Should Bush Be Impeached And Convicted?

[Jimbo]

"I think he meant that Bush will go down with a similar legacy, which you have aptly described."

This "legacy" seems to be a liberal figment of imagination.

[IrishHand]

You're right - neglecting domestic issues while invading defenseless foreign nations on the other side of the world are definitely things historians will look favorably upon.

[Jimbo]

IrishHand,

If historians ran our country they would always be waiting to see how things turned out before they would ever make a decision. Odd how historians seem to have 20/20 hindsight yet no foresight whatsoever!

[J.R.]

Its amazing how the media likes to hark on the WMDs issue. This war was about much more than weapons of mass destruction. The war was never premised solely on WMDs, although the issue was a part of the decision.

Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions, as the onus was on them to prove what they did not have, not on the rest of the world to prove what they had. A tyrannical despot who lived an opulent lifestyle in the face of an often starving and impoverished people and a man who killed, tortured and maimed his own people in addition to waging a attempt at genocide against the Kurdish people has been unseated from power. And you would have him impeached for this?

Whether you agree with his actions or political stances, to say he has done anything amounting to a high crime or misdemeanor in waging this "war" is mistating the facts.

[John Cole]

You think that someday he'll be awarded one of these?
[img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

http://hueyp.lhs.berkeley.edu/things...o.jsp?index=26

[scalf]

[img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] at least you were cognizant of difference between impeachment and being found guilty...this is a political action and has nothing to do with the facts...consider the political split on votes cast on clinton...sure they all said they were voting on facts alone...lol..yeah..lol..no one would get away with impeachment here...it's like treason to suggest that...politically speaking..jmho...gl [img]/forums/images/icons/blush.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

Only if they can get him to participate in this, which I doubt:

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=9193

[BruceZ]

Saying "tear down this wall" was his idea, and his advisors all wanted him to remove that from the speech because it was too unrealistic, but he stuck to his guns and left it in. If that takes being an "ignoramus", then sometimes that helps. A leader doesn't need to be an expert if he knows how to surround himself by experts. He does need to uphold ideals and be a charismatic leader.

The policy to support Afganistan against Soviet invasion was brilliant as it prompted rebellion of the Soviet states and led to the end of the cold war.

[adios]

I agree with your points here scalf. Personally I think the "justification" was for obtaining UN approval only. As soon as we abandon our committment to that corrupt organizaion there can actually be a reasonable debate on the merits of pre-emption.

[adios]

This does provide an opening for the Democrats in 2004 it seems to me as much as I hate to admit it. As MMMMMMM states there is a long way to go in the investigation. Chris I don't think the Administration is going to plant a smoking gun. The downside is too much IMO.