Why isn't bush recieving an impeachment?

[dkb218]

I think that we need to look at "bringing freedom to the world". It is a well expressed position that the more free, democratic countries there are in the world, the safer the world is. .

First that "Bringing Freedom to the World" crap has not a thing to do with making the peoples of those countrys free. It has to do with opening up the markets of those countrys so they can be raped in the "Freedom of Trade".

So it's not really about spreading an ideal but trying to provide more security of us.

Providing more security to western Business interest, not to the peoples of the US. Make the money safe, fuck the people...

First on the list was Iraq. Helping them to get to the point where they can govern themselves and provide for their own security to preserve their new won freedom is definetely in the best long term interests of the U.S. and the world

Might be in the interest of the US and World - but what about the fucking iraqis? If they decided they wanted to govern themselves by saying "Hey USA, Kiss my Iraqi Ass", how long do you think that new won freedom would last?

 

[dkb218]

Bill Clinton's foreign policy was just like Bush the firsts foreign policy and they both were too CFR / neocon light for my taste.

It doesn't matter who the President is. One might be getting a blow job while the others trying to milk a bull. It's the fricken POLICY of the US. Anyone who follows POLICY can be president and after World War's, that policy seems to have been to financially take over the world. He who pulls the purse strings makes World policy.

 

[spidergoat]

Whatever, I don't believe that Bush/Clinton, it's all the same nonsense. They are different; it's true Clinton was a centrist democrat, but willing to work with the UN, and heeded the lessons of Vietnam, he wouldn't have gotten us into this mess. Hell, he appointed Richard Clark, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened at all. He stopped the millennium bomb plot, and put the perps in jail. So what he was getting some strange on the side, big deal. He was hunted by the cons, and nothing stuck.

 

[BHS]

I believe the 2006 U.S. senatorial elections will tell the story. The current U.S. public unrest towards Bush's Iraq war policies and his so-called social security plan will certainly continue and obviously be reflected when the 2006 elections are held. Chances are, the american people will vote in some new democratic senators and then the rest of the story will start to unfold. Watch out and/or so long Bush.

Okeydoke

Dream. On.

 

[dkb218]

Dream. On.

We can all dream, can't we? Why just the other day, I was sitting down with Willie Wonker eating little Bushie Chocolate Brains. No Calories, No Fats, No Fillers - kinda like air...

 

[Okeydoke]

Dream. On.

There's 'No Dreaming' when it comes to the current polls and his growing unpopularity, here and abroad. And if the trend continues, which it probably will, Bush is going to be in trouble after the 2006 elections, thanks to the will of the american people. After that, you can 'Dream On'.

Okeydoke

 

[dkb218]

There's 'No Dreaming' when it comes to the current polls and his growing unpopularity, here and abroad. And if the trend continues, which it probably will, Bush is going to be in trouble after the 2006 elections, thanks to the will of the american people. After that, you can 'Dream On'.

Okeydoke

That would be beautiful but Bush, I mean Bin Laden can blow up alot shit between now and then making King Georgie II look stronger in the polls. It happened once before...

 

[BHS]

Whatever, I don't believe that Bush/Clinton, it's all the same nonsense. They are different; it's true Clinton was a centrist democrat, but willing to work with the UN, and heeded the lessons of Vietnam, he wouldn't have gotten us into this mess. Hell, he appointed Richard Clark, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened at all. He stopped the millennium bomb plot, and put the perps in jail. So what he was getting some strange on the side, big deal. He was hunted by the cons, and nothing stuck.

Sometimes your posts are hard to decipher. Is Richard Clark a good guy or a bad guy?

 

[BHS]

We can all dream, can't we? Why just the other day, I was sitting down with Willie Wonker eating little Bushie Chocolate Brains. No Calories, No Fats, No Fillers - kinda like air...

I was wondering what it was that made you...different. Did you get this confection from Brian Foley? You two sound a lot alike.

 

[Okeydoke]

Based on what's coming out now (thanks to the Downing Street memos) about his pretense for going to war in Iraq, members of Congress are beginning to react and request answers, specifically about his Iraq pre-war intent. It's almost a certainly there will be some congressional hearings on this. All of this will eventually run-off into the mainstream american voter in 2006. I'm sure the truth 'will' come out and certainly could be the 'smoking gun' for Bush and his staff of.......staff of........staff of; or whatever you want to call them.

Okeydoke

 

[spidergoat]

Sometimes your posts are hard to decipher. Is Richard Clark a good guy or a bad guy?

Richard Clark was the dude trying to tell Bush to pay attention to Islamic terrorism, never got a meeting (probably for spite, Clinton appointed him).

Whoops, I misspelt his name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

 

[BHS]

Based on what's coming out now (thanks to the Downing Street memos) about his pretense for going to war in Iraq, members of Congress are beginning to react and request answers, specifically about his Iraq pre-war intent. It's almost a certainly there will be some congressional hearings on this. All of this will eventually run-off into the mainstream american voter in 2006. I'm sure the truth 'will' come out and certainly could be the 'smoking gun' for Bush and his staff of.......staff of........staff of; or whatever you want to call them.

