100,000 +++ dead in Iraq
1000's dead from Katrina
Illegal spying on American citazens
Kidnapping and torture of alleged terrorists
Abu Grahib, Enron, Cheney, Rumsfeld,false WMD reports, naming of C.I.A. agents, letting bin laden family members leave the U.S., endorsing outsourcing,media consolidation,Under-funding No Child Left Behind,Abandoning the Kyoto Treaty,
but heaven forbid you shag some intern
Bush needs to GO NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
All for, say, Aye
2006-09-19
06:14:57
·
20 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
P.S.
Leogirl.....how am I a liar?
and how am I supporting terrorists?
2006-09-19
06:20:10 ·
update #1
God has forsaken us, and Satan rules supreme.
2006-09-19 06:18:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
Aye...BUT, Clinton was brought to trial for lying to a grand jury, NOT for shagging an intern. Katrina deaths should be put on the tab of local governments and State governments who squandered tax money away from levee repair work to pay "political bills" and took three days to ask for help when it was clear they needed it earlier all because they didn't want to ask a republican for help? I blame all those that were told to evacuate and didn't (most of those who died were warned but chose to stay). Can you really blame Bush for not using US troops to forcibly remove people from their homes? Kenith Lay had a incredible access to the white house even invited onto Air Force One....under Clinton. Bush has never endorded out sourcing and by not signing the Kyoto Treaty proved it. The Kyoto Treaty requires the US to make many changes (you think gas prices are high now, what do you think the Kyoto Traety would have done them?) yet requires China and India to do nothing. As Bush stated (and is a fact) this would have put the US on an uneven playing field and would have caused the out sourcing of jobs to those countries that could run cheaper because they are not bound to the pollution standards of the Treaty. Bin Laden's family could not have been held any more than you can hold a child molester's sister.
Democrats blocked the additional funding for "no child left behind" because they want it to fail so it can be an issue in November.
That leaves us with really two events. The illegal spying on Americans and the War in Iraq.
I would sum it up as one issue, "Using the war on terror as an excuse for illegally attacking a souvereign nation and illegaly over stepping the bounderies of the executive branch."
He lied to congress and the American people to start the war in Iraq. Covered it up by leaking the name of a CIA agent and countless doctered reports to congress. ( Both CIA and UN reports).
To end (and sorry about the length). If you can be put to trial for lying about your involvement in a real estate scheme and then about an affair then you should be put to trial for lying to congress to start a war.
Again I say AYE!!!!!!
2006-09-19 06:41:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by mymadsky 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
100,000 +++ dead in Iraq (of which 98,000 were killed by muslims)
1000's dead from Katrina (not his fault)
Illegal spying on American citazens (just like Clinton)
Kidnapping and torture of alleged terrorists (terrorists do not deserve rights)
Abu Grahib (childs play)
Enron (not his fault)
Cheney (a smart VP)
Rumsfeld (a good man)
false WMD reports (that depends on what the meaning of 'false' is)
naming of C.I.A. agents (just who did that then)
letting bin laden family members leave the U.S. (Billy C let bin laden escape, several times)
endorsing outsourcing (when?)
media consolidation (the media still is overhelmingly democrat)
Under-funding No Child Left Behind (he should have vetoed it)
Abandoning the Kyoto Treaty (he didn't do, we never signed up in the first place and rightfully so, Kyoto is a wealth redistribution scam and will not do anything good for the environment, and besides: climate change is a natural phenomenon).
**************************
Clinton:
-sold national security secrets to China in exchange for campaign money
-let 1 million Ruandans be slaughtered because he couldn't be seen doing something about it
-allowed Elian Gonzales to be kidnapped and sent back to tyrannical Cuba
-orderd massacre at Waco
-gutted the military
-forbade CIA and FBI from sharing intelligence (known as the 'Gorelick wall', after deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick)
-did nothing while companies like Worldcom and Enron were cooking the books
2006-09-19 06:21:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by marceldev29 4
·
3⤊
2⤋
IF those were impeachable offences, don't you think the Democrats in Congress should have been pushing for impeachment? Even if the lost it would give them back the moral high ground they lost when they didn't oust Clinton.
IF Democrats in Congress thought they could make hay by pushing impeachment they would be doing it already. They aren't doing anything that even remotely looks like that. When Feingold wanted censure, the rest of the Democrats treated him like he had leporsy.
IF I were an ardent Democrat (instead of Independant) and thought like you do I'd be pushing hard against ALL incumbents not just the Republicans.
IF GWB should be impeached as you propose, aren't they ALL guilty of dereliction of duty?
2006-09-19 06:31:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by namsaev 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
He must commit high crimes or misdemeanors or malfeasance or nonfeasance. The articles of impeachments will never be brought up in a republican controlled Senate, making an impeachment trial in the house impossible. Just a few constitutional facts that you should be aware of.
2006-09-19 06:26:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
WOW! I was unaware that mankind could control the weather!!! When did this breakthrough occur? You are a DUMBASS!!! Do you even know how many Americans died in WWI or WWII? Maybe you should do some research before you say stupid stuff!!! And by the way, we didn't kidnap any terrorists, we placed the under arrest! I am going to guess that you didn't get off your FAT *** and vote this past election. You should try voting because then you could have gotten a new president!
2006-09-19 06:25:40
·
answer #6
·
answered by lacey 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Hi,
You can download House of the Dead III for free here: http://bit.ly/1ohgoox
The graphics of this version are good with regular light effects and detailed scenarios with hidden items. If you shoot to the furniture, you will find in the different stages how to get more lives and other extras.
I love it!
2014-08-25 11:52:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
In order to be impeached, Bush and the GOP need to lose control of at least one house of Congress is November.
And, I supported impeachment of Bill Clinton, not because of his sexual idiocy, but becuse he lacked the moral courage to tell us the truth.
A true American Tragedy: a moral coward (clinton) followed by a cowardly imbecille (Bush)
2006-09-19 06:21:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by Chuck N 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Do something illegal and be convicted of it.Basically the same thing you would have to do to get thrown in jail. Just because Barbara Boxer says you are a child molester, should you be thrown in jail?
2006-09-19 06:26:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
you are supporting terrorist by not realizing what needs to be done to stop them . your only debateable thing here is the wiretapping which helps to stop terrorist before they attack , but i agree it is an issue that needs to be addressed . as far as katrina goes bush has no control over the weather and there was plenty of warning for those people to get out , i believe it was 4 days but 3 for sure , and of course the rescues are locally controlled .
2006-09-19 06:30:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
No. There is no requirement that any criminal be brought to trial. We can choose to just let people continually commit crimes, regardless of how much damage they do, over and over again.
There is no requirement that any criminal be brought to trial. But not doing so means we have abandoned the rule of law, and discarded the core principles that our Constitution was founded upon.
That's the choice people are facing. Respect the law, or surrender to a system where the law does not matter to those in power.
2006-09-19 06:18:41
·
answer #11
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
5⤊
3⤋