Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

[Ishkur]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

This is brewing into a bigger scandal than Watergate if they don't find those WMDs. Of course, it's nowhere near as devastating as lying about a blowjob, now is it?

[Effendi]

.
As a Nation, we spent 90 MILIION DOLLARS investigating a blowjob and so far we have spent 3 million dollars investigating September 11th.

Scott!!

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Effendi
.
As a Nation, we spent 90 MILIION DOLLARS investigating a blowjob and so far we have spent 3 million dollars investigating September 11th.

Scott!!

wrong..

It was around 4 million for investigating whether or not Clinton's obtruction of justice on his sexual harrasment case extended beyond the handfull of women that he was involved with.

Ohh well, don't let pesky facts get in your way right?

-Jason

[seattle science]

Fucking christ. We lost Saddam, we lost the torture, we lost the repression, we lost the complete lack of freedom. Impeach Bush for this crime against humanity!

[ZupanGOD]

Yeah I say we impeach that son of bitch for not keeping those mass graves filled, furthering terrorism, and putting a stop to further WMD development. I'd say those are impeachable offenses. :D

[HBK]

I say we impeach that son of a bitch for being a coked up hypocrite who was never really elected.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HBK
I say we impeach that son of a bitch for being a coked up hypocrite who was never really elected.

Who wasn't elected?

[HBK]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Who wasn't elected?

I noticed that you didn't deny the fact that he's a coked up hypocrite. :D

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HBK


I noticed that you didn't deny the fact that he's a coked up hypocrite. :D

Who's coked up?

[bungle bliss]

If these were pre-Monica times, I'd say yes. But post-Monica, I think the answer is, obviously, HELL FUCK YES!!!

[Mirko]

It's certainly an impeachable offense, and Bush ought to be impeached. But I believe the House of Representatives must vote to impeach, then the Senate holds a trial, requiring a 2/3 majority. Does anyone really think there's a chance of impeachment? Come on. Marginal (at best) possibility it'll even get to the House floor.

[HexRei]

I thought impeachment was a tool to remove presidential powers so that he can be charged with a crime. Generally this crime is the reason for the impeachment, as in Clinton's case (perjury).
The question is, what crime are we discussing here? Did dubya ever swear to his words under oath? If not, what penal code can he be charged under?

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Mirko
It's certainly an impeachable offense, and Bush ought to be impeached. But I believe the House of Representatives must vote to impeach, then the Senate holds a trial, requiring a 2/3 majority. Does anyone really think there's a chance of impeachment? Come on. Marginal (at best) possibility it'll even get to the House floor.

Yeah but wouldn't it be kind of self incriminating for the congress todo such a thing? Unless of course the case was a flat out lie, I don't know what law was broken. But isn't kind of odd how the whole world wasn't in doubt about Saddam and what he was up to but you guys are. Hmm.. I don't see how you guys believe Saddam still even after the war.

-Jason

[Mike S]

First off lets define what you mean by lying. Lying.. as in willfully and intentionally fabricating something.. In this case doing so regarding Iraq's WMD.
NOT putting together policy from and passing on to the public incorrect intel or wrongly deciphered data provided by both The UN and US intel sources.

IF the President of the United States was involved in and knowingly & intentionally fabricated anything of that nature you bet your ass its an impeachable offense. I dont care who the fucker is.. or what party.. you get up and lie like that you can find a new job.. Christ as if we havent put up with enough B.S. from the one lying sexual predator we elected in the past.

Anyway Ish..
Yours is a great question to ponder and while pondering it one should ask themselves this..Considering that everyone in the administration is smart enough to know the penalties for committing such an act and considering how tightly run & controlled this Presidents White House has been as well as the fact that this President and his party fully intend to run and win the executive and legislative branches in 04 - Why would anybody as intelligent and calculating as these people decide to engage in a haphazard, end result unknowable action such as what their critics accuse them of... especially knowing that there are people such as their critics looking for ANYTHING to weaken this Presidency?

