Let's Debate.....Impeach George W. Bush. ( Archived) (281)

I am suprised that you would go to the level of slandering the president. why? does it make every one feel good to call another person names? Is it helpful to the debate? Why can`t people just state facts, and leave the names and cross words out of this?

I ask for proof, no one has brought forth any proof, only slanderous accusations. Nothing said thus far would be admissable in any court as evidence to impeach the President.

Those are my personal views, just as are yours that he's intelligent - that's your right. I didn't slander him in the least bit.

Proof? Let's look at the civilians that our troops killed when we raided his palace. Do those not count because he didn't pull the trigger, but instead passed an executive order down the chain? War crimes/death of civilians is enough to make it happen - Saddam did the same thing and he's about to hang for it.

As for what I said, it would most certainly hold up in a court of law. There is no such thing as 'circumstantial deaths' which would allow such a thing to slide, should it be pushed.

I hate to burst anyone's bubble but the notion that President Bush "lied" is just plain dumb.

Every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had these weapons including China, Russia, Brittan, Germany etc. Saddam even thought his weapons program was farther ahead than it was. Why is it that people keep ignoring this and saying he "lied." Unless you think President Bush convinced the KGB and Scottland Yard it is a lie to say he lied.

By the way, the President has legal authority to make war without anybodies approval. It is Congress that makes the official declaration. So, he had no need to lie in the first place. He could have simply said "I'm attacking Iraq because I feel like it" and he would have been within his legal authority.

Nobody with even the most remote understanding of the requirements of impeachment would try to argue that there is legal grounds. Why do you think you only hear far left crackpots suggest it?

So you would comdemn BUsh for doing exactly what Clinton did?

Nobody with even the most remote understanding of the requirements of impeachment would try to argue that there is legal grounds. Why do you think you only hear far left crackpots suggest it?



And this is the man who said earlier that all he expected was personal attacks. Well that is not very credible...Why should we believe you?

Clinton had diplomacy and would not have invaded that way.

Rich, I have to agree with you. We went into Iraq, Got Saddam out, tried him and now he is to be hangged for it. With that said, I would think that some group might be planning on getting a hold of Bush, trying him for war crimes and sentancing him to death. With this being a "war on terrorism", shouldn't the war be focused in Afghanastan and not Iraq, where the taliban are?

Once again, as-per-usual and as per always, just my .02 worth.

Yah, short memories huh? Clinton bombed Iraq for the exact same reason just a few years prior. But President Clinton was cool and got BJs in the oval office so all is forgiven. Had bashing President Clinton been the cool, trendy thing to do you bet that's what would have happened.

You are too funny!