Should President Bush by impeached?

As more than one journalist has noted, it's rapidly becoming impossible to have a civil conversation about politics in this country.

With the highly-emotionally-charged tenor of today's political discourse, when I saw your subject line about impeaching Bush, I knew the fur would fly.

From my earlier posts, it should be clear that I don't like Bush, but I see little to be gained by hurling insults and profanities. Anyone who writes a passionate political post is probably NOT a 'swing voter', and will not be persuaded by my arguments, nor I by theirs.

I believe that this country is sharply divided -- about George Bush. I don't think I have heard anyone get very worked up one way or the other about Kerry; everyone is passionate about Bush - either practically idolizing him or calling him the antichrist. I admit it, I am no different.

Yet whoever wins, about half the people you know will have voted differently from you. There's nothing to be gained by alienating all of them, so my advice is for us all to just to cast our votes and be polite about it.

Everyone: If you can vote in the US, DO IT. Please.
 
delsoljb32 said:
Do you honestly think they would tell the public if they ever, or already have, caught Bin Laden??.
Click to expand...

I hope that was a joke... the first thing this President would do is shout it at the top of his lungs. This whole thing started with Bin Laden, and Presidents dont start "The War on _________" if they don't see an end in sight. Now, whether or not the end ever comes is a different story (remember Reagan's War On Drugs?), and is irrelevent, but no end to any "War On _________" has ever been in sight -- until now.

Capturing Bin Laden would be advertised around the world, and would end Bush's War On Terrorism. It wouldn't really end it, but it would in Bush's mind.
 
If you think about it the incumbent candidates are the ones who you'll hear the most outrage for or against, it must be something in human nature or just the way we think that causes this.

I also think it has a bit to do with the party a specific person is associated with. Republicans generally are conservatives, democrats generally are liberals.

If you consider the meaning of those words, you'll see they fit. Democrats are very well known for voicing their opinion against someone or something with ease, where Republicans are usually more reserved. That's not to say it doesn't happen the other way, it can. But usually it doesn't. There could be numerous reasons behind this, but in the end I think it boils down to the mindset of the people involved.

I have meet quite a few anti-Kerry people. A good amount of them are/were military personnel at that. The most adamant is my cousin's wife, who's active Navy stateside. Her MOS is intelligence, and she was stationed at the pentagon during 911. Part of her reasons are due to benefits and other lifestyle reasons, but the largest was due to the war and security.

The vast majority of anti-Kerry people I've meet are very reserved in their feelings and expressions. They might have a bumper sticker or yard sign, but other than they they focus their energies on their families and their lives instead of raving about a candidate they don't like.
 
Before members of this forum stop respecting each other because of political views (as is evident in this thread -- we're all biased in one way or another, and feel strongly about different things), I think we should take a minute to put things in perspective.

It seems a common thought in this thread is that Republicans and Democrats are fundamentally different and share very different views -- but in light of the rest of the world, Republicans and Democrats are fundamentally the same. They both want peace. They both want good health care. They both want to do the best for the citizens of the US. Compare that to some countries that teeter between dictatorship and anarchy. Compare that to the supporters of the communist and socialist parties and the democratic parties. Comparatively on a world scale, our division of government is relatively non-existant.

It's undeniable that Bush spoke some non-truths to the public -- whether it was due to ignorance, arrogance, misinformation or a lack of information, it's undeniable. I understand that the government cannot reveal every little secret and plan that they have underway, but for something as publicly impacting as 9/11 and the War on Iraq (which, somehow, the division between those two got really diluted along the way), the intentions and goings-about of the government should be divulged to the public. We don't need a detailed report, but we do need some sort of truth and honesty.

Can a Republican deliver that truth? Can a Democrat? Does party affiliation even have anything to do with the ability to divulge the truth? Is Kerry any more likely to be truthful about the US's intentions in foreign countries?

I really doubt that is what party affiliation is all about. For example, whether we reform health care by cutting taxes or increasing taxes, the ultimate goal is to get better health care to the people. Whether we invade a country because of WMDs or because terrorists are known to pass through that country from time to time, the ultimate goal is to alleviate the threat. The differences are subtle compared to other parts of the world.

I don't like Bush because of Bush, not because he's Republican. I wouldn't like him if he were Democrat, Libertarian, Independent or colored pink, either. I do believe a better job can be done.
 
