Post a New Topic
Original post made
by Patriot, Duveneck/St. Francis,
on Jan 25, 2008
Grounds for impeachment?
Sure, but how do you go about impeaching a poster for such an obvious pastisch of garbage?
Another juvenile non-profit non-partisan bunch of frat boys apply a rubber rule to the actions of an administration that they hate beyond their own endurance and try to couch it in scholarly terms.
One cannot possibly know everything about anything. At some point, one must evaluate available inout and come to a decision. Even if the input is not valid, as it often is, the conclusions drawn cannot be called lies except by futless inepts brightening up their mother's basement with their brilliance. A total crock.
Walter is right that weighty decisions are almost always made with imperfect information. I think that misses the point.
Shrub must have been asleep during his MBA classes at Harvard that dealt with cost/benefit analysis and decision theory. His "decision tree," or shall I call it a "decision bush," in this case seems to have had one single branch on it, and he does not appear to have made much of an effort to take an expansive view of his options and the potential consequences.
I really tire of some of the blustering about the WMD question on this and other threads. As much as I think the entire WMD pitch was as phony as a three dollar bill, what I find more objectionable is the choices Shrub made to plunder our countries money (he likes to call it our money when it comes to being taxed, and it also is our money when it is being spent) put people in harms way, lose so many Iraqi and US lives, lose sight of the legitimate threat posed by certain terrorist factions, and poison this country's stature in the world, all because of his hunch around the imperfect information pertaining to WMD and the creepy Saddam.
The President of the United States is blessed with an awesome toolbox of things that he can bring to bear to influence, affect, and change things. Shrub has demonstrated time and again that he does not know how to put the tools of his office to good and proper use. He used the wrong tools to disastrous effect chasing down a third rate tyrant for reasons we all know now were bogus. In the private sector, grounds for dismassal have been met in spades. It is too late for impeachment, Shrub already is getting judged by history as a poor President, and sadly, I don't think time will change that view.
Sorry boomer but you dismiss the incompetence of the establishment CIA and the effects of the decision to divert security money to vote buying during a previous administration. Can you remember "Peace Dividend," Bucky?
Don't blame or give credit to prior administrations for decisions, choices, and management of things entirely at the discretion of those holding office.
Do you remember the notion of being accountable for things that happen on your watch? Bucko
Boomer dosen't care or want anyone to recall that Clinton and his administration, (along with a gagle of democrat lawmakers) also stated hundreds of times, based on the same intelligence reports, that Saddam had WMD's.
Wonder why this little report dosen't bother to tally those? BIAS anyone?
The only reason democrats allowed republicans any power at all during the years they held absolute power was their knowledge that if they abolished republicans like they have in California nothing would ever get done.
".........Clinton and his administration, (along with a gagle of democrat lawmakers) also stated hundreds of times, based on the same intelligence reports, that Saddam had WMD's"
Uh, but Clinton didn't invade Iraq, did he?
Bush did, because Bush is incompetent. His incompetence has caused untold misery, and loss of fortune.
Bush is easily the worst president in American history. Why? Because he is an intelligent man who has used his gifts in the most cynical of ways. nobody even comes close on the "negative" scale. There's a big "L" on Shrub's forehead, one that's going to become more obvious as time goes on.
There are many, many more links showing the same result.
How ever did we end up with such a dolt as our political leader? I think we're in trouble, simply based on the fact that such a pathetic politician was able to make it into our nation's highest office. It says something about the state of America.
"Uh, but Clinton didn't invade Iraq, did he? "
I believe Clinton did maintain the no fly zones and the embargos, both acknowledged acts of war, and the actual second invasion was accomplished with casualties lower than training casualties. The Bush acquiescence to State Department ninnies after the invasion was unconscionable, but then diplomacy has always been less exact that open warfare.
Boomer, you are a fool to either love or hate a politican.
Walter, Clinton did not go to war in the same way that Bush went to war. There are volumes of subtext buried in that statement - you get my drift.
I only read your first link. Don't want to waste too much of my valuable time. It was about a bunch of liberal historians that seem to already have made up their minds that Bush is among the worst presidents. Hmmm...now aren't historian supposed to wait for a few decades before they make their judgements? It says much more about the historians than it does about Bush.
