Who's next...?

[Bullypulpit]

<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.

 

[dilloduck]

<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.

well they certainly can try ! I mean what ELSE do they have to do?

 

[Mr. P]

If a president can be impeached for consensual sex, in the Oval Office,....

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?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

<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.

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.

 

[nakedemperor]

"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?

 

[dilloduck]

"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?

would it make you feel any better and would it change anything ?

 

[tim_duncan2000]

would Republicans admit that he was wrong about Iraq, WMDs, and Iraq-al Qaeda ties?

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?

 

[insein]

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?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

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?

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.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

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

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!"

 

[Merlin1047]

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?

Ahem - from 1996 to 2002 Democrats have been beating the drums that Saddam needs to be removed. They have been citing intelligenge that shows Iraq possessed WMDs. They have been citing intelligence which shows Saddam shopping for nuclear technology.

But now the tune has changed. Now it's "Bush lied", "Bush invented excuses to go to war", "Bush was determined to go to war before the facts were ever investigated".

The simple truth of the matter is that Democrats had the same intelligence that the Bush administration used for its decision to invade Iraq. The only difference is that, as usual, Democrats are all mouth. When it comes to taking action, they reveal themselves as the spineless, mealy-mouthed, do-nothing weasels that they really are.

 

[KarlMarx]

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.

Yes, he did lie about consensual sex, but the part we all have a problem with is that he did it while under oath, which is defined as PERJURY. Per the US Code


<b>
Title 18
Sec. 1621. - Perjury generally </b>


<i>Whoever -
(1)

having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

(2)

in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;


is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States</i>


He also coached people to give false statements while under oath, that is called "Subornation of Perjury". Again from Title 18

<b>Sec. 1622. - Subornation of perjury </b>

<i>Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both </i>



If you lie about ANYTHING while under oath, you are guilty of PERJURY. Is that too difficult a concept for you?

P.S. maybe you ought to stop reading "The Guardian"

 

[Bullypulpit]

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?

So, lying about consensual sex in the Oval Office is the moral equivalent of lying to justify a war of aggression? You really need to have your moral compass checked.

 

[Annie]

So, lying about consensual sex in the Oval Office is the moral equivalent of lying to justify a war of aggression? You really need to have your moral compass checked.

Bully, what lies to justify the war?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, what lies to justify the war?

Pick any statement Dubbyuh made to justify war with Iraq.

 

[Annie]

Pick any statement Dubbyuh made to justify war with Iraq.

That's not an answer, never mind, we've covered this ground too many times.

 

[Avatar4321]

Pick any statement Dubbyuh made to justify war with Iraq.

Again as they said provide a lie. You guys have yet to provide a lie with any statement the President has made. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[KarlMarx]

So, lying about consensual sex in the Oval Office is the moral equivalent of lying to justify a war of aggression? You really need to have your moral compass checked.

First of all it's lying UNDER OATH that we're talking about (you seem to have a mental block about this)....that is breaking the law.....

Secondly, no one lied to get us involved in a war nor was it a war of "aggression" (implying the moral equivalent of Hitler's invasion of Poland and most of Europe during World War II or of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990).

I suppose you would call the liberation of Auschwitz an unjustified aggressive military action, too

 

[KarlMarx]

"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?

So, let's say that we packed up and left Iraq...what would happen then? I'll tell you what, the Iraqi government would eventually fall and thousands upon thousands of people will die. Not soldiers, but innocent men, women and children.....

The same thing happened in Vietnam when we pulled out. The Communists went on a killing spree and slaughtered thousands of innocent people.

Furthermore, pulling out of Iraq would give the terrorists another victory over the US. They will be able to claim (and rightfully so) that the US does not have the resolve it takes to combat terrorism. If you want to talk about losing respect in the eyes of the world, our leaving Iraq would accomplish just that.