andrphilip

The first and foremost duty of the president of the United States is to act as Commander-in-Chief and insure national security. While I personally believe that Iraq was not a threat to the national security of the U.S at the time we invaded in 2003, it must be acknowledged that if there was a real threat then not to act would have been more of an impeachable offense.

alias

These crybabies forget that the democrat leadership was saying the same thing Bush was before Bush was president. You will not see one response to this. Watch.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e 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 Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

andrphilip

What is the definition of peace? Is peace merely the lack of war between two sovereign nations? Personally, I abhor war. But was there peace for the Kurds and others suffering mass persecution under Saddam Hussein? Was there peace for the Khmer people in Cambodia terrorized by Pol Pot? Was there peace for the Jews suffering under Nazi Germany?

alias

Peace is achieved when good defeats evil.

Katczinsky

I voted 'no' in this poll.

Whether impeachment is possible/will happen is completely different than my views on whether Bush should be impeached.

The Republicans obviously won't impeach Bush (and the moderate ones that are criticizing Bush aren't discontent with him enough to actually want to impeach). The Democrats are more interested in winning elections than justice. They're too afraid to be typecast as radical (even though impeachment would actually be a thing even real moderates are calling for).

So in short, the Republicans are yes-men and the Democrats are spineless (apparently, even in power). Nothing new here.

You can sleep at night, Alias, there will be no impeachment.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

hevusa

__________________
--- help me Instant Runoff Voting, you're my only hope ---

"There is no such thing as laziness. Laziness is only lack of incentive." Norman Reider, MD

Morality is not contingent on religion to exist. Therefore religion only detracts from the purity of morality.

Jefferson

This IS very interesting, isn't it?

They'll SAY it's because there was no election fraud.

We KNOW that it's because when the Democrats lose, they can't imagine they lost - they're such frickin' crybabies. They HAD to have been cheated! There HAD to be fraud! They cannot just admit that they lost the election.

...And we want these pussies in control of Congress?

Jefferson

No you won't.

See above post.

You're the poster-child for what is described there.

greyfox

I think the Dems will spend a lot of time and effort in vindictive persuits. The press will begin to tell us what is going great in the economy, the war and any
other area they have been spinning in a negative way. The terrorist may lay low for a while but their objectives were not aimed at Bush as we shall see in
time. The , "everything is rosy crowd" will not awaken from their slumber for
a long lomg time, "can't we just get along?" We will attempt to negotiate with the terrorist extremists and they will suck us in but their long term objectives will remain, "death to the infidel"

I have little to fear from all of this since I am 80 years of age but my grandchildren will certainly inherit the ravages of islamic extremism.

Good luck to; Nancy Pelosi, Hillory Clinton, John Kerry and the rest of the Democrats who want to show us how it should be done. More tax increases, more illegals, more wasteful welfare programs, and more power
to the Democrats.

Jefferson

Actually, I'm not too sure about that. Perhaps it's more honest to say that I HOPE they're not that stupid.

IF they have any brains at all, they'll get to work on issues that matter. That will almost insure a DNC White House in 2008.

IF, on the other hand, they prove to be the bone-heads they almost always are, they'll pursue vindictive, petty crap, and will be voted out of both Congress AND the White House in 2008.


The Democrats have ALWAYS had the media on their side. Now that they have control of Congress, they'll need to put up some good stuff - and they'll need to do it fast.

It's going to be VERY interesting to see what happens!