Leaders of Vermont's Democratic Party have voted to urge Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush. The vote makes Vermont's Democratic Party committee the fifth to do so, following New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina and Wisconsin, party officials in Vermont said. So Jim, you want to defend your statement that if the Left gains power they won't try to impeach Bush? Get a clue. This is the plan....this is what you are voting for if you vote for the Left. They will allow this country to rot from within. They already have created a permanent underclass of people who rely on handouts from them, can't read, have no skills to get a job, come here illegally, and put up the Mexican flag on govt buildings... I know people like Jim do not like to admit it, they do not like to think it is because of their party millions have horrible lives and that they will always be that way. I understand. I see your mindset ruin the lives of thousands in Milwaukee alone. The best thing that could happen to the inner city is for Democrats to disappear. PERIOD. So if you don't want to fight to stop the Left from taking over....you can have 12 million new people put on welfare, complete chaos in the middle east in Iraq, higher taxes, slowing economy and impeachment of a person who has not been proven to be anything the Left says he is....
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Vermont Dems Back Bush Impeachment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Your diatribe is so without merit I hesitate to even respond. But I can't help myself. For one thing, because I do have a clue.
The states and cities can pass all the resolutions they want to impeach the president. He undoubtedly deserves it, certainly more than the previous one. But as much as you hate Democrats and love to slime them, they have no reason to have him thrown out of office. As I said before, next in line is Cheney, so what good does it do to remove him. Should the Democrats regain the majority, they will make a lame duck out of Bush if he isn't already. They can do little to change the direction of the country until 2009, but they sure as hell can make sure Bush does no more harm than he already has.
"They'll impeach our dear leader," is the rallying cry of the Republics. They know it's not true, but they want to conjure up the images of the slimeball Republics and the slimiest of slimes, Ken Starr, dragging the country through a useless excercise in trying to hobble the president.
So what they are actually saying is, "Don't let the Democrats do what we did 8 years ago." Proud of that?
If you are implying that illegal aliens represent 12 million people trying to get on welfare, then you are an uninformed bigot
Iraq already is in chaos.
The economy will have to slow when we can no longer pay back the debt that this administration is adding a half trillion dollars to each year.
You don't read newpapers or watch TV, do you? Everything the Left says about Bush is being shown to be absolutely true every day.
Get a clue!
Actually Jim, its makes a great deal of difference. Primarily, Bush is laid back and comes across as so dopey that he can get away with saying some of the crazy stuff Republicans have been getting away with for 6 years. Dick is, and accurately appears to be highly intelligent and calculating. Nobody in any range of sanity would ever believe that Cheney would be clueless of the shenanigans that assistants and such are getting busted for. With Bush, he can claim ignorance cuz, he's kind of a dope. It worked with Reagan, too. Plus, Cheney fits the visual stereotype of the conservative fat white man, a lot more than Bush. It may only be appearances, but it is vitally important that Cheney is not the figurehead of the administration.
Clinton broke the law..he lied underoath..that is a proven fact...
When did Bush lie under oath? When did he lie period...oh wait, you guys don't understand what a lie is...so forget it.
Hopefully I will not have to be right on the impeachment thing.
And just because Clinton broke the law and thr Right called him on it, that does not give anyone else the right to just do that same thing even when it is not warrented.
Well the fact is that Bush has never agreed to testify under oath. Ever wonder why? He refused to testify before Congress under oath and even refused to answer questions before the committee without Cheney by his side to make sure they got their stories straight. Ever wonder why?
I proved to you in an earlier post on this blog that Bush lied. From your "Friday Fee for All" of March 31:
Game, you are always asking for proof that Bush lied. Those of us who keep ourselves informed have known for a couple of years that Bush's claim that "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." He said this before the UN and in his 2003 State of the Union address.
However, "Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources."
The "report stated that the Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research believed that the tubes were intended for conventional weapons."
So the president stated as fact something that he knew two knowledgeable government agencies doubted.
AND furthermore, Condi Rice said, "Now, if there were any doubts about the underlying intelligence to that NIE, those doubts were not communicated to the president, to the vice president, or to me."
However, records and sources show that the doubts were related personally to Bush by Tenet, AND Rice, Cheney, and dozens of other high-level Bush administration policy makers received a highly classified intelligence assessment, known as a Senior Executive Memorandum, on the aluminum tubes issue months before Rice's lie.
They lied. He lied. He stated as fact something he knew to be in doubt. She simply stated a bald-faced lie.
You can get the details here.
And if you don't think that Bush's assertion is a lie, then you don't know what the meaning of "is" is.
He has also refused Congressional subpeonas for documents.
not, thats your boy Bill saying stuff like that...
Was that the only report the President received on the matter?
It is very hard to prove someone lied...it was easy with Bill because he said HE didn't do something and then he admitted he did...
When someone is talking about an issue that does not directly concern them...you would have to know what his intentions were, what he thought. If he told someone he knew it was a lie, or if he wrote an letter or email...then we could believe it.
I'm sure Bush got tons of reports or meetings about it.
"When someone is talking about an issue that does not directly concern them..." Does not directly concern him? Get serious! You are really grasping at straws.
That doesn't cut it, Game. There are only two possibilities here. Either Bush lied, or he is the biggest incompetent to ever serve in the White House.
Which is it?
Post a Comment