Moderators Bravus Posted June 22, 2008 Moderators Share Posted June 22, 2008 Carloaa suggested I post these for discussion: http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amelia Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Bush only has 6 more months to go. Why impeach? Quote <p><span style="color:#0000FF;"><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">"Do not use harmful words, but only helpful words, the kind that build up and provide what is needed, so that what you say will do good to those who hear you."</span></span> Eph 4:29</span><br><br><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/gizmotimetemp_both/US/OR/Fairview.gif" alt="Fairview.gif"> Fairview Or</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil D Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Wow...I looked for them a while back and couldn't find them...Probably didn't look hard enough... Wow...sure would be nice if this were put thru...but then, we would be looking at wasting more taxpayer's money, and we are already hemmoraging... Quote Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.  George Bernard Shaw  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Chaney for President. Chaney for President. Those Ohioians are crazy. You have to watch out for them. This is laughable. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Many liberals would love to see President Bush impeached for one of the many offenses they believe he is guilty of. Of course the Democratic leadership realizes that if they tried to impeach President Bush it would allow him to prove the charges false. An impeachment trial would not only vindicate President Bush from all rumors, it would make the Democrats look vindictive which would cost them in the election like it did the Republicans after impeaching President Clinton. Many liberals long to impeach President Bush in order to get back at Republicans for impeaching President Clinton. Some of these fail to understand the impeachment of Clinton was the Republicans getting back for the thwarting of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Others understand this but don't care. I, for one, don't like the "tit-for-tat" on the federal government level. Even now, those clamoring for impeachment do so not because they actually think Congress will take them seriously. They simply want to do all they can to damage the reputation of this President because they disagree with him politically. What they are doing says more about them than it does about President Bush. They are sore losers. They didn't get their way. President Bush went to war, Congress authorized him to do it along with many allies and they can't get over that. Rather than "moving on" like they wanted Republicans to do after the Monica affair, they want to dwell and obsess on what they feel was an injustice. In short, they don't practice what they preach. They are political hypocrites. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Well said Shane. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil D Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 quite frankly, Bush is out of office in 7 months...It will take that much time to get a conviction and waste time in doing things that need to be done, NOW. For example, the energy crisis that the common man is experiencing...Or immigration issues.... Nancy P. was correct. It is neither prudent nor wise to do this....let the rumor fly and be where they need to be....they won't go away, and neither will those who feel he is doing his job.... Truth be told, Bush IS GUILTY of leading us into a war that is neither justified nor justifyable. And I don't want to get into this, but to move on, let's repair his mistake while we can, and to the best of our ability. The guy and his conservative advisors have lead this country into a dark place and we need to do the RIGHT things to move us out of this dark place and quick doing the short sighted quick fixes that we have done in the past. Quote Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.  George Bernard Shaw  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Personally ... I think it is the Demos who are in a dark place. They are having trouble seeing in the dark. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil D Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Quote: Personally ... I think it is the Demos who are in a dark place. They are having trouble seeing in the dark. Well, since we are all in this together, and the Republicans want to be like mushrooms and keep turning off the electricity, yeah, the Dems are having a hard time seeing.... ......and we hate this stuff that we are sitting in.... Quote Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.  George Bernard Shaw  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Since the Demos have been in control .... All I see is darkness and disaster. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Bush only has 6 more months to go. Why impeach? I believe these are extremely serious charges. An impeachment will go down in history, letting our children and grandchildren know that we did not just stand by and say/do nothing about it. Not only that, but it will let future presidents know that committing such outrageous acts against the American people will have consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Wow...sure would be nice if this were put thru...but then, we would be looking at wasting more taxpayer's money, and we are already hemmoraging... Doesn't it just boggle the mind that Bush went to such extremes to get us into this occupation, which is adding billions if not trillions to the national debt?! I don't see impeachment as a waste of taxpayer money at all. I see it as the right thing to do, to send the right signal to the American people, future generations, and future presidents. It will actually cost very little compared to the cost of the Iraq occupation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Wow...I looked for them a while back and couldn't find them...Probably didn't look hard enough... Incidentally, you can go to that same website to get the transcript for the Articles of Impeachment against Cheney. It is important that they both be impeached; otherwise Cheney will end up president, and he is even more dangerous than Bush, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 the Democratic leadership realizes that if they tried to impeach President Bush it would allow him to prove the charges false. An impeachment trial would not only vindicate President Bush from all rumors, it would make the Democrats look vindictive which would cost them in the election like it did the Republicans after impeaching President Clinton. Many liberals long to impeach President Bush in order to get back at Republicans for impeaching President Clinton. Some of these fail to understand the impeachment of Clinton was the Republicans getting back for the thwarting of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Others understand this but don't care. I, for one, don't like the "tit-for-tat" on the federal government level. Even now, those clamoring for impeachment do so not because they actually think Congress will take them seriously. They simply want