Impeach Bush?

[Lord Poe]

If there is overwhelming evidence that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq as an excuse to invade the country to:

A) Avenge his father

or

B) Grab Iraqi oil

or

C) Because God told him to

then why hasn't a call for impeachment been considered?

And BTW, let me once again state my position politically. I'm a political moderate, a registered Democrat, and voted for Clinton twice and Gore once. I fully supported Bush's invasion of Iraq, I'm very disappointed how the war was handled AFTER the invasion, and I won't be voting for Bush in November.

But let's be fair here. Let's call an asshole an asshole, not just the asshole you hate. I know Bush isn't everyone's favorite person, but that's no reason to continue the allegation that "Bush lied about WMD!!!!!" without any proof.

[Son of the Suns]

Overwhelming evidence?

Avenge his father

Prove it.

B) Grab Iraqi oil

Prove it.

C) Because God told him to

Prove it.


Do all three above without giving me your bullshit speculation as evidence and I'll gladly impeach him.

To answer your question, it hasn't come up because none of the above can be proven. If they could, the Democrats and probably a fair number of Republicans would have impeached him long ago.

[Vympel]

Er, I don't think Lord Poe was making those accusations, SoS.

[Lord Poe]

Overwhelming evidence? Do all three above without giving me your bullshit speculation as evidence and I'll gladly impeach him.

Hello? Jerkoff? You've missed the entire point of the fucking thread. Bush is ALREADY being accused of invading Iraq for those exact same reasons, daily, on this message board and many others.

The point of this thread is to ask if this is such a forgone conclusion, then why haven't impeachment proceeding begun?

[Stormbringer]

I do believe he's saying that those are rather unproven and hence the repeated cries for impeachment are more than a bit premature.

[Son of the Suns]

Er, I don't think Lord Poe was making those accusations, SoS.

Damn I missed the all important if and stuck my foot in my mouth. Sorry Poe.


The response still stands for the local idiots that I've seen posting that those really are the reasons Bush invaded.

We might also consider that Bush might not have been lying, and he really did think that Saddam had WMD. Clinton even said that he told Bush that Iraq was going to be one of his top 5 security concerns.

[Son of the Suns]

Overwhelming evidence? Do all three above without giving me your bullshit speculation as evidence and I'll gladly impeach him.

Hello? Jerkoff? You've missed the entire point of the fucking thread. Bush is ALREADY being accused of invading Iraq for those exact same reasons, daily, on this message board and many others.

The point of this thread is to ask if this is such a forgone conclusion, then why haven't impeachment proceeding begun?

Yes, sorry, see above post.

[Vympel]

To the topic- it's hard to prove that Bush lied, but it's a reasonable proposition. At most, there's overwhelming evidence that they massively overstated the strength of their intelligence pre-war with unequivocal, *absolutely positive* statements as to Iraq's possession of WMDs and the status of WMD programs ("Saddam has reconstitued nuclear weapons, the IAEA is wrong" for example), and even where they were, and then acted like they never had after they realised how incredibly wrong they were- by saying "oh yeah, we're investigating, blah blah blah"- funny, they never said anything about invading Iraq to 'investigate' before. They were positive.

Frankly, does anyone think the impetus to go to war would've been nearly as strong if all the Bush administration said was that they "might" have WMD, that they "suspected" that they had WMD? Get real.

[Joe]

Impeachment is one of those things that's been underused. The Founders wanted Congress to constantly be dangling the prospect of impeachment in front of the Executive to keep him in line, but it didn't quite evolve that way.

I don't know if I'd impeach Bush, but I wouldn't mind having impeachment play a bigger role than it does in the system.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Congress gave him the go ahead, the fucking pussies allowed an undeclared war to happen because each of them is afraid of losing their jobs.

I've always thought WMD's were an excuse not a reason. But thats pretty hard to prove and its even harder to impeach for.

[SirNitram]

I doubt one could wring an Impeachment out of the current Congress. They have not yet, to my knowledge, strung Ashcroft up by his balls for the bullshit he pulled in plain sight of them. Maybe they just need some porta-spines or something.

Mostly I'm just disturbed that the whole war was justified with less evidence than is asked for in a typical SWvST debate(Pre ICS, of course). I mean, a war is an itsy bit more important than that..

[Master of Ossus]

It's almost impossible to prove any of those allegations, even if they were totally true, since all of them deal heavily with personal attitudes and such that are not likely to be well documented.

[SirNitram]

It's almost impossible to prove any of those allegations, even if they were totally true, since all of them deal heavily with personal attitudes and such that are not likely to be well documented.

When did a claim of forty five minutes of warning between mobilization and attack(Blair when he was in full cocksucking mode) depend on attitude? Or any of the others?

[Master of Ossus]

When did a claim of forty five minutes of warning between mobilization and attack(Blair when he was in full cocksucking mode) depend on attitude? Or any of the others?

You misunderstand. If someone trusts an intelligence report that turns out to be wrong, it's impossible to convict them of having "lied," or something similar.

[SirNitram]

When did a claim of forty five minutes of warning between mobilization and attack(Blair when he was in full cocksucking mode) depend on attitude? Or any of the others?

You misunderstand. If someone trusts an intelligence report that turns out to be wrong, it's impossible to convict them of having "lied," or something similar.

True. However, 'Dangerously Incompetent' should be a crime one can bring people up on.

Granted, this passing into law would strip many major corporations of vast numbers of middle managers, who, unprotected from their own stupidity, die in tragic toothbrushing accidents.

[CJvR]

If there is overwhelming evidence that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq as an excuse to invade the country to:

A) Avenge his father

or

B) Grab Iraqi oil

or

C) Because God told him to

then why hasn't a call for impeachment been considered?