ElDiabloConCaca said:
I hope that was a joke...
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. Bush would want nothing more than to shout it at the top of his lungs, you are right. But as for what would actually happen? Nothing. Not a whisper. This is because as much as we view Bush as the leader, he is a figurehead of the entire government, NOT the ultimate decision maker. Bush is a representative of the government WE have elected. The powers that be (government or military officials) will dicate exactly what information is disseminated. Only when the government and military decide that it is safe for the public to know this information, they will ok what he says to us. We would like nothing more than to place blame on whomever we so see fit to take the fall for errors. But this simply is not possible. I know it seems that I am crusading for Bush, but I am defending the system. The system that we abide by, and trust to take care of us. I know Bush has made some mistakes, we are all human. Hell, someone has to take the fall for the fact that the economy tanked and when I graduated college, there were no jobs to be had. That is still quite a sore spot with me and I would want nothing more than to say "He did it! He's the one! I hate him!" (Though I vehemently place blame on Bill Gates and Micro$oft for the tech sector fallout, more on that later if you want my theories...;) )But placing blame is not how problems are solved. Solutions must be presented and followed through.

RGrphc2, the opinions expressed here were partly brought on I believe because you started the thread based on facts you gleaned from a MOVIE regarding true events. That is what got me going. You CANNOT take any FACT from movies, let alone movies that are completely one sided like F. 9/11. As someone stated earlier, if it were done from the other angle, the views would be completely different. If this were they way we got our facts, we'd all be on some NOAA website forum discussing why the government isn't doing anything about global warming and how we don't want the events of "The Day After Tomorrow" to come true. :rolleyes:

While we are on the subject of truthful material, ANY INFORMATION YOU DO NOT HEAR OR SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES AND EARS IS "HEARSAY" OR "SECOND HAND". No matter the source or credibility of the person/news channel/newspaper/neighbor's dog, it is still an interpretation of what they heard. Just like Homer's Odyssey was told as fireside stories for centuries before being written down, things change the more ears they pass thru. Remember the Telephone game from childhood?
 
RGrphc2 said:
Bush lied to us about WMD's in Iraq.
Bush lied to us about the ties between Iraq and Al-Queda.
Bush knew about Osama's plan to attack america on 9/11.
Yet he still refuses to admit he was wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm coming in way late and I don't have time to read the whole thread, but Bush was only acting on the same exact intel that every other country had and acknowledged as fact. The straw man tactics only get you so far RG.

I don't mean to sound presumptuous but were you under the hooked impression that politicians tell the truth? Man did you ever take the blue pill... You think your boy Kerry is gonna tell you the truth? Well, that's exactly what they want you to think.

Bush was most likely considering an Iraq invasion before 9/11, after all, Saddam plotted to assasinate a US president, who happened to be his father - wouldn't you be pissed too? Be real about it - shelf your ego. Bush Jr. used the 9/11 attacks as leverage for the invasion, wouldn't you? Even your boy Kerry is quoted as saying "Saddam is an international threat... ...possesing weapons of mass destruction..." etc, etc, etc.

I said this here way before the war even began, but really consider this possibility, because it's not just possible, it's probable:

The freedom that you have on a daily bases and take for granted is an incredibly powerful force of positivity to the truly oppressed(you can't understand the oppressed mindset - don't try) that, over the course of a few decades, will slowly push it's way across the face of the Middle East and extinguish "terror" as we know it today. I don't have time to get into specifics - take the red pill and use your imagination. In 30 years, the free people of the Middle East will remember GW as the man who set the ball in motion–Just as Regan brought to an end the oppression of nearly a billion people in the former USSR, Bush will bring an end to the self-induced dark ages still in full swing in the ME.

Don't let the matrix take hold of you. The "Bush Lied" mentality is pure blue-pill knee-jerk market fodder rabble... Connect the dots man.


This is a very mediocre civilization. Atlantis, at least, was spectacular...

It's all just a 3D hologram anyway...
 
George W. Bush destroyed the image of the USA in the world. He dropped good connections to important countries. He neglected the urge of people around the world (even in the USA) towards peace and instead brought war. In order to pursue his path of hatred, he changed the reasoning behind it several times. About 50 percent of US citizens do either not see that or do not want to see that. I'm at a loss here.
 
fryke said:
George W. Bush destroyed the image of the USA in the world. He dropped good connections to important countries.
Click to expand...
So the "world", your world, doesn't think we Americans have had enough pain yet to be let into the club. After all we've had it so easy...

Anti-American sentiment, like the views you and many islamofascists espouse, isn't new. It's been running rampant long before Bush Jr. assumed command.

It's lonely at the top, and we're hated at the top, especially when Bush put the importance of defending our homeland over the left-wing concerns of European coutries, half a planet away. We don't expect you to remember, but we were the ones who had 3,500 innocent lives extinguished forever on a sunny morning in September.

Should we start asking you if it's OK to wipe our buts too?

Newsflash: European intellectual elites do not command America. When it comes to being popular in Switzerland or protecting our childrens lives and futures, we'll take a rain check on the Fondue.