to do all they can to damage the reputation of this President because they disagree with him politically. What they are doing says more about them than it does about President Bush. They are sore losers. They didn't get their way. President Bush went to war, Congress authorized him to do it along with many allies and they can't get over that. Rather than "moving on" like they wanted Republicans to do after the Monica affair, they want to dwell and obsess on what they feel was an injustice. In short, they don't practice what they preach. They are political hypocrites. Wow, that is so not true. There is so much overwhelming evidence that Bush (and/or his administration) lied and twisted the truth and manipulated evidence - time after time after time. There is no doubt about this. If enough people speak up, Congress has to take it seriously. Some in Congress already are - hence, the articles of impeachment. I think Congress is angry at having been lied to. I don't like tit-for-tat, either, and would never stoop to such pettiness. Nor would I favor impeachment just because I disagree with someone's politics. That's ridiculous. And so is comparing this to the Monica Lewinsky affair. This is so much more serious than that. This has to do with manipulating CIA/FBI reports, treason, and otherwise breaking the law, besides lying to Congress, the U.N., and the American people time and again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Impeachment would vindicate the Bush Administration. Impeachment hearings would guarantee that historians got it right. President Putin of Russia was warning President Bush that Saddam had WMDs and were preparing to give them to terrorists to attack the US on US soil. Was President Putin one of Bush's conservative consultants? George Tennant, head of the CIA and appointed by President Clinton, told President Bush that Saddam had WMDs. The Brittish intelligence service, the Egyptian intelligence, the Israeli intelligence, the Polish intelligence, the Spanish intelligence, the Italian intelligence and other foreign intelligence services believed Saddam had WMDs. If Bush lied and fooled everyone into believing Saddam had WMDs he has to be the best liar in the history of all liars. The members of the US Congressional intelligence committees had access to the same intelligence as President Bush did. This is due to the checks and balance system which balances the powers in the US system of government. This prevents any President from being able to lie to Congress. Had President Bush been lying or twisting information to suit his goals the congressmen and senators sitting on their respective intelligence committees would have been the first to know. Both Senators Kerry and Hillary Clinton had a seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So if Bush lied or twisted information they were in on it. Quote: I believe these are extremely serious charges. I can accuse anyone of anything and make up serious charges. Charges are simply accusations. In the US a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Since Congress is not even willing to bring these charges against President Bush, he is a long way from being proven guilty. So the seriousness of the charges is quite irrelevant. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 George Tennant, head of the CIA and appointed by President Clinton, told President Bush that Saddam had WMDs. ...the seriousness of the charges is quite irrelevant. Imo, it would be dereliction of duty not to follow up on charges that serious. I mean, c'mon, 35 charges, all with at least some basis of truth. Ignoring those is just putting your head in the sand. The CIA is one of the ones who is tired of being used by Bush to propogate his lies. HW has clout with them because he used to be CIA director. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Any idea how many accusations were made against President Clinton? Here are a few to jog the memory. ~ Whitewater gate ~ Billing gate ~ Cattle gate ~ Castle Grande real estate scheme ~ Billy Dale firing ~ Travel gate ~ Mike Epsy & Tyson Foods ~ File gate ~ Golf gate ~ Indonesia gate ~ Paula Jones sexual harassment ~ Craig Livingstone & White House Security ~ O'Leary enemy's list ~ Vince Foster suicide ~ Johnny Chung ~ Waco & Branch Davidians ~ China gate ~ Tinted Blood scandal ~ White House Phone Call Hiding ~ IRS gate ~ The Mena Connection How many actually amounted to anything? I will give a little clue. Political enemies of a President will cook up all sorts of scandals against him because they are poor losers. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted June 22, 2008 Moderators Share Posted June 22, 2008 This proposal is a waste of time and will get exactly nowhere. Lincoln was the greatest offender of any American president against the laws of the US Constitution, and he totally ignored the decisions of the Supreme Court. He put American citizens in prison for months and even years without trial. And why? Because he recognized the grave danger faced by this country in a war. We're at war now. Lincoln was not only never impeached but he is recognized as our country's greatest president and one who made it possible for us to be the great nation we are today. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Are you saying these were all in the articles of impeachment? I don't think so. Probably because there was not enough evidence to prove them, or they would have been included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 So the end justifies the means. So our Constitution is not strong enough to guide us through a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted June 22, 2008 Moderators Share Posted June 22, 2008 Do you think Lincoln was right to do what he did under the circumstances? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Quote: Probably because there was not enough evidence to prove them, or they would have been included. There is not enough evidence to impeach President Bush which is exactly why Congress has not impeached him. In fact, there is sufficient evidence to vindicate President Bush of these rumored charges which is what would happen if impeachment hearings began. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Do you think Lincoln was right to do what he did under the circumstances? I'm not sure what you're referring to, and I'm not an expert on the Civil War. I know he declared martial law. Did he lie to Congress, deceive the American public, commit treason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Quote: Probably because there was not enough evidence to prove them, or they would have been included. There is not enough evidence to impeach President Bush which is exactly why Congress has not impeached him. In fact, there is sufficient evidence to vindicate President Bush of these rumored charges which is what would happen if impeachment hearings began. So you say. I've seen a lot more evidence against Bush than they had against Clinton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Well the proof is in the pudding. Clinton was impeached. Bush has not been and isn't going to be. The facts of history will be recorded as thus. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.