Printable View
I don't think there will be any change with the policy with regards to Iraq. I think the only position either side can have there is to get it done ASAP but cannot really put a timeline on it... we just have to continue paying as we play in Iraq and hopefully create a situation worth withdrawing troops from.Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
Wait till after the elections next year. The reason it hasn't been brought up is that the ones who want it know it won't fly with a republican majority. That's going to change and I don't think there are many voters on either side that could honestly say it isn't deserved.Quote:
but I doubt we'll ever see an impeachment.
Only the neocons remain. The staunchest of the old conservatives are running from him.
I agree the policy really can't be altered at this point (certainly not by the Bush admin), but as public support for the war continues to fall, Repubs will find themselves more vulnerable than Dems on the issue, because they get hit with the double whammy of run-away govt. spending. Dems can always milk the 'vote for authority, not for war' line, where as the Repubs can't do so without looking like turn coats.Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
I think we've already begun to see the seeds of it with Meirs; if anything pans out on the Plame case, it'll get steadily worse.
A majority of the public think he deserves it, if it can be proven he lied to get us in Iraq. It's a much higher percentage than wanted Clinton brought up on charges, but of course the Repubs had the majority to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
If the power shifts, it's a possibility. But I don't think it would happen.
Before there could be an impeachment wouldn't there have to be a formal investigation or inquiry that concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the President knew there weren't any WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion? I thought most people are still operating under the assumption that it was faulty intelligence.
Sorry, maybe that information is out there... I just haven't taken the time to read and research LR's footer yet. ;)
wide open throttle?Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
"if you are not with us, your against us" was purely about terrorism... well islamic terrorism to be specific.... when have republicans taken this stand at other times?Quote:
The dialogue they've constructed and nurtured ('If you are not with us, your again' us!')
* raises had!Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
I'm thinking the dems are going to get the majority next election. I think they are going to get it because most people now see the repubs in general siding with a bad president, no matter what. I also see that people are sick of this party line agenda and want it to change, no matter who is in office. Party, good or bad, is nopt what senators and congressmen are elected for, they are elected to protect this country from bad presidents, and people expect that.Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
If enough people want an impeachment, there will be one. It certainly is needed, to send the message to future presidents, if nothing else.
<Bush>Let's Roll!</Bush>Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
:D
The War on Terror(tm), of course.
It has permiated the national security discussion for years now - please don't tell me you haven't noticed? All of the talk about aid and comfort to the enemy by opposing the invasions, being anti-military because an investigation into abuses was called for, etc.Quote:
"if you are not with us, your against us" was purely about terrorism... well islamic terrorism to be specific.... when have republicans taken this stand at other times?
AD, the idea of faulty intelligence has been debated for a long time - my personal view is that it was the intelligence that was faulty, but the reports that were generated within a highly politicized environment that were. I can't link to specifics on this due to both time contraints and being very lazy (;)), but suffice to say that if you look into what people like Colin Powell, Joe Wilson and George Tenet have said about pre-war intelligence, it seems far more likely in my eyes that qualifiers and hedges from the actual intel were striped to make a better case for admin policy (much like the hack job they got caught doing on environmental reports to play down global warming).
IAW, recent polling data seems to suggest that most people currently want a Dem majority in Congress - however, a poll once said that a majority of people wanted a Dem as president, so take with a grain of salt. However, the desire for a switch in terms of congressional majority is the strongest its been in over a decade, which was roughly when the Repubs first ascended to power.
Even if the switch comes, which I think is likely but I wouldn't want to bet on, it gives them only 2 years to consolidate and attack for an impeachment. I don't think this can be done, at least not easily.
Although it would be nice to see, even if the charges end up being dismissed. Too many unanswered questions for my taste.
Ah sorry, I read from your email that "you with us or against us" was being used in terms of domestic policy etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
To a much smaller degree, but I seem to remember Bush warning opponents to SS reform that they would face a politcal price at the polls for opposition. In most cases with domestic policy, they've been able to railroad the Dems anyway, so not being with them wasn't a problem. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
The main reason I have become such a government hater lately is that it doesn't matter what you are, republican or democrat. If your a politition, you dirty, your not trying to strengthen america, your trying to get closer to the money trough. I am really, really disgusted with all polititions right now, since not one of them dares to breath the word impeachment. Bunch of girly-man whimps, and they all need to go home.Quote:
Although it would be nice to see, even if the charges end up being dismissed. Too many unanswered questions for my taste.
Call for an impeachment. If you get laughed all the way back to your state, at least you stood for what is right.
it really is awful. im sure they will be selling us the fear and we have to blow things up again. if it wasnt for that dirty republican hawk Truman, we might not have to go through this. just awful.
I don't know... they can't even seem to indict Rove if that's the angle for impeachment... and as far as WMDs like I said, whether biased and/or planned or not it was faulty intelligence.
It seems with Nixon and Clinton, not sure about that other guy, anyone else? They had irrefutable evidence supporting the impeachment. I just don't see anything like that here. Seems they had more evidence from Iran/Contra to impeach Reagan than they do here.
So if they were to impeach, on what grounds and what is the irrefutable evidence from reliable sources?
maybe its kind of like dorthy in the wizard of oz. if you close your eyes, tap your feet together and keep saying 'impeach Bush' it will really happen. ;)
Let's see. Impeachement does not have to be tied to his obvious lies about the intel he got from the CIA. Oh, BTW, thaere seems to be plenty of evidence to prove that the shrub misrepresented the intel he did get for the purpose of convincing the congress to let him start a war. Saw it on C-Span. The CIA itself made that indictment in a congressional hearing not long ago.
Anyway, how about coming to office with a federal surplus and in less than 6 years turning that to a near 4 trillion dollar debit. How about the way he and his government handled Katrina after effects? How about any number of other mismanaged boon doggles he's been responsible for?
No, lying about WMD intel is not the only reason to impeach a bad president.
Rove may be the pin that sets the others into motion, we'll have to wait on that. Looks like the investigators are taking their time, so hopefully whatever happens will be done with the solid support of facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
But I don't understand that last part of your post: whether biased and/or planned or not it was faulty intelligence. So you're saying if someone knowingly alter intelligence reports to back up policy, that's okay? What appears to have happened is that Bush pushed Tenet for a case against Iraq, Tenet put the screws to the analysts and cherry picked information. Now if it turns out that Bush knowingly compelled Tenet to produce reports that were contrary to the consensus among the intel. community in order to support his invasion of Iraq (which has been a documented objective of many of his administration for years), is that alright with you?
The grounds that were floated in the latest survey were lying about the reasons for war in Iraq. Whether or not that would be the case made (I assume there are other possibilities as well, Plame being the most prominent) I don't know, but there seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest that's exactly what happened (various intel agents, Tenet and Powell, Downing Street Memos, etc.).Quote:
So if they were to impeach, on what grounds and what is the irrefutable evidence from reliable sources?
Many members of congress had access to all the intelligence bush had, not just the intelligence bush presented. That plus congresses dereliction of duty in regards to declaring war would make an impeachment over Iraq far messier than any congressmen hoping for reelection would want to touch.Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
i dont know about you guys, but i prefer that more of my money is locked up over the years in a federal account. we should go for a super, record high surplus. just in case. that way, when we need the money, we can rely on the government to gradually hand it back to us according to "need".