| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
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
Having documents is not the same as having nukes
Right!! Let’s wait until they DO have working nukes, and then we can take action. Brilliant!!!!!!
Having documents is not the same as having nukes,
Well, leaf, then what’s all the fuss about? If having the documents on plans to build nukes is no big deal, then why are you so hot on having an investigation?
On the other hand, if documents revealing an ongoing WMD program in 2002 are important, then you have to admit Bush was right.
That’s some dilemma…do you admit that Chimpy was right and you were wrong all along? Or do you go marching off the senseless investigation cliff that’ll have your butts back in the minority in two years? Decisions, decisions….
Seems to me if you kept the documents, you want an active program. I have never been an evil tyranical dictator, but if I were that is what I would want. I love how the left continues to credit Sadamn with more huggy feely peace and love, than George Bush. You people take the cake when it comes to logic. Sadamn not evil man, Bush totally evil. Sadamn lovey dovey tree hugger, Bush ecological madman. LOL Sure leaf. Even the Iraqi Survey Group could see that Sadamn was just waiting until he could bribe or blackmail the right people in the UN before they dropped sanctions and ignored Sadamn’s surrender agreement. Then all those “pre-1991″ programs would start right back up again. Take the blinders off leaf. This war was not illegal the heros of the left voted for it. It was the resumption of aggressions which is what Sadamn was hoping for us to do. He was then hoping that his brother muslims would help him destroy the US Army in the sands of Iraq. Ohhh the glory for Sadamn. Well it didn’t happen, and now Sadamn is going to be hung until dead, and Good Riddance, May God have Mercy on His Soul. – Lorica
Great White Rat,
I never said, and I don’t think any Dem officeholder ever said, that Saddam was not an evil, dangerous dictator. He wanted to have nukes. 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. Now we have Iraq worse off than under Saddam, we have strengthened al Qaeda, and the world is less safe then when Saddam was in power.
What Sevarian left out of the quote from the page he linked was this little gem:
The project was later cancelled in November 2002 mainly because the UN inspectors started their work again in Iraq.
Lorica,
You’re wrong about my feelings about Saddam. I think he is just as evil as Bush, and smarter too.
I am disgusted with the Dems that voted to authorize the use of force, although they didn’t actually vote to go to war. Bush gave them misleading intel, and lied and said he would only go to war as a last resort.
As far as all this “muslim brothers” BS, Iraq under Saddam was a secular nation. Now it appears to be on the way to becoming an Islamic republic.
A lack of perspective causes someone to write, “I think he is just as evil as Bush, and smarter too.”
There is no talking to someone with that perspective. I think you are evil. When did you stop beating your wife?
See… It’s not just disagreements on how to solve problems… it’s that Bush is evil to you….
leaf would you like a scalpel to cut that hair abit finer??
I am disgusted with the Dems that voted to authorize the use of force, although they didn’t actually vote to go to war.
Can you tell me the difference between the “use of force”, and “go to war”. Seems like verbal symantics to me. From 1991 to 2003 we had troops on the ground, and fly boys in the air. We trashed several dozen pieces of Sadamn’s equipment. I remember stories from a couple of our fighter pilots about releasing some j-dam missiles against some mobile radar units and then they went after some migs that Sadamn purposely tried a coordinated attack against this country. That happened in 1998.
Bush gave them misleading intel, and lied and said he would only go to war as a last resort.
As far as your comment about Bush misleading people. He mislead with the very same intel that Clinton mislead the people about. Seems to me that Bush was more spot on that you all give him credit for. We know he massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people. We know that he was bribing officials around the country. We know that the whole “oil for food” program was a cover for corruption. We also know, that he wanted to re-start his WMD programs. We have found a great deal in the way of Chemical / Biological WMDs that Sadamn had. If there is an investigation, I have no doubt that your eyes will be opened to the truth that Sadamn was an evil man and Bush was right to go to war with him.
As far as all this “muslim brothers” BS, Iraq under Saddam was a secular nation. Now it appears to be on the way to becoming an Islamic republic.
Sadamn at the end of the 1st Gulf War, decided he wanted to rally muslims to his cause. He started yakin’ on about how much he cared for the Koran, and for the Islamic faith. This is part of the reason that we stopped when we did in the 1st Gulf War. Bush 41 didn’t want a major religious war, so he didn’t go all the way.
What Sevarian left out of the quote from the page he linked was this little gem:
The project was later cancelled in November 2002 mainly because the UN inspectors started their work again in Iraq.
