We have a lot of conservatives here... is it time for Bush/Cheney to resign?

[Jeff_in_Atl]

First off, this is going to be fun.

You are right, this is going to be fun.

Aight, I won't ignore you. Watch the State of the Union? Remember this and te WMD hunt?
Vice President Cheney also was part of the chorus and declared that
Bush said on Polish television that "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." [5/29/03]That qualifies as a lie right there. Wait we did? Must have missed that.

Said on Polish TV? I don't recall ever hearing him on Polish TV. Show me where he said that because I have never heard him say we found the weapons. I have heard him say we found the laboratories and we did. They showed them on TV. Remember them showing the truck with the fake back wall? Remember them showing you how to get behind it and the tanks with the chemical weapons tanks behind it? OOPS forgot about that. How about the 12 Sarin gas artillery shells they showed on TV with the embedded reporter. OOPS forgot another one. How about the facility with the several dozen 55 gallon drums full of mustard gas and the empty artillery shells there ready to be loaded. Forgot that too or is it if they are not loaded it doesn't count.
Found
1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bomb
chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.
Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...classified.pdf
Man that suxs. How can you ignore this? What CNN didn't report it so it's that right wing Fox news is making it up?

Direct from the 9/11 report: Close, but no cigar there. Similar reports have echoed the same idea.

I don't know what you are talking about. That's a comment.

But back to the Bush lie thing: The 2006 Senate Intelligence Committe negated everything he claimed:

I don't see how they could negate what I saw on TV. Like Phil Collins said "cause I was there and I saw what you did, saw it with my own 2 eyes". You can't negate what was shown on national TV and seen by millions of people. Show me where they negated what I showed above.

But back to the thread point...You can't screw up this bad and expect people to like you and want to lead them. Hence, get your rear out of office.

I see no evidence here of Bush lying. Try again.

And for some reading...
http://www.house.gov/pitts/press/com...0305c-wmds.htm
"I agree with David Kay on both counts that he has made since his return from Iraq – that our intelligence services need serious reform and that Saddam Hussein was a threat that warranted the use of force. "

[Roger in Kensington]

Hmmm. Let's see. What of interest has been posted within the last 24 hours.

A ranting about the injustice of Libby's commutation and some paranoid delusion about "immorally judging the rest of us" (who did, exactly? Well, never mind) . . .

Another polemic about the terrible secrecy of this administration which somehow always finds its way onto the pages of the New York Times and Washington Post on a frequent basis . . .

Oh, now here's a goodie: A conspiracy theory incorporating Cheney, Rove, Libby, Nixon, McCarthy, Halliburton, Israel . . . and no doubt the Knights Templar and the Trilateral Commission. Ho-hum. Tinfoil hat time.

Wait ... wait ... Ah, now there's something of interest. A reference to a 2006 Senate Intelligence Committee report allegedly proving Bush's "lies".

Some history: On October 9, 1998, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (then chaired by Sen. Carl Levin, Democrat, Michigan) sent a letter to President (Democrat) Clinton regarding the committee's "Concern Over Recent Developments in Iraq". You, dear reader, can see it here.

And who, you may well ask, was on that committee? In addition to Sen. Levin, there was Sen. Lautenberg (Democrat, New Jersey); Christopher Dodd (Democrat, Connecticut); Dianne Feinstein (Democrat, California); Barbara Mikulski (Democrat, Maryland); (the former Sen.) Tom Daschle (Democrat, South Dakota); Daniel Inouye (Democrat, Hawaii); Mary Landrieu (Democrat, Louisiana); and last (but by all means certainly not least) The MOST HONORABLE John F. Kerry (DEMOCRAT, Massachusetts).

(What did they say, Rog, what did they say?)

Well, among other things they said: "In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

DEMOCRATS LIED AND PEOPLE DIED!!!

Oh, no, wait. Democrats can't lie. These things only became lies after January 20, 2001. Yeah, that's the ticket.

And who among these grandees sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee today? Why, other than Senators Levin, Feinstein and Mikulski.

