MSNBC Poll: Should Bush be Impeached?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

* 298011 responses

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 86%

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors." 4.4%

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching. 7.4%

I don't know. 1.8%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

[DBruleU]

I didnt even know that many people went to MSNBC.com.

Oh well, let the trials begin I guess.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I didnt even know that many people went to MSNBC.com.


Well, now you do.

[DBruleU]

Well, now you do.

Eh, Fox still beats them by twice that amount. Probably more than that actually.

[Crushaholic]

Couldn't a "yes" or "no" suffice?:rofl:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Eh, Fox still beats them by twice that amount. Probably more than that actually.

Sort of like the way The Spice Girls outstrip John Coltrane in record sales.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/fox-stupid.jpg

[Rigs11]

Remember LA as the repukes say it's not a scientific pollHilarious! I'd like to see Faux news have the balls to put up a poll on impeachment.I don't think their base could handle the results though..

[RunByDesign]

IMPEACH??!?!?!

For what?!?!?!?

He didn't get a blowjob or something, did he?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

IMPEACH??!?!?!

For what?!?!?!?

He didn't get a blowjob or something, did he?

:laugh:

[W*GS]

Well, now we know the hottest link on all the lefty blogs...

That "86%" prolly gave LABF an orgasm.

[Rigs11]

Well, now we know the hottest link on all the lefty blogs...

That "86%" prolly gave LABF an orgasm.
And gave you an anxiety attack....

[Play2win]

IMPEACH??!?!?!

For what?!?!?!?

He didn't get a blowjob or something, did he?
No... But he has been doing his JOB on BLOW...

[DBruleU]

And gave you an anxiety attack....

Hardly. You and I both know it will NEVER happen. I would love to see the dems really try and push this. It would never, and will never happen. Maybe after 08 you can try and impeach the new Rep in office.

[Spider]

And gave you an anxiety attack....
I can see W*GS now , emailing MSNBC ....... yo LBJ was just as bad .......

[Rigs11]

Hardly. You and I both know it will NEVER happen. I would love to see the dems really try and push this. It would never, and will never happen. Maybe after 08 you can try and impeach the new Rep in office.
Ah I can sense your fear. The american people are sick of this bozo and the repukes. Judgement day is coming in november. Turd blossom can help you no more..

[TailgateNut]

Hardly. You and I both know it will NEVER happen. I would love to see the dems really try and push this. It would never, and will never happen. Maybe after 08 you can try and impeach the new Rep in office.

Not until we can insure a package deal which includes the puppet master Cheney!

[W*GS]

And gave you an anxiety attack....

Hardly.

[SactownOrangeSunday]

Remember LA as the repukes say it's not a scientific pollHilarious! I'd like to see Faux news have the balls to put up a poll on impeachment.I don't think their base could handle the results though..

Ok here are the problems with a poll like that.

First it doesnt just ask yes or no. It gives explanations of each, that from a researchers point of view is rather leading, a true poll should be yes, no, or I dont know. Secondly, its only taken by people that go to MSN NBC, it could be argued that it doesnt gain an appropriate cross section of the population.

Besides there is no way in hell they will actually impeach him. First the Dems need him in office in order to ensure that people are pissed enough to give control of the senate and house back to the Dems, then the presidency in 2008, just part of the political game. Secondly, if he is impeached the VP takes over as President, do you really want Cheney to be Pres.

Third, he has not commited a criminal act. Last time I checked lying was not illegal unless you do it under oath (Clinton for instance). Going to war is not an illegal act, it might be debated as to whether it was ethical, but it wasnt illegal.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Going to war is not an illegal act, it might be debated as to whether it was ethical, but it wasnt illegal. Illegally spying on Americans also.

And "war" (attacking, invading and conducting police actions) is an illegal act when attacking countries who are absolutely no threat.

[SactownOrangeSunday]

Illegally spying on Americans also.

