OP/ED: Kerry Wants Bush Impeached

It seems these days that there are quite a few people who think that President George W. Bush should be impeached. While I'm not surprised at this, I was however surprised when I read an article that said that John Kerry wanted to impeach President Bush on the basis of his misleading the US. Is that really any reason to get rid of one president, when the next president would also probably mislead the US? It seems that during these day and ages misleading is the name of the game.



Impeaching a president is a long and arduous task. It is not a common thing for US citizens to call for an impeachment of its Commander-in-Chief. I mainly posted this article because Sen. John Kerry is backing with the US with trying to get an impeachment started. However, where would that leave us.

It would leave us in the hands of Cheney and he probably wouldn't able to handle the stress of it all. It wouldn't be too long before he would leave the office of President. Our country would still probably be ran into the ground like it is.

So the question still remains. Would an impeachment of President George W. Bush be the best thing for us or would it be worse for us?

Related News Links:
www.newsmax.com

www.commondreams.org


[edit on 12-17-2005 by Valhall]

Who is John Kerry?

just kidding really...

But I have a feeling this is just his way of making us remember that he is alive and "reporting for duty"..

Most of the things he has stated recently, make me think that he is wishing, and really wishing hard, for the US (read GWB) to fail in Iraq...bigtime.

Dear submitter,

I have reclassified your title to an op/ed so that it will have a better chance of being upgraded. (The opening has a bit more opinion in it than a normal news article, so I thought this would help.)

Please u2u me if there are any questions.

Kerry has a lot of brass to accuse Bush of misleading the country regarding the decsion to go to war with Iraq, when he reviewed the same data and came to the same conclusion and there is plenty of documentation to prove it.

Grady is right. Kerry, and many other Democrats, reacfhed the same conclusion including before president Bush was in office and during president Clinton's office, they all said the same thing.

Kerry is just playing the political game, trying to place all the blame on his oponents.... It tells you what kind of man Kerry is... He was part of the decision, yet now claims it was all just because of president Bush.

This is nothing more then political rhotic for Impeachment to have any creditablity there would have to be evidence that someone stated that the intel was faulty before Gulf war 2.

Impeachment hearing could cause trouble for the dems given that some members of the party voted for the war. The dems would be better find a candiate who can take back the whitehouse and get behind him/her.

so both of them deserved to be impeached

Really? then all the leaders of the world should be impeached because all of them believed that Saddam had wmd....

Are you going to be the new leader of the world CIA?.....

[edit on 16-12-2005 by Muaddib]

From what I hear, Kerry claims he was joking all the time (after his comments became public).

Whatever, the guy's a total idiot. I can't believe anyone voted for him. Bush is a genius comparatively.

Who is John Kerry that Bush should be concerned about him?





seekerof

Well, he did get just about half the votes in the last election. He may not have as much "political" power as Bush, but a lot of people still listen to him. It's almost as if he wants this so called divided country to exist.

Please define alot of people.
He is a has been, a forgotten memory.
Mrs. Hillary Clinton is the rage.
Btw, I like Heinz ketchup.





seekerof

Uhm, the evidence presented to congress for the likes of Kerry to base their decisions on came from tainted sources. Namely the CIA, in which Dick Cheney had had his grubby little mitts in concocting false documents. Just because Congress believed these false documents and accusations doesn't convey the same guilt onto congress as should be levelled at those who created said false documents. Gees, you guys are good i'll give you that.

[edit on 17/12/05 by subz]

No subz...you are good....when you are trying once again to claim that the wmd issue was only brought up by president Bush...when the facts prove otherwise....but nice try anyways...

Perhaps you do so because you think people have long term memory problems and forget what happened, and what was said about wmd before the Bush administration was in office.



[edit on 17-12-2005 by Muaddib]

So President Bush didn't provide any information to congress relating to Iraqi WMDs? And Vice President Cheney didn't make a record amount of visits to Langley for any President or Vice President in history during the build up to the Iraq invasion?

I also never mentioned Bush, only those who created the false documents. Funny how you would jump to that conclusion on your own. I was talking about the source of where the dodgy information came from as it related to the Bush administration. If you want to cast the net to include every single aspect of the 'cause for war', knock yourself out. You can quote till your fingers go numb, I wont stop you or bother reading it.

When a criminal case begins, the court does not accept every other known instance of similar crimes as evidence does it? Why is this any different? Unless of course your aim is to muddy the waters enough so that nothing gets done and nothing is uncovered.

Obfuscate away~

[edit on 17/12/05 by subz]

...and the main basis of the WMD evidences used and provided to Congress was from two prior presidential administrations...

:shk:
But hey, I like the motto of the past few years: Its Bush's fault.
Its catchy....







seekerof

[edit on 17-12-2005 by Seekerof]

So was president Bush and Cheney the only people to claim that Saddam had WMD and that Saddam was a threat to the world, including the US?....

Yes subz...obfuscate away...

There are many things that the current adminstration should be ousted for, however, I'm not sure that an impeachment is in our best interests, as it would leave us with Cheney, who, frankly, scares me ten times as much as Bush. If people are really so interested in ousting the current government, someone needs to start a rebellion (after all, it is one of our rights as Americans). Personally, I'm pretty happy with the notion that Bush won't be able to be re-elected. Next election is a new race for both parties.

Admittedly, I did vote for Kerry, but that was only because Bush had screwed up so horribly during his first term that I felt I'd vote for the only one that had a chance of beating Bush, instead of the third party candidate I really believed in. I just wanted Bush out. In hindsight, it wasn't necesarilly the best choice for me to make, but regardless, even if I voted for the third-party candidate, we still have Bush as President.

As much as I want to see Bush out of office, there's still really no point in an impeachment (much like there was no point in Clinton's impeachment), as the result will either leave us with Bush until 2008 or Cheney until 2008.

Would you rather have Azogthoth or Cthulu? Both choices are bad. Take the lesser of the evils. At least with a moron being the mouthpiece, he can still screw up and not accomplish as much as the puppetters want to accomplish. Cheney is the one that really scares me, as his politics are identical to Bush's, but he's got one hell of a brain to back it up. You think it's bad now?

(Edit for spelling)

[edit on 17-12-2005 by obsidian468]

Originally posted by Seekerof
...and the main basis of the WMD evidences used and provided to Congress was from two prior presidential administrations...


But hey, I like the motto of the past few years: Its Bush's fault.

Doesn't stop the anti-Kerry folk blaming him for agreeing with the same dodgy info then having the balls to admit he was wrong. Swings and roundabouts.

Originally posted by Muaddib
So was president Bush and Cheney the only people to claim that Saddam had WMD and that Saddam was a threat to the world, including the US?....

Yes subz...obfuscate away...

No but thats who we're talking about here. We're not talking about impeaching President Putin are we? I know some times the concept of staying on topic is alien to you...

Trying to use the stance that "they werent the only ones" as some kind of defence is really not viable. So you're whole argument to the contrary of my opinion is not rooted in any contradicting evidence. It's solely a case of "well they weren't the only ones". Can we expect to see "Peer Pressure" being used as a defence in any future Bush impeachment trial?

[edit on 17/12/05 by subz]