| NYT | 0 | |
| Miami Herald | 0 | |
| Don Surber | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| WaPo | Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare] |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Change" You Can Believe In:
"Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn't control (the media). They didn’t try. [...] What the hell do they think we are, puppets?"
- Liberal opinion writer Helen Thomas, describing the Obama admin's penchant for heavily scripting public appearances & press conferences - 7/1/09
The push for impeachment starts
Another Democrat, former Brooklyn Rep. Liz Holtzman, is pushing for Bush’s impeachment via a new book she’s promoting, which is discussed here.
Prepare. Despite Pelosi’s denials that this will happen, Rep. John Conyers, who is in line to be the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has been itching for years to impeach Bush. So have other Democrats. He – and they – may soon get their chance to try.
Although the donkey logo fits them perfectly, I think the new symbol for the Democratic party should be Cujo:
Rabid, foaming at the mouth, hyper-angry dangerous far lefties salivating over the opportunity to take a bite out of the President. Will the few moderates and conservatives elected to serve in the House for Democrats be able to save them? I don’t hold out much hope, especially considering the fact that the far lefties in the party have made it clear they will not be ’suppressed.’
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
69 Responses to “The push for impeachment starts”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
leafs contentions, and all of the empty anti-Bush rhetoric on the Left, depends on peoples ignorance of the way the Congree works. The Congressional Intel committee, made up of half Dems and half Reps, had EXACTLY the same intel as Bush, right down the line. If this was all an evil NeoCon plan to take us to war based on lies, where were the Democratic Senators voices in protest while all this was going on.
- It’s total BS, just as Bak said. They hate Bush, and that justifies any and all lies, to Demonize him.
- One of the things that’s so feckless about the entire issue of BDS, and the “Get Bush” Mooney-Loons, is they ignore the fact that Saddam was busy killing his own people, Children by the hundreds were dying each month for lack of medicines and the food, that nasty little bastard was hording from his REAL WMD, the Oil For Food scam.
- I’m assuming that, contrary to their constant pleats becuase they “care” so damn much for all the “brown people, that they would have turned their backs on that ongoing genecide by Hussein, simply because he had no nukes. Notice now they’re screaming for the US to intervien in Dufar for exactly the same reasons.
- Wherever Bush is, he should be somewhere else. whatever he’s doing, he should be doing something else. The Left is nothing, if not totally inconsistant, ankle-biting ideologs.
- Bang
And yet the link I gave has a member of the Senate Intelligence Comittee and a member of the House Intelligence Comittee saying they do not get the same intel. Also the issue of credibility comes into play. If Bush says “we have this intel” and neglects to say “we got this intel from Chalabi, who is completely discredited” or “we got this from a guy called ‘Curveball’ who will say anything if you get him drunk” then you take that with a few grains of salt.
Yes I hate Bush. I hate him for what he’s done to my country. I don’t have to lie to demonize him. His own lies demonize him.
As for Saddam killing his own people, according to the Lancet study:
“Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq’s population have died above what would have occurred without conflict,” according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled “The Human Cost of the War in Iraq.”
Oh, wait, they used science to come up with that number. We all no science is how we Secprogs spread our evil, terrorist-loving agenda.
“Intervene in Darfur” is not the same as “occupy Darfur and set up a new government.” That’s the problem with you guys, you see no gray area between doing nothing and kill ‘em all.
Yes and we waited over a year, which gave Sadamn an opportunity to prepare and elimimate some of the WMD programs. I have heard those tubes were not meant for use in a WMD project, but were meant for missile use. Well the missile Sadamn wanted to make out of them were above the 1200 KM range that the surrender agreement allowed him to have. He had all sorts of illegal technical equipment. NO one has been able to sufficiently explain the mobile asprin factories. No one can tell us why Sadamn washed the whole thing down clean. NO one can tell us what exactly he had those aluminum tubes for. He was making a remote surveilance / attack Drone. He had Brand spankin’ new MIGs which he shouldn’t of had, Thanks Russia. He had night vision equipment he shouldn’t of had, thanks France. He had the latest Chem suits strategically located around the country. He was constantly challenging the surrender agreement. If anyone acted illegally it was Sadamn himself. And soon he will pay for that stupidity with his life. I just hope it happens before we leave Iraq. – Lorica
I never said, and I don’t think any Dem officeholder ever said, that Saddam was not an evil, dangerous dictator.
leaf, I didn’t charge you or anyone else with saying that. Nice attempt to change subject, though. One straw man disposed of.
The point is that occupying Iraq was not the right solution to the problem. Inspectors were in Iraq until two days before the invasion. Inspectors were in Iraq destroying missiles during Bush’s state of the union speech when he lied and said Saddam wouldn’t let inspectors in
You’re suggesting that UN inspectors were the solution? Come on, you cannot be that gullible. The ‘missiles’ you’re talking about were outdated and not the prime delivery mechanism for nuclear warheads anyway. Basically, Saddam let them in for the sole purpose of taking out the trash, while letting the real program continue. He probably figured having UN drones schlep around on a useless endeavor would give him cover with the leftists in the west and a free hand to continue development. If your comments are any indication, it would seem that he calculated correctly.