Remember when Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) went before Code Pink and defended her 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq War? When challenged, she said she had done her own, independent investigation and confirmed Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. It was all over You Tube recently. If you didn't see it, just wait. If she gets the nomination you'll see a lot of it.

Plenty more along these lines is available. All sorts of statements from Clinton administration officials regarding Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction programs. All one need do is a Google search.

This discussion has become basically useless. The Congress authorized the 2002 declaration of war against Iraq upon the same reasons President Clinton (Democrat) used to justify bombing Iraq in 1998.

One of the facts is this: The same facts that were facts in 1998 when Clinton (Democrat) was president became lies on January 20, 2001 when Bush (Republican) became president.

The other fact is this: Considering the fact above, facts don't matter to some people.

But back to the original question. Should Bush resign for commuting the sentence of "Scooter" Libby? Nope. Except in cases of impeachment, the president has absolute power under the Constitution to commute/pardon anyone.

Tough mammaries if you don't like it. As they say, let's Move On.

Besides, I suspect Libby's conviction will be vacated upon appeal.

But . . . if we suffer another massive terrorist attack under Bush's watch, and it can be traced to lax immigration enforcement, then he should be impeached . . . along with several Cabinet members. And some members of Congress (including McCain) should be forced to resign.

But that's just my opinion.

[Dave M]

Why is it that Republicans always pull out the "but Clinton did the same thing" line any time Bsh is criticized? Does that make it okay? Whatever happened to the saying two wrongs don't make a right? Aren't we supposed to be better than the last guy?

And I still don't see where all the arguments that Libby did nothing wrong are coming from. Bush himself read the transcripts from the Grand Jury testimony in hopes of finding something to pardon Libby with, but found only that the jury reached a fair verdict when it found Libby guilty of lying. His only course of action was to commute the prison sentence as too severe. Never mind that any lawyer/judge will tell you senetencing guidelines were followed in this case. So much for republicans not being for amnesty, huh?

And I'll say it once again. The call for Bush/Cheney to resign is NOT simply over the Libby sentence. That is only a small piece of the puzzle.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Why is it that Republicans always pull out the "but Clinton did the same thing" line any time Bsh is criticized? Does that make it okay? Whatever happened to the saying two wrongs don't make a right? Aren't we supposed to be better than the last guy?

First let me say that I am not a republican but I can answer the question.

It's because the democrats supported Clinton, a democrat, when he used the intelligence that said that Saddam had WMDs while they call Bush, a republican, a liar for using the same evidence. It's not that it's right or wrong. It is the democrat being hypocritical. Being hypocritical is wrong. And then after it all happened the democrats call Bush, a republican, a liar because some of the intelligence appears to be wrong and that the democrats are NOT calling Clinton, a democrat, a liar for saying the same thing. That is not being consistent and it is be a partisan political person and that is wrong. The point is the democrats are not treating Bush, a republican, and Clinton, a democrat, equally. That is why.

And I still don't see where all the arguments that Libby did nothing wrong are coming from. Bush himself read the transcripts from the Grand Jury testimony in hopes of finding something to pardon Libby with, but found only that the jury reached a fair verdict when it found Libby guilty of lying. His only course of action was to commute the prison sentence as too severe. Never mind that any lawyer/judge will tell you senetencing guidelines were followed in this case. So much for republicans not being for amnesty, huh?

The argument comes from people analyzing the facts and coming to the conclusion that the prosecution shouldn't have ever happened because a crime was never committed. That was obvious up front too. The lawyers know that Washington is a majority democrat town. The estimates I hear are around 75%. They knew that if they went to trial that the jury would most likely be more democrats and it's likely they would get a conviction just because of the hatred for Bush and the feeling of getting back at his administration to try and make all republicans look bad to get more democrats elected in later elections.

I don't think Bush had the authority to stop the trial while it was happening. In my opinion he should have because a crime was not committed. So he had to wait until it was over and do something about the sentence for a crime that was caused from questioning from something that didn’t happen. She was not a covert agent therefore no crime was committed.

