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

Page 9 of 13  
Mark & Juanita wrote:

that Mr. Kerry is the waffle king. I hope nobody interpreted my comments as being in support of flip-flop John.
Glen
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, if I left you with the wrong impression. I did not think that you were supporting JK, I was simply reinforcing your sarcasm.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, Kerry did not vote to approve the war. The Congress did not declare war. That's like saying that a law thar permits police officers to carry guns is approval of every shooting by a police officer.
The authorization to use force was a reasonable and necessary Act to force Iraq to comply with the UNMOVIC inspection program. Iraq did comply with the UNMOVC inspection program. The IAEA certified that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program. UNMOVIC was in the process of verifying that Iraq had no chemical or biological weapons or program for them, when we invaded.
The Authorization to use force and the subsequent UNMOVIC inspections assured that Iraq would not and could not use WMDs against its neighbors or even its own people. Thus the invasion was unecessary for those purposed. There were other motives and other justifications for the invasion.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

So although he did vote in favor of that authorization, you're saying he did not vote to approve the war. Right?
You sure you're not a sock puppet for Sen. Kerry?
-- 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in message (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

What I said was quite clear the first time.

Quite sure.
I'm also sure that Bush IS a sock puppet for Cheney.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I tend not to agree with to much you say but sure can't fault you on this one. You are seeing this situation strait.
did not vote to approve the war. The Congress did not

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No offense intended, but the quote above and the rest of this post is a complete load of crap, sorry, and is exactly the kind of obfuscation that is going to lose the election for Kerry. Kerry and practically everybody else gave the president the authority to act. The rest is splitting hairs and political maneuvering. Anybody who is really watching can see that Kerry's position on the war is complely, exclusively driven by the polls.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No and that is what you fail to understand. The THREAT of war was neccessary to force Iraq to comply with the UN bans on proscribed weapons and to cooperate with UNMOVIC. Had Iraq NOT cooperated then an invasion may have been necessary. But Iraq did cooperate. Irag did comply. Anybody who was actually following the news during that time knows this.
The THREAT of war was successful in achieving those goals and thus eliminated the need for war.
I agree that Kerry's position is driven by the polls. But that does not change the fact that Kerry and the Congress authorized the use of force but did not MANDATE the use force. Nor does it change the fact that Iraq cooperated with UNMOVIC. Nor does it change the fact that the invasion was not necessary. That is NOT splitting hairs, that is paying attention to the facts as they developed.
I am not speaking for Kerry, he didn't approve this article.
Someone who was paying attention knows that the Blair administration was caught fasifying reports by changing the dates on plagiarized materials and rereleasing them as new material. The Bush adminstration was caught submitting forged (though not forged by the Bush administion, just like those memo weren't forged by CBS) documents to the IAEA.
The evidence of dishonesty on the part of the Bush and Blair administrations is undeniable, the motive is clear. There is no doubt that the US sabotoged the UNMOVIC inspections by feeding false information to the inspectors. Though there may be some doubt as to how much of it was false, the evidence that the Bush adminstration falsified its case for the invasion is far stronger than any case that can be made for Iraq hiding WMDs in 2003.
A police officer is authorized to draw his weapon, point it at a man breaking into a car and tell him to put his hands up. If the man complies, and the officer shoots him, is it splitting hairs to say that the officer acted wrongly?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Fred, I can't argue the point with someone who doesn't believe UNMOVIC was completely impotent. The threat of force was a complete joke. Saddam became the wealthiest man on Earth because of the UN. 12 years of threats, and during that time he amasses billions and billions. As far as falsified documents by Blair and Bush ala CBS, I'm quite sure these are in the same vein as all that proof (where is that proof again?) that Bush lied to everybody.
Thanks anyway, dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@optonline.net says... [...]

