Forum Discussion

It's pretty clear to me. The Left are fighting themselves.
Actually, the Demos are just making themselves look bad...well, foolish too.

Yeah, just not seeing it.
I guess am a bit to busy following the CIA Leak investigation, recalling the Miers fiasco, readin up on the trial of Tom DeLay and so on, and so on.

Plus I see nothing wrong with some healthy debate. People are bound to disagree.

This cartoon shows that liberal demoncrats (mispelled on purpose, I promise) can't even stand up against a near mute inanimate object when it is clothed in the face of plain and true speech.

See Jim, I TRY to be eloquent when I write.

The cartoon illustrates that the democrates have been using bush as a punching bag, blaming everything on him. bush punched back finally.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a157/BarronSomde/MFT51121.jpg

I had no ide that punching bag was Bush. It does not really look like Bush. Ears are too small.

it doesnt have any ears, it wouldnt look like a punching bag if it had ears

The could have been drawn like they were pinned back or something, O completely missed it was Bush.

Well if they would have added the ears it would have look like a monkey, since Bush looks and acts like one! Hitting animals is just mean. Im waiting for when we can impeach him.

Ashley: Do not insult monkeys. They did nto do anything to be compared to Bush.

Bush is not getting impeached, just because you want him to, doesn't mean that he is. Sorry to disapoint. Democrats have got to learn that they can't always get what they want, and throwing a tantrum just doesn't look good. The Democrats will have their shot for failure in '08. Then you can throw more temper tantrums.

>Then you can throw more temper tantrums.
Yeah...totally temper tantrums.....
Um......yeah....so much worse then taking bribes for votes and illegal wiretapping.

While I agree that lying is bad no matter who does it, there are two key reasons why a Clinton impeachment would have been legitimate (I'll leave whether it *should* have happened for another argument) and why a Bush impeachment would not. 1) It is, as of now, still an open question whether Bush lied, or whether he merely (as Ashley even suggested) didn't check his facts properly and/or put too much trust in George Tenet. There are arguments for both sides (which do not need to be posted here right now to sidetrack the topic), but nothing is proven. 2) It is not a crime to lie, even as a public official in an official speech. Clinton's crime was not that he lied. It was that he lied *under oath*. That's perjury.

Also... //Plus do not let them rattle you, the conservative side enjoy personal attacks and off topic.//

Good Will... aren't you usually the one who *objects* to over-generalizations? I am a staunch conservative, and I have yet to make a single personal attack in these threads, and I *actively avoid* going on a tangent (which is hard for me, because that's the way my brain runs). Furthermore, I think this is pretty much an off-topic sideswipe... and it was your post:
//Um......yeah....so much worse then taking bribes for votes and illegal wiretapping. //

Just one more thing - Ashley, impeachment, as it is written in the law, has nothing to do with how much something affects the American people. According to our laws, it is very simple: if the very *best* President commits a "high crime or misdemeanor", he is impeachable. If the very *worst* President never does anything actually illegal, he is not. (Note: I don't think Clinton *or* Bush is the best *or* worst. I was just putting the issue in strong terms to highlight the relevant point.)

Well, as much as I understand your point about the definition of "crime" and the concept of just or unjust law (I took a full year of Philosophy of Law), it's ultimately irrelevant to this issue. If I were to grant that the law is flawed (i.e. that it should make any lying by a public official a crime), that would only imply that Congress should change the law, not that Bush is impeachable under this "ideal law" that doesn't actually exist yet. Incidentally, I don't grant your premise, but my point is that if I did, it would leave Bush in the same legal territory as now (unless he was proven to lie *after* the law was changed).

As far as impeachment is concerned, a crime is that which breaks the written law of the US, and whether that law is just or not is an issue for a legislative session, not an impeachment trial hearing (and not the Supreme Court, incidentally).

I do think it's wrong for a President (or any public figure) to lie to the people, but I don't think it should be a crime for the simple prudential reason that it would result in the removal from office of almost every politician. Furthermore, what about exceptions, like if there's a covert operation in progress, the media hears a rumor and asks him about it, and he lies to preserve the secrecy of the operation?

I do certainly agree though that I hope the nation can, in time, heal the chasm between Right and Left.

There really needs to be some clarification here.

1. Bill Clinton was impeached. Impeachment is the process that the House of Representatives undertook and they impeached him. The Senate did not vote to remove him from office but he was still impeached by the House.

2. Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. That was separate from his lying to the American public.

3. If you really want to stick with "Bush lied" then, given all the evidence to the contrary, it is no longer President Bush that can be accused of lying.

4. If you want to stick with the "Bush is an idiot" mantra then John Kerry should be very insulted because Bush did much better in college. The transcripts even prove it.

4. If the Left could find something to stand for and start using facts instead of emotional rhetoric and baseless attacks then that chasm would start closing.

It is a sad day to be a Democrat and to be identified with the likes of Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, Dean......and the list goes on.

Uhh... you're responding directly to my points, but it sounds like we're on the same side...? I'm a Republican, and I was defending the same points as you...(except the one about "Bush is an idiot" because that hadn't come up yet, and the Clinton impeachment because no one was disagreeing with that one).

I agree that we are on the same side but I also see that you wrote that "a Clinton impeachment would have been legitimate" when in fact it was legitimate. That distinction needs to be made and wasn't. As for the idiot statement, comparing President Bush to a monkey is done intentionally to make him seem like an idiot.
Again, I do agree with you but I like to make it a bit more clear so there is no mistake of what the facts really are.

Well, first off, I admit, I forgot to make the distinction clear between impeachment and conviction... what I meant was that it would have been legitimate if the Senate had removed Clinton.

As for your facts Ashley... aside from the easy retort that they come from "The Nation", one of the most liberal publications in the country, here are responses to a few of them (some are simply true and politically neutral, so I won't address them).

//President Bush said we had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, before he admitted we hadn't found them.//
He never explicitly said we found WMDs, only that we found *evidence* that Iraq had or was making them. This was what was told to him by the CIA (which, just as an aside, was run by a director whom Clinton appointed).

//In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.//

What he meant was that the original conflict was over - and it was. The "Iraq War" is really two wars: one that we very quickly won, against the Saddam Hussein regime (which is very clearly defeated), and then the ongoing one against insurgents.

//After receiving a memo from the CIA in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America," President Bush continued his month long vacation.//
What could he have done to stop 9/11 if he had immediately come home? Contrary to some sources, he *was not* specifically informed of *how* they planned to attack.

As for the "sad day to be a Democrat" thing... while I have no love for any of the politicians listed, I'll leave it to Democrats to decide whether they are proud to call those people their leaders. I wouldn't be, but that's admittedly only my opinion.

You're right. We opened the door to the insurgents. Not the way you think though. They aren't attacking because they object to us being in Iraq and want Iraq left to the Iraqi people. Most of them aren't even Iraqi. They're attacking because they want to take Iraq *from* the majority of the Iraqi people and have it run by a tiny minority of religious extremists. We "opened the door" only in the sense that we removed Saddam, so now they see Iraq as up for grabs. I agree that Saddam had nothing to do with al Qaeda, but these insurgents have everything to do with it, and would like nothing more than to have a new Taliban-style regime in Iraq.

The difference between finding WMDs and finding evidence of them is not splitting hairs. Finding WMDs means we actually found nukes and chemical and biological agents. Finding evidence means that we verified various facts that led us to believe it was *highly likely* that there were WMDs somewhere in Iraq.

As for the 9/11 thing... you're switching the subject. I say "Bush had no idea *how* bin Laden would attack, therefore there was no benefit to be gained from him returning home immediately" and you reply with a comment about the war in Iraq. And I don't know if you were being sarcastic, but I *am* sure Bush didn't know how bin Laden was going to attack. If *you* had been President pre-9/11, even if you *had* been informed *directly* of a plot to use jetliners as flying bombs (which there's no evidence that Bush was told of at all), you can't honestly say you would have believed it... it was just too far-fetched. The CIA gets tips about dozens of attacks *per week*, and they have to choose only the most credible ones to investigate... say, maybe 5 per week, and out of those 5, only the ones that are investigated and shown to be real threats are even *shown* to the President as far as I know. Even if I'm wrong about the last part, I know I'm right about the first - the CIA can't possibly investigate *every* threat they receive, so the ones that sound like a Hollywood plot (like the 9/11 attack would have before it actually happened), must occasionally be ignored.

