Actually, it is.
Ann Coulter's book "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" gives a thorough exposition
of the history of impeachment as a tool for removing corrupt public officials,
and shows convincingly that it was intended from the beginning, and has
historically been used, for just that purpose: removing officials whose
immoral or unethical behavior demonstrates that they are unworthy of public
office or trust.
In any event, Clinton was *not* impeached for "lying about sex". He was
impeached for having committed the _felony_crime_ of lying while _under_oath_.
The subject of the lie was not relevant to the bill of impeachment.
Fine -- then let's impeach all the Democrats that said _exactly_ the same
things about Saddam and Iraq that GWB said. If he was lying, so were they.
See <http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php for examples.
FWIW, the war has killed fewer people -- on both sides -- than typically died
in Saddam's prisons and torture chambers in an equivalent period of time.
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.
There's a difference between lying, and working on the best available
intelligence. Even your boys Clinton and Kerry thought that the WMDs were
there, remember? Even Kerry says he would also have gone in to Iraq.
At least Bush sticks to his argument, instead of waffling on both sides
of the issue trying to play both sides.
I'll go along with you there Dave, although I think Bush was more than
willing to accept intelligence that the rest of the world thought was
wrong, including the inspectors on the scene.
But the "lying" that got to me was his inability to say "9/11" or
"terrorism" without saying "Iraq" or "Saddam" in close proximity.
No, he never said directly that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. In fact,
at one time he said they were not. But he implied it with that
proximity so many times that over half the American public (according to
surveys) believed him.
Strictly speaking, not a lie. But I've seen tornadoes with less "spin"
Once again, let me point out that I've voted for Republican presidential
candidates about as often as Democrats. And Kerry is just one more
lying politician whose only redeeming virtue is that he's not Bush.
It's Bush and his gang that scare me, not Republicans in general.
Well, when you say "the rest of the world thought was wrong", how does
that reconcile with all of the UN resolutions that even the UN agreed
he (hussein) was violating?
Seems to be a lot of Al Queda in that part of the world these days?
I didn't see him making that statement at the time, I saw him saying
"SH says he's got a bunch of nasties, and the UN and I and our allies
are inclined to believe him".
And strictly speaking, Clinton's perpetual lies about the Brady Law
"stopping 300,000 felons" couldn't be interpreted as anything _but_
complete and utter lies. He counted any person who was initially
denied a firearm purchase as a "felon who was stopped", when in
reality nearly every one of them was someone with the same name,
who was later allowed to buy the gun they were trying to buy. In
all, exactly six people were prosecuted for trying to illegally
buy a gun. Now, _that_ is spin.
I think Kerry is cut from the same cloth as Clinton was.
Basically agree, but what really bothers me is Bush's brain, Carl Roe and
the war hawks at the pentagon who seem to be running helter skelter with
absolutely no oversite.
These people are real trouble and Bush seems unwilling or incapable of
handling the situation.
S/A: Challenge, The Bullet Proof Boat, (Under Construction in the Southland)
Realizing that there is no way to overcome the visceral hatred of Bush,
but it seems that the idea of taking the war to the terrorists rather than
waiting around and letting the ACLU prevent any types of police actions
that might "profile" or "inconvenience" or "limit the rights of" potential
terrorists while they plan their next attack on us seems like a pretty good
idea and a practical course of action.
Also appears that Vlad Putin is signing up for this approach as well in
light of recent events. Kind of some interesting irony, here in the US, we
have rallys and protests objecting to and decrying the war. In Russia,
they have rallys and protests demanding action to deal with the terrorists
who targeted women and children.
Once again, I agree. I supported the war in Afghanistan (which is still
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.
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
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.
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?
The same one who tried to assassinate one of our presidents and shoot down
our pilots. For me, there should be a simple policy. If you are caught
trying to assissinate our president, we reserve the right to remove your
I've never seen anything more than claims about the assassination attempt.
As for trying to shoot down our planes, they were in Iraqi airspace. What
would we do about unauthorized foreign fighter aircraft in our airspace?
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.