Bush is losing the Bushies

[Gunny]

Oh really?

Care to show me one example since 2000 when Republicans have "eaten their own?"

I'll be waiting for that one!

Trent Lott come to mind? Forced to resign a postion of authority because left-wingnuts twisted what he said into an accusation of racism? He was asked to step down by Republicans.

Tom Delay? To this day convicted of NOTHING. Just accused of something he was previously acquitted of.

Congressional Republicans have always done a damn good job of obstructing legitimate inquiries into the "facts" while Bush has been in office. That's about to change though as more and more Republicans grow impatient with Bush and start thinking about their own re-elections. You should be careful with those words because there's a good chance you'll be eating them soon.

Unsubstantiated, partisan speculation. When are you lefties going to quit ignoring Pelosi's transgressions and hoping they'll go away?


Well for starters how about refusing to work with Congress and thumbing his nose at the American people?

He is an elected public servant after all....not a dictator!

Sorry. Refusing to bow down to Congress is not a crime, and he isn't thumbing his mose at the American people. He may be at best thumbing his nose as left-wing extremists. I would be too. Still, not a crime either.

 

[Care4all]

The Republicans have shown themselves more than willing to eat their own on nothing more than an accusation. Why do you assume it's different when it's Bush? The facts do not support your statement.

I don't whine, nor make lame excuses. If there are grounds for impeachment backed by evidence, bring them into the daylight and let's see 'em.

The deadline you attempt to set is not a qualifier for impeachment. What are they going to impeach him for? Refusing to bow down to the Dem Congress?
Good luck.

i believe we have 10 states now where their own state congresses are calling for impeachment. fyi, below is iilinois's resolution....I believe? it gives the reasons for impeachment that their state had.... each state's resolution is slightly different but this cover's the gist of it!

HJ0125 LRB094 20306 RLC 58347 r



1 HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION


2 WHEREAS, Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of
3 the United States House of Representatives allows federal
4 impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of
5 a state legislature; and

6 WHEREAS, President Bush has publicly admitted to ordering
7 the National Security Agency to violate provisions of the 1978
8 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony, specifically
9 authorizing the Agency to spy on American citizens without
10 warrant; and

11 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that President Bush authorized
12 violation of the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions,
13 a treaty regarded a supreme law by the United States
14 Constitution; and

15 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration has held American
16 citizens and citizens of other nations as prisoners of war
17 without charge or trial; and

18 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that the Bush Administration
19 has manipulated intelligence for the purpose of initiating a
20 war against the sovereign nation of Iraq, resulting in the
21 deaths of large numbers of Iraqi civilians and causing the
22 United States to incur loss of life, diminished security and
23 billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses; and

24 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration leaked classified
25 national secrets to further a political agenda, exposing an
26 unknown number of covert U. S. intelligence agents to potential
27 harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to
28 investigate the matter; and

29 WHEREAS, The Republican-controlled Congress has declined




HJ0125 - 2 - LRB094 20306 RLC 58347 r



1 to fully investigate these charges to date; therefore, be it

2 RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
3 NINETY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE
4 SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that the General Assembly of the
5 State of Illinois has good cause to submit charges to the U. S.
6 House of Representatives under Section 603 that the President
7 of the United States has willfully violated his Oath of Office
8 to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
9 States; and be it further

10 RESOLVED, That George W. Bush, if found guilty of the
11 charges contained herein, should be removed from office and
12 disqualified to hold any other office in the United States.

 

[red states rule]

that is not thge case at all...what I am saying is not the Bush KNEW his intelligence was wrong...what he KNEW was that it was not CERTAIN..that is was WITHOUT DOUBT.

Why do you neocons act dumb as boxes of rocks when it comes to the english language?

If Bush had said, "I believe, given all that I have seen, that Saddam has WMD's" if Bush had said "there is no doubt IN MY MIND that Saddam has WMD's" those statements may very well have been true. Those statements would NOT have been lies. But when Bush and his minions say that "THERE IS NO DOUBT" and "WE ARE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that Saddam has WMD's.... those arestatements that serve to mislead. They give the impression that there is an absolute certainty... that there is a absolute lack of doubt...when such is not the case. It is the impression of lack of doubt that makes the assertions a lie. You really cannot spin away from that.

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”—From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.”—Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983”—National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”—Bill Clinton in 1998

“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.”—Tom Daschle in 1998

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”—Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.”—Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

 

[Rosotar]

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”—From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.”—Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983”—National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”—Bill Clinton in 1998

“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.”—Tom Daschle in 1998

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”—Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.”—Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

Nice try RSR. Old talking points though.

All these guys were wrong. These statements were based upon flawed, obsolete NIE's. At the time Bush was making his case for war to Congress current intelligence information was already pointing to the fact that sanctions had in fact been effective in neutralizing Iraq as a threat.

Of course this info was not shared with Congress. The white House preffered to let them go on believing that the obsolete intelligence estimates like the ones you've provided quotes from were still current.

Besides your argument is bogus just by it's very nature. "It's ok if my pres screwed up because everyone else screwed up too."

You don't have very high standards for your pres do you?

 

[red states rule]

This is exactly what Dems were saying BEFORE Pres Bush was President

Damn how those nasty facts keep getting in the way of the libs Bush basing

 

[maineman]

the english language is obviously hard for some folks. The expressions of absolute certainty and total absence of doubt by the Bush administration are the issue.... those statements were lies because they intended to create a false impression.

and whether others may have tended to create similar false impressions in previous years, does not make those lies that took us to war any less lies.