It is an impossible case to prove and will probably blow up in the face of whoever tries to push for it.
How do you prove Bush knew there were no WMD when all he have to do is produce a few vagely worded intel reports that says otherwise. Remember that you have to prove the fact that there were no WMDs and also that Bush knew it, he only have to prove that there was reason to suspect WMD and that he did so.

A: A damn good reason, or should the US allow international criminals like Saddam, Kaddafi & Slobodan to take shots at the presidents who opposed them?

B: Good PC conspiracy, unfortunately without any facts to back it up... But a good conspiracy nonetheless along with the Afghan pipeline, Rosswell crash and Kennedy assassination.

C: LOL! Then you have to prove Bush insane, good luck!

There is not overwhelming evidence of anything. There are lots of conspiracy theories and opinions circulating around the web and amplifying eachother but that stuff usually can't stand up to closer examination.

[Vympel]

A: A damn good reason, or should the US allow international criminals like Saddam, Kaddafi & Slobodan to take shots at the presidents who opposed them?

A completely fucking moronic reason- you do not expend the lives of hundreds of soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars in an open-ended commitment in a foreign country because some guy attempted to assasinate a former Presdent. Furthermore, the US tried to kill Saddam first, in 1991.

B: Good PC conspiracy, unfortunately without any facts to back it up... But a good conspiracy nonetheless along with the Afghan pipeline, Rosswell crash and Kennedy assassination.

That's absurd. You would have to be a complete idiot to deny the importance of oil in any Middle Eastern intervention. How does this not stand up to close examination, exactly?

C: LOL! Then you have to prove Bush insane, good luck!

I don't think his mental instability is in serious question

[Meest]

Isn't it almost impossible to get Bush impeached anyway at this time, need 2/3 of the votes in favour or something like that. Meaning some republicans would have to vote against him.

[HemlockGrey]

Saying Bush "lied" is perhaps not the best way to put it. Saying Bush "obviously distorted the truth and overstated his case in an effort drum up support" would be more accurate.

[Elfdart]

There's no serious call for Dubya's impeachment for the simple reason that there's no serious chance of such a bill succeeding. If every single Democrat voted to impeach, it wouldn't be enough. Republicans hold the majority, so a bill of impeachment wouldn't even see the light of day. How many Republicans do you think would actually cross lines to vote to impeach a Republican president in an election year? Or any other year?

It's all about the votes, folks. As a practical matter, an impeachable offense is whatever the House can muster a majority of a quorum to say it is. Then it's up to two-thirds of a quorum in the Senate to remove him. The votes aren't there, so don't hold your breath.

[CJvR]

Saying Bush "lied" is perhaps not the best way to put it. Saying Bush "obviously distorted the truth and overstated his case in an effort drum up support" would be more accurate.

You mean he was a politician?

[CJvR]

A completely fucking moronic reason- you do not expend the lives of hundreds of soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars in an open-ended commitment in a foreign country because some guy attempted to assasinate a former Presdent. Furthermore, the US tried to kill Saddam first, in 1991.

Moronic? It is obviously state terrorism. If Bush senior had still been in office it would have een an outright act of war.
btw:
Killing a savage murderous tyrrant who is tormenting millions = killing an ex-President without any power???

That's absurd. You would have to be a complete idiot to deny the importance of oil in any Middle Eastern intervention. How does this not stand up to close examination, exactly?

Saddam was quite willing to supply the US with all the oil it wanted, and at reasonable prices. If oil was all the US wanted it could have gotten it much cheaper by dealing with Saddam.

I don't think his mental instability is in serious question :)

You still have to prove it in court though... If you march in there with the story that you think God told Bush what to do then the odds are good that you are the one to end up in the asylum.

[Solauren]

If there is overwhelming evidence that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq as an excuse to invade the country to:
A) Avenge his father
B) Grab Iraqi oil
C) Because God told him to

Looking at the war, political climate, and other factors, her's my opinion

a)- 'Avenging' his father is/was a Nice side perk. It also depends on how you mean 'avenge'. George SR didn't lose Desert Storm. In fact, he accomplished his goals with it. (at least his public goals), and it was completely justified. Sure his father lost the next election, but that's a risk of politics

b)- I'm sure Oil was a factor in it. Probably not the lone factor
c)- Doubtful. However, a dream/vision about god might have 'validated' it

Anyway, here are factors I think people are over-looking

Post 9/11:
Political consideration #1
The US still hadn't captured Bin Laden. He was in hiding. Since Afganistan was now a US friend/protectorate, he [idiot] OBVIOUSLY [/idiot] was no longer in Afganistan. So where was he?
With another political enemy of the US, but this time in the Middle East!

This is a low consideration, and I only every heard about it as an idea from very few people.

Consideration #2
Think about how quick Iraq condemed it. It almost looked like Saddam was guilty and trying to cover it. You'd expect a guy that was invaded by the US 10 years prior to take a day or two to say 'Oh, sorry about the planes'

Consideration #3
It's entirely possible that people within the various intelligent agencies did infact send Bush the kind of reports he wanted to hear. "Yes Sir, Mr President, it's like you wanted, I mean feared, we have evidence of WMD in Iraq, and ties to Al Qadia. Proof? Saddam meat with an Al Qadia operative once."

Consideration #4
He mis-read reports and honestly saw, in his own mind (and his advisors, who would no doubt be kissing his ass) connections between Iraq and Al Qadia, WMD, etc.
I mean, Bush could very well be a fairly intelligent man, but he's still a dim bulb. Best way to say it: He know's it's raining, he knows he's getting wet. Most people would know to come in out of the rain. Bush stands around in it hoping to get clean.

Consideration #5
he knew he'd have the support of the US, he didn't really want to be President in the first place, so why not run the country and military like your a petty dictator, so you LOSE in the next election?

Think abouit it