Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bush to be impeached??

Number_6 said:
You've obviously been reading too many garamet posts.
Click to expand...
Oh, no you didn't....

The truth of the matter is neither of us can know what the outcome would have been.

But, ironically, his chances of coming out alive were a lot higher in jail than Iraq.
 
Number_6 said:
If you are referring to Bush's assertions that Hussein tried to have a former POTUS assassinated, then you are allowing the far left to convince you that this is not a justifiable reason for taking Hussein out. Regardless of what you might feel for either of the Presidents Bush, we cannot have a rogue state trying to off a former POTUS.

If it were Clinton or even Carter that Hussein had tried to assassinate, the left wouldn't be wagging its fingers on this particular point.
Click to expand...
When an American tries to assasinate a POTUS, do we automatically carry out the death penalty?

Then why should the rule be different?
 
When an American tries to assassinate the POTUS, we lock that American up for a very, very long time. Hinckley is an exception to this case, what with his weekends at home, but the chances that he'll try it again are pretty low. Jodie wasn't impressed, and I think we all know she doesn't swing that way, anyway.

When the leader of a foreign country tries to assassinate the POTUS or a former POTUS, we must take action. We cannot allow a rogue state like the former Baathist Iraq to threaten our country in this manner. And yes, I said our country.

Think for a minute on the ramifications of allowing such a state to exist. Hussein was behind the assassination attempt. Okay, Bush 41 wasn't the sitting president at that point. And that made him an easier target. What's to stop Hussein from using the threat of assassination after a POTUS leaves office to influence the decisions made while in office?

Just as you wouldn't allow an attempted assassin to freely roam the streets, so can you not allow a foreign government that has made such an attempt to remain in power.
 
Friday said:
When an American tries to assasinate a POTUS, do we automatically carry out the death penalty?
Click to expand...

What'd I miss? We killed Saddam Hussein?

Oh that's right, we didn't, he's currently on trial for the henious crimes he committed against humanity. Hussein deserves to die, to be sure, but we just don't work that way. His own country is handling him we just gave them the opportunity to do so.
 
And we'll make damn sure they do it our.. er, they're way. ;)

Though I do agree he needs to die.
 
Sardonica said:
We're talking about assassination. Please try to keep up. ;)
Click to expand...

No, you're not talking about assassination. Osama's henchmen were casualties of war, they weren't assassinated. And it's not semantics, or splitting hairs; there is a definite distinction.
 
I think I see where Sardy is coming from though. (Sorry Sardy, don't mean to speak for ya.) The "henchmen" as you call them where in most cases specifically targeted for death on the orders of our government.

That is a very loose definition of the term “assassination”.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

In its most common use, assassination has come to mean the killing of an important person. Motivations may be money in the case of a contract killing; opposition to a person's beliefs or belief systems in the case of a fanatic; orders from a government that are often carried about by a subversive agent such as a spy; or loyalty to a competing leader or group.

Unlike some topics, most notably terrorism, where there’s a substantial grey area and often bitter controversy between which specific instances qualify or even what standards should be used, the "common sense" classification of assassination stated above seems to create the fewest objections. However, this does open larger issues concerning interpretation, notably regarding attempted killings by those with other motives — is it an assassination simply if the person is a major leader or public figure defending a cause, or only if the assassin's reason for the attack is due to that person's status as a figurehead for a particular issue?

Now take the case of Al-Zawahri. In the strike against him on Jan. 13, a good argument for assassination can be made as the US conducted an air strike with the specific intent to kill him. In most cases, all of the members of Al-Qaeda are wanted dead or alive. But there is little hope of capturing someone alive when you drop a predator filled with explosives in their laps. ;)

The specific targeting of one individual or a small group of individuals with the specific intent to kill them can be viewed as an assassination attempt. All that’s really left is to determine motivation. And that’s a personal viewpoint more than anything else.
 
Number_6 said:
When an American tries to assassinate the POTUS, we lock that American up for a very, very long time. Hinckley is an exception to this case, what with his weekends at home, but the chances that he'll try it again are pretty low. Jodie wasn't impressed, and I think we all know she doesn't swing that way, anyway.

When the leader of a foreign country tries to assassinate the POTUS or a former POTUS, we must take action. We cannot allow a rogue state like the former Baathist Iraq to threaten our country in this manner. And yes, I said our country.

Think for a minute on the ramifications of allowing such a state to exist. Hussein was behind the assassination attempt. Okay, Bush 41 wasn't the sitting president at that point. And that made him an easier target. What's to stop Hussein from using the threat of assassination after a POTUS leaves office to influence the decisions made while in office?

Just as you wouldn't allow an attempted assassin to freely roam the streets, so can you not allow a foreign government that has made such an attempt to remain in power.
Click to expand...

For the first time, 6, i'll say that this is full of crap.
 
Big Dick McGee said:
No, you're not talking about assassination. Osama's henchmen were casualties of war, they weren't assassinated. And it's not semantics, or splitting hairs; there is a definite distinction.
Click to expand...
As much as your "Decisive" election results?
 
