Why hasn't Dubya been impeached?

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:42 pm

The 9/11 Commission just reported that there are no credible links between Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.

That is, Saddam Hussein had no ties to the terrorists who were responsible for the World Trade Center and Washington, DC attacks.

Plus, we haven't been able to find any of the chemical, biological or nuclear weapons Hussein supposedly had been hoarding. No wait . . . in a year, thre has been exactly one warhead with a chemical payload that has been found.

That makes Dubya and his cronies 0-2 on the reasons why he had us invade Iraq over a year ago.

Dubya went on TV and told us (and we know he wouldn't lie!) that not only did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction, but that Hussein's regime had ties to terrorists and they were such an imminent threat that we had to invade Iraq right then.

Now all of that has turned out to be bogus.

There are not stockpiles of chemical weapons. There are no biological weapons factories. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden did not get together for tea.

In short, Dubya lied to us. The only question is whether he has enough "plausible deniability" to get others to take the fall for him.

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a question he never should have been asked. Ken Starr spent $50 million of my money to unsuccessfully prosecute Clinton for getting some "special treatment" from an intern. Dubya has spent over $110 billion dollars invading not one, but two, countries with no apparent objective and no exit strategy. These campaigns have resulted in the deaths of over 900 American soldiers and there is no end in sight.

Technically, Dubya can't be prosecuted for perjury; I'm told his testimonly before the 9/11 commission was not under oath. But what does it say about a man who goes on national television and tells the public that we have to go to war and the rationale for that war turns out to be nothing but bunk. Is it worse to lie under oath about an affair that had no effect on the rest of the country, or worse to betray the trust of the electorate that put a man in office?

Who will hold him accountable?

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:45 pm

You really should check out this. It speaks for itself.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:38 pm

A tad behind the times and news it seems. Who'd he execute?

Bloodstalker · Post by **Bloodstalker** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:03 pm

My opinion.....no one in power wants to see a second impeachment this fast. Not if the voters can remove him from office in a few months anyway.

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:20 pm

I think he just got the job at a bad time.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:29 pm

From what I can tell, he will get away with it. Just make sure he doesn't get the chance to play havoc yet another four years, ok?

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:58 pm

I thought we made sure of that in the last election.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:26 pm

[QUOTE=Aegis]A tad behind the times and news it seems. Who'd he execute?[/QUOTE]

Not sure. This is one of those points I wish wouldn't be used by those who have access to all the reasonable ammunition against Dubya: after all, any governor is, to an extent, to "blame" for the execution of prisoners in a state system where they are condemned to death.

By the way, just came accross this quote while doing some reading of the marketing of leadership. I think it has some application, here:

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."

-Hermann Goering (Hitler's second-in-command, for those who don't know)

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 5:05 pm

First off I want to state that I am for removing saddam from power, how we went about it im not the most enthralled.
I believe clinton said it best in his recent book tour...

When your neighbor builds a cannon you builda wall,. when they build a catapault you build a moat so they cant get closer. Basically we attacked iraq because of the possibility they might be a harm eventually. Sure its all crap but you can't deny the fact Iraq wasn't a stable place and it has been proven that Hussein payed money to the families of suicide bombers. NOt related to 9/11 but t o terrorism. So Im not fully against bush going in, and dont think that thats enough for impeachment.

THe 9/11 commision said on radio that they fully agree with Bush and why he went into Iraq. The newspapers print "Iraq no connection to Alqueda" but thats not what the 9/11 people said, and I misquote (basically what he said but not word for word)

"There were many meetings with the Iraqi government and Al Queda, for all we know there could have been thousands of connections between the two organizations, just none related to 9/11"

So the papers are printing half the story... Iraq did have connections... They considered Bin Laden an asset, sure bin laden probably didnt feel the same way back... but you have to read the whole thing.

Also I readi n the world tribune (is that reliable?) that the UN investigators released a report that backs up bush's statements comepltly. Saying that they had and moved sites with weapons of mass destruction before, during and after the war... into iran and other places.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Another thing clinton said that I really liked is...
(Again its not a perfect quote)

"This is something america has never faced before.. stuff like the patriot act etc are just ways they are trying to overcome this beast. Sure they may be wrong but its not one to call them anti american (or fables referene to hitleresqe) b. it is ok to question them but you shouldn't look down upon them, there trying to prevent another 9/11. I just have faith in my government mostly because well if I dont Im just sitting here waiting to die because I am pretty sure after new york comes LA and well guess where I live.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 7:12 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3814111.stm

I must say I agree with the beginning of this article:

This is not the first time that an authoritative source has declared there was no proven link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

In fact it is almost a surprise that the latest pronouncement, by the 9/11 commission, is even news.