I think Bush only commuted the prison sentence because he though it was a compromise between nothing and a full pardon. I don't know why he thought he would get some points from a democrat for that. Like Roger said maybe he is hoping the appeals process will throw out the whole thing so he won't have to pardon him

And I'll say it once again. The call for Bush/Cheney to resign is NOT simply over the Libby sentence. That is only a small piece of the puzzle.

I have said this before and I will say it again, I think it is un-American to play partisan politics. It is not in the best interest of this country to divide the country for political gain. This goes for both parties. In the last 25 years I have never seen either party play partisan politics as bad as the democrats are playing it now and I think it is despicable. And to make it worse most of the media is helping the democrats do it because they want the democrats to get elected. They do it by not reporting things that don't support their political ideology or spinning things in their reporting. An example of this is the finds of the WMDs in Iraq. If a democrat had been the president it would have been front page news. But since a republican is in office they burry it on page 27 knowing that most people don't have the time to get to page 27. The media also know that a lot of people won't read anything other than the headlines. I saw this yesterday and now I can not find it but the headlines said something like US soldier kill 8 Iraqi policemen. Doesn't that just make the US look bad. Then you read into the article and find out that the Iraqi police fired on the US soldiers first. The US soldiers were defending themselves when coming under fire from an unknown source. So why didn’t the headlines say something more like "US soldiers mistaken for insurgents by Iraqi policemen, 8 policemen were killed". I can tell you why. When you include the facts it doesn't make the US look bad. Because the media knows that in other countries when you say the US the think Bush and they want to do anything to make Bush look bad.

I fully believe that the partisan politics has caused US soldiers to die. As I said before, it is not good for our country. Continuing the attacks on the president in a time of war is hurting this country. Everybody says debate is a good thing but when debate goes to actively causing harm to the country we need to draw the line and say stop. Saying Bush lied is a lie in itself. Bush has never said he lied about anything and it has never been proven that he lied about anything. Clinton admitted he lied. There is a huge difference there and if anyone can't see that they are playing partisan politics.

[Joshu]

I fully believe that the partisan politics has caused US soldiers to die. As I said before, it is not good for our country.

Well said, no wonder the founding fathers didn't want political parties.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Well said, no wonder the founding fathers didn't want political parties.

I'm watching something on the history channel and Nebraska has a policy that no one in state office is to have a political party.

[Roger in Kensington]

Why is it that Republicans always pull out the "but Clinton did the same thing" line any time Bsh is criticized? Does that make it okay? Whatever happened to the saying two wrongs don't make a right? Aren't we supposed to be better than the last guy?

And I still don't see where all the arguments that Libby did nothing wrong are coming from. Bush himself read the transcripts from the Grand Jury testimony in hopes of finding something to pardon Libby with, but found only that the jury reached a fair verdict when it found Libby guilty of lying. His only course of action was to commute the prison sentence as too severe. Never mind that any lawyer/judge will tell you senetencing guidelines were followed in this case. So much for republicans not being for amnesty, huh?

And I'll say it once again. The call for Bush/Cheney to resign is NOT simply over the Libby sentence. That is only a small piece of the puzzle.

Get a grip, Dave.

I don't recall anyone saying "W" received a BJ in the Oval Office while discussing national security matters with a member of Congress.

I don't recall "W" being cited for contempt, pleading "no contest" to suborning perjury, paying large fines, being permanently disbarred from arguing before the Supreme Court, or losing his license to practice law for five years.

I don't recall any "W" residue on a blue dress belonging to a subordinate over whom he had power (the definition of sexual harassment).

So, no, Bush didn't do the "same thing" as Clinton.

And, yes, Bush is better than the last guy. Thanks for reminding us.

You have still not answered my question as to which of the 23 reasons cited by Congress (not Bush) for authorizing military action against Iraq you disagree.

How is it, Dave, that the reasons cited by Clinton in 1998 for taking military action against Iraq are (your words) merely "wrong," but the exact same reasons transmorgrify into despicable "lies" when cited by Bush? Huh, Dave? Huh?

Any fair-minded person looking at the issue would conclude that there is no difference and that you are just being a partisan flack.