And "war" (attacking, invading and conducting police actions) is an illegal act when attacking countries who are absolutely no threat.

No it isnt. Are you really trying to tell me that it is illegal to attack a country that "poses no threat" as opposed to attacking a nation that "poses a threat". By that logic it would be illegal to attack Canada, which it isnt, it would just be stupid, last time I checked stupidity wasnt illegal either. So please stop the noise about attacking a nation being illegal. Guess what bud, you can attack whoever the hell you want at any time it isnt illegal, especially since he got Congressional approval.

The illegal spying on people was crap because they used loopholes in order to do it. Data mining, that being getting records of who called who isnt illegal. Otherwise they wouldnt send people their phone bill with statements as to who they received calls from and stuff. Tapping the calls is illegal, unless its between a domestic and a foreign source, which is what they claim they have only done. Thus neither of those actions are techically illegal, just as your emails, instant messages and posts on this board are not sacred, in fact you dont even have to have a warrant to get emails in alot of cases, most service providers will turn over email lists and the emails without a court order.

The ones that I know wont do that are Bell South and Yahoo, but many, including MSN will.

Just some food for thought

Bush shouldnt be impeached he hasnt done anything illegal, stupid yes, illegal no.

[SactownOrangeSunday]

One other thing that should you to question the poll is that those saying he shouldnt be impeached has a significantly lower percentage than those that supposedly believe that he is doing a good job, the polls that those on this board love to post so often.

If Dems on the board claim those are accurate, as they always do, then logic should tell you that a somewhat similar distribution should seen in a question such as this as opposed to only what 11 percent saying that he shouldnt be impeached, it should be closer to the twenty to thirty odd percent that approve of the job he is doing.

Also most polls I know add up to 100 percent, not 99.6 percent, and dont go saying that .4 percent doesnt matter because that isnt the point, the point is that ANY good poll will at least equal one hundred percent response.

[Rigs11]

Ok here are the problems with a poll like that.

First it doesnt just ask yes or no. It gives explanations of each, that from a researchers point of view is rather leading, a true poll should be yes, no, or I dont know. Secondly, its only taken by people that go to MSN NBC, it could be argued that it doesnt gain an appropriate cross section of the population.

Besides there is no way in hell they will actually impeach him. First the Dems need him in office in order to ensure that people are pissed enough to give control of the senate and house back to the Dems, then the presidency in 2008, just part of the political game. Secondly, if he is impeached the VP takes over as President, do you really want Cheney to be Pres.

Third, he has not commited a criminal act. Last time I checked lying was not illegal unless you do it under oath (Clinton for instance). Going to war is not an illegal act, it might be debated as to whether it was ethical, but it wasnt illegal.
Keep living in lala land. There are other national polls which point to the considerable disapproval of numbskull. LABF can you do the honors? We can impeach Dumbya and then when Dickie is pres we'll impeach him too. Send both of their asses to Guantanamo.

[W*GS]

There are other national polls which point to the considerable disapproval of numbskull.

"Disapproval" (considerable or not) does not equal "support impeachment".

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No it isnt. Are you really trying to tell me that it is illegal to attack a country that "poses no threat" as opposed to attacking a nation that "poses a threat".
Absolutely, by international law.

Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html), to which the United States is a party, a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42.
http://tinyurl.com/fkfsv

International Law Aspects of the Iraq War
and Occupation (http://tinyurl.com/4792w)


War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal (http://tinyurl.com/vsxi)

Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal
(http://tinyurl.com/ktl25)



"To permit Presidential policy, agenda or decree to set new standards for going to war, when they conflict with well established U.S. law, is a dangerous precedent. It opens the way to wars based upon propaganda rather than evidence. " (http://tinyurl.com/4254m)

[SteveTensi13]

Can you say "slanted poll question"? It should've been a simple yes or no question. Instead whomever did the poll used quantifying criteria to determine the outcome. Clearly if a president lied to go to war and illegally used wire taps I would also call for impeachment. There is no evidence on either case so the question is rather moot.