Now we have Iraq worse off than under Saddam
All those people voting and proudly holding up purple fingers – yeah, that’s much worse off than more mass graves. The prosperity in the north of iraq, and along the Euphrates delta where Saddam deliberately destroyed farmland to punish Shia who he considered insufficiently servile – yeah, that’s much worse than before.
we have strengthened al Qaeda
The majority of al Qaeada’s leadership is dead or in Gitmo – by golly, that’s the classic recipe for strengthening an organization, isn’t it?
the world is less safe then when Saddam was in power.
Uh huh. You think the world was safer when we were fighting terrorists with firemen and EMS techs in New York and Washington instead of with soldiers and Marines in Fallujah and Baghdad. You think it was safer when Libya was working on a nuclear program. You think it was safer when Saddam was in a palace scheming with terrorists instead of in a jail cell whining about the flavor of Doritos being served. OK, I think I get where you’re coming from.
I know you guys on the left like to quibble about the meaning of the word “is” – do you also have a contorted definition of the word “safe”?
Bush gave them misleading intel, and lied and said he would only go to war as a last resort.
Lorica and NC Cop have already dissected this remark nicely, but let me also remind you that this same intel was subscribed to by, among others, the French and the UN. For you left wingers, that ought to make it above criticism. And do you want to take a stab at how many attempts we made to resolve this problem by going to the UN – a waste of time, in my opinion, but it WAS done.
As far as all this “muslim brothers” BS, Iraq under Saddam was a secular nation.
OK, then maybe you can explain why Saddam set up the al Qaeda training camps in Iraq? Why he was giving cash bonuses to the families of islamofascist suicide bombers? Why he was providing refuge to wanted islamic terrorists? Why there’s an organization called ‘al Qaeda in Iraq’ if Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda and AQ had nothing to do with Iraq?
Oh, wait, they used science to come up with that number. We all no science is how we Secprogs spread our evil, terrorist-loving agenda.
Wow, they used science? So how exactly do they come up with these numbers when we have been unable to get an accurate death toll to begin with. Certainly makes me suspect of their “science”.
As far as your link, all that provided was a group of congressmen who were doing exactly what I said they were: covering their hide. Perhaps you could tell me why these “concerned” politicians waited until the insurgency started growing and things started getting tough in Iraq before they thought to “re check” the intelligence.
While your at it, please tell me what Bush “did” to your country for you to hate him so much. That should be entertaining.
neglects to say “we got this intel from Chalabi, who is completely discredited” or “we got this from a guy called ‘Curveball’ who will say anything if you get him drunk”
Once again, I suppose all the intelligence that the CLINTON adminstration was getting about Saddam’s WMD were innacurate as well.
Observe: http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
Or perhaps Bush was manipulating the intelligence as far back as 1998 when he was still governeor, hmm? Please take note of the quote by Clinton when he says that when he left office there were still WMD’s unaccounted for. Just in case you forgot, Clinton left office in 2001. So apprently you believe that, with no inspectors in his country, he destroyed all the remaining WMD’s in two years. Also, please take note of the first one by Hillary when she states that nations are either with us, or against us. I seem to recall alot of the left slamming Bush for being an “extremist” for using the exact same language. Interesting.
That’s the problem with you guys, you see no gray area between doing nothing and kill ‘em all.
As such is the problem with “you guys” since, and this is the second time that I’ve said it, you have criticisms, but no solutions. What would you have done in Iraq, what would you do in Darfur, please enlighten us all.
As for everyone’s comments about inspectors, the argument that the inspectors would have left is unsupported. Do you have a crystal ball?
Not at all, just like you do not have a crystal ball. What I do know is that we have been inserting and removing inspectors for 12 years in Iraq and the problem of WMD’s was still not resolved. I can only assume that your solution is to keep inspectors in Iraq forever, until the end of time. That sounds plausible.
The point is that the vote gave Bush the authority to go to war but did not require or even recommend that he go to war.
I believe John Kerry said the exact same thing, verbatim. That’s my favorite, by the way, “Yes we gave him the authority to go to war, but we didn’t know he was going to USE it!!!”
Just face it, leaf. No matter what they find in Iraq you will never admit that it was necessary to go into Iraq, because that would mean Bush was right. It wouldn’t matter if they found all the stocks of WMD’s, because you would just claim it was planted. IF they found Osama in Iraq, you would claim he was kidnapped and placed there, so really, what’s the point? You are eaten up with BDS and there is nothing that’s going to change that. I feel bad that you have so much hate inside you, I hope you get better soon.
I think we’re going in circles here. You asked what my plan was instead of going to war. What I have tried to say is my plan would have been continuing the inspections with the threat of military intervention if Saddam would not comply. If you are right, and he would not have cooperated with the inpectors to their satisfaction, then you could have still had your war. That was never an option because Bush planned to attack Iraq even before he was elected. He lied when he said war was a last resort. He lied.
Apparently you missed this quote in my last link:
“Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance — not even today — of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.” Dr. Hans Blix
It was dated Jan. 27, 2003, a mere two months before U.S. forces invaded Iraq.
So basically, we were using the exact same strategy you were describing, since by this time U.S. troops had already begun moving to surround Iraq. We had inspectors on the ground and still Hans Blix, an opponent of the war, was telling the U.N. that Iraq was still not cooperating. So please tell me how this is any different than the strategy you are proposing.
NC, He gets to say Bush lied. That’s how it’s different. He’s the typical attacking armchair quarterback/president.