OP/ED: Kerry Wants Bush Impeached

What will you do, what the world will do if the next US president is worst than Bush? You gonna start a revolution? It will be pretty hard. Good Luck!

Originally posted by subz
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.

Kerry has never admitted he was wrong.
The only "balls" anywhere close to Mr. Kerry is when he is around his wife.
Talk about obfuscate away?
Hell, how do you think Kerry got the nickname: Flip-flop or Waffle House Kerry? :





seekerof

[edit on 17-12-2005 by Seekerof]

BTW subz...are you also trying to tell us that noone else except the present administration claimed that there were wmd in Iraq before the war started?....or that the present administration was the only one to say that Saddam was a threat to the world when the present administration was in power?.....

I am not trying to obscure anything, but you certainly want to ignore the evidence that continues to prove you wrong.

[edit on 17-12-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Kerry has never admitted he was wrong.
Talk about obfuscate away?
Hell, how do you think Kerry got the nickname: Flip-flop or Waffle House Kerry? :

It's implied if you openly and publically change your mind. You can't claim you were previously right if you then publically espouse the opposite. You dont need a PhD in pyschology to work that one out.

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW subz...are you also trying to tell us that noone else except the present administration claimed that there were wmd in Iraq before the war started?....or that the present administration was the only one to say that Saddam was a threat to the world when the present administration was in power?.....

No, but that is not the scope of this discussion. Can you even grasp the topic at hand? Do you really think the topic of this thread is "every single case presented for the case to invade Iraq"? You seriously cannot discuss every single document, from every nation, and from every individual if you seriously expect to have a meaningful discussion. If you want to create a thread of such gigantic and cosmic proportions, go for it. It will be a colosus of an undertaking and one that will yeild no usable information.

Originally posted by Muaddib
I am not trying to obscure anything, but you certainly want to ignore the evidence that continues to prove you wrong.

Im not ignoring anything, did you see me saying that the Bush administration was the ONLY one providing evidence to invade Iraq? Did you? Quote me! No, I never did. But what I am doing is staying on blasted topic and discussing the issue as it relates to "Bush being impeached". What did Bush do that would warrant his impeachment. If you've got evidence that directly exhonorates Bush, not simply claim he was not the only one (which by the way implies guilt), then post it!

[edit on 17/12/05 by subz]

to everyone who is arging if Kerry or Bush was the better choice:

Hate to break it to you, but they both sucked. The 2004 election wasn't a big one because there was major world change at stake. It was a big one because it was one moron versus another. It was interesting only insofar as seeing how many Americans would side with each moron. Even though I voted for Kerry, I didn't like him from the start. I voted for Kerry because "he wasn't Bush." That doesn't mean I liked him.

Just as Bush gets slagged constantly for making bad choices, and basing his governmental decisions on being a Christian, Kerry is quite capable of bad decisions as well, and honestly, is probably far more likely to take a stance of "I don't know" when faced with tough political issues.

As I stated in my previous response on this thread, it was like voting between Azogthoth and Cthulu. Either way, you were getting bent over. It's jut a question of which appendage was going to finish the job.

Take your pick, snake or worm?

At least, in the 2008 election, both parties will have a chance to redeem themselves.

as posted by subz
It's implied if you openly and publically change your mind. You can't claim you were wrong if you then publically espouse the opposite. You dont need a PhD in pyschology to work that one out.

Implied is relative to the user, not the reader, subz.
Do us all a favor and do not assume that your reader will assume implied's from your literal written meanings, k?






seekerof

[edit on 17-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Implied is relative to the user, not the reader, subz.
Do us all a favor and do not assume that your reader will assume implied's from your literal written meanings, k?

Im not talking about what I implied. Im saying that if some one as public as a US Senator says one thing in public, then some time later says the exact opposite it is implied that he admits he was wrong. If the converse was true and he stuck to his guns and didnt change his mind it would be implied that he thinks he was right, which is what Bush is doing. Does Bush have to say that "i was right" for us to interpret that as his stance?

implied: To involve by logical necessity

The sky is green
Wait, no the sky is blue.

The second statement implies an inaccuracy (wrong) in the first. Hard stuff...

Do us all a favour and comprehend what people write before going off half cocked.

[edit on 17/12/05 by subz]

Playing with that implied stuff still?
You talk of a man having "balls" to admit he is or was wrong, yet he obfuscates an implied "I was wrong" to prevent him from openly admitting that he was indeed wrong?

