Who's next...?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bullypulpit, Aug 28, 2004.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <center><h2><a href=http://politics.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5001689-111381,00.html>MPs plan to impeach Blair over Iraq war record</a></h2></center>


    <blockquote>David Hencke, Westminster correspondent

    Thursday August 26, 2004

    The Guardian

    MPs are planning to impeach Tony Blair for "high crimes and misdemeanours" in taking Britain to war against Iraq, reviving an ancient practice last used against Lord Palmerston more than 150 years ago.

    Eleven MPs led by Adam Price, Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, are to table a motion when parliament returns that will force the prime minister to appear before the Commons to defend his record in the run-up to the war.

    Nine of the MPs are Welsh and Scottish Nationalists, including the party leaders, Elfyn Llwyd, and Alex Salmond, and two are Conservative frontbenchers, Boris Johnson, MP for Henley and editor of the Spectator, and Nigel Evans, MP for Ribble Valley.

    A number of Labour backbenchers are considering whether to back the motion, though it could mean expulsion from the party.</blockquote>

    With Tony Blair facing impeachment, one can only wonder when Dubbyuh and his merry band, will face the music. If a president can be impeached for consensual sex, in the Oval Office, onse can surely be impeached for misleading the nation into an ill-considered, ill-concieved war.
     
  2. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    well they certainly can try ! I mean what ELSE do they have to do?
     
  3. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    BullyP..repeat this over and over till ya get it..."PERJURY","PERJURY","PERJURY",
    it was "PERJURY" not sex. No not sex...it was "PERJURY"...

    Big difference between the two, sex
    and "PERJURY". They mean different things too.

    Did I mention one IS legal and the other is NOT?
     
  4. Jimmyeatworld
    Offline

    Jimmyeatworld Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,239
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    America
    Ratings:
    +223
    Some tiny problems with your post Bull.

    1. As the above post points out very clearly, Clinton was impeached for breaking the law by committing perjury, not having sex with an intern. Though I do applaude your attempt to make it sound more innocent by saying "consensual sex", rather than calling it "cheating on his wife with an intern in the oval office".

    2. The Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the Butler Report have declared that neither Bush nor Blair intentionally mislead the public to go to war. When Clinton was impeached, there was a ton of evidense against him, not mounting declarations supporting him.

    3. Any motion to accuse Blair of "high crimes and misdemeanours" would have to pass in the Commons, where Labour has a majority of more than 150 seats. If they plan on pushing this through, they are going to need more than "a number" of Labour party members, their going to need a truck load.
     
  5. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    "2. The Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the Butler Report have declared that neither Bush nor Blair intentionally mislead the public to go to war. When Clinton was impeached, there was a ton of evidense against him, not mounting declarations supporting him."


    I keep hearing this, and I'd like to know, EVEN IF the Bush Administration (not just Bush, we're voting for all his people when we vote for him) did not intentionally mislead the public, and even if they didn't data-mine their own intelligence LOOKING for reasons to support a cause rather than the other way around, would Republicans admit that he was wrong about Iraq, WMDs, and Iraq-al Qaeda ties?

    It seems when you say "He didn't know any better!" that he did something wrong. Well. Who is going to sack up and say it?
     
  6. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403


    would it make you feel any better and would it change anything ?
     
  7. tim_duncan2000
    Offline

    tim_duncan2000 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    694
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +66
    Wrong about Iraq-al Qaeda ties? Yeah right. There is plenty of evidence of that. I know the NYT and other left-biased sources had the misleading headline stating that there were no ties, but that's misleading. The 9/11 Commission never said that there were no ties.

    http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=203
    http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0621.asp
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/opinion/21SAFI.html?ex=1093838400&en=5f66305de75465ed&ei=5070

    As far as WMDs go, why don't Democrats admit they were wrong as well? They had been making claims since 1998 about Iraq's WMDs and had access to the same intelligence and authorized the use of force.

    Also, how could Bush (who you think is an idiot) have duped them anyway if he's so stupid?
     
  8. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Iraq/Al queda connections are well documented for those without a closed mind to anything positive for Bush.

    As for the WMDs, i wish we were wrong. But the evidence shows that they have been passed off to Syria as well as several other locations. I hope to god they don't exist. But hoping isnt going to make them disappear will it?
     
  9. Jimmyeatworld
    Offline

    Jimmyeatworld Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,239
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    America
    Ratings:
    +223
    Plus, there has been enough found in Iraq to support, at the very least, the beginnings of a WMD program. Either that, or what was left of one they already had. Plus, the illegal weapons that were found shortly after the Marines took Baghdad. As far as terrorist ties, the only people that don't see it are the people with their eyes closed.
     
  10. Jimmyeatworld
    Offline

    Jimmyeatworld Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,239
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    America
    Ratings:
    +223
    That's whjat I think is so funny. I guess we have moved into the Kerry era of take both sides in the Democratic party.

    "He's an idiot! He's so cunning he fooled everyone into going to war, but he's an idiot!"
     

Share This Page