We're hated like the guy who keeps winning a card game over and over. You guys just want a cut like everybody else, like France's dirty deals in the Oil for Food scandal. It was France who had a deal with Saddam to coerce the UN to keep us out of there so he could keep building taller and taller palaces as the millions starved. Who are the real killers here, France? Follow the Money my fellow thinkers. In 50 years, that will be Old Europe's insulting legacy to the free Middle East; They kept Saddam in power for cheap oil, in effect actually generating the oppression that leads to terrorism, generating the hatred that you have been fooled into thinking GW is responsible for. Break the chains and connect the real dots.

I must admit though it is quite an effective, self-replicating web of deception. Look at all the lemmings lined up still believing. The truth: No blood for oil... more like No Oil for Blood...
 
Not that I am a Bush supporter, but I read an article about parallels between Bush and Lincoln. In short, both stretched the powers of the presidency during unusual times. Both were not popular, and both mildly restricted some rights of people, Lincoln more so. The point of the article suggests that history judged Lincoln well, it will take years to judge Bush. Just another perspective! :confused:
 
habilis said:
It's lonely at the top, and we're hated at the top, especially when Bush put the importance of defending our homeland over the left-wing concerns of European coutries, half a planet away. We don't expect you to remember, but we were the ones who had 3,500 innocent lives extinguished forever on a sunny morning in September. ... Should we start asking you if it's OK to wipe our buts too?
Click to expand...

You see, Iraq is half a planet away, too. Actually, I _do_ remember 9/11 to which you seem to be referring. It was terrible. I'm sure it must have been worse for an American (of course!). But let's just talk about good and bad for a moment. (Bush likes simple, so let's stay within his system of thinking.) I heard G.W.B. was a Christian. Yet I don't see that in his path of evil. 3'500 innocent lives? Do you _really_ want to start counting on both sides? Let's keep it simple, shall we. War is bad. Bringin' war to the world is bad.

Let's say you offend me. How would you think of me if I then started to offend not only you but your family, your neighbours and then start to kill your cats and dogs? That's how I see Bush's reaction to 9/11. And I just don't understand (read the post you've 'answered' again) how Bush could do that to the USA.
 
fryke said:
Let's say you offend me. How would you think of me if I then started to offend not only you but your family, your neighbours and then start to kill your cats and dogs? That's how I see Bush's reaction to 9/11. And I just don't understand (read the post you've 'answered' again) how Bush could do that to the USA.
Click to expand...

DO NOT for one second compare taking "offense" to taking lives. We did the right thing. Action had to be taken in the wake of 9/11. You don't maintain the level of security and safety by slapping people on the hand when they do something wrong. You do it by dropping 500lb laser guided bombs on their little caves and mud brick houses. I agree that the actions of countries affects the world, but don't for one second consider yourself to be sympathetic to the trauma that was inflicted on America that day. We all lost someone that day. We lost countrymen. We lost patriots.
 
Right -- but Saddam Hussein didn't live in a cave. His governmental people didn't live in mud houses. This all started with the "hunt for bin Laden" and ended up being "let's take over Iraq and oust Hussein."

9/11 didn't happen because the people of Iraq lived under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. It happened because Osama bin Laden has some beef with the US. Two different people, and as far as intelligence tells us, they have little to no ties between them.

Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because Osama bin Laden and his "group" hated Americans because of their freedom... then what happens? We invade Iraq with the intentions of bringing to them our freedom, the exact thing that Bush says they hate, and imposing it upon them! How hypocritical is that? I'm not saying that the "new Iraq" is any better or worse than the "old Iraq," but hell -- we've been given a handful of reasons for going after Iraq, and not one of them was completely truthful... WMDs, freedom, crimes against humanity, hunting for bin Laden... the reasons keep changing. And the answer to that isn't "well, it's ALL of those reasons." It may very well be, NOW, that the answer is "well, it's ALL of those reasons," but at the time, it was not.

We went in looking for bin Laden, and came out with an unrelated figurehead: Hussein. While some good may have been done in Iraq, the reasons have changed and our goals have changed since we first went in. Sure, we'll ALWAYS be hunting for bin Laden, but you don't hear much of him anymore, do ya? It's all about Hussein and "freeing" Iraq. Will capturing Hussein and "freeing" Iraq somehow complete a puzzle piece in the war on terror? Does it make it any harder now that Iraq is democratic for bin Laden to attack again? Was Iraq a threat to us, since we know now that Hussein destroyed his stockpiles of far-from-complete WMDs in the 90s, and is it less of a threat now? Does taking over Iraq somehow lessen the likelihood of another terror attack? Do all terrorists live in Iraq?! Does taking Hussein away from the terrorists maken them more complacent, and less likely to continue attacks against the US?

