Pres. Bush impeachable Presidential offenses

I highly doubt he will be losing any sleep. Just because of his personality.



So if change comes about 100 years later, you will credit George W. Bush for that?

That's pretty harsh, especially since I'm guessing you don't know him personally. If he is not bothered by the carnage he's not human. It's fine to disagree with what's been done but when you say something like this you sound like an idiot.

He just seems so aloof to everything that's been going on.

I don't know him personally; I'm sure the few people who still read these forums know this too and take my posts with a grain of salt because of it.

You can easily suppress negative thoughts over time and even convince yourself eventually that your hands are clean of any wrongdoing.

Again, he won't lose any sleep over it. His ignorance and denial will make sure of it.

/one man's opinion.

And you think that's a reasonable comparison?

Were we, or were we not told that there was IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE, and NO DOUBT that Iraq had the weapons?


You're making excuses, Hett. We didn't go to war because of intelligence from a decade ago- we (supposedly) went over new, critical info. And I suppose you also want me to believe that if Clinton had invaded Iraq, Republicans would have supported him?? Riiiiight.

Yes, because he's got such a history of admitting mistakes, and being accountable for ANYTHING.

He makes it painfully obvious that he either believes, or has convinced himself, that he did nothing wrong.

So 4000 dead with nothing to show for it is fine, then? We've been in Iraq now for what- almost 5 years, right? Exactly what have we accomplished? I'm sure you can name me little things, but come on- should we go over the list of military accomplishments that have taken less than five years? How much time, money, and American lives are you willing to spend for what were going to get in the end? Since you clearly still believe the load of crap you've been believing the whole time, exactly when do you see this turnaround happening? I could, if you'd like, go back and find your old posts from YEARS ago, telling me why I was a moron, and why victory was "right around the corner," then right around another corner, then maybe after the elections, or how about our elections, blah blah blah. How patient should the American people be? This administration is the one who said this would last six months. It's not going to happen- ever. You need to accept the reality that's been staring you in the face for a long time.

We were told we'd be out of there in a few months. We were told that it would pay for itself. You were telling me a couple of years ago now that victory was right around the corner- yet how is Iraq even better off than they were then? How is it possible that you still believe this crap after all this time? What's it like to believe something based solely on the idea that it "should" happen, when reality is far different? The middle east has been a shithole for a long time, and the Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for even longer. Unless you are arrogant and ignorant enough to think that we are going to change that, than what are we doing? Unless you still want to tell me how Iraq is going to be that shining example of Democracy for the middle east, then our soldiers are dying for NOTHING, because even if Iraq ends up being a little better than they were, it certainly is not worth what it's costing us.

You think he's shown ANY indication that he's bothered that he took us to war on (at best) a catestrophic failure of intelligence? When has he indicated that even the slightest bit? If you're going to call someone an idiot, you should be prepared to post quotes from Bush apologizing or showing remorse of any kind- instead, he refuses to aknowledge that he did anything wrong. I do remember him CRACKING JOKES at the press corps dinner a couple of years ago about the war. (I believe he was narrating a slideshow of whitehouse photos when one showed him looking under something, and he said, "I know those WMD's are around here somewhere.") Sure, he's really broken up about it. I'm sure he's bothered by the soldiers who've died- how could someone not be? But bothered that he took us to war by "mistake," no way- at least no indication of it.

This post has been edited by jake on Jan 26 2008, 02:46 AM

Hett, your thoughts?

This post has been edited by TylerDurden on Jan 26 2008, 10:46 AM

All we need to do is dig up natedogg21 and this place will be just like old times

I didn't say that. I see only his public persona, as do you. If you think you know GWB you are deluding yourself. The fact is we are there and we have to support our troops until we can get them out, LBJ publicly praised the effort and results in Vietnam as he announced the inflated body counts. In private, we now know, he agonized over each US death and dearly wanted out. As a matter of fact he did not seek reelection because of it.

This is actually kinda funny.

Ya know. Every friend of mine who has been in Iraq, and were there for the initial invasion has told me, "Yes we didnt find WMDs, but some of the buildings we went in, were so off the chart with radiation and things, there is no doubt he had them"

Frankly, I still DO NOT believe the media and all the negative coverage by the nay sayers that the WMDs WERE not there.

Everyone still assumes that saddam was stupid. If he has WMD what was the fucking point of leaving them there for the US forces to find. By getting rid of them he makes the US look bad.

