Guess that's not as bad as a messy dress....
2007-10-20 15:49:22 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
and don't forget our allies have some loss to and black water has lost 500 . its sad that we just couldn't take the UN for its word . impeaching him now is to late he has almost destroyed our good image
2007-10-20 18:12:32 · answer #1 · answered by dan m 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Enough, already! (and I'm a Democrat.)
1. While every casualty, not just KIA's, is a tragedy, we've had