specially when that person has a very strong, stated objective.

Could your intelligence community really be THAT wrong, or were they lead down the wrong path?

[AFFI 0]

Quote

there is a distinct difference between lying and saying something that you didn't know was false.

Yup...

In retrospect it is clear that the weapons did not exist, although they had in the past, and Hussein had used them against his enemies. But what is also clear is that President Bush had every reason to believe they still existed at the time he launched the military campaign in Iraq. Not only did US and allied intelligence agencies assert that the weapons were there, but Hussein himself played a dangerous game of convincing enemies such as Iran, and even his own generals, that he had such weapons, while protesting to United Nations inspectors that he did not.

The Bush critics can argue that the president was too gullible in accepting the conclusion of his intelligence agencies. But the evidence does not suggest that he knowingly lied to the American public about the existence of WMD.

******************************

The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

*********************************

It's all a conspiracy man!

Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It was mnealtx who introduced Clinton into this thread -- no surprise here.

post #4 by unformed - I don't know if Unformed leans right or left

but getting it in there by #4 is pretty impressive

aside - I suspect that impeachments will be the rule of thumb for the next few administrations. Anything to tie up congress so they stop spending our money is a good thing.

keep them distracted with infighting

they'll have to come up with some "other" kind of punishment for stuff that's "really, REALLY" bad since the term 'impeachment will be diluted eventually.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

You're missing the point of my post. The Republican Nominee will not be President Bush, it will be someone else. Yet, the Democrats will still be running against him. The entire caucus has aligned itself into a "get the President" strategy, they have no other focus.

It's a reasonable strategy. The R's have been kissing Bush's ass for six years, to simply call them enablers would be an understatement. They deserve to be associated with him in the next election regardless of how they try to distance themselves over the next year and a half. Sadly, I really don't think it matters who wins the next election. The hangover from this administration will kill 'em regardless of whether they're R's or D's. I predict a one term.