Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

[Dave Hinz]

Last I checked, Gulf War 1 never ended, it was just a cease fire. No? Hell, technically we could re-start Korea without a declaration, as that one also isn't over.

[Dave Hinz]

Entrapment my ass. Clinton is physically unable to tell the truth, he lies habitually and continuously. He alone is responsible for taking an oath to tell the truth and deciding that, once again, he would lie. That is nobody's fault but his own.

Long as you don't stain it, we'll get along relatively well.

Dave Hinz

[jo4hn]

There was no declaration of war in Korea either. Remember the term "police action". j4

[Larry Blanchard]

Once again, I agree. I supported the war in Afghanistan (which is still going on).

But Bush et al have yet to convince me that Iraq had anything to do with terrorism except for supporting the Palestinians attacks on Israel. And all the Arab states do that.

[James T. Kirby]

Oh heavens no, I wouldn't do that :^)

JK

[NoOne N Particular]

So where did the 9/11 terrorists train? Maybe in some of the Al-Queda training camps located in Iraq? At least one of the Al-Queda training camps in Iraq even had an aircraft fuselage used for terrorist training. Since the camps were there, you know that Saddam knew about them and most likely help fund them. He may not have participated DIRECTLY in 9/11, but he certainly was helping Al-Queda.

In the case of John Kerry, his not being Bush is not a redeeming virtue. There are worse things than being Bush (granted not many) and Kerry is one of them.

I am more afraid of Kerry. Questionable military service aside, what he wants the American people to believe he stands for is just 180 degrees out from his near 20 year record in the Senate. I just cannot believe that he has "seen the light" on nearly every issue before this country today. A few issues maybe, but not a complete and total metamorphosis. I think more Americans would die at the hands of terrorists under his leadership. I also think more American soldiers would die at the hands of UN command under his leadership. His socialized healthcare alone would cost the American taxpayers trillions of dollars, and how would he pay for it? He would have no choice but to raise taxes on the very people that he says he will provide relief for. We would probably see some new taxes come in, and some increased, most notably gasoline taxes.

Syria. But even without them, how could freedom loving people such as us let a tyrant such as Saddam keep murdering a man every 30 minutes, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, for over 20 years? And that is not including the torture of countless more. All that simply because he could. We should have cleaned up this mistake long ago.

[J. Clarke]

But that was a _UN_ police action and thus all right. Of course the UN didn't finish _that_ job either.

[Larry Blanchard]

Nice troll :-). Or are you seriously suggesting we go to war with every country controlled by a ruthless dictator? There's a lot of them :-).

[Larry Blanchard]

Yeah. I've often wondered what would have happened if he'd just said "As long as I'm not screwing children or animals, my sex life is none of your $#@&! business. And I'm not sure animals should concern you."

But that would be too straightforward for a politician :-).

Witness Rumsfeldt the other day. The interviewer quoted him as saying something and he denied ever saying it - twice. Then they played the tape of him saying it - word for word :-). All he had to do was say "Yes, I said that, but I've since found out I was wrong".

Once again, truth is too simple for a politician.

[Rudy]

do to some political NG

[CW]

[James T. Kirby]

There ya go. The guy clearly has to go! (But he proved that a long time ago).

Clearly, Clinton should have just said "none of your business". What a tactical error. But, in extension, if Ken Starr's real motive were to simply ferret out actual legal violations and such, he shouldn't have asked the question in the first place, because it, indeed, was none of his business. But, then, uncovering wrongdoing was never the agenda.

[Swingman]

In politics, and most anything to do with lawyers and/or government bureaucracy, it rarely is ... and that's exactly what we've come to expect from those quarters.

It is, however, an indictment of the times that the media has become "proactive" along the same lines, with no end to the blind fools whom they can sway.

The reasonable doubts cast upon the authenticity of the documents which CBS based their latest anti-Bush "agenda" this past Wednesday night are a case in point.

me this would have been expected and unremarkable coming from the Kerry machine, or either side for that matter, but from those who foist themselves off as "journalists" to the American public, it unconscionable, IMO.

I am not a Republican ... I just don't like being taken for a blind fool.

[Dave Hinz]

How about we just limit it to ruthless dictators who have directly threatened us, and have shown the ability and willingness to carry through? Would that work for ya, Larry?

[Renata]

I fixed your sentence for you. I mean, really!, when discussing _questionable_ military service, ole shrub is leaps and bounds ahead of poor ole kerry. and more keeps coming outta the woodwork (hey! got in a OWWR).

in fact, on a related note to impeachable, isn't not following a direct order during a time of war, treason (the ole skipped physical was actually an ole ordered-to-report-to physical)?

Renata

-snip-

--------

-snip

[James T. Kirby]

have we gone to war with one of those recently?

[Todd Fatheree]

Man, I can't wait for this election. When Kerry loses, the left in this country is going to have their heads spinning right off their bodies! But nice way to try to confuse the issue. I'm not a military man, but I don't believe that not following a direct order, if that's what actually happened, would be considered treason. Perhaps insubordination. In fact, there are times when you should not follow a direct order. Say, for instance, that your superiors order you to establish a free-fire zone in an area with civilians. That is contrary to the Geneva convention and you have the duty to refuse the follow an illegal order. "I was just following orders" doesn't quite cut it.

todd

[Dave Hinz]

Gee, let's see. Um, yes. The lesson here should be "If you say that you're gonna do bad things to us, and we know that you have/had WMD because we bloody well _sold_ 'em to you, then it's a really bad idea to fsck with us because we'll take you seriously and take you out".

Why is it that people keep forgetting about Libya?

[Doug Miller]

OK, first off, the evidence is mounting that the documents purporting to show that GWB allegedly violated a direct order, are -- forgeries, and clumsy ones at that.

Second, only conduct occurring _during_ one's term of office is impeachable. Anything that took place prior to that is not.

Third, disobeying a direct order is insubordination, but in no wise can it be construed as treason. The Constitution is _quite_ clear on what treason consists of: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." [Article 3, Section 3]

Finally... it ill-behooves any Kerry supporter to suggest that GWB may be guilty of treason, when Kerry's conduct after returning home from Viet Nam approaches far closer to "adhering to [our] enemies, giving them aid and comfort" than anything that George Bush ever did.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[CW]

And who would that be?