[SactownOrangeSunday]

Keep living in lala land. There are other national polls which point to the considerable disapproval of numbskull. LABF can you do the honors? We can impeach Dumbya and then when Dickie is pres we'll impeach him too. Send both of their asses to Guantanamo.

LOL. You keep living in lala land if you actually think it would ever happen. How many Republicans are you planning to impeach anyways lol. If the Dems cant get elected to the office then they will impeach their way to control, that is laughable.

[SactownOrangeSunday]

Absolutely, by international law.

Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html), to which the United States is a party, a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42.
http://tinyurl.com/fkfsv

International Law Aspects of the Iraq War
and Occupation (http://tinyurl.com/4792w)


War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal (http://tinyurl.com/vsxi)

Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal
(http://tinyurl.com/ktl25)



"To permit Presidential policy, agenda or decree to set new standards for going to war, when they conflict with well established U.S. law, is a dangerous precedent. It opens the way to wars based upon propaganda rather than evidence. " (http://tinyurl.com/4254m)

Are you really making the argument that international law should dictate what the United States of America is going to do, that is ridiculous. We can attack whoever the hell we want to just as any other country can. So I guess according to your view we can only go to war if the Security Council approves it, that is freaking great lol. I guess now not only is the UN authorizing us to go to war, but they get to authorize our taxes, social institutions and outlaw the Death Penalty if they feel like it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Are you really making the argument that international law should dictate what the United States of America is going to do, that is ridiculous. We can attack whoever the hell we want to just as any other country can. So I guess according to your view we can only go to war if the Security Council approves it, that is freaking great lol. I guess now not only is the UN authorizing us to go to war, but they get to authorize our taxes, social institutions and outlaw the Death Penalty if they feel like it.

If you want to exist in an international community there needs to be basic rules and laws for all countries to adhere to. The U.S. points this out on almost a daily basis.

I see you conveniently forgot to read the part about ignoring U.S. law.

[gunns]

IMPEACH??!?!?!

For what?!?!?!?

He didn't get a blowjob or something, did he?

LOL

[gunns]

LOL. You keep living in lala land if you actually think it would ever happen. How many Republicans are you planning to impeach anyways lol. If the Dems cant get elected to the office then they will impeach their way to control, that is laughable.

Kind of like the Repubs did when they had been out of the Presidential office for 8 years, over a blow job. The Repubs use a case that makes them hypocrites because they're all probably doing it too but it pulls in those self righteous bible belt zealots. Lie about a war to get us into it but damn, don't get a blow job. We're all living in lala land and guess who's the leader?

[Rascal]

What are you going to do...impeach him and watch Dick Cheney become president? I'd rather have the moron Bush as president then that asswipe.

[Rigs11]

Are you really making the argument that international law should dictate what the United States of America is going to do, that is ridiculous. We can attack whoever the hell we want to just as any other country can. So I guess according to your view we can only go to war if the Security Council approves it, that is freaking great lol. I guess now not only is the UN authorizing us to go to war, but they get to authorize our taxes, social institutions and outlaw the Death Penalty if they feel like it.
We can attack any one? Just like any country can?Oh wait but nations like Iraq can't right? Or North koreans can't test fire missiles. Your Cowboy Hypocrisy is ridiculous.You're a prime example of the "American" that other nations dispise.

[Rigs11]

Can you say "slanted poll question"? It should've been a simple yes or no question. Instead whomever did the poll used quantifying criteria to determine the outcome. Clearly if a president lied to go to war and illegally used wire taps I would also call for impeachment. There is no evidence on either case so the question is rather moot.
Use some common sense. Don't hide behind your "proof" copout. The president did not get a warrant, which is easy to do,he broke the law, it is illegal to break the law.Hey the earth is round, do you need some evidence.:wave:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Can you say "slanted poll question"? It should've been a simple yes or no question.

Not true.