Grudging Kerry supporter that I might be, it was still great to see Rather et al take it in the shorts on this issue.
- Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Crimony, you really don;t read the papers do you?
CBS has comletely backed off their claim.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

forged, they still insist that their content is accurate.
-- 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, Fred and Doug, last I heard (this morning) Dan Rather has almost come out and said he thinks the documents are true. CBS did not say they are forgeries last I heard. They said that they cannot "prove their authenticity" and so should not have run with the story. This is a far cry from admitting the use of forgeries. There's more to the story, but I didn't hear it clearly and haven't had time to check it out.
dwhite

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

I find it repulsive that an intelligent, educated person could argue that 1000's of people dying is "splitting hairs".
I came into this thread late and have read it from the beginning, and you know what? The dogmatism exhibited here is just mind bending. Those of you that think the "left" is "weak" or that the "right" is "stupid", "Bush is a liar" or "Kerry flip/flops" - you're all missing it. Instead of spending time spouting your uninformed opinions to those who neither hear nor listen, try educating yourselves on what's really going on in this country. It's not hard, it just takes a little effort. Draw your ownconclusions but please do it from an informed basis.
Have I offended anyone? I don't care. Why? Because the only real question we as citizens should be asking is: "Are we willing to send our sons and daughters to die in a far away place when we can't even agree on why they're there?"
As long as we're discussing the pros/cons of Kerry's hair style or whether Bush got a prostate exam when he was s'posed to, we're not discussing the real issues.
Now, excuse me but I have some wood to split, looks to be a long, cold and expensive winter.
(Oh, and while I'm offending people - CW, quit top posting.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@optonline.net says...

Right, and Bush is completely above any influence by the polls, obfuscation or political maneuvering. Anyone that is in a position to run for president cannot get there without being a self-serving, self absorbed (and rarely self-made) individual. The question is whether or not the person that gets elected, whether in a moment of boredom or possibly even guilt (unlikely) is ever actually capable of making a decision putting the country's interest ahead of their own. I say that if you elect a person capable of doing that 10% of the time, you have a winner - and that's the best you can expect. The tie-breaking bonus is in finding a candidate whose personal interest happen to coincide with the best interests of the country. Someday I hope to be proven wrong, but I don't think it's going to be this time around. </fatalism> :-) - Al (self-absorbed, but otherwise lacking the credentials to run for office)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't think Bush's war on terror is poll driven. It is actually potentially disastrous politically. The "hey, everybody in Washington does it" was the favorite response of Clinton supporters in the rare cases where you actually got them to think logically. I don't totally disagree with you, but there are degrees of influence. For example I can't imagine, ever, that Bush would take a poll on where he should vacation or what kind of tie he should wear.
dwhite
Anyone that is in a position to

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@optonline.net says... [...]

You give him more credit than I do. Post 9/11, an aggressive offensive on terror was essentially a mandate. Plus, I don't think he believes it is potentially disastrous politically. On top of that, having pegged Kerry as being wishy-washy, he has very little choice but to stay the course. And, tragically, I think he really believes it will pay off in the long run.
Did Clinton really poll on vacation spots and tie selection?

- Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

The risk was in his leadership to push the UN into doing the right thing with Iraq. Many politicans of Kerry's caliber would have shyed away from that responsibility. Bush has a history of tackling issues that are supposed to be "third rail" issues not to be touched.

Reportedly so, yes. That is the reason, I believe, he went to Martha's Vineyard one year. He is also famous for staging "unscripted" moments like when he placed stones in the shape of a cross while at Normandy while a hundred reporters watched. Problem is there are normally no stones on that beach.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

straighten a flag that had fallen over in one of the cemeteries. And I do remember seeing him look back over his shoulder to make sure the cameras were on before he straightened it.
John Martin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24 Sep 2004 23:45:33 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (JMartin957) wrote:

IIRC, someone actually owned up to the placement of the stones on the Normandy beach.

There was also the "tears on demand" occurence at the Ron Brown (?) funeral. He was yucking it up with several people as they were headed to a limo, then saw that cameras were on him and become stone-cold sober with a feigned tear.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.