For sure I have no idea what is going on with the WMD.. the only fact I do know about them is that while the search is on ..very few details are going to be given out about what is found, how and where until the people looking are confident that they have most if not all of the WMD accounted for..
We aren't the only folks interested in finding these things.. and we're not going to provide any information that might help lead others to a hidden stash.

what all that means is there will be very little detailed information given for a time which is going to add fuel those wishing/ speculating that the WMD issue is fraudulent.

MS

[Mike S]

While we're at it.. if the WMD issue turns out to be a total non issue - they're found and all that.. and it turns out this entire issue has been the completely contrived and manipulated product of various people in and out of government motivated by their raw political hate and ambition.. what, if any, should their penalty be for propagating this?

MS

[186k\sec]

they're found and all that.. and it turns out this entire issue has been the completely contrived and manipulated product of various people in and out of government motivated by their raw political hate and ambition.. what, if any, should their penalty be for propagating this?
yeah, they should penalize those who were critical of the wars results...and demanded further explanation on what was present to the world as facts....

why do you hate democracy Mike,?

[Mike S]

Originally posted by 186k\sec

yeah, they should penalize those who were critical of the wars results...and demanded further explanation on what was present to the world as facts....

why do you hate democracy Mike,?

That's not at all what I meant 186 and you know it.. There's reasonable and productive criticism then there is (what may potentially be) concocting issues of a damaging and slanderous nature and perpetuating them as a means of impairing an administrations ability to focus on an issue and act effectively. Bogging it down and in effect creating another, more tangible issue to further attack them on.


Thats not to say that is what is going on but since we were asking hypotheticals i thought I'd pose a question pertaining to this one.


MS

[186k\sec]

There's reasonable and productive criticism then there is (what may potentially be) concocting issues of a damaging and slanderous nature and perpetuating them as a means of impairing an administrations ability to focus on an issue and act effectively. Bogging it down and in effect creating another, more tangible issue to further attack them on.
if the media is 'concocting issues' ; they will have a problem with thier credibility, ... just like the administration is experiencing now, as it is being determined how much 'concocting' of evidence went on prior to the war to sway public opinoin...
theres no way to know if something was done illegally, unless investigations take place, ... now, if you mean that investigation into allegations of wrong-doing are or intended soley to be politically damaging, &/or essentially wild goose chases, then sure, those objectives should be exposed as such... and let the fallout be what it may. . .
people make up stuff about others all the time. after all, at times you refer to me as wacko - correct?
so can i hold you liable, if I can prove myself to be sane?

[Mike S]

Originally posted by 186k\sec

if the media is 'concocting issues' ; they will have a problem with thier credibility, ... just like the administration is experiencing now, as it is being determined how much 'concocting' of evidence went on prior to the war to sway public opinoin...
theres no way to know if something was done illegally, unless investigations take place, ... now, if you mean that investigation into allegations of wrong-doing are or intended soley to be politically damaging, &/or essentially wild goose chases, then sure, those objectives should be exposed as such... and let the fallout be what it may. . .
people make up stuff about others all the time. after all, at times you refer to me as wacko - correct?
so can i hold you liable, if I can prove myself to be sane?

Yeah but being a smart ass and calling you a wacko is a far cry from the type of slander and chachter assasination we're talking about.

MS

[186k\sec]

"character assasination"? -

p l e a s e..
... do you really think he's being attacked for his character?!
or facing tough questions about the anomolies & inconsistancies in the pre-war intelligence reports & the conveying of that information to the media..(public)?

[Mike S]

Originally posted by 186k\sec
"character assasination"? -

p l e a s e..
... do you really think he's being attacked for his character?!
or facing tough questions about the anomolies & inconsistancies in the pre-war intelligence reports & the conveying of that information to the media..(public)?

186 ...you - like everyone else outside of the administration - don't have enough information on anything FACTUAL relative to Iraqi WMD to call anything anomalous or inconsistent. Nothing. Zilch.
so yes... the only thing you have to go on are assumptions and they are assumptions based on your opinion of the character of Bush and other members of his administration. That's all.





MS

[nate]

Hey, how about the latest on those "mobile chemical labs" (http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,973195,00.html) with their canvas walls and complete lack of proper sterilization gear, not to mention traces of ANY biological agents.

Peace.