A "no" vote is still a "no" vote even when the participant is asked to indicate his reason(s) for voting "no."


Clearly if a president lied to go to war and illegally used wire taps I would also call for impeachment. There is no evidence on either case so the question is rather moot.

:rofl:

"No evidence?"

God Lord, what planet are you living on?

[SactownOrangeSunday]

Kind of like the Repubs did when they had been out of the Presidential office for 8 years, over a blow job. The Repubs use a case that makes them hypocrites because they're all probably doing it too but it pulls in those self righteous bible belt zealots. Lie about a war to get us into it but damn, don't get a blow job. We're all living in lala land and guess who's the leader?

Or maybe it was the lying under oath and obstruction of justice as well as obvious abuse of the powers of the office,you know things that if a private citizen did they would be thrown in jail for. But then again I guess our elected officials dont need to be held to the same standards that the rest of us are held to huh.

How about your hypocrisy, a President that happens to belong to your party that lies under oath, obstructs an investigation by the House and the Senate somehow is free of blame and should get a pass.

Whereas a president that lied to the country and obstructed an investigation that is not in your party should be impeached. Why dont you back up the hypocrisy bus a stop or two and jump on board, hell they may even let you drive.

[SactownOrangeSunday]

We can attack any one? Just like any country can?Oh wait but nations like Iraq can't right? Or North koreans can't test fire missiles. Your Cowboy Hypocrisy is ridiculous.You're a prime example of the "American" that other nations dispise.

Gee, I dont see anyone saying that it was illegal for Iraq attack Kuwait, did you? Just like it wasnt illegal for the Russians to invade Chechnya, or the French to attack everyone during the Napoleonic wars. Nobody said it was illegal for the North Korean to test fire missles did they. Those nations did what they wanted and then they had to bear the consequences of their actions, just like we have to in Iraq.

If China invaded Taiwan tommorow would it be illegal, no. If Canada attacked Greenland would it be illegal, no. If India went after Pakistan would it be illegal, no. I hope you get the point by now. I am not arguing the justification of war, simply that the war is illegal, which it is not.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Or maybe it was the lying under oath and obstruction of justice as well as obvious abuse of the powers of the office. But your right it was simply because of a blow job huh, nice logic on that one.

Weak! (Even by rightard standards.)

Lying under oath? Hardly.

Obstruction? You've gotta be sh*ttin' me. ROFL!

Bottom line: The Clinton impeachment was the culmination of an eight-year fishing expedition that hit one dry hole after another until the repugs finally hit paydirt with BJgate.

In other words, first the repugs decided to impeach Clinton, then they looked for a crime.

And, BTW, you must've missed the part where Clinton was acquitted by the U.S. Senate (to say nothing of the part where all those legal panels concluded
that Clinton's actions didn't rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors.")

[SactownOrangeSunday]

Weak! (Even by rightard standards.)

Lying under oath? Hardly.

Obstruction? You've gotta be sh*ttin' me. ROFL!

Bottom line: The Clinton impeachment was the culmination of an eight-year fishing expedition that hit one dry hole after another until the repugs finally hit paydirt with BJgate.

In other words, first the repugs decided to impeach Clinton, then they looked for a crime.

And, BTW, you must've missed the part where Clinton was acquitted by the U.S. Senate (to say nothing of the part where all those legal panels concluded
that Clinton's actions didn't rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors.")

Ok I see so when he said to the Senate and House under oath that he never had sexual relations with Lewinsky, then later admited that he did once the dress and everything was found is somehow not lying under oath., thats brilliant.

I guess you missed the part where there was enough evidence to get the impeachment proceedings to the Senate in the first place. Both your damn parties screw up then try and make it ok for your guy to do it but not the other, its freaking pathetic. I just wish that you and your fellow Dems would be at least consistant in how you apply arguments and sanctions. I wish the Republicans would do the same.