Did we accomplish, or is it forseeable in the future to have accomplished the goal of lessening the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the US now that we have brought "freedom" to Iraq? I don't think so. Iraq didn't attack us, and I think that converting Iraq into a democratic nation has done nothing to progress the "war on terror."
 
delsoljb32 said:
DO NOT for one second compare taking "offense" to taking lives. We did the right thing. Action had to be taken in the wake of 9/11. You don't maintain the level of security and safety by slapping people on the hand when they do something wrong. You do it by dropping 500lb laser guided bombs on their little caves and mud brick houses. I agree that the actions of countries affects the world, but don't for one second consider yourself to be sympathetic to the trauma that was inflicted on America that day. We all lost someone that day. We lost countrymen. We lost patriots.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what Islamic extremists think you (general "you", nothing personal) did to them attacking Iraq...
 
Just as Regan brought to an end the oppression of nearly a billion people in the former USSR, Bush will bring an end to the self-induced dark ages still in full swing in the ME.
Click to expand...
The USA and the erstwhile USSR were in an arms race, they were burning money like mad, and the USA simply had more money than the USSR, so the uSSR went backrupt, the system blew and we know the rest. That is not a personal achievement of the late Ronald Reagan.

The Middle East is the cradle of civilisation as we know it. When you are told that Greek philosophy wrought the world as it is today you must not forget that most of it came to us through Arab scientists and philosophers. It was their work that lifted Europe out of the Middle Ages. Most major discoveries in the fields of medicine, chemistry and mathematics come from the Middle East. Many ME countries might not have the same worldview as the "American Dream" of personal freedom and responsibility, but to call them backwards and "in the middle ages" is simply wrong. It is very difficult to claim that a culture is better or worse than yours: mostly it is simply different.

The Islam is not so different from Judaism and Christianity. All are monotheistic and believe in a omnipotent, omniscient God, who is the Lord and Judge of the world and of mankind. God is the ultimate justice, wisdom and knowledge to all three of the religions and god wants peace and prosperity for his people. What does Jesus say again? "Turn the other cheek", "love your neighbour as yourself", "love your enemy". When will the self professed religious conservative right start to practice religion instead of just preaching it?

The invasion of Iraq cost 13.000 Iraqi lives up to now. These are the civilian casualties, not those of "enemy combatants". More American soldiers have given their lives that have been taken on 9-11. What has all this accomplished? and at what horrendous price? I do not want to question the sacrifices that have been made by the US in their pursuit of the war on terror, but I do question whether they would have paid it gladly knowing what we know now: that Osama would not have been caught after three years, that Iraq would come close to becoming another Vietnam (not in the number of casualties, but in the kind of war), that Afghanistan would still be very insecure and on the brink of civil war, that the US would be left with lower employment, skyrocketing debts and a steadily, inexorably growing oil price. Would you make the same choices now as you did then? In other words are you sure you would vote for Bush again (if you did in 2000) if you consider what his presidency brought you?
 
Religion is the seed of most wars. Iraq is just fanatic Christian against Islam, as was Afghanistan that was in a conflict between Afghan before that, like was in Eire, (but between Christian), like many European wars in the middle age... like the war in Israel... religion never bought peace. In this meaning Communism and Nazism can be understood as religions too.

We need more philosophy, more ethics... and less religion.
 
We need more philosophy, more ethics... and less religion.
Click to expand...
I'd subscribe to that call both out of compassion and altruism as well as for purely egoistical and professional reasons ... :D ;)
 
delsoljb32 said:
We did the right thing. Action had to be taken in the wake of 9/11. ... You do it by dropping 500lb laser guided bombs on their little caves and mud brick houses. ... We all lost someone that day. We lost countrymen. We lost patriots.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the sound of words I don't want to hear after 1945.
 
fryke said:
That's exactly the sound of words I don't want to hear after 1945.
Click to expand...

I agree. We lost patriots and countrymen on 9/11. So what did we do? We invaded Iraq and killed Iraqi patriots and countrymen. The majority of people killed in Iraq were not our enemies. Sure, we got some of the enemy along with the innocent, and "that's a cost of war" is not an excuse.

The point is that the biggest threat to the US is still on the loose. We haven't been targeting bin Laden -- we've been targeting Iraq -- otherwise, what delsoljb32 said would have happened: we would be targeting mud houses and caves on the outskirts of Iraq and into Afghanistan. We aren't doing that. We're targeting Baghdad -- we're targeting major metropolitan areas of Iraq.

We are no longer searching for bin Laden -- we are now just randomly bombing suspected areas of "activity" until everyone who opposes the US in Iraq is either dead or surrenderred. You see, there's no hope for the Iraqis to keep any of their former-known lives: it is now "support the US" or "die" for them. Sad.

Bush is a great pep-rally leader. He, no doubt, gets people riled and fired up in support of our troops and our nation -- but this just pulls our attention away from what's really happening in Iraq.

I wonder if the outcome of 9/11 and the war in Iraq would be the same if so much money from the Iraqi takeover wasn't being funnelled into the hands of major governmental figureheads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top