[186k\sec]

186 ...you - like everyone else outside of the administration - don't have enough information on anything FACTUAL relative to Iraqi WMD to call anything anomalous or inconsistent. Nothing. Zilch.

so yes... the only thing you have to go on are assumptions and they are assumptions based on your opinion of the character of Bush and other members of his administration. That's all.

Mike - the FACTUAL element to the questioning is the lack of promised wmd, after 9 weeks of exhausting searches.. there is still Nothing, Zilch...

so yes, without proof to backup the claims of immediate Iraqi wmd threats, its become clear that there was an error in the evaluation & or presentation of evidence. That's all.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by 186k\sec


Mike - the FACTUAL element to the questioning is the lack of promised wmd, after 9 weeks of exhausting searches.. there is still Nothing, Zilch...

so yes, without proof to backup the claims of immediate Iraqi wmd threats, its become clear that there was an error in the evaluation & or presentation of evidence. That's all.

Thats right 186 - as far as you & I know there have been no WMD found. And we're not privy to the nature of the searches, the areas searched, the areas not searched, the number of people involved in the search, what equipment is being used to detect things, what sort of trace elements might indicate the presence of WMD and what areas these trace elemetns have been encountered. To name a few things.

and yet you have the nerve to speak of seeing such things clearly.

interesting...and imaginative

MS

[186k\sec]

and yet you have the nerve to speak of seeing such things clearly
interesting...and imaginative


thats right -
i speak in reference to what Ive read and listened to on various broadcasts.. you call it 'nerve', yet you still havent been able to show me where ive "lied" ,as you have claimed previously, with respect to these reports. the only thing 'interesting & imaginative' is that you insist nothing is known about the situation, when in fact - enouph is evident to raise valid concerns over the pre-war intelligence on the capability and availability of Iraqi wmd, ... and whether pre-emption was justified..

[HBK]

Originally posted by nate
Hey, how about the latest on those "mobile chemical labs" (http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,973195,00.html) with their canvas walls and complete lack of proper sterilization gear, not to mention traces of ANY biological agents.

Peace.

That's funny. I guess we can consider any chemical reaction that occured inside Iraq as Baathist attempts at procuring WMD.

Iraqi kids in a chem class mixing baking soda and vinegar, were actually trying to make Sarin.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by 186k\sec

thats right -
i speak in reference to what Ive read and listened to on various broadcasts.. you call it 'nerve', yet you still havent been able to show me where ive "lied" ,as you have claimed previously, with respect to these reports. the only thing 'interesting & imaginative' is that you insist nothing is known about the situation, when in fact - enouph is evident to raise valid concerns over the pre-war intelligence on the capability and availability of Iraqi wmd, ... and whether pre-emption was justified..

Enough is known? Bullshit 186..
Nothing is known- at least by the progressive punditry and their loyal sheep, and its PRECISELY because nothing of substance is known and/or has been released about WMD that they get any traction with their unsubstantiated chattering. All we have is 9 weeks and no reported WMD. Well excuse me but which totally uninformed leftist editorial hack decided 9 weeks was long enough..and why?.. using what criteria? Why is it 9 weeks now when 18 weeks ago the same fringe freaks were telling us that their favorite organization, The UN, would need months.. If not years? Why the sudden change?


Of course I'm not privy to the daily CIA briefing either so it is possible that I'm wrong and you're right. or vise versa..

Tell ya what I do know.. some left wing wacko tabloids and writers sure have been making good money keeping this "issue" alive.

MS

[superkool]

what is known is that any time a little hint of wmd is found, bush and co. goto the t.v. and say..we have them...so yes mike if ANYTHING was found by now..we would of had it

but lets get to the issues..where is the evidence that led us to war?

they said they had some good info on where the stuff was and even how much..so at least show us some evidence

did jenna bush get a map drawn on her ass of where the wmd's were?

you cant tell me the way they hyped this shit up that we would not have found them already.theres tons of the shit remember?


um look for BIG ass construction equipment in the middle of no where, cause they didn't bury tons of wmd with picks and shit....hello


um we have like LOTS of TOP people that would know where these things are...why haven't they talked yet?