Furthermore... //So instead of going to war with the terrorist that attacked us he decides to go to war to liberate Iraq.//... If I recall, we *did* go to war with the terrorist who attacked us. We *beat* the Taliban, and as for al Qaeda itself, it's sort of hard to have a conventional war against a bunch of guys scattered over the whole Middle East... we could only attack specific countries that harbored them.

I *agree* that Iraq had little if anything to do with al Qaeda or 9/11. That doesn't mean, per se, that we were wrong to invade Iraq because the "War on Terror" is not simply a "War on al Qaeda".

Thank you for supporting the points I made, Ashley.
1. We actually have found elements of WMD still in the country. Now we also have Iraqi and American officials saying that they witnessed or have evidence that the Iraq WMD program was moved to Jordan and Syria.
2. You call the war in Iraq a "war of choice". I will not argue that point but I will say that I am very glad the choice was made. Down the road when the partisan rhetoric dies down the wisdom of that choice will be more widely recognized than it already is.
3. Like Anthony said, the invasion part of the war was over and I will add that it was a huge success.
4. Your statement about the vacation shows a lot of ignorance about the workings of the presidency. His job as President does not allow him to turn off his cell phone and pager and disappear for a month. He still gets his daily briefings and has a staff with him at all times. Hardly a vacation as you and I would know one.
5. Your rhetoric about Haliburton falls on deaf ears. They are not perfect but they are one of the most experienced and capable companies in the world for that line of work. You need to research some more on the Cheney financial ties so you can get it straight. Specifically look at what financial impact Cheney gets if Haliburton is awarded a contract.
6. If you are actually interested in facts then keep in mind that President Bush inherited an economy that was already in recession and then we were attacked. Even with all of that the economy is doing fantastic and continues to grow, in spite of what the liberals would like us to believe. Look at the numbers and don't just listen to the lies.
6. If you don't mind being identified with a party whose leaders lack morals, character and principle then I guess that list of people has no special meaning to you. I was always taught that who you associate with speaks about who you are so I wouldn't like to be associated with those people. I am proud to be associated with the likes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condie Rice who have proven to be people of outstanding morals, character and principle.
Thanks again for proving my points.

The CIA said there were weaponds of Mass Distruction, Bush did NOT want to invade Iraq, he didn't make the descision lightly, he made everybody leave the oval office and said to Cheney and the head of the CIA, that he did NOT want to invade, he did not trust the intel, but the CIA said they Swear to God, there are weapsonds of Mass distruction in Iraq. He said okay, we invaded, and there were none, Bush was devistated and pissed. But he "Stayed the course" Too late to turn back now. Besides, invading Iraq was still a good idea. Invaiding Afganistan was a good idea. Even through the there were no weaponds, we still got rid of a serious threat to america. Eventually we'll get rid of Osama Bin Laden (Hopefully somebodies trigger finger twitches when they find him ooops) Iraq will become a key center point of democracy in Iraq, and eventually, democracy will take hold of the Middle east, and the terrorists will be destroyed. After were done in Iraq and Afganistan, we'll go to Korea and Iran and slap them around for a while!

I got my information from "Plan of attack" by Bob Woodward

Darrin... nothing for me to really disagree with, so I'll just say keep up the good work!

Hmm... Nice one Pete. Given that Woodward is famous for exposing presidential corruption, and is (I think) left-leaning (correct me if I'm wrong), I don't think he would have exonerated Bush unless he was pretty damn sure that Bush was in the right. Thanks for the new source to cite.

Uhh... no offense, but aside from that very last point about party leaders, all of Darrin's points *were* presented as facts. Also, opinions are valuable in debates when the topic of debate is an idea and not a factual assertion.

I agree with you on everything but the "with citations" part... Citations make an argument stronger, but are not absolutely necessary. In fact, since you are the one challenging the validity of his facts, the burden of proof would be on you to disprove.

>1. We actually have found elements of WMD still in the country. Now we also have Iraqi and American officials saying that they witnessed or have evidence that the Iraq WMD program was moved to Jordan and Syria.

Ok. we found couple of really small cannisters of some neuro toxic gas if I recall correctly. Thats all. Please back up your statements taht foudn WMDs.

Second, officials saying stuff does not have the same meaning you think it does. If we were "wrong" in Iraq having massing amounts of WMDs we could be wrong about that. Show me proof please.

Darrin: Ashley is correct, you simply state facts. Please back them up.