Number_6 said:
What "high crimes or misdemeanors" has Bush committed?

You can't impeach a president because he's unpopular. That may fly in California, but the Founding Fathers made it a little more difficult to unseat the president.

Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. Was it necessary to go through that little charade? Probably not. But it was legal, and in accordance with the Constitution. Clinton committed a crime, and, eventually, admitted it.

We cannot, as a country, continue this pattern of political attack followed two or four years later by an act of revenge. Not if the Republic is going to survive.
Click to expand...

He lied about WMD's as a pretext to invade iraq, and lied about the intelligence. It's definitely impeachable,a nd certainly much more criminal than lying about oral sex.

Under Oath? Well, lets get him up there to deny it under oath, or admit he lied. :bigass:
 
jack said:
He lied about WMD's as a pretext to invade iraq, and lied about the intelligence. It's definitely impeachable,a nd certainly much more criminal than lying about oral sex.

Under Oath? Well, lets get him up there to deny it under oath, or admit he lied. :bigass:
Click to expand...

And your proof that he lied? Did everyone else who believed Iraq had WMD's, including Billary and Kerry, also lie?
 
I haven't seen any proof he was telling the truth either. And as we're dumping billions into Iraq, I would think that the republican party would be more interested in having tangable proof that the effort is worth the cost. After all, the republicans have always claimed they were the more financially responsible party.
 
I'm not sure that this point is provable either way, at least not beyond a shadow of a doubt.

There was enough intelligence in existence that convinced even the Clinton Administration that Iraq was continuing to pursue a WMD program, and in the build up to the current war, there seemed to be little argument on that point. The argument was rather on what we should do about it. And, as I've pointed out again and again and again, Hussein himself seemed desirous of convincing the world that he had WMDs, both through his actions with the U.N. inspectors and his threats to use them should U.S. forces invade.

Then there is this new testimony from an Iraqi Air Force general who says that the WMDs were moved to Syria in hollowed 757s. This is a theory that has been advanced by a number of people in the intelligence and military communities, though the Administration hasn't really picked up on it.

At any rate, cries of "Bush lied" are unprovable, and thus Bush cannot be impeached.

Again, we cannot start using impeachment to reverse the results of an election if we don't like the Administration's policy decisions. Not without changing the Constitution. We do not have a parliamentary form of government. There is no such thing as a vote of "no confidence" in our system.
 
Number_6 said:
I'm not sure that this point is provable either way, at least not beyond a shadow of a doubt.

There was enough intelligence in existence that convinced even the Clinton Administration that Iraq was continuing to pursue a WMD program, and in the build up to the current war, there seemed to be little argument on that point. The argument was rather on what we should do about it. And, as I've pointed out again and again and again, Hussein himself seemed desirous of convincing the world that he had WMDs, both through his actions with the U.N. inspectors and his threats to use them should U.S. forces invade.
Click to expand...
I thought he'd have them too... but he clearly didn't have a delivery system.

That said, I opposed the strategic justification of invading Iraq on the basis that if he had ready biological and chemical weapons and the ability to deploy them, an invasion was exactly the trigger to get him to use them.

The claims that Iraq was working on developing nukes is, in retrospect, particularly implausible given the intelligence available.
Then there is this new testimony from an Iraqi Air Force general who says that the WMDs were moved to Syria in hollowed 757s. This is a theory that has been advanced by a number of people in the intelligence and military communities, though the Administration hasn't really picked up on it.
Click to expand...
It's been "picked up" all over the news and opinion stations. If they aren't aware of it, that would be evidence of severe incompetence.

Most of the documentation - available in bulk - and material evidence points to no functional production facilities, nothing left on hand except for the odd shell left from ten years ago, and a dedicated program by Saddam to convince his own people he still had them, should Iran go to war with them.

The last item makes the mistake of thinking that they still had WMDs reasonable... although again, handled in exactly the wrong fashion, and the intelligence available was claimed to be far more convincing than it actually was, much as the media sees one study that sorta suggests that X might be linked to Y, and then says "SCIENCE PROVES THAT X IS THE CAUSE OF Y!"
At any rate, cries of "Bush lied" are unprovable, and thus Bush cannot be impeached.

Again, we cannot start using impeachment to reverse the results of an election if we don't like the Administration's policy decisions. Not without changing the Constitution. We do not have a parliamentary form of government. There is no such thing as a vote of "no confidence" in our system.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are other grounds than "Bush lied about WMDs" to offer impeachment - such as the constitutionality and legality of assorted actions on his part, ranging from declaration of war (Congress has the power to declare war... but not the power to delegate that power) to illegal wiretapping etc.

None of which will ever fly in a Republican-controlled Congress, and aren't even all that likely to fly in a Democratic Congress. The expansion of government powers and the curtailment of certain civil liberties seems to be reasonably acceptable to both parties.
 
And for the record, Andrew Johnson was impeached pretty much for being unlikable, when you boil it down. Impeachment is a potentially very flexible matter - cause for it isn't too tightly defined in the Constitution, and for a good reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top