I would like to point out however that Bush has never lied under oath, just to the American people. A pox on both your houses, or parties as it may be.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ok I see so when he said to the Senate and House under oath that he never had sexual relations with Lewinsky, then later admited that he did once the dress and everything was found is somehow not lying under oath., thats brilliant.

Given the legal definiton of "sexual relations" Clinton was given by the prosecutors (the onus of which to provide, BTW, is on the prosecution, and is the only definition that counts in a deposition) all of his answers were truthful.

Clinton had no obligation to help the GOPervs prosecute their case against him.

I guess you missed the part where there was enough evidence to get the impeachment proceedings to the Senate in the first place.

You have it bass-ackwards: There wasn't enough evidence - just enough votes.

In other words, the repigs were determined to go forward with impeachment in spite of the lack of evidence, and voted accordingly.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I would like to point out however that Bush has never lied under oath...

:laugh:

When has Bush ever had to testify under oath about anything in his entire miserable, crooked life?

Not about 9/11.

Not about Iraq intel.

Not about Plamegate.

(I guess none of these events rise to the level of lying about a BJ.)

The guy could murder someone on live TV and still not have to account for his actions - simply because his last name is "Bush."

[SactownOrangeSunday]

If you want to exist in an international community there needs to be basic rules and laws for all countries to adhere to. The U.S. points this out on almost a daily basis.

I see you conveniently forgot to read the part about ignoring U.S. law.

if you are going to use that weak ass excuse of wanting to live in a world that has basic rules and laws that everyone needs to adhere to, then you damn well better have a body that can enforce them beyond saying bad country. Laws are bs unless they are enforceable. since that capability does not exist within the UN, the supposed laws of the UN and their charter members are freaking useless.

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

That is a link to the Iraqi War resolution.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.


Here is a link to the Sentate roll call vote
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Here is the roll call vote for the House.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Guess that proves that it wasnt illegal according to US law, despite what some blogger might say. As you can see authorization for US Forces going into Iraq was indeed authorized by both the Senate and the House of Reps.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Guess that proves that it wasnt illegal according to US law, despite what some blogger might say. As you can see authorization for US Forces going into Iraq was indeed authorized by both the Senate and the House of Reps.

Uh, no it doesn't. Lies to Congress don't make it legal to attack countries who are/were no threat to us (by U.S. law).

Your defense of an administration that has lied the country to an illegal war which has claimed over 20,000 American causalities shows you really don't care about that though.

[W*GS]

The guy could murder someone on live TV and still not have to account for his actions - simply because his last name is "Bush."

You're projecting your spin, denial, excuses, and rationalizations of all things Clintonian - again.

[SactownOrangeSunday]

Uh, no it doesn't. Lies to Congress don't make it legal to attack countries who are/were no threat to us (by U.S. law).

Your defense of an administration that has lied the country to an illegal war which has claimed over 20,000 American causalities shows you really don't care about that though.

Killed are actually around 10,00 not 20,000 dont just start making up random numbers.

Secondly since I have a friend serving in Iraq I would hardly say that I dont have a personal stake or issue with the war.

The problem with people like you is that you immediately group those that dont agree with you in with a crowd that annoys you. You again seemed to miss the point, this seems to be a disease among liberals recently. I never said the justification for war was correct, I did say however that the war is not illegal according to United States doctrine on the declaration of war.

I will spell this out really slowly for you, legality of the declaration of war is established through the outlined steps that are required for such an act. Whether you like it or not, Bush had approval from both the House and Senate to send troops into Iraq for military action, therefore impeachment under that count is not possible. Bush did not circumvent the House or the Senate, therefore the declaration of war is LEGAL.

[SactownOrangeSunday]

:laugh:

When has Bush ever had to testify under oath about anything in his entire miserable, crooked life?

Not about 9/11.

Not about Iraq intel.

Not about Plamegate.

(I guess none of these events rise to the level of lying about a BJ.)

The guy could murder someone on live TV and still not have to account for his actions - simply because his last name is "Bush."