Lastly, IF Saddam was able to get rid of his WMDs and filter them off to other countries and terrorists groups, what the fuck are you so niave for, as to believe they are going to release a report saying "We found records where saddam may have given X,Y,and Z to A, B, and C"

At the end of the day this is the government we are talking about, as much as every american wants to play armchair quarterback for the superbowl, do you really think the government is fucking stupid enough to release ALL the information they have about the war?

Seriously, Jake, and you others who take every fucking thing you read online, in the news etc, as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing more or less, are fucking stupid. Get off your ass and talk with some of the soldiers who were actually among the first troops on the ground in Iraq.

I am sorry But I will believe them any day over CNN, fox, and the other trash media in this country.

But thats ok keep bashing the country, and the work or troops are doing. Cause some how telling the soldiers that what they wanna do is wrong, and they should be wanting to do something else is somehow being patriotic. Again I challenge you to go talk to people who have been there. The majority of them are proud to be there and want to finish the job. The problem is you anti war pussy liberals bitch and moan so much about every little thing, that you just make there job harder and harder. Every soldier in Iraq is in fear of being branded a baby killer, or war criminal, and because of pussies like yall, that think peace at any price is better then one life, our soldiers are going into a war they cant win, because i hate to tell you, but the insurgents are fighting to win. We are fighting until the political atmosphere changes where its not "cool" to fight anymore.

But go ahead, keep bitching and moaning, and bashing your government! Just please let me know where you get your information from, cause seriously I always wanted to know the whole story about iraq.

This post has been edited by AAisforwimps on Jan 26 2008, 01:46 PM

The point is that one can consider someone's advice and decide not to take it...it doesn't mean the advice was ignored.



We were, because every government and every intelligence agency said so. Now we have seen how much Saddam did to make everyone think he had those weapons.



I would have supported it, I don't care who else did.



You don't have anything to compare with what we are doing in Iraq, it's never been done before on this scale. You want to make a comparison with WW2 or even the 1st Gulf War, but they are like comparing apples to oranges. We've accomplished a ton of things. You may not notice them, but things have been and are getting better in Iraq.



We've invested so heavily in time and blood, we have to be committed to finish this. 58k Americans died in Vietnam for absolutely nothing, because our government lost its nerve. If 70k would have died in Vietnam, but we were successful, those men would have died for something, something that was meaningful. 4k dead in Iraq is a lot, too many I would say, 3 friends I will never see again and a lot of tears. But I know what their families feel, its the same way I feel, make their deaths mean something. We can still be successful, recent reports clearly show as much, that's why you don't hear the Democrats talking about it anymore.



You're right, they blew it. And they haven't had a day where they haven't been effected politically or emotionally. Bush almost lost re-election, if he had really thought Iraq would have hurt him, do you really think he would have invaded?



You mean when Saddam was gassing his own people, and killing hundreds of thousands of people with no end in side for decades?



Yes, there are plenty of examples of Bush getting choked up in public during ceremonies, meetings with families, etc. I don't think any US president has not felt remorse for ordering soldiers to their deaths. I can think of LBJ, who was photographed breaking down in the White House while listening to a tape from a soldier. These president's mourn, they all mourn in there own way, mostly in private.

Oh shit, when did you get classified clearance? I mean you claiming that there ISNT, means you obviously have ALL the information. Mind sharing it?



Didnt the senators evaluate the intelligence? Didnt they deam it enough to go to war. Have you even seen the intelligence? So how can you comment that it was NOT enough to go to war.

You are a great armchair quarterback buddy


When the war is over, and ALL the information has been released, then you can go jumping on the bandwagon, until then why are you even opening your mouth. Oh yeah somehow you have this great source of information greater then that of the president



Wow could that be because he is privy to information you are not? Wow that could be possible



Now you are just stupid. Nothing to show? Do you not pay attention.
Fuck here is something i found in 2 seconds of googling
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/14/signs_of_success_in_iraq/

Sorry I wasn't online quick enough for your approval.

So you're saying they've died in vain so far?

That's your justification for continuing the war? Finding vindication?

Even if that means potentially losing thousands of more soldiers and STILL not really "finishing"? I don't think it's as sure a thing as you say it is.



And yet, if asked "Would you do everything all over again?" I'm pretty sure his response would be "in a heartbeat, he-he-he"

But you're the one assuming you "know" him. All we can go by is what he throws in our face publicly every day. Don't give me that stale, "support the troops," crap- criticizing the president has nothing to do with supporting the troops. That's like saying unless you agree with every law, you don't support police. If you really want to support the troops, how about not keeping them in a situation where they're going to get killed needlessly?