Okeydoke

Try "hired miscreants". That has a nice ring to it.

 

[BHS]

Richard Clark was the dude trying to tell Bush to pay attention to Islamic terrorism, never got a meeting (probably for spite, Clinton appointed him).

Whoops, I misspelt his name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

Riiiiiight... he's the guy who made a splash in Moore's crockumentary by asking, all righteous-like, who authorized the Bin Laden family to leave the country during the 911 air lock-down. And it turns out, it was him! So he's a good guy.

 

[Okeydoke]

Try "hired miscreants". That has a nice ring to it.

Yea, you're right. I like that word 'miscreants'. It's fit's them well.

Okeydoke

 

[wesmorris]

Whatever, I don't believe that Bush/Clinton, it's all the same nonsense. They are different; it's true Clinton was a centrist democrat, but willing to work with the UN, and heeded the lessons of Vietnam, he wouldn't have gotten us into this mess.

I wish I could remember the name of the guy who was on the daily show the other day. It's funny to me that it's the popular voice proclaims it "this mess" , when in fact "this mess" is possibly the best long term thing that could happen in the middle east. Short-sightedness and instant gratification requirements really seem to fuck the minds of the populous. I'm glad there are politicians with the will to overcome those apparently inherent limitations.

The dude on the daily show wrote a book. He interviewed a butt-load of people in Iraq and stated that basically, the war in Iraq is significantly bolstering the movement for demoncracy in side Iran. That and the elections, the other deal in Lebonon was it? It seems to me to be wise to look at more than the death toll as indicators of success.

There is the very real possibility that W literally "saved the world" from the long term rampant effects of islamo-fascism by "getting us into this mess". Of course it cannot now be known what would have happened had he not done so... and the long term effects can't be known in the now... but IMO, it's incredibly trendy and egotistical to summarize the entire picture as "this mess". How do you know this mess didn't save your goddamned life?

 

[wesmorris]

Richard Clark was the dude trying to tell Bush to pay attention to Islamic terrorism, never got a meeting (probably for spite, Clinton appointed him).

That someone told him to pay attention to it is completely irrelevant. Ever been told to do something you thought wasn't a high priority to you? Did you do it? Did it turn out later that something bad could have happened if you would have listened? How many people / day do you think tell the sitting US president what he should pay attention to?

It's a needle in a goddamned haystack, and you act pissed that he couldn't find it - as if he could turn back the clock and take it back.

And it's really pretty jackassish of you to presume it spite.

 

[spidergoat]

Our lives were not in danger from Iraq. And what makes my life more important than the Iraqis we killed? They were not trying to kill me. Democracy alone won't make anyone safe. Now Al Quida has a place to hide, lucky me.

 

[spidergoat]

That someone told him to pay attention to it is completely irrelevant. Ever been told to do something you thought wasn't a high priority to you? Did you do it? Did it turn out later that something bad could have happened if you would have listened? How many people / day do you think tell the sitting US president what he should pay attention to?

It's a needle in a goddamned haystack, and you act pissed that he couldn't find it - as if he could turn back the clock and take it back.

And it's really pretty jackassish of you to presume it spite.

Not buying that story. What did Bush have to do that was more important? ...evidently work on his golf game.

 

[wesmorris]

Our lives were not in danger from Iraq.

That's a presumption that you can't really back up.

There is strong evidence (so I've read/heard) that Iraq took down the federal building in OKC.

What about their lives?

Have you considered that even IF your life was not in direct danger from Iraq, that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be attacked? Especially given the time and circumstance, I'd say your confidence in that regard is bullshit. If you're charged with protecting 350 million people and some guy in the middle east has been fucking with weapons inspectors for 15 years, breaking every goddamned thing he agreed to in his surrender, would you say the same thing? If you would, you'd be a really really shitty leader IMO.

And what makes my life more important than the Iraqis we killed?

Nothing. Go there and die then. You DO KNOW that the insurgents have killed far more Iraqis then we have insurgents right? Well, at least as many. I heard a conservative estimate of 13000. You blame that on us too eh? *sigh* Really, that's sad.

They were not trying to kill me.

You're talking shit, as you don't know that. In fact, I'm quite sure at least some of them would have killed you given the first opportunity, hippy.

Democracy alone won't make anyone safe.

It's about clashing ideologies goddamnit. And you're wrong. Democracy makes the likelihood of clashing with other democracies lessen. When the national motto is a fascist "death to america", then we have increased danger to a neccessary eventual war. Best to do it while you have as much advantage as possible, unless you want to die. You'd rather do the ostrich I know. I think that's quite short-sighted and egotistical.

Now Al Quida has a place to hide, lucky me.

That just baffles me. Dude, you're smarter than that. They were hiding there before, they hide now there now.. and all over the middle east. This way, at least we draw them out of hiding - though at a great cost. I think a more positive and hopeful slant is "now Al Quida has a place to come die". Unless of course, you'd rather just sit and wait for them to cut off your fucking head.

 

[wesmorris]

Not buying that story. What did Bush have to do that was more important? ...evidently work on his golf game.

Then you are unreasonable, and I will not debate you about this.