So let me get this straight. He is now responsible for 9/11 as well LOL. Yea he had everything to do with 9/11.

The problem with liberals such as yourself LABF is that you want to try make it an argument about degrees of a crime while ignoring fundamental issus of legality. You excoriate Bush for having commited these horrible crimes, but you dont seem want to argue the principal that all of these people should be held to the same standard. According to all legal precedents Bush has not commited any crimes, he might be stupid and he might have lied to the American public, but he didnt lie under oath, you know the one place that lying is actually illegal. Deal with it.

[Rohirrim]

Frankly, it's a no-win situation. Impeach Bush and Cheney steps in. Impeach Cheney and Hastert steps in (or whoever Cheney decides should be VP if he rose to the top spot and had the time to choose). I could just imagine who that choice would be. Addington? Each choice worse than the one before it. No win. This nation is slammed into a downward spiral. Nothing a pilot could do in this situation except stick his head between his legs and kiss his ass goodbye. If we make it through the next two and a half years without launching WWIII (the idea that gets the neocon chickenhawks all warm in the shorts), we'll be doing all right.

[Rigs11]

Gee, I dont see anyone saying that it was illegal for Iraq attack Kuwait, did you? Just like it wasnt illegal for the Russians to invade Chechnya, or the French to attack everyone during the Napoleonic wars. Nobody said it was illegal for the North Korean to test fire missles did they. Those nations did what they wanted and then they had to bear the consequences of their actions, just like we have to in Iraq.

If China invaded Taiwan tommorow would it be illegal, no. If Canada attacked Greenland would it be illegal, no. If India went after Pakistan would it be illegal, no. I hope you get the point by now. I am not arguing the justification of war, simply that the war is illegal, which it is not.
open your eyes. The US admin uses the word "illegal" right before they use the word "democracy". Iran illegally launches missiles, Iraq illegally invades kuwait, hezbollah illegally goes into Israel. Then when the US invades IRaq it's not illegal, i'ts to spread democracy. Rubbish.

[Atlas]

Impeach Bush???

Well, Duhh!!

Once the democrats retake congress I'm sure there will be people hollaring for it!!!!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Killed are actually around 10,00 not 20,000 dont just start making up random numbers.
Oh please, tell me you know what the definition of causality is? And you really should get up to speed on how many American troops have been killed SO FAR in Iraq.

Secondly since I have a friend serving in Iraq I would hardly say that I dont have a personal stake or issue with the war. So do I (two relatives) so what?

The problem with people like you is that you immediately group those that dont agree with you in with a crowd that annoys you. You again seemed to miss the point, this seems to be a disease among liberals recently. I never said the justification for war was correct, I did say however that the war is not illegal according to United States doctrine on the declaration of war.
"The problem with people like you" is that "you immediately group those that dont agree with you in with a crowd that annoys you"
See how stupid that sounds?

I will spell this out really slowly for you, legality of the declaration of war is established through the outlined steps that are required for such an act. Whether you like it or not, Bush had approval from both the House and Senate to send troops into Iraq for military action, therefore impeachment under that count is not possible. Bush did not circumvent the House or the Senate, therefore the declaration of war is LEGAL.
"I will spell this out really slowly for you" since Bush lied to Congress the war powers act was used ILLEGALLY.

[Rohirrim]

Impeach Bush???

Well, Duhh!!

Once the democrats retake congress I'm sure there will be people hollaring for it!!!!

We need to add to the list of impeachable offenses; Mind boggling incompetence. We can list it right next to BJs.

[Play2win]

All we need to do is get BUSH under Oath on anything, and I do mean ANYTHING... And he will LIE... That is just what he does, he Lies... Asked to name one definitive characteristic of BUSH, most people would say that HE LIES...

Once we get BUSH to lie under oath, then he's as good as impeached... the precedent has been set... He will go down...