Ah, because you know a guy who had a radiation meter, that proves everything! First of all, anything that had radioactive material in it before 1991 would still read "off the chart" in 2003, even if they'd been gone for years. It would probably be impossible NOT to find remnants of what he had before the gulf war, but we didn't go in for pre-1991 shit, and now people are just making excuses.

Second, the administration has admitted that there was no WMD- maybe they were bamboozled by this media conspiracy too??


You're really reaching here, huh? You think he would give up power, his freedom, and his life just to make the US look bad? That makes zero sense.


Again- where is this coming from? Show me some credible evidence that this happened. Are you seriously arguing what they "might have" done, and calling me stupid?

Of course not- but they released plenty of information already. I certainly think that if there was a SHRED of evidence that Iraq really had anything, that would have come out prior to the entire Republican party getting their asses handed to them in the last elections. What possible negative could come from they telling us where they really found the giant stockpiles of WMD, considering that it would justify the war? I can't believe there are actually people still arguing that Iraq had WMD, dispite the complete lack of any evidence of that.

Ok, so let me get this straight. We should ignore every available piece of information until we talk to someone who happens to support your point of view? Did this person you spoke with happen to take some snapshots of these piles of WMD? Sounds like a really intelligent, objective way to make a decision. By the way, all these news organizations you seem to hate- what exactly have that said that was so negative. They report what info is given to them. Are you seriously stupid enough to believe that they're filtering out all of the huge successes we're having over there? Is this the same media who never even asks George Bush a tough question? Is it the same one who published everything the administration gave us about Iraq leading up to the war? Just because the news isn't going your way doesn't mean its wrong. By the way, I've talked to PLENTY of people who've come home from Iraq- in 1991, from the 2003 invasion, and those coming home now. What's your point?

Yes, because the experience of an individual is always a great representation of the reality of something the size of a war and world politics. My grandpa didn't trust the "Japs" until the day he died. Good thing I don't base my world view solely on that.

You are just a stupid pussy. You have absolutely no arguement other than what "might" be- no facts, nothing. This is the classic go-to move from someone who has nothing to say, and knows it. "You don't agree with me, so you hate the country." Give me a break. Please show me a single time where I said anything bad about the country or the troops. You're the one who wants them to stay and die so bad- kinda seems like YOU don't really support them. If not, and if I'm such a pussy, why don't you put your money where your mouth is- sign up. http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp?#?channel=&video= Unfortunately, pussies like you prefer to let their buddies do the fighting. You'd rather just talk shit- poorly, I might say. You don't even understand how the military works, apparently. Last time I knew, what the soldiers "wanna do" isn't really relevant. I was under the impression that they are ordered to do what guys in Washington, (most of whom have never even held a gun,) "wanna do." Of course they're proud to be there doing the job- they should be. They are serving with honor for people who've put them in a shitty situation, from which there's no good ending. I'm also far from anti-war. Find where I said anything about peace at any price. I'll stick to the wars that make sense, however. Afghanistan made sense. So did a half dozen other places before Iraq. Unfortunately, now that we're tied up in Iraq, we don't have the resources to take on fights in other places.

Damn, you are an idiot- "fighting to win," what does that even mean? I see you have been watching the news, since you seem to be up on the main talking points. What is "winning" in Iraq? What is an "insurgent?" Does it mean all the people who don't want us in their neighborhoods so they're taking pot shots at the troops? There are up to a dozen different groups that make up the "insurgency." I'd love to hear from you, General Patton, how we're going to defeat a dozen groups, fighting independantly, on their own ground, for their own causes.

What retards like you fail to grasp is that most of the people who are against this war have nothing to do with the people who were against Vietnam- most are against this war BECAUSE we support the troops, and really don't see the possibility of making shithole like Iraq slightly better as a good enough reason for our soldiers to die, especially when we now know that the reason we even went there was total bullshit.

This post has been edited by jake on Jan 27 2008, 01:05 AM

Fair enough- we'll discuss it with that scenario then. If, after talking to your dad, then taking the four year loan, you told everyone that there was NO ALTERNATIVE to the four year loan, would that be the truth, or a lie? Or, what if you hadn't heard of the four year loan, and your dad told you that the 5 year load was the ONLY way to go- would you feel shafted if you found out about the four year loan two years later?

Hett, there has been tons of stuff published showing that there were plenty of dissenting opinions in the intelligence community. Several members of the administration quit or were fired over it if I recall. The whole Plame affair happened when Wilson disputed one of Bush's arguments leading up to the war as false! It's clear that they chose to believe (and make public) only what supported the case for war. Honestly, do you believe that there was NO intelligence that Iraq had no weapons? And, do you remember hearing anything like that released until AFTER the war started? They were trying to build support for war, and nothing else.