But Clinton wasn't wrong in 1998. Hussein was a threat. Seven years after the 1991 armistice he was still taking pot shots at our pilots attempting to enforce the no-fly zones. Iraq was still taking pot shots five years later when Bush had had enough.

You seem to forget, Dave, what happened following our invasion.

Libya disclosed a heretofore unknown nuclear weapons program and opened it to UN inspection. That threat has been eliminated.

Suicide bombings in Israel dropped precipitously because Hussein was no longer able to pay $25K to the families of
the bombers.

Have you so quickly forgotten, Dave?

Am I "Rah-rah Bush"? Heavens no. Doubt it, just look in last Friday's letters at www.examiner.com

But this constant "Bush lied" refrain is clearly refuted by the facts. But as I've pointed out, facts don't seem to matter to you, do they, Dave?

Admit it, Dave. You started this thread so you could preen. To display your goodness. Liberals just love to display their sanctimony publicly for all to see and admire.

Well, it didn't work out that way. You didn't count on encountering a spirited opposition, because you never considered that there just might be another side to the issue.

So, the next time you decide to initiate "a good knock down, drag-out political debate" on this Board, be prepared to, well, be knocked down and dragged out.

And I'm just the sumbitch to do it.

I have no doubt that you are a good guy, Dave. But you are no better than anyone else.

There will be no "Bush/Cheney" resignation. Bush may resign. He may die in office. He may become incapacitated in some way and be unable to perform his duties in office. In any case, the vice-president will assume the office of president. That's the way it works.

Should that happen, your dream of replacing Bush will become a nightmare. Keith will snort one too many lines. Hollywood and the Hamptons will fill the mortuaries. There will be a lot of vacant real estate right here in Kensington. And I -- your congenial, lovable correspondent -- will break open the good drinkin' stuff.

But don't worry, Dave. It won't happen. "W" will be around for Fred Thompson's inauguration on January 20, 2009.

You gonna close the thread now?

[Dave M]

Roger, I never said Bush lied. I was not privy to the intelligence, I don't know what it said and I don't pretend otherwise. You can't go by anything you here in the media, whether it be from a liberal or conservative source because they both have their own axe to grind. Even an impartial media outlet will not get the facts right in most stories, I know from personal experience.

And I started this thread simply for a debate. I said in the darn headline that we have lots of conservatives here, so I fully expected conservative opinions on the issue. There are two sides to every issue, so I'm not sure how you can say I didn't epect a spirited opposition. Perhaps you should refrain from trying to tell me what I think. If you go back and look at the thread, you've done far more "preening" than I. I've only put $.02 in now and then and have barely taken a stand on anything. Only pointed out issues for debate. Tried to keep the debate focused on what I started the thread for. I didn't want it to be a Libby-only thread.

And I'm far from being a liberal. I'm more of a Libertarian myself. One can be non-liberal and still not like Bush. The man can barely put two sentences together.

When have I said that I'm better than anybody else? You're getting awful personal in your attacks, Roger. Putting words into people's mouths. I'd be far more willing to listen to your opinions (they seem informed) if you kept the personal attacks to yourself.

I, and any other moderator, should keep the thread open as long as personal attacks are kept out of the debate, as I stated in the first post. This should be an exchange of opinion and fact, done in a civil manner.

I've not had time to look at your 23 reasons, but if I get to it I'll let you know what I think.

[Dave M]

Here's an interesting video:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...f-bush-cheney/


*Disclaimer* The opinions expressed on this video are the opinions solely of those in the video and not neccessarily the views of Dave M or f-body.com

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Here's an interesting video:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...f-bush-cheney/


*Disclaimer* The opinions expressed on this video are the opinions solely of those in the video and not neccessarily the views of Dave M or f-body.com

Just a couple of partisan hacks. They are the type of people I was talking about that we don't need. They are more interested in punishing Bush than doing what we need to do like talk about the good things going on in Iraq. Just imagine how much better it would be for our soldiers if everybody talked about the good things in Iraq. Lets talk about how much better it is for the Iraqis now that they have electricity, toilets, internet, not being ground up in a meat grinder. If everybody supported what is going on in Iraq other countries would want to come in and help because they would want credit for the good work too. That would put more pressure on the bad guys and end this thing a lot sooner and save a lot of our soldiers lives as well as Iraqis lives.