All we have to do is get BUSH under Oath for something... for anything... and GWB will do the rest... ;D

[W*GS]

Asked to name one definitive characteristic of BUSH, most people would say that HE LIES...

If you, or anyone else, is stunned/betrayed/ashamed that a politician "LIES", well, you're naïve beyond belief...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So let me get this straight. He is now responsible for 9/11 as well LOL. Yea he had everything to do with 9/11.

A little slow on the uptake today, aren't we?

I was referring to the fact that Bush avoided having to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission when everyone else who testified had to take an oath.

According to all legal precedents Bush has not commited any crimes

ROFL! What sort of whacky, parallel universe do you inhabit where lying the country into an illegal war and ignoring international laws to which the U.S. is a signatory isn't a crime (not to mention a violation of the Constitution?)

In any event, you're obviously confusing "committing a crime" with "being held accountable for a crime."


he might be stupid and he might have lied to the American public, but he didnt lie under oath, you know the one place that lying is actually illegal.

That's because he has been able to avoid testifying under oath - thanks to his rubber stamp GOP-controlled Congress.

Bush has managed to weasel out of every situation in which he, according to the standards you keep harping on, should have been required to testify under oath (while Clinton, on the other hand, was compelled to testify under oath re: a personal matter which had absolutely no relevance to national security or to America's business.)

Deal with it.

'Deal' with what?

The double standards people like you employ, or the fact that we have an "untouchable" president?

Negative on both counts. :thumbsdow:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/impeach-bagram.jpg

[gunns]

Or maybe it was the lying under oath and obstruction of justice as well as obvious abuse of the powers of the office,you know things that if a private citizen did they would be thrown in jail for. But then again I guess our elected officials dont need to be held to the same standards that the rest of us are held to huh.

How about your hypocrisy, a President that happens to belong to your party that lies under oath, obstructs an investigation by the House and the Senate somehow is free of blame and should get a pass.

Whereas a president that lied to the country and obstructed an investigation that is not in your party should be impeached. Why dont you back up the hypocrisy bus a stop or two and jump on board, hell they may even let you drive.

Why were we asking Clinton if he had sex for anyway? Was it a security risk? Get real.

And tell me what man wouldn't lie about it to protect his wife. If you say you I will know for a fact you are a huge hypocrite. Was he lying about why we should go to war? Damn man, he was lying about a BJ. The ONLY reason Bush hasn't been nailed for lying under oath is because he has scammed his way out having to testify under oath. A private citizen wouldn't be allowed to do that. Lying is wrong no matter what and especially when it costs thousands their lives. Bush's attrocities far outweigh anything Clinton did and his incompetency is still allowed to drive this country further into the ground. The title for that hypocrisy bus is in your name.

[SactownOrangeSunday]

Why were we asking Clinton if he had sex for anyway? Was it a security risk? Get real.

And tell me what man wouldn't lie about it to protect his wife. If you say you I will know for a fact you are a huge hypocrite. Was he lying about why we should go to war? Damn man, he was lying about a BJ. The ONLY reason Bush hasn't been nailed for lying under oath is because he has scammed his way out having to testify under oath. A private citizen wouldn't be allowed to do that. Lying is wrong no matter what and especially when it costs thousands their lives. Bush's attrocities far outweigh anything Clinton did and his incompetency is still allowed to drive this country further into the ground. The title for that hypocrisy bus is in your name.

You have got to be kidding me!!! Now he lying was to protect his wife, um novel concept if you want to protect your wife, dont cheat!!! If you are President of the most powerful nation on earth and you dont want to hurt your wife, dont cheat. He was lying to save his political ass and everyone knows it, including you. You want to talk about the most investigated President for illegal activities in HISTORY, that would of course be Clinton. The thing with Lewinsky came up as part of another, unrelated investigation into Clinton doing something illegal, so you can kill that noise.


Thats fantastic. So in the same paragraph you say that "he was only lying about a bj" then "lying is wrong no matter what", so why dont you pick a side. If lying is wrong then it doesnt matter what it is about and he should be held equally accountable as someone who lies about something else.