or did saddam and his two sons carry all that shit out and bury it, so no one could tell on them?


the fact about bush and co wanting 04, and how they wont mess shit up is great thinking,except for pnac has already got the ball rolling.....bush is a puppet...if you haven't noticed already

the pax americana vision is already in motion

doesn't matter who's in the house



on another note, to show you the staggering intelligence of bush.....five mins after he meet the pres of brazil, he asks him...." do you have any blacks there?"


lolololol....rice had to jump in and save his ass.....what a dumbfuck

[Ewok_N_Roll]

Okay, well it's tough to firgure what side all of you are on, 'cept those of you on your own side ;)

But if you care to write your senatorial representative's with a request that they Impeach Mr. busH, here's a web site for ya' www.votetoimpeach.org

Just be aware, any slander against that busH can be construed as terrorism. take this post from Effendi:

THE KING HAS NO CLOTHES:
.
BUT SAYING SO MIGHT LAND YOU IN PRISON

By: Paul Joseph Watson

the rest of what was said, is on this thread = http://nwtekno.org/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=815087#post815087

Also keep in mind that the president is just a figure head, what our government does it will do, regardless of the current figure head. Unless we get someone very courageous in that seat, that isn't affraid of assasination (remember Kennedy?) to stand up against the companies and bureaucrats that have power over our "democracy", then we'll just be in the same pinch.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Ewok_N_Roll


Just be aware, any slander against that busH can be construed as terrorism. .

Calls bullshit on conspiracy nut. If that were the case then I can think of a bus load of board folk that would be off to some new digs at GITMO.
Nope sorry Ewok.. doesnt pass the sniff test. The only thig that I smell is what ever dank you been smokin thats got you thinking like a wack ass paranoid stoner.

MS

[Mirko]

Originally posted by Ewok_N_Roll
Also keep in mind that the president is just a figure head, what our government does it will do, regardless of the current figure head.
In general this is correct. But do you think (for example) Gore would have invaded Iraq? Surely he too would have bombed the snot out of Afghanistan, but I doubt he would have gone into Iraq. (I don't know anything about Gore's foreign policy decision so I'm assuming it would have resembled Clinton's; of course we'll never know.) The government does all sorts of bad things, but it is after all composed of human beings that we somehow or other are responsible for putting there.

Unless we get someone very courageous in that seat, that isn't affraid of assasination (remember Kennedy?) to stand up against the companies and bureaucrats that have power over our "democracy", then we'll just be in the same pinch.
What the fuck? Kennedy started Vietnam! But I get what you're saying. Unfortunately, corporations have such a strangehold on this country it would be tough for someone like (for example) Kucinich to get elected.

[bungle bliss]

I don't want Kucinich elected. He was avidly anti-choice and once he speculated running totally did a 180 on the subject. Because of polls. But that is a whole different thread. heh.

[Mirko]

Originally posted by bungle bliss
I don't want Kucinich elected. He was avidly anti-choice and once he speculated running totally did a 180 on the subject. Because of polls. But that is a whole different thread. heh.
Hate to continue off-topic conversation (which never ever happens on nwtekno), but... Yeah, I know... that's the one issue I know of that Kucinich is dead wrong about. Anyway I don't think Kucinich is "electable" so it's probably moot. But other than his antichoice stance (which must have been the wish of a dying relative or something), his positions are correct: he's anti-WTO, anti-NAFTA, pro-labor, he's has got a much better health plan than Dean's (Dean's is okay, but it's regressive for large sectors of the population, plus it will use the insurance companies to manage everything), and so on.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Mirko

Hate to continue off-topic conversation (which never ever happens on nwtekno), but... Yeah, I know... that's the one issue I know of that Kucinich is dead wrong about. Anyway I don't think Kucinich is "electable" so it's probably moot. But other than his antichoice stance (which must have been the wish of a dying relative or something), his positions are correct: he's anti-WTO, anti-NAFTA, pro-labor, he's has got a much better health plan than Dean's (Dean's is okay, but it's regressive for large sectors of the population, plus it will use the insurance companies to manage everything), and so on.

well gosh, what's one little reversal of roe v wade when you've got a great health plan?