"Balls" is admitting "I was wrong" in clear and plain understandable English, and not having to hide behind implied's....

Do us all a favor and quite obfuscating for Mr. Kerry, k?
He does a fine job without any help from you.





seekerof

[edit on 17-12-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Playing with that implied stuff still?
You talk of a man having "balls" to admit he is or was wrong, yet he obfuscates an implied "I was wrong" to prevent him from openly admitting that he was indeed wrong?

"Balls" is admitting "I was wrong" in clear and plain understandable English, and not having to hide behind implied's....

Do us all a favor and quite obfuscating for Mr. Kerry, k?
He does a fine job without any help from you.

Yeah I suppose you are right. There really is only room for one cheersquad on ATSNN.

subz
Yeah I suppose you are right. There really is only room for one cheersquad on ATSNN.

Great commentary. The defense of Bush put forth by the ATS faux patriot thugs is impotent and they have nothing except "double speak" and personal attacks.
.

subz rocks. What a treat to watch you in action, friend.

This just in: Dubya and Kerry were both asked about Skull n' Bones (oligarchal freak-cult) during the last "election" and we saw the most obvious NWO reaction ever! They simply refuse to talk about it and will leave the room. Uh, hello? Who can seriously discuss these two buffoons anymore? They are ultra-rich asses that couldn't give a squat about their supporters.

It's truly funny to me to hear people debate Kerry n' Dubya's qualifications for leading America. It's like people theorizing about who'd win a fight between Edgar Bergen and Charlie Mccarthy.

Originally submitted by Subz
..............
Im not talking about what I implied. Im saying that if some one as public as a US Senator says one thing in public, then some time later says the exact opposite it is implied that he admits he was wrong.
............

That's not so subz.... When kerry flip flopped he wasn't implying that he was wrong... he is perhaps hoping that most people don't remember his previous flip flops.

Kerry didn't admit to being wrong...he is just trying to put the blame on president Bush....that's not admitting that he was wrong, that's trying to blame anyone but himself.

John Kerry (the spineless jellyfish) shouldnt be blabbing about anything.

I'd like to see someone with some credibility call for the impeachment, not this traitor/plant/liar-

quoting GradyPhilpott:

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.

uhhh - this is a non-argument. The DATA is what is being claimed to be falsified, so you just lumped Kerry in the duped category not the duper.

quoting Muaddib:

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

Only the ones that saw the data. See comments above.

quoting Seekerof:

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

He's a democrat. A democrat apparently speaking about something that is being discussed in the democratic circles. The same democratic circles who are most likely to have majority in Congress after November 2006. And that should be what concerns Bush - not Kerry, but what he just revealed.

quoting Muaddib:

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.

I didn't see subz claim that Bush was the only president to bring up WMDs. That would be my first point. But the current issues of falsified intelligence, of intentions to stack intelligence to support military action, and administrative members admitting they wanted to trash one man's life because he spoke out against false statements made by President Bush in a State of the Union address - all point to the BUSH administration.

Clinton thought the Iraqi's were noncompliant and could be hiding WMD materials. And though I believe there were some dishonest things going on concerning the U.S. inspectors on the UNSCOM inspection (i.e. I think the U.S. was trying to delay the process), Clinton did not produce false intelligence to the American people and Congress, or the Security Council, to further his desires to attack Iraq. And he did want to attack Iraq. The major difference is - he didn't cross the line and mislead the American people in order to get it done.

quoting Seekerof:

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

And this is simply not true, Seekerof. The only thing used from past administrations was a review of Saddam's noncompliance with the resolutions that required unfettered inspections and total disclosure. We didn't invade Iraq because Saddam had been a pain in the ass for 10 years. We invaded Iraq because Saddam had been a pain in the ass for 10 years and, now, look - we have satellite pictures of him having mobile laboratories, and he tried to buy yellow cake from Nigeria. You can't stick those last two on anybody but the current White House. And THAT's where the line got crossed.

I simply can't understand how anyone can become so married to a political position that they refuse to admit actions taken that shouldn't have been. The American people were misled into why Iraq needed to be invaded at this point. At this point in time when we had a very important task at hand, and that was to show a strong-willed, focused effort against organized terrorism. At a time when the American people had unified resolve against something, an administration stepped in and misused that resolve. They misused it by producing false intelligence, and stacking information to create an appearance of immediate and impending danger from Iraq when there was none.