Patriot, I get your drift - time for you to drop anchor in reality before you founder on the shoals of inanity.
Although there are many valid grounds for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, Iraq is not one them.
See the many public statements made by Bruce Fein,e.g.,
Of course, impeachment of Bush is poltically useless.
I hope the democrats do bring impeachment charges. Let the rampant stupidity of their campaign of personal destruction become a matter of record.I wonder what party would replace them. Is the Farm-Labor party still around? Bush may finally realize that, contrary to the way he was raised, sometimes you must "dignify" an insult with a response.
Walter, I am with you...I am starting to think that the best way for our country to learn will be to learn the hard way like other countries have already done.. give the far left what they want...
++a socialist President and Congress (and I will laugh as the poor get poorer and unemployment skyrockets),
++limitations on free speech ( and trust me, I will laugh when we do everything we can to enforce it on the left)
++putting one of best, most honest and most diverse administrations through all kinds of lawsuits which the left loses ( and I will laugh when everyone realizes that we are back to the days of Clinton Administration, with the MOST convictions of any Administration...EVER..a much less diverse admin than now, and the kind of racism which pats people on the head and tells them that we will take care of you, because we can't expect much of you because you weren't born the right color).
++Oh, I will also watch the poverty rate rise, and the number of kids born into welfare Mom families rise, both related to the other, as we grow our incentives to make poor choices.
++ and I will laugh as we take away the few education standards we have built into the nation and watch the education begin to sink again
We are in for a fun ride. Too bad so many are going to have to suffer before we wake up.
Oh...I won't laugh when thousands more innocent Americans get hit again, after our security measures are dismantled, because the fascists of the world understand that our left has no spine.
What the left doesn't understand is that those of us who are super rich will be fine and our kids will be fine, cuz we can ride out the coming dismantling of our economy and freedoms. So, frankly, I am getting tired and am just ready to say the hell with it, let the rest of the nation vote themselves into a worse nation and learn.... I can hunker down for a 20 year ride, and just stop buying in order to preserve my reserves, easily, but those who make their living off the extras won't be too happy to watch their work go away.
Can't stop..Doesn't anyone wonder why the markets are a little unstable right now? No matter what the "popular" wisdom is, I can tell you that the main reason is that those of us with money are holding tight, waiting to see what our nation elects. We aren't starting any new businesses, we aren't investing in any upstarts, we aren't hiring anyone to replace those who quit, we aren't ordering anything expensive, and we aren't building new homes..we are in a wait and see mode, and it is affecting our economy already.
I actually know a few folks who vote in a way that they ADMIT is bad for the future of our economy, but flat out state that they don't care, their kids have trusts. When I ask why they still vote that way, they say it is because they don't want to leave the Democrat party.
I can't understand voting in a way that you know is bad for the future generations, just because you have always voted a certain ticket.
Wake up and look at the parties and what they stand for TODAY..not what they stood for 40 years ago.
perspective, You hang with a pretty cynical crowd; no way that these are high level investment folk. The investors I know are not thinking at all like your friends. You sound like a slightly upper-middle-class version of Archie Bunker.
btw, no matter what you say about the Dems, and the left, it remains that Clinton left Bush with a surplus, and world respect.
What we have now, after Bush, is a weaker America, and a poorer America. Thank Shrub for helping to accelerate that.
more proof that Saddam never had WMD
George Piro was the only consistent point of contact with Saddam, following Saddam's capture. Piro (who speaks fluent Arabic) "broke" Saddam, with the latter admitting the whole WMD thing was a charade, to create a deterrent effect.
I wonder how many Americans who have lost sons, daughters and treasure are going to feel about this as the truth continues to leak out.
So called Patriot, it's funny that you would bring up Archie Bunker. I have many times been struck by your uncanny resemblance to Meat Head.
And for the record (once again), Clinton coasted through his two terms on the Reagan economy and by the time he was done wrecking everything, the country's economy was dropping like a stone. Then Bush stepped in and cut taxes which allowed the economy to survive both Clinton and 9/11. Too bad for you lefties and the terrorists.