I love the deliniation as to what is important and not. If it wasnt a big deal then why lie under oath in the first place. See the problem that libs dont get is that it doesnt matter WHAT he lied about, the fact is that he lied under OATH, which is a freaking crime no matter who you are. Nixon for instance, lied under oath, thus a charge was filed against him. It wasnt about national security, it was about Watergate, the fact the he lied was the issue just as much as what he lied about.

You want to give the Clinton a free pass on committing a crime, while you want to impeach Bush for committing the same crime, which is lying. See that actually is hypocritical because you arent arguing that the law should be applied evenly across the board, you are applying the law according to your political views. Hypocrisy is in your name completely.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You have got to be kidding me!!! Now he lying was to protect his wife, um novel concept if you want to protect your wife, dont cheat!!!

:oyvey:

Geez, you still don't get it.

Your GOP friends had no business rooting around inside Clinton's zipper to begin with.

The majority of Americans agreed, as polls indicated that they didn't support the GOPerv fishing expedition.

In any event, thanks for providing me with a few good chuckles with your "righteous indignation" over Clinton's personal faux pas contrasted with your indifference to/defense of Smirky McFlightsuit's high crimes and misdemeanors.

[SactownOrangeSunday]

:oyvey:

Geez, you still don't get it.

Your GOP friends had no business rooting around inside Clinton's zipper to begin with.

The majority of Americans agreed, as polls indicated that they didn't support the GOPerv fishing expedition.

In any event, thanks for providing me with a few good chuckles with your "righteous indignation" over Clinton's personal faux pas contrasted with your indifference to/defense of Smirky McFlightsuit's high crimes and misdemeanors.

Well since the "rooting around into Clintons sexual activities" was uncovered as part of another criminal investigation I guess once again you are full of shiat!!


By the summer of 1994, the House and Senate Banking committees both began hearings concerning Whitewater and eventually called 29 Clinton administration officials to testify.

In August, Robert Fiske's tenure as special Whitewater counsel came to an abrupt end amid charges from conservatives that he simply was not aggressive enough in investigating Bill and Hillary Clinton. On August 5, 1994, following the renewal of the independent counsel law, the three-judge panel responsible for appointing independent counsels replaced Fiske with staunch Republican Kenneth W. Starr, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, and federal appeals court judge and solicitor general in the Bush administration.

Thus began the four-year-long Starr investigation of the Clintons. Through an extraordinary set of circumstances, Starr's investigation would eventually veer away from Whitewater and delve deeply into the personal conduct of President Clinton, ultimately leading to his impeachment for events totally unrelated to Whitewater

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

By the way LABF you want to talk about high crimes and misdemeanors, how about this.

The affair continued after Lewinsky became a paid White House employee and would last a total of 18 months. During their affair, the President and Ms. Lewinsky had ten sexual encounters in the Oval Office suite, including one instance in which the President, while engaged in sex, spoke to a Republican member of Congress on the telephone regarding sending U.S. troops to Bosnia.

Yep, his sexual affair didnt have any consequences on anything. He is talking about putting Americans in harms way while having sex, nope that isnt abuse and a high crime is it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Well since the "rooting around into Clintons sexual activities" was uncovered as part of another criminal investigation I guess once again you are full of shiat!!


ROFL!

Ah, I knew it was only a matter of time until you brought up that other fishing expedition/dry hole, viz., Whitewater.

BTW, in case you missed it, that one turned out to be bogus too.

In any case, what I find most hilarious is that people like you believe without a doubt that we need an independent prosecutor to investigate a failed land deal in Arkansas and a stained dress, but when it comes to matters like 9/11 or Iraq intel or Plamegate or Spygate or "__________________" (fill in the blank with the name of your favorite BushCo high crime or misdemeanor) it's all about "move along, folks - nothing to see here."