[Dave M]

Just a couple of partisan hacks. They are the type of people I was talking about that we don't need. They are more interested in punishing Bush than doing what we need to do like talk about the good things going on in Iraq.

Bruce Fein (one of the "partisan hacks" in the video) is a conservative constitutional attorney and international lawyer with Bruce Fein & Associates and The Lichfield Group. He served as associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan and was a member of the ABA Task Force on presidential signing statements. He supported the impeachment of Clinton. In fact, he wrote the first articles of impeachment against Clinton. Sounds like a conservative hack to me. Perhaps he's someone who just wants to see the law and Constitution followed no matter who is in the White House.


Here is a piece he wrote before the last elections:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...0610.fein.html

Here is the transcript of the entire conversation that was captured in the short video above:

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/20...tml&frame=true

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Bruce Fein (one of the "partisan hacks" in the video) is a conservative constitutional attorney and international lawyer with Bruce Fein & Associates and The Lichfield Group. He served as associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan and was a member of the ABA Task Force on presidential signing statements. He supported the impeachment of Clinton. In fact, he wrote the first articles of impeachment against Clinton. Sounds like a conservative hack to me. Perhaps he's someone who just wants to see the law and Constitution followed no matter who is in the White House.


Here is a piece he wrote before the last elections:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...0610.fein.html

Here is the transcript of the entire conversation that was captured in the short video above:

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/20...tml&frame=true

He is just stating what can be done according to the constitution but by what he says he does not sound like a Bush supporter. He sounds more like he doesn't support the war. A RINO at best. besides what difference does it make for a president to be impeached? Did it make Clinton leave office? No. I don't really see that impeaching a president means anything. So the constitution has no teeth there.

[Joshu]

On yahoo's main page:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070716...aqunrestunicef

[Jeff_in_Atl]

On yahoo's main page:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070716...aqunrestunicef

Interesting. It sounds like the writer can't make up his mind. For example,
"Conditions for children in Iraq ..." (children in Iraq)
"Children who have had to flee Iraq -- and millions have fled -- are much worse off than a year ago..." (children not in Iraq)
"Toole said there were signs that the health and nutrition for Iraqi children" (children in Iraq)
He can't make up his mind who he is talking about.

It's funny last weekend I was reading an article by a CNN reporter of all things about how much better the conditions were for Iraqis. I think the conditions in Iraq vary greatly depending on where you are in Iraq. When you read all of these article, good and bad, they don't specify where they are in the country and generalize it to say the condition in Iraq. So the readers need to take that into consideration when reading all of the articles.

[MDMike]

personal

... I started this thread simply for a debate. I said in the darn headline that we have lots of conservatives here, so I fully expected conservative opinions on the issue. There are two sides to every issue, so I'm not sure how you can say I didn't expect a spirited opposition. Perhaps you should refrain from trying to tell me what I think. If you go back and look at the thread, you've done far more "preening" than I. .... I didn't want it to be a Libby-only thread.
And I'm far from being a liberal. I'm more of a Libertarian myself. One can be non-liberal and still not like Bush. The man can barely put two sentences together.
When have I said that I'm better than anybody else? You're getting awful personal in your attacks, Roger. Putting words into people's mouths. I'd be far more willing to listen to your opinions (they seem informed) if you kept the personal attacks to yourself.
I, and any other moderator, should keep the thread open as long as personal attacks are kept out of the debate, as I stated in the first post. This should be an exchange of opinion and fact, done in a civil manner.
...

Erudite, and generous. Congrats on yr restraint. And that the thread is still open...

I am surprised how patronizing and personal many of the replies have been. I feel bad for everybody, but it is a polarizing issue. If I was part of the cause, I regret it.
While it is great we could discuss this, it is good you expected some of this, yet it appears you fellas go way back...
The original idea behind ponycars was to be passionate about something you loved, and do it in a way that spoke volumes about yourself. I guess it carries over into our politics.
Take it easy, Roger. Remember we are on your side...