[Mirko]

Originally posted by HexRei
well gosh, what's one little reversal of roe v wade when you've got a great health plan?
Here's what Kucinich has to say, and we can believe him or not:

"I support Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose, and will select Supreme Court justices who affirm this Constitutional right.

I’ve had a journey on this issue that a year ago, before I became a candidate for President, caused me to break from a voting record that had not been pro-choice. After hearing from many women in my own life, and from women and men in my community and across the country, I began a more intensive dialogue on the issue. A lot of women opened their hearts to me. That dialogue led me to wholeheartedly support a woman’s right to choose.

I have come to believe that it’s not simply about the right to choose, but about a woman’s role in society as being free and having agency and having the ability to make her own decisions. That a woman can’t be free unless she has this right.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is one of the most serious decisions a woman might make. It is deeply personal. In our society, all women and all men have a right to make difficult moral decisions and make personal choices. But women will not be equal to men if this constitutionally protected right is denied.

I want to work to make abortions less necessary, which means sex education and birth control. I want to work to make sure that, when life is brought forward, we have prenatal care and postnatal care and childcare and universal health care and a living wage.

And because I know that the right to choose is under attack -- as President, I will only support someone for the Supreme Court if he or she agrees to uphold Roe v. Wade."

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_rightsreproductive.htm

[Ewok_N_Roll]

Originally posted by: Mike S
Calls bullshit on conspiracy nut. The only thig that I smell is what ever dank you been smokin thats got you thinking like a wack ass paranoid stoner.

*cough,cough,hack*
ahem, um yeah, Okay ya' got me. ;)
So do you want to send in a vote for me, oh wait, I still haven't figured out just what it is your trying to advocate. 'cept an argument. :p
Oh I do love the good arguments, you know, the one's that both sides have to little facts to make any clear assumptions, so all people involved get to think they're right. :cool:
Originally posted by: Mirko
do you think (for example) Gore would have invaded Iraq? Surely he too would have bombed the snot out of Afghanistan, but I doubt he would have gone into Iraq. (I don't know anything about Gore's foreign policy decision so I'm assuming it would have resembled Clinton's; of course we'll never know.)

Quite possible he would have hunted Osama down, but I thought it was Bush chasing Osama into Iraq that got that bombing started.
And what would the green party have done about it? So much speculation and to little facts make my paranoid little stoner mind go all swirly. :confused:

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Ewok_N_Roll

*cough,cough,hack*
ahem, um yeah, Okay ya' got me. ;)
So do you want to send in a vote for me, oh wait, I still haven't figured out just what it is your trying to advocate. 'cept an argument. :p
Oh I do love the good arguments, you know, the one's that both sides have to little facts to make any clear assumptions, so all people involved get to think they're right. :cool:

Quite possible he would have hunted Osama down, but I thought it was Bush chasing Osama into Iraq that got that bombing started.
And what would the green party have done about it? So much speculation and to little facts make my paranoid little stoner mind go all swirly. :confused:


OK .. your entire assertion that you can get charged with terrorism for speaking against ANYONE is BS - you validate it posting an unverifiable - most likely fabricated - story originally posted by Effendi who is FAMOUS for his baseless paranoid conspiracy rants. That you made this a serious part of your posts casts doubt on the credibility of anything else you claim to be serious about.


MS

[Ewok_N_Roll]

^^^^^

who ever said anything about being serious :confused:

:p *cough,cough* :p

No, really though, seriously Mikey, I do have to apologize for using the word argument. What I meant to say was, "debate". :)

But, can you just put in a vote to impeach busH for all the paranoid stoners in the world, please? ;)

That way we can "debate" all the screw-ups of the next president, which hopefully won't involve making the rest of the world despise us. :(

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Mirko

Here's what Kucinich has to say, and we can believe him or not:

"I support Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose, and will select Supreme Court justices who affirm this Constitutional right.

I’ve had a journey on this issue that a year ago, before I became a candidate for President, caused me to break from a voting record that had not been pro-choice. After hearing from many women in my own life, and from women and men in my community and across the country, I began a more intensive dialogue on the issue. A lot of women opened their hearts to me. That dialogue led me to wholeheartedly support a woman’s right to choose.