But it's not just about time- you can compare Iraq to Vietnam. Not in the normal sense of it simply being an unpopular war with a controversial cause, but in the sense that there isn't a clear mission. There's no end. We're fighting random groups of disorganized people, fighting in their own land. That is a scenario bound for failure- combine that with the fact that our military isn't designed to be a long term police force. Simply us being there is creating more enemies for us.

True- but what if 100,000 would have died without success? Should we STILL be in Vietnam? At what point do you say that we've done all that we can? Part of the joke in Bush's "Mission Accomplished," is that it really WAS accomplished- Saddam's government was gone. We can't stay forever and prop up their government. Not to mention that a government propped up by us, will never be able to succeed without us.

Absolutely not- my honest belief on what lead up to Iraq is that Bush thought it would be easy. He thought we could have a quick victory, then a great place in the middle east to base various other missions in the war on terror. Saddam was an asshole anyway, who needed to go. He never anticipated the insurgency- but he should have. He should have known about the Shiite-Sunni war that would be re-ignited. The adminstration, I feel, wanted to invade Iraq in the worst way, and found an excuse to do it. Then they fucked it up.

Come on, Hett- that's a tired old argument. That happened in the 80's, then in the 90's, when he put down the uprising that we initiated. Most of it was done with weapons WE sold him. Not that it doesn't make him a shithead, but you can't use something that we couldn't have cared less about 20 years ago to justify a war now. You really think George Bush gives two shits about the Iraqi people's freedom?

Hett, that's exactly what I said- I have no doubt that he mourns the dead soldiers. My point is that he DOESN'T mourn the "failed intelligence." I would have a ton of respect for him if he would have come out and said that he was wrong, and that going into Iraq was a mistake, but that we needed to live with that and finish the job. I may not have agreed with him, but would have respected that.

How about you start talking shit when you get a SINGLE fact, or at least are able to refute something I post. I don't even know what you're asking in that post- so you're saying the administration didn't say this:

""We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked about weapons of mass destruction in an ABC News interview, March 30, 2003

In August 2002, Vice President Cheney said: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. . . . The terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other."March 17, 2003, George W. Bush

Yup- the senators got the intelligence. The intelligence that pointed us to war, that is. And, post 9/11 they were too big of pussies to think for themselves, instead falling for Bush's fear tactics of, "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."

I don't even know why I'm responding to this nonsense. I guess because I'm bored. Yeah, I'm sure ALL the information will be available as soon as the war ends, whenever that will be. You are unAmerican for suggesting that we shouldn't criticize our president- as I'm SURE you've never done about Clinton.

Now you're just repeating the same bullshit over and over again- nice.

The sad part about you is that you hate America so much that you will gladly kill 4000 of our soldiers for the value of Iraqi currency. Forget about joining OUR military, you should just move to Iraq.

So I guess none of your friends are physics majors.

Because if they knew about beta decay, weak nuclear force, or anything about radioactivity for that matter, they would understand something can test "off the charts" waaay after the fact.

You need to brush up on your history. While I agree that there was no clear mission statement in Vietnam any suggestion our opponent was fragmented or disorganized is way off the mark.

I'm saying they haven't died for anything yet, since there hasn't been an outcome. The American's who died in the first battle of World War 2 didn't die for anything at that point in the war.

sure



When we aren't making anymore progress. The goal of Vietnam and Iraq are completely different. Whether you admit it or not, they are actually trying to find a political solution in Iraq, it's not just military. We had no strategy in Vietnam, nothing. We've found the most successful strategy of the war so far in the last year, we are now doing better than we've ever done, so why would we pull our forces out now. If a Democrat is elected, those troops in Iraq won't be going anywhere, its a smoke screen they tell their liberal activists because they know it would be a bad idea too.



But put yourself in the boots of a soldier overseas. You've lost friends who are closer to you than a brother, and your commander in chief comes out and says it was a mistake. How devastated are you? How bad does your morale get?

I don't think they need to hear it from here to know it's true.

But there has to be SOME end. Are we going to stay there until there is no violence in the middle east? Do you think these bombings and attacks are going to stop, or even slow down? How do we even define a (realistic) successful end to this?

I'm not sure why that would be devastating to morale- stating the obvious. It would give him credibility. Saying that they wouldn't have done anything different knowing what they know now is such bullshit that it's an insult to the troops and the American public. (Unless of course that is just a subtle admission that they really had no good information that there were WMD, but they wanted to go to Iraq all along. )