> Like Anthony said, the invasion part of the war was over and I will add that it was a huge success.
That hardly our Mission in Iraq. I believe the Missions was to get rid of WMDs, Sadam, and Bring Democracy to Iraq and security for us from terrorists by bringing down this particular dan of terrorists.
So far:
- No WMDs were found (so I guess thats somewhat accomplishes, the gettign rid of them)
- Saddam is out. And noone here will shed a tear believe me.
- I would not say there is Democracy in Iraq. No Saddam does NOT equal democracy. The whole thing is like a gunpowder keg which keeps fizzling, waiting to blow up. I mean terrorist running around, blowing people up (attacks are definately up, more peopel dying, if anyone doubts, I WILL show the numbers)

- we ain't more secury from terrorists. In facts Iraq is just infested with NEWLY PRODUCED terrorist who would not mind blowing us up.

Small note: Debate is facts + analysis I dare say.

Sounds right to me!

More conservatives need to see this, the truth is out!

Sorry for the slow response. It was my weekend and I slipped out of town for a bit.

Here are a few things to look up if you are still interested in some of the places that I get my "facts".

WMD Found:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D0FC5873-EF9C-4CA2-9C19-B0B2B9537F6D.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/28/110744.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

WMD moved to Syria
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36463

Economy:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3691
http://www.economic-indicators.com/
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/briefroom/BriefRm
http://www.cbo.gov/

Also, you show a couple of quotes and make them seem like they show bad for Bush and Cheney but you might want to look at the quotes on the following sites. Seems like some of your liberal icons agreed with Bush and Cheney on those quotes.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/040816
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

Actions do speak louder than words and that is one huge reason that I am so glad the we have President and Vice-President that we have and not the ones we almost had.

This goes under the debate over Syria hiding WMD

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&page=23

If you read on it has some very interesting articles.

I am currently at my place of employment (I would be hard pressed to call it "work") so I could not access the bbc sites but will do so when I get home later this evening. The WMD in Syria links were interesting, albeit a bit outdated given the recent testimony of some former Iraqi government officials and the tape recordings of Saddam himself.
As for the blog at thenation.com, the thing I find most interesting is that the writer can bash the Bush administration for their pre-war statements and they were the same statements being made by the Democratic leadership as well. It must be an honest mistake because I am sure it could not be an intentional oversight.

Your premise that we "went to war on false information" is itself false.
Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda (prior to and after 9/11) and that is a known fact. There were also numerous terrorist training camps in Iraq. It is also known that Saddam had WMD but it was thought that he had more than he did. He was very much a threat to the US and to say he was not is just plain wrong and somewhat puzzling.
I believe that a very large segment of the American people are intelligent enough to see through the smoke screen and know that Bush acted on the intelligence he was given. If he had made up the "evidence" and truly sent us in to a war with intentionally false intelligence he would not be sitting in the Oval Office today.

That is a ridiculous question that can not possibly be answered. You would have to look at the nature of the intelligence, the context of the data, the source of the intelligence, etc. That judgement would have to be made on a case by case basis.
There is no debate on the "other stuff":
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/nation_world/topstory.asp?ID=12798

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
So how does it look down there in that hole in the sand? Saddam used WMD on the people he opposed such as people in his own country and on Iran. With the US becoming his number one enemy it would be irresponsible, ignorant and dangerous to think he would not use them on us. Those tapes prove nothing at all as far as Iraq not attacking the US. One little statement by a madman is not at all reassuring to me. What those tapes do prove is that Iraq definitely had a WMD program and was proud of their ability to hide it from the inspectors.
Those two statements make perfect sense but if you can not follow them I do not think I have enough space here to bring you up to speed. In short, the American people witnessed the previous administration's claims about Iraq and also this administration's claims about Iraq along with those same claims being made by our Congressional leaders. Now all of the sudden when a small bit of that intelligence is seen as false (we have not found huge stockpiles of WMD) only this administration is vilified and the others are given a free pass (a.k.a. the smoke screen). However, the majority of American citizens are to lazy to investigate and get the facts as to how accurate the intelligence really was.

Darin:
>That is a ridiculous question that can not possibly be answered. You would have to look at the nature of the intelligence, the context of the data, the source of the intelligence, etc. That judgement would have to be made on a case by case basis.
There is no debate on the "other stuff":

Well you made a conjecture and you are called on it. Word "ridiculous" is not an answer.