Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is just massive public opinion against him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
Heya Soup. Just curious what you imagine the charges might be if an actual impeachment case were brought.

And no offense to anyone here, but I have to say that I, too, find it comical that this vote is being taken seriously.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Impeachment , and what were the charges ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Impeachment , and what were the charges ?

---

Oh, I don't know...lying to get his war?
Is that bad? Is lying like that illegal? Taking CIA info and purposely distorting it to his own ends? I mean, there's a law, right? Unless the President is allowed to lie. Does he have a free pass for that?

What a jerk I am...he couldn't have lied...his nose is the same size...what a clown I am!

Bush lie...what nonsense Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
....What I HOPE is that during the campaign trial someone (Obama ?) will wake people up from this insane nightmare they find themselves in. Someone will say - look - is there any question about that where we've been going is backward; and now we can throw that all away and go forward. If that happens early enough there will be enough steam to generate an impeachment before the next election.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
the basic facts - Bush didn't lie. There's absolutely zero evidence that supports that position that the intel was 'spun', distorted or twisted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

What I HOPE is that during the campaign trial someone (Obama ?) will wake people up from this insane nightmare they find themselves in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
[B

Chris, I don't care how much you don't like the war,or President Bush, it still doesn't change the basic facts - Bush didn't lie. There's absolutely zero evidence that supports that position that the intel was 'spun', distorted or twisted.

---

Quote:

---

from http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/06/late-nite-fdl-when-the-partys-ov
er/
...
William F. Buckley once famously described a conservative as a man standing athwart the flow of history, crying, "Stop!" Well, the last few years have taught us that a NeoConservative is a man standing athwart the flow of history, saying, "Huh?"
...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh, I don't know...lying to get his war?
Is that bad? Is lying like that illegal? Taking CIA info and purposely distorting it to his own ends? I mean, there's a law, right? Unless the President is allowed to lie. Does he have a free pass for that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FMF:

Geez talk about drinking the kool aid!

Auraptor - sure would like to see this volume of FACTS you have. Need something to line the ferret cage with.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:


For the record (and you all know I'm no fan of Bush), I was a Intelligence Analyst for my 10 years in the military, and I was scared shitless the first time we had in-coming rockets. Not of HE warheads, nay--I was scared that they had nerve gas. Now why would that be? Well, not because of anything the president said. It was because the intel that I'd seen (some pre-dating the Bush presidency by a good 5 years) had led me to the conclusion that he had it. Other intel from as close as a few weeks indicated the same thing. So it's not as simple as "Bush lied."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
[
Sorry toots, but this has nothing to do w/ KoolAid drinkin', and everything to do w/ facts. I'd first like to remind you that the burden of proof rests w/ those making the claim , such as BUSH LIED, that need to present the evidence and make their case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Rap,

Do you remember when Bush talked about Iraq and yellowcake and Africa in his SOTU? In no time at all - months in fact - wayyyy BEFORE the US attacked Iraq - there was an investigation into how such an unfounded statement ended up in the speech. In fact there was a Senate investgation, and the report made itself onto the internet.

In that report the history of that allegation was traced. Bush had put it into TWO previous speeches and the CIA had deleted it. When it was put yet again into a speech - this time the SOTU - the speech was NOT sent to CIA for vetting. (Because the CIA would have required retraction, again.)

Bush KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt that that claim was false. Yet he found a way to sneak it into this speech to fire people up over Iraq.

Bush claimed something to be fact that he KNEW was not true. IOW, Bush lied.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
First of all, the President doesn't need any authorization from, or clarification to Congress to use military force.

"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
AURaptor,

Where's the final part of Phase II of that report?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

---

Saying that this statement wasn't a lie is arguing by semantics. Bush had been told repeatedly that this claim was wrong. So his lie is a lie of omission. An accurate statement would have been, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. This is counter to all the evidence that our own intelligence agencies have looked at."

I can guarantee that if I had tried out this line of defense on my mom it wouldn't have worked, "Mom, Tom next door claims that I did not break the window."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
A more apt analogy.. " Mom, Tom next door says that Billy down the street has illegal fireworks" .
Tom might be wrong, or right, but is it right to tell your mom unless YOU know for sure what Billy has? If you're dealing in a SOTU speech writing, or rumor spreading, that's one thing. But in the world of Int'l Intelligence, it's a different story.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

What if you know exactly what information Tom is basing his claim on and you know that that information is bogus. And you have been told repeatedly that you can't use that information to make the claim yourself. And you still go ahead and repeat Tom's claim. What does that make you? I'm voting for chicken.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Impeachment , and what were the charges ? I saw none posted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
Editted to add: spun, selectively interpreted, and others, I don't necessarily deny. I definitely think it's the case that he paid attention to the intel he wanted to. Just don't go to making the assumption that he knew, conclusively, what was and wasn't there.

---

Quote:

---

"We the people have the power -- and the responsibility -- to remove executives who transgress not just the law, but the rule of law.

---

Quote:

---

1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.

---

Quote:

---

3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.

Quote:

---

Fact is, the U.S. has exceeded it's responsibility w/ regards to the Geneva convention rules, and there's no evidence of torture of its non uniformed combatents.

Quote:

---

4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights

---

Don't know the specifics of this case, but while there 'may' be some merrit to this, it's ridiculous to hold the President and VP accountable for this sort of case.

VT is wasting their time, and anyone elses who bothers to pay attention.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Nope, sorry. There's no evidence to that point, and in fact, there's multiple findings to the contrary.

The actions this administration have taken during war are far less intrusive and more in the open than FDR during WW2 or Lincoln during TWBTS.

Fact is, the U.S. has exceeded it's responsibility w/ regards to the Geneva convention rules, and there's no evidence of torture of its non uniformed combatents.



Don't know the specifics of this case, but while there 'may' be some merrit to this, it's ridiculous to hold the President and VP accountable for this sort of case.

---

Quote:

---

Fact is, the U.S. has exceeded it's responsibility w/ regards to the Geneva convention rules, and there's no evidence of torture of its non uniformed combatents.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
While it may be wrong to say that Bush knew that he telling lies, it's also equally wrong to say he was acting in good faith by passing on questionable or speculative or incomplete intel.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
You know, I looked up the claims you made about Vertmonters.
Not one panned out as genuine. So could you provide links for them? Just so we know you have a point to make and are not as much of an ass-hole as you appear

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:

So, philosophical question of the day: is it lying if you don't know that you're telling an untruth?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
Just for the record: wow, it's getting nasty in here. And from people from whom I expect more. boy, oh, boy.

---

Quote:

---

...ONCE AGAIN, asshole...you've proven yer frikkin asshole clueless without your asshole links.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Causal:
Just for the record: wow, it's getting nasty in here. And from people from whom I expect more. boy, oh, boy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Not one panned out as genuine. So could you provide links for them? Just so we know you have a point to make and are not as much of an ass-hole as you appear.

---

You're right Chrisisall.

---