When discussing Richard Clarke's book when it first hit the news Ted Koppel put it best in regard to the attacks, often personal being made against Mr. Clarke. Koppel said the point of any news investigation should be to get at the truth. Koppel went on to say that even before Clarke we already knew the truth. "The truth had been coming out in drips and drabs from sources like O'Neal and others". The truth, to quote Koppel is "it's not so much that Bush and his administration ignored terrorism before 911. It's that Bush and his administration obsessed over Iraq to the detriment of all else."
So all the Downing Street memo does is confirm from yet another source what Bush's actions, the facts and several other sources have been screaming at us for years. Namely that Bush lied and over 100,000 people have died.
Now those are the facts. Now if Bush's lies are as serious as lying about a BJ and deserve impeachment is a test for our people, press and national honor.
2006-07-21 16:27:35 · 12 answers · asked by tough as hell 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
In a book on Japanese Society & Politics it has been argued that the Super Patriot is actually one of a societies strongest critics by nature. On the other hand the idea of a Republican Congress putting a Republican President up for impeachment is quite the fantasy!
2006-07-21 16:39:50 · answer #1 · answered by namazanyc 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Tough as hell huh,I don't think so.Stupid as hell, yea.So if Ted Koppel says so, it must be historical fact? You can argue back and forth on many points.CIA,British intelligence,Bill Clinton,John Kerry and MANY others believed Saddam had WMD's.He did,since 2003 our military has found 500,you'll say "yea but they were degraded".You are correct,but they could still be used lethally.If you don't believe that,let's bury them in your backyard. Read H.J. RES.114,there are MANY reasons why we invaded Iraq,not just WMD.Check your facts,there have been 40,000 civilian deaths in Iraq,the majority killed by terrorists or other Iraqi's.Did you know between1991-2002 Saddam killed 350,000 of his own people,some with biological weapons.If you were really concerned for people being killed,then for humanitarian reasons, you should be glad for our actions.President Bush did not lie.THESE are FACTS,sorry to burst your bubble.
2006-07-21 17:20:04 · answer #2 · answered by Kennyp 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Funny that Richard Clarke was the lead point-man in the White house as it regarded the Al-Qaeda terrorists and even he said that the possibility of them being able to pull off some major operation on US soil was remote at best. There are many memos that came from him that directly contradict what he said later on. Guess he is just bitter coz he got fired for not doing his job, huh?
Wow. Was he wrong...
But it is okay for him to be wrong and the President to be a liar, is that it?
Revisionist history is always more rosy in hindsight, isn't it now?
2006-07-21 16:36:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess when you speak of Pres. Bush lying, you are referring to weapons of mass dist ruction. I guess you haven't heard about the five hundred missiles filled with Sarin and Mustard gas which were discovered in Iraq. This was all after Saddam Insane said that he had destroyed all of them. Pres. Bush did not have to disclose this info. to the American people. He did what was and is in the best interest of this country. You don't defeat terrorists by waiting for them to come to you, you take the fight to them. Hoo-rah!
2006-07-21 17:16:55 · answer #4 · answered by Six_Pack_Abs_Steve 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, but do we really want Chaney running the show?
I think Bush is safe. People are afraid, and are being kept that way. Anybody who questions policy is accused of being unpatriotic. It's effective, and has worked in the past.
2006-07-21 16:47:04 · answer #5 · answered by Rockvillerich 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Will the man or women that has never lied step forward and take the job of president. If know one steps forward, then let those with one or two lies come to ( tough as hell ) and he will judge you, for the position. Ps. - BJ's are OK.
2006-07-21 16:44:47 · answer #6 · answered by JUNK MAN 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There will be no impeachment because he didn't lie under oath. Also, the Senate is under Repub control and will not impeach a Repub pres. Vote Dem. in Nov.
2006-07-21 16:32:33 · answer #7 · answered by notyou311 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think impeachment will move forward after the November elections, the articles of impeachment have merit.
2006-07-21 16:38:38 · answer #8 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a double standard when it comes to the Republicans in office . It's do as I say , not as I do .
2006-07-21 16:39:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Remember this the truth will set you free!!
2006-07-21 16:34:52 · answer #10 · answered by the patriot 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