Now I don't agree with subz but once every 6 months, so I guess we won't enjoy our same-side-of-the-fence stance again for a while, but the petty arguments being thrown at him right now are beneath most of the members doing it. You guys are twisting his words, and if you can't see that, step away from the screen for a minute and think about it.

This story is of relevance, and maybe more than you can see if you're currently walking around with blinders on, not because of WHO is quoted making this statement, but that the statement has been made. As some one who will have my heart plucked out before I'll ever be called a democrat, I can tell you I've seen this coming since Rove's comments were revealed that the White House intended to trash Wilson because he spoke out against the false information concerning Nigeria. In 2006 the democrats are most likely going to take Congress, and I have no doubt Bush is going to be in for a bumpy ride. That's the story.

I'm defining this as throwing "political bombs" at the opposition and then running away to hide and/or back peddle - especially if facts and/or public opinion seem to be against the "bomb" that was just thrown.

Watch now for Kerry and his defenders to start saying that his words were taken out of context, etc., etc.

Political terrorism is a tactic favored by Dean, Kennedy, Pelosi and sometimes Kerry and others.

Now this impeachment issue is pretty simple to me. It was done to Clinton for lying under oath. Now democrats must feverishly search for a reason or issue to return the favor. Their desperation to find something to use is shown in their willingness to give up the troops and perhaps even lose a war if it will only help them accomplish their goal of getting even.

People that think like this have this country's best interests in mind? Hardly.

[edit on 12/17/2005 by centurion1211]

quoting centurion1211:

Now this impeachment issue is pretty simple to me. It was done to Clinton for lying under oath. Now democrats must feverishly search for a reason or issue to return the favor. Their desperation to find something to use is shown in their willingness to give up the troops and perhaps even lose a war if it will only help them accomplish their goal of getting even.

You got a couple of flaws in your logic here.

1. I don't think anybody needs to get feverish in their search. It pretty much got handed to them on a silver platter.

2. "their willingness..." etc. - they haven't been in majority, what the heck are you thinking? What willingness? This is an accusation that has to have supporting evidence behind it, or just sits there like the baseless tripe it currently resembles.

I believe Dean's comment that "we can't win" is a good example of the "baseless tripe" - as you put it. Of course I mean it the other way around.

What kind of fool doesn't understand that undermining support for a war effort does not both weaken the will of your own forces and strengthen the resolve of your enemy? Thus causing more casualties (on both sides) and prolonging the conflict. Those are the effects of Dean's statement(s), and I believe that's how he meant them. Especially heinous that statements like Dean's are made for political gain, at the expense of our troops.

[edit on 12/17/2005 by centurion1211]

Well, let me show you how assinine that sounds...

Observer A - we have officials who have lied in order to get American support for a war in Iraq that has resulted in over 2000 American lives taken and a massive redirection of monies and military force away from the initial focus of fighting terrorism. But let's not bring them to accountability, or try to stop the deaths of American military personnel in this effort based on lies, because our attempts to stop a wrong, and minimize U.S. casualties might strengthen our enemy....

you know, the enemy that we didn't have before we lied and made them the enemy...yeah, that one.

Dean's an idiot, and we're not talking about him right now, are we?

First of all, I don't think Kerry was joking. That's just my personal opinion from what I've read.

Secondly, I agree with Kerry that Bush should be impeached for lying to the country about the reasons we went to war. Duh! And I think it could happen if the Democrats take back the House. I think an investigation would bring out solid evidence. Just because we don't see enough evidence to convince everyone doesn't mean it's not there. And some Bush supporters might never believe it even if he admitted it himself.

Thirdly, yes, we would still be in terrible shape under Cheney, but that's not a good reason to let the guilty go unpunished. And Cheney could be impeached the next day with the evidence brought against Bush. He's at least as guilty as Bush of misleading the country.

My point is, just because the results of an impeachment would be nasty, that's no reason to just deal with a crook in the office of President. We should do all we can to get the crooks and liars out of there. To do otherwise is just to give up on the Office and our government. It's to give up what is rightfully ours.

Those people are our employees, not our rulers. And they suck at their jobs!

By Vitchilo

You gonna start a revolution? It will be pretty hard. Good Luck!

It's our duty to do just that:

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
...
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.