More interestingly the commision claimed (According to BBC) that "There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before the 11 September attacks." (My bold)

@Fable: I like that quote too, remember posting it half a year ago.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 7:25 pm

@RT: You shouldn't believe all the things you read. To the rest of the world it was common knowledge that Saddam Hussein was far from what would be considered a righteous Muslim, and he was generally not very popular among the more devout Muslim leaders. Now, Osama bin Laden is a devout and fanatic Muslim with the aim to reinstate Islam in what he considers the right way. He wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere near an unfaithful dog such as Saddam, much less have dealings with him. In Europe, Blair focused on the weapons of mass destruction and played this so-called intelligence very low key, since it was suspicius at best.

Saddam Hussein was a toothless troublemaker after the US attacked him when he invaded Quwait in 1990. Iraq was a pretty bad place to be training terrorists since it was difficult to move equipment and personnel in and out of the country. I am sorry to say that the result of ousting Saddam has probably increased the risk of terrorists using Iraq as a base rather than the opposite. You also have a disgrunted elite guard of Saddam Hussein that are now largely unemployed and probably looking for someone that can help them get even, or just get paid. If it takes being a better Muslim so be it, so my guess is you'll find plenty of them signing up for the ranks of Osama's organisation. All in all, the overall risk of being killed in a terrorist attack has probably jumped some factors of ten all thanks to Shrub. Given that the threat is now worse than before, perhaps you might be willing to give up some more of your liberties?

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:27 pm

[QUOTE=RandomThug]Another thing clinton said that I really liked is...
(Again its not a perfect quote)

"This is something america has never faced before.. stuff like the patriot act etc are just ways they are trying to overcome this beast. Sure they may be wrong but its not one to call them anti american (or fables referene to hitleresqe) b. it is ok to question them but you shouldn't look down upon them, there trying to prevent another 9/11.[/QUOTE]

RT, I don't know how you got from what Goering said to an endorsement for the politicians bent on removing civil liberties in the US. Nor do I understand how gaining control of the Internet is going to make life one bit safer--which was part of the political agenda of Dubya's team as stated in a white paper they issued three years before he was elected. Look down on them? I despise them, but I wouldn't look down on people who have been so corrupted by power, greed and an evangelical conviction that they have the right to determine the fate of the world. I would be, and am, damned scared.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 3:11 pm

If you undermine and limit enough of the civil liberties of a nations citizens, you move from democracy into totalitarian government. It is scary how placidly the limitations in freedom have been accepted by a majority of the US population. I was also amazed when I learned that there are actually protest lists demanding that the film Fahrenheit 911 not be shown in the US. When you start advocating censorship you always end up with more than you bargained for...

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 7:47 pm

I only hope that we can get rid of Dubya and gut the ridiculous Patriot Act and get back to being the leader of the world instead of its bully.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:08 pm

I don't know that we'll ever be rid of the Patriot Act, or Felon Poindexter's Bureau That Believes in No Privacy, as I like to call it. Government never slims down. Reagan faked that, of course, but he simply cut back on all those frivolous things like education, support to mental instititutions, infrastructure maintanence and the like, while building up the defense budget. Dubya and his pals have done something no US president has done, before: more than doubled the size of government, and turned the biggest surplus we ever had into the worst debt ever owed. Leaving aside the issue of the debt, does anyone think the will exists on Capitol Hill to remove the new Bureau, or the Patriot Act? It would take more than a change of president to do that. It would take a change of mood in the country--and at the moment, we're too locked into a belief that if politicians make you feel good about yourself, they can get away with anything else.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 12:47 pm

There is one known way of getting governments to close down operations (or at least downsize a bit), and it is if the bureau in question is in a major scandal. The Bureau of Privacy Limiting sounds like its begging for one.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:32 pm

[QUOTE=Silur]There is one known way of getting governments to close down operations (or at least downsize a bit), and it is if the bureau in question is in a major scandal. The Bureau of Privacy Limiting sounds like its begging for one.[/QUOTE]

Both the CIA and the FBI have been involved in major scandals, and it's never resulted in anything other than a sacrifice of the body-in-charge. I don't think scandal is going to get rid of the NeoCon's attempt to save us by reading all our email, finding out what books we've bought, and what organizations we've joined.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:39 pm

Curious, not trying to start a fight just curious, can anyone see past the obvious infringements on our rights and see an attempt to actually prevent people from coming into the US and using our facilities to train themselves and then attacking us with that knowledge? I know the Patriot act is horrible but I denounce the idea its souly there to hurt us or some big black helicopter theory... I think its a horrible ignorant attempt to protect us. And yes knowing what books I check out wont protect me, but mr I wanna blow the hell outa LA might be checking out HOW to blow the hell outa la. Even though the patriot act is wrong, can you not see any intention of good will on the behalf of our current presidency? I mean sure thier sharks and I wont deny war hungry.. but hungry for America yes?

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:02 am

@RT: It is possible that the US government simply have made a number of decisions where they not fully anticipated the consequences - in short, they mean well but keep messing it up. Or as the politicians would have it, they have all good intentions but someone else messed it up, like the previous president, Saddam, Congress, Osama, etc. This is the teleological argument that politicians love and praise. Unfortunately, good intentions don't count. My view is that politicians should be judged by their actions, not their intentions. My view of most of the current US government actions is that they either are futile or counterproductive.