 

[red states rule]

the english language is obviously hard for some folks. The expressions of absolute certainty and total absence of doubt by the Bush administration are the issue.... those statements were lies because they intended to create a false impression.

and whether others may have tended to create similar false impressions in previous years, does not make those lies that took us to war any less lies.

For the Bush haters existence to be so guided by the hatred of another person cannot be a healthy thing. I wonder who they'll hate in '09?

 

[maineman]

For the Bush haters existence to be so guided by the hatred of another person cannot be a healthy thing. I wonder who they'll hate in '09?

I do not hate George Bush at all. I think he has been a bad president. I think his war in Iraq was and remains a mistake, but I bear him no ill will. I look forward to seeing him live a long and uneventful life in Crawford.

 

[maineman]

the english language is obviously hard for some folks. The expressions of absolute certainty and total absence of doubt by the Bush administration are the issue.... those statements were lies because they intended to create a false impression.

and whether others may have tended to create similar false impressions in previous years, does not make those lies that took us to war any less lies.

and how do you get Bush hatred out of this post? can you address the issue here or not?

 

[red states rule]

I do not hate George Bush at all. I think he has been a bad president. I think his war in Iraq was and remains a mistake, but I bear him no ill will. I look forward to seeing him live a long and uneventful life in Crawford.

Then perhaps the Dems should stop their war on Bush and start fighting the war on terror

and start trying to win in Iraq

 

[red states rule]

and how do you get Bush hatred out of this post? can you address the issue here or not?

Dems have been running on hate since 2000

 

[maineman]

Dems have been running on hate since 2000

I am not running for anything. I made a statement...can you address what I said and not quote my posts, never address their content and instead just broadly attack democrats?

 

[Rosotar]

For the Bush haters existence to be so guided by the hatred of another person cannot be a healthy thing. I wonder who they'll hate in '09?

Well if the next president continues to actively destroy our country and our military and slowly bleed our troops to death you can bet we'll hate him (or her) too.

That's because we love our country!

 

[maineman]

Then perhaps the Dems should stop their war on Bush and start fighting the war on terror

and start trying to win in Iraq

even Petraeus has said that a military victory is not possible in Iraq. I want us to get out of Iraq and allow Iraqis to settle their own scores...and allow us to start fighting the war on islamic extremism and not the sectarian sunn-shiite struggles within one arab nation.

 

[red states rule]

I am not running for anything. I made a statement...can you address what I said and not quote my posts, never address their content and instead just broadly attack democrats?

For the most part Dems have used the same tired old talking points on how Bush lied and rushed the US to war

Yet, when confronted with what Dems said BEFORE Pres Bush became President, they dance around the quotes

Their hate for Bush blind them to the facts

 

[maineman]

For the most part Dems have used the same tired old talking points on how Bush lied and rushed the US to war

Yet, when confronted with what Dems said BEFORE Pres Bush became President, they dance around the quotes

Their hate for Bush blind them to the facts

the essence of Bush's lie is not the fact that he claimed that Saddam had WMD's, but the fact that he and his administration were absolutely certain that Saddam had WMD's. The intelligence was never ironclad. There was always caveats and qualifiers on all intelligence about WMD's..... those caveats and qualifiers are the very essence of doubt...they express the lack of ABSOLUTE certainty.....

and I like said, I do not hate Bush. If you want to carry on a conversation with ME, then address MY words and quit teeing off on democrats in general.

 

[red states rule]

the essence of Bush's lie is not the fact that he claimed that Saddam had WMD's, but the fact that he and his administration were absolutely certain that Saddam had WMD's. The intelligence was never ironclad. There was always caveats and qualifiers on all intelligence about WMD's..... those caveats and qualifiers are the very essence of doubt...they express the lack of ABSOLUTE certainty.....

and I like said, I do not hate Bush. If you want to carry on a conversation with ME, then address MY words and quit teeing off on democrats in general.

The Clinton administration and Dems in Congress in 2002 said Saddam had WMD's as well

Perhaps the Dems are attempting to get into the book of world records for the worlds longest temper tantrum... Started in 2000 ending in 2008? maybe?

 

[maineman]

The Clinton administration and Dems in Congress in 2002 said Saddam had WMD's as well

Perhaps the Dems are attempting to get into the book of world records for the worlds longest temper tantrum... Started in 2000 ending in 2008? maybe?

do you understand the difference between saying "Saddam has WMD's" and "THERE IS NO DOUBT that Saddam has WMD's"? yes or no?

 

[red states rule]

do you understand the difference between saying "Saddam has WMD's" and "THERE IS NO DOUBT that Saddam has WMD's"? yes or no?

Yes

Try reading what Dems said about WMD's way back since 1998

 

[Care4all]

Sorry. Refusing to bow down to Congress is not a crime, and he isn't thumbing his mose at the American people. He may be at best thumbing his nose as left-wing extremists. I would be too. Still, not a crime either.

you might need a HISTORY CHECK ther Gunny.... perhaps a refreshment of Andrew Johnson's Impeachment is in order?

One of their article of impeachments on Johnson was precisely what you said COULD NOT BE DONE.... they admonished him for not respecting congress, for not adhearing to laws that congress inacted, and for not being mindful of the constitution for which he took oath to do...

misdemeanors in office herein charged against him, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials and judgments may be thereupon had and given had and given as may be agreeable to law and justice.

Article 10:

That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and the legislative power thereof, which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain, and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, ....


http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/johnson.htm