I have come to believe that it’s not simply about the right to choose, but about a woman’s role in society as being free and having agency and having the ability to make her own decisions. That a woman can’t be free unless she has this right.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is one of the most serious decisions a woman might make. It is deeply personal. In our society, all women and all men have a right to make difficult moral decisions and make personal choices. But women will not be equal to men if this constitutionally protected right is denied.

I want to work to make abortions less necessary, which means sex education and birth control. I want to work to make sure that, when life is brought forward, we have prenatal care and postnatal care and childcare and universal health care and a living wage.

And because I know that the right to choose is under attack -- as President, I will only support someone for the Supreme Court if he or she agrees to uphold Roe v. Wade."

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_rightsreproductive.htm


ooh, campaign promises :rolleyes:

[Effendi]

Originally posted by Mike S

Nothing is known- by the progressive punditry and their loyal sheep,
uninformed leftist editorial hack......
some left wing wacko tabloids and writers sure have been making good money keeping this "issue" alive.


hey mike, the spittle forming in the corners of your mouth is very unattractive.....lol

Scott!!

[Effendi]

Originally posted by Mike S

Effendi who is FAMOUS for his baseless paranoid conspiracy rants.

That is funny mike, If my rants are so "conspiritorial" and "baseless" then why do I make you squirm so...lol

I may be paranoid....but I remain safe!!
You my friend are too stupid to know the difference!!

Scott!!

[Effendi]

.
Washington, D.C. Just a few days after first publishing its Poll, with the question: "Should Bush be impeached?", OfficialPoll reports that a staggering 94.7% of those polled, say "Yes", the president of the United States of America should be impeached for what appear to be untrue statements to the U.S. Congress and the American people.

http://www.officialspin.com/

Hahahahahahhaha.

Scott!!

[Mirko]

Originally posted by Effendi
a staggering 94.7% of those polled, say "Yes"
Down to 67.2%... website polls seem to be determined by which special-interest groups get the most word out telling them to vote "their" way. Another 25 days left to vote. Tell your friends!

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Effendi
.
Washington, D.C. Just a few days after first publishing its Poll, with the question: "Should Bush be impeached?", OfficialPoll reports that a staggering 94.7% of those polled, say "Yes", the president of the United States of America should be impeached for what appear to be untrue statements to the U.S. Congress and the American people.

http://www.officialspin.com/

Hahahahahahhaha.

Scott!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! :D:D:D:D

Yeah, a fucking internet poll is a REAL accurate method of gauging public opinion *lol*

Total votes as of now: 1313.
It would take someone with access to a college computer lab possibly a few days to rack that up, working alone. if they had even basic PHP scripting skills, way, way less.

Do you even care about methodology in polling, or do you just blindly accept as truth any statistic that happens to fall line with your belief?

[Ewok_N_Roll]

Originally posted by: HexRei
Do you even care about methodology in polling, or do you just blindly accept as truth any statistic that happens to fall line with your belief?

Statistics suck donkey ass!

One can use statistics to prove just about anything is true, and the methodology only helps to attain those goals.

[skilife]

.
Jesus Peter...Lighten the fuck up!!

That's why I put the "Hahahahahah" right after the web address which if you looked closer is like www.officialspin.com or some bullshit like that.

It was SUPPOSED to be a joke...henceforth the laughing.......

Scott!!

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Ewok_N_Roll

Statistics suck donkey ass!

One can use statistics to prove just about anything is true, and the methodology only helps to attain those goals.

No. The problem is, in fact, that methodologies are rarely if ever considered when statistics are hurled about. Someone just tosses a number out and many people just take it at face value. If more people paid attention to the biased methods used by some data gatherers, statistics wouldn't BE so meaningless because there wouldn't be so many inaccurate and flawed studies floating around.
like the one Scott posted. There are certainly other ways in which to poll this question that would be more accurate than an unsecured web poll.

[Mojojojo]

I didn't read this whole thing buy I think I might need to clarify that impeachment is only a trial to determine if the president should be removed from office, it is not however an actual removal.