I"m enjoying the new sarcastic indivision.Quote:
Originally Posted by indivision
Printable View
I"m enjoying the new sarcastic indivision.Quote:
Originally Posted by indivision
Absolutely not. It just seems to me that all of the dots have not been connected well enought to support an impeachment at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
TGLC. It's just the Democrat's Ladder. When one accusation doesn't stick, swing on down to the previous rung.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
its more time efficient. i cant afford to get too into it at the moment.
You mean a republican congressman? Not to worry, chances are, he won't be elected next time anyway. ;)Quote:
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
Same here. The sad fact is, we were well on the way when Clinton left office. Now, it'll take decades to get it back anywhere near zero.Quote:
i dont know about you guys, but i prefer that more of my money is locked up over the years in a federal account.
Ok. Gig is up. Who is this person that has stolen IAW's identity?Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
I'm a bit confused by your post, then. You seem to be saying whether the fudged the books or not, the intelligence was wrong so it's no harm, no foul. Please correct me if I'm wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
The economic side of things is kind of a moot point: it can put the country in the mood for impeachment, but that in and of itself isn't a reason for it. Unless, of course, it can be proven that Bush persued economic policies with the express purpose of harming the ability of the US to maintain its self...
technically, congress can impeach for any reason it wants to.
I am just saying it would be difficult to prove that Bush himself intentionally fudged the books. So the intelligence was wrong. That is not a good thing, that is harm / foul. But to get an impeachment with irrefutable evidence that Bush himself fudged the intelligence would seem difficult at this point to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
So Bush really did alter the intelligence and go to war based on WMD, knowing full well there would be none when we got there? Why wouldn't he just go all the way then and plant some nukes there?
"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
Being stupid with money doesn't quite qualify, I think... ;)
technically yes it can... but again without irrefutable evidence it might look bad if the other side can rip holes in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
If congress played by shrub rules, then he would be guilty until proven innocent. I bet someone can come up with some charge that would force him to prove his innocence, [a joke].Quote:
technically yes it can... but again without irrefutable evidence it might look bad if the other side can rip holes in it.
SOCK PUPPETQuote:
Ok. Gig is up. Who is this person that has stolen IAW's identity?
congress is the only one that can decide what a "high crime" is.Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
Anyway, I don't think anything more clearly indicates the vast lack of even the slightest bit of intelligence than the people that hate bush constantly screaming about impeachment.
Nixon didn't break into Watergate, but that didn't stop the proceedings.Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
There is evidence out there - I don't have a list of items or links anywhere that I can post, but there are more than one source for the accusation. One of the most damning documents is the so-called Downing Street Memo, which was actually the minutes kept from a high-level meeting the the UK govt. that explicitly says 'facts were being fixed around policy,' which (to my knowledge) has never been refuted.
Obviously, one document doesn't make the case, but in conjunction with other statements, testimony and documents I don't think it's a huge leap to bring a formal charge.
I don't know if he 'knew full well' that they wouldn't be there - he might have honestly beleived there would be some after we arrived. However that doesn't mean you can alter the intelligence to support your position, even if it pans out to be true.Quote:
So Bush really did alter the intelligence and go to war based on WMD, knowing full well there would be none when we got there? Why wouldn't he just go all the way then and plant some nukes there?
Exactly, I just haven't seen it get to that point yet. That's all I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
The Downing Street Memo also states that the U.K. was fearful of saddam using Bio/Chem should we invade. I assume the U.K. had it's own intelligence that bush did not get a chance to "fix"... so why were they afriad of saddams WMDs?Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
Hm? How does saying Bush should be impeached for lying about war equal a lack of intelligence?Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
I'd also take issue with the 'constantly screaming' comment - the issue hadn't even really been broached in the public discourse until last June/July. The lastest polls also seem to show that a majority of the US population seem to think it might be a good idea, although I wouldn't try to argue that a majority of the US population has the 'slightest bit of intelligence.' :)
That's a pretty annoying fact, TGLC.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
http://radar.smh.com.au/archives/cheney.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
Vive Le Difference!
oh i just wanted to set up my cheney picture with some flowery verbageQuote:
I'd also take issue with the 'constantly screaming' comment
I don't think anyone has claimed that Bush added to any intelligence reports, merely retracted certain words like 'possibly', 'might' and 'unsure if'. I don't think what was there originally was particularly soothing in terms of Iraq's capacity, so it wouldn't be a surprise to me that the British were worried about the possibility (I was too, at the time - even posted about it in the War thread).Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
Bush's aim wasn't to invent a WMD threat out of whole cloth, just to tweak what was on the books to make it look bigger than it did.
I question the intelligence of anyone who says "everything is alright" with the shrubs regime.Quote:
Anyway, I don't think anything more clearly indicates the vast lack of even the slightest bit of intelligence than the people that hate bush constantly screaming about impeachment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
good point.
http://board.flashkit.com/board/
Change is just an impeachment away!
(before this starts getting to far out of hand, let's hold back on the comments about other people's intelligence, okay? We have a pretty good thread going so far, I'd hate to see it degenerate into the usual flame fest)
neocon - funniest word. can i coin neodem?
what's it mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by indivision
Well, neo-con is a neo-conservative, not a neo-republican. I guess you could say neo-lib or neo-prog, but neither has the ring of neo-con. I've been trying to get people to use 'Cons' and 'Pros' as better labels than Repubs and Dems.Quote:
Originally Posted by indivision
New Conservative. Why not just call them all by what they are? Con.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocons..._United_StatesQuote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
Lower down in the article some guy states that neo-cons should actually be called neo-Jacobins.... which is all kinds of funnyQuote:
Generally neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism; more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives; civil equality for blacks and other minorities; and sympathy with a non-traditionalist agenda, being more inclined than other conservatives toward an interventionist foreign policy and a unilateralism that is sometimes at odds with traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law. They feuded with traditional right-wing Republicans, and the nativist, protectionist, isolationists once represented by ex-Republican "paleoconservative" Pat Buchanan. Still, the neoconservatives have generally allied with other conservatives electorally and in terms of which administrations they have joined. Ideological differences between paleoconservatives and neoconservatives are often ignored in alliance against those to their left.
good pointQuote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
so neolib is mine?
what about neoiaskwhy? ;)
hahah. exactly the same kind of ambiguous thing that neocon does. 'new democrat' with no further clarification that anyone widely knows. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by yasunobu13
How about neo-governmentalist? Then shorten that to no-governmentalist.
thats not neo though. anarchists have been around since sid vicious, at least.
no-governmentalist.... wouldn't that be a paleocon
yea, neocon... that's soo 90's. :rolleyes:
Yeah, well, in Sid's time, not everyone had access the same firepower. :D
Maybe not no government, but they ought to be tasked with garbage collection, printing money, filling potholes and catching spammers. The rest, we can do without.
Psst, IAW, foreign troops on the Jersey Shore!Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
how about ubercon for 2005?
libsheviks?
now thats the old limited government iaskwhy i remember!Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
I told you, you've got to quit watching Power Ranger.Quote:
Originally Posted by japangreg
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
I think you forgot national defense in there.