If we want world respect, then we better "speak softly and carry a big stick". We need to be tough with rogue nations and terrorists and stop yammering about making them like us. In terms of the snotty, socialist Europeans, who cares if they are jealous of our wealth, strength and practice of free enterprise?
uh, NoMore, looks like Saddam didn't have WMD - and that's all you have to say? And, oh, yeah, can you remind us of what's happening to the dollar's value, since Shrub has wasted our economy? YOu need to read some history, fella,and get out once in a while.
It is fitting justice that Saddam's own lies did him in. And I doubt that any of our fighting men and women, who saw with their own eyes what Saddam did to his own people, feel a bit bad about putting him out of business. In fact they are proud to have done their part to end his reign of terror.
uh, Patriot. Hitler didn't have the atom bomb either, and he was never close to having it, yet we still went forward with the Manhatten project, based on scare tactics from Einstein and his cohorts. Not to mention the invasion of Germany.
The Bomb sure came in handy against Japan, though.
Um, Gery, turns out Hitler did have the bomb. New evidence:Web Link
I have only one real criticism of President Bush. He has catered too much to greedy leftists like you, Mr. "Patriot", and spent too much on government giveaways. He should have stuck with Reaganomics.
On the topic of Saddam and his WMD's. How about this little chant:
Saddam lies, Saddam dies!
Has a nice ring to it, no?
"Saddam lies, Saddam dies!"
Correction: Saddam lied, Americans and Iraqis died, needlessly - thanks to the reckless and feckless Mr. Bush
Which scenario do you prefer we had done: Don't believe Saddam, and be wrong...or believe Saddam, and be wrong?
I supported the latter then, and am still delighted that we did what we did. He is out, the massacres and torture have stopped, the guy and his sons who are responsible for over a million Muslim deaths... GONE....
Better than saying "ah, shucks, he's just joshing" and pay the price.
Do you believe a guy who says he has a gun and is gonna use it? Or do you tell him "ah, quit kiddin'"?
"Do you believe a guy who says he has a gun and is gonna use it? Or do you tell him "ah, quit kiddin'"?"
Sounds like Bush.
"Um, Gery, turns out Hitler did have the bomb."
Really Peter? did you even read your own link? Here is one quote from it:
"As we know from a transcript of the talk, which was discovered by the historian David Irving in the 1960s, Heisenberg emphasized both the potential of nuclear weapons and how difficult it would be to make them."
Now Peter, I NOT going to lead you through this quote. Do your own homework, then come back to me to explain how absurd you sound. I doubt that you have the intelligence, but I am always hopeful of miracles.
Saddam was MUCH ahead of the nazis, in puruit of the A-bomb. The physics were well establish, as well as the engineering standards. He was well on his way, until he got delayed by the Israelis, then by the Americans. Even then he kept at it until his son-in-law gave it up.
Iraq's alleged WMD was just another Bushie ruse to whip up a gullible, easily frightened public for his pet war. Look at the facts: while Bush and his neocon friends were beating their drums and making up the Iraq WMD story, communist North Korea was rubbing their faces in its very real nucular program, which it capped off with a neat little actual nucular blast. Bush & Co had to work very hard to pretend those real WMDs didn't exist while they chased their fantasy nukes in Iraq.
Pity North Korea - got no oil, gets no respect.
"Pity North Korea - got no oil, gets no respect"
Paul, that's pretty good. I appreciate your sense of humor. Of course, it is a flawed argument, since Bush took on both Iraq and N. Korea. Nevertheless, you seem to have at least two neurons touching.
Now what do you suppose Peter's point is? Hitler was too big a humanitarian to use the atomic bomb?
Peter's point was that Gary had produced yet another inaccuracy.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Local picks on 2015 Michelin Bib Gourmand list
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 3,162 views
Ode to Brussels Sprout
By Laura Stec | 20 comments | 2,454 views
Go Giants! Next Stop: World Series!
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,843 views
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 1,080 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Palo Alto
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
Mountain View Voice
© 2014 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.