if you say w's impeachment is a waste of time, also feel the lives of US troops are worthless?

Question

thats exactly how that translates, and it makes perfect sense coming from the right

Answer 1

Impeachment, while a fine word, does not always equal the exit of the President. In the course of this matter, if achieved, the VP would be handed the mantle of leadership and things would not change in dramatic fashion like most think they would.

The Dems know this and also know that calling for it would not change the country "if" they don't also impeach the VP also. The trouble really is impeachment trials carry a heavy bill with them. No party wants to add another log of debt on the fire and the party themselves will not pick up the check so close to the next election.

But when it comes down to it, noone has spoke the words in D.C., not from the right, OR the left. Both sides are looking to 08'.


If a trial is important to you in general, you should look for that in your candidate for 08'. As for the comparison you just made goes both ways, in fact I have already read one in another blog stating if you are against W's troop surge, you feel the lives of troops are meaningless.."

These kind of sayings make the person speaking or writing them no better than the person they hate. Its inspires anger and in no way helps our troops. The bickering and finger pointing is the reason nothing will get done.

If you feel so powerful about this, you are only making things worse.

Answer 2

You don't seem to take the idea of impeaching a president very seriously if you compare the two ideas with a "false dilemma" that we have to agree with either of your statements. They are both just bilge.It is NOT how it translates, and you know it. This equating conducting war as not feeling for the lives of US troops is as shoddy as it is fallacious

Of course the Democrats would like to get back at the Republicans for the Clinton impeachment and trial; but trying to impeach Bush for his OFFICIAL policies against an enermy of this country is an entirely different thing.
Assuming the Democrats voted as a bloc and voted to to impeach Bush in the House, it is clear that there is NO WAY on earth that the US Senate would convict with 2/3rds vote required to convict. And each and every Republican would tear a hole in the partisanship and attack the patriotisim of each and every Democratic senator in the process. And then, they all would have to run for re-election in 2008 with that albatross around their necks back in their districts in the House, and the states in the Senate. Neither Speaker Pelosi, nor Majority Leader Reid would seriously want to take that on, even to please the far-left of their party.

Answer 3

I stated on another thread on this much discussed topic that it would be a waste of time and money. I'm liberal but I'm also a pragmatist. Sixty million dollars was spent on Clintons impeachment and what did it buy anyone but another talking point to bash Clinton. He still termed out which is about what Bush will do. There are plenty of other ways to rake him over the coals for his mistakes. What we need to do in regards to the troops is get them home alive and if the "turrusts" come here, as the neocons say they will, we can all help fight them. Give me an old M-1 and a clip of 8 and I'll do my share.

Answer 4

That does not translate. What does translate is politicizing this war and pulling out of Iraq is equal to surrender and will result in more American soldiers dying in the future. Is your hatred of Bush so extreme that you'd impeach him knowing more Americans will die in the future? Impeachment changes nothing, new leadership would change nothing. Sooner or later this battle will have to be fought, and it will be a lot harder to win in the future if we leave now.

If your leading a wagon train across the country from VA, are in Colorado, and in the middle of a raging river would it make sense to turn around and go back east just because the water is a little cold? The finish line is in sight!

We have come this far, have sacrificed this much. Men have died. Surely they didn't die for nothing? Surely they didn't die only to have us lose our nerve and retreat???

Answer 5

turning out to be up is hard, surprisingly once you're on your teenage years. that is once you try to figure out who you're and some do and some do not. There are a lot to provide once you get somewhat older. merely because you dont have any acquaintances to exhibit to now, do not imagine you wont have any once you get somewhat older. Do the most acceptable you may with what you've. Dont enable all of us placed you down surprisingly your self. everybody is diverse and dont imagine they dont have issues of their own, they merely conceal it from everybody else too. right here's somewhat suggestion that would artwork. attempt understanding or exercising to alleviate a number of your rigidity and word if there's a boys and women club you may connect. they could really help you locate friendship and keep you occupied. Counselers can help on condition that you enable them to. Dont shrug them off like they dont understand reason in certain circumstances they do. in the adventure that they cant help, come across a mentor. Dont do some thing you're apologetic about. Dont damage your self neither. That not in any respect solves some thing.

Answer 6

Here's on from the Left: You don't have the votes to do it. You will embroil the Congress in another pissing contest which will lose, just like the Ken Starr witch hunt of Clinton. Like the GOP led impeachment, it will make us look like a banana republic.

Look, we will be rid of Bush in 2 years. He'll be gone, only a bad memory. And have you thought it Bush goes in an impeachment, then we get Cheney? That's a scary thought...

Answer 7

If President Bush is impeached which he will not be, If he is, then you get Cheney for president. Cheney Already said that him and Bush will not back down from the troop surge.

Answer 8

look, the only person who should get repremanded/fired from their job because they did a bad job, should be whoever gave you the right to own a computer.

The skinny:

Bush(R) wants to send more units to Iraq to stabilize Iraq. Iraq has proven that infact, the Iraqi police, under suppervision of US soldiers, are doing great things in Iraq. You could almost say, because of the plans Bush plans on officializing/has officialized over the last year... sectarian violence could stop by the time Bush leaves office.

recently, because of Maliki's new firmness in Iraq-
600 total insurgents have been captured (RECENTLY, not even total)
33 of them highly dangerous insurgents
11 top military ranking terrorists
1 key-terrorists (Al-Sadr's media director in charge of getting extremist supporters, Al-Sadr is demanding his freedom while practically on 2 knees)


Now.. why do the democrats in Congress not want to enforce the troop surge in Iraq?

Hmm.. didn't General Patreyas MAKE the plan?
Doesnt General Patreyas SUPPORT UNDOUBTABLY the plan?
Dont the democrats PRAISE General Patreyas for his work
Didn't the Democrats unanymously vote Patreyas into his current position as top General on the War In Iraq, solely for his work on the plan for Iraq?

So then, if Bush is asking for this surge to happen that General Patreyas created.. WHY DO THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS SAY.. NO WAY!!!!

Ill answer that question...
Because, dont write me off because you think this is rediculous right off the bat .. let it sink in... youll understand why i think this.., The congress wants Bush to fail in Iraq, they want the # of deaths to rise, so that when the next election comes around... the word Republican will be tied with the word murder.. and the word Democrat will be tied with the phrase the silenced!

The democrats in congress are dispicable. Your misconception is backwards, kiddo.

Read about this fraud a democrat tried to pull to get Bush out of the presidential seat...
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jan24/0,4670,CIALeakTrial,00.html

For more info:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ag_zypTsyBph9lYh3zuylVgAAAAA?qid=20070125182856AAfFtWG
thanks!
yes, by Patrayas i meant Petraeus =x

Answer 9

well not so much a waste of time as it would be a waste of tax payers money cause we have to impeach not only bush but all the congressman, both democrat and republican, since of course you acknowledge that congress had the same access to intelligence as bush and voted for to give him power to engage the military to do so. i mean, you do realize that if he engaged in a war without authorization every democratic congressman would be saying he has done so illegally instead of worrying about us starting a war with iran right?

Answer 10

I think that the impeachment of GWB would be malicious prosecution, since there is no crime to prosecute him for.

I think that the life of every single American in Iraq and Iran is precious. I don't see how my valuation of their lives equates with the fact that the President has not committed a crime, and therefore cannot be impeached.