Here you go again leaf. You can’t see the forest for the trees. Sadamn started a program to research a nuclear WMD. He wanted them, He would of gotten them eventually. Especially since he is soooo much smarter than George Bush. He would eventually bribed / schemed his way into this program. Ohhhh Yes also the only reason the “Weapons Inspectors” were back in Iraq, IS because of George Bush. Guess he ain’t that much smarter. – Lorica
The point is that occupying Iraq was not the right solution to the problem.
So what is the right solution, leaf? Try to bribe them like Clinton did with N. Korea. Yeah, that worked out beautifully. Like most Bush haters you have many criticisms, but no solutions. The inspectors were not working. Saddam was moving his WMD’s all around the country staying one step ahead of the inspectors. When the inspectors eventually did come to a site with WMD’s, Saddam would call them spies and throw them out of the country. He played this game throughout the 8 years of the Clinton Administration. He finally expelled inspectors in 1998 and Clinton did nothing to get the inspectors back in. He must have had is hands “full” at the time. Apparently, Saddam felt Bush was going to do more of the same. He wasn’t prepared for a president who was actually going to do something about it, imagine that.
Inspectors were in Iraq destroying missiles during Bush’s state of the union speech
That’s only because Saddam was being surrounded by U.S. troops, not because he had a change of heart. And like he did for the previous 8 years he was allowing minimal inspection, just enough to satisfy the U.N. inspectors. If Saddam had been cooperating in the first place he wouldn’t have had ANY missles to destroy in 2003, now would he?
Now we have Iraq worse off than under Saddam
Absolutely ridiculous statement. I take it that this is from your many months spent in Iraq, right? Only the left would think that a terrorist insurrection is worse than a dictator who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people, used WMD’s on other countries as well as his own people, stifled human rights, attacked 4 other nations, and attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president. Not to mention his state sponsored support of international terrorism. Now Iraq has had 3 successful elections which turnout was better than even the most optimistic estimates. Women are voting and getting involved in politics and are moving towards a women’s rights movement. 98% of the children in the country have been vaccinated, whereas during the years of all the sanctions hundreds of thousands of children died from disease. Yeah, Iraq is so much worse off.
Bush gave them misleading intel
Proof of this, please? Other than the democrats who were trying to save their own hides when the war started getting tougher. Did you notice how there was not much congressional opposition to the war when troops were rolling through Baghdad and citizens were cheering them on. Didn’t hear much from them, did we? As soon as things got tough they all started crying “We didn’t get all the intel”. Truly pathetic.
I realize that you hate Bush, but if you could give some realistic reasons, backed up by actual evidence, it might be easier to take you more seriously.
What Sevarian left out of the quote from the page he linked was this little gem:
The project was later cancelled in November 2002 mainly because the UN inspectors started their work again in Iraq.
Which means, leaf, that as soon as the inspectors left, and the would have, as the entire sanctions regime was being corroded by Hussein’s bribary and UN corruption, it would have been full speed ahead. The documents show that the nuke program was not dismantled, but was only in stasis, in a holding pattern waiting the end of sanctions.
Nice try though.
It’s a war for Halliburton, Cheney and Bush are lining their posckets….oops no more Halliburton in the mix.
It’s that darned Rumsfeld’s fault, he is incompentent, a war-monger…blah,blah,blah…..oops, no more Rumsfeld now.
You still have to “put up with” President Bush for another couple of years, but after that who are the liberals going to blame…everyone but themselves or the terrorists.
I find it incredibly hypocrital that liberals would act like for americans, and their ally in Israel. Such hatred, but when it comes to terrorism, it comes to terrorist, well we brought that on ourselves, or we bear partial responsbility, or they are just mis-understood, or they are mother and fathers also…ect ect
I will call them as I see them, and I see libs and some democrats as apologists for terrorists, but when it comes to our own men and women, even if they are of a different ideoligical thought on how things should be, they will, attack them, smear them, denigrate them….
Its funny really, I have seen more spine in attacking republicans and Israel than democrats have in attacking or denouncing terrorism and terrorists.
Least we know where their priorities are….
Lorica,
I am not trying to differentiate between “use of force” and “go to war”. The point I was trying making is that force was authorized as a last resort. Reading my comment again now I see that I didn’t make that clear. 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.
As for everyone’s comments about inspectors, the argument that the inspectors would have left is unsupported. Do you have a crystal ball? In any case, if the inspectors did leave, that would have been the time to pressure the UN and/or threaten military force. Everyone here seems to be admitting that the inspectors were preventing Saddam from developing WMDs.
As for misleading intel, there is plenty of evidence:
Bush Resurrects False Claim That Congress Had “Same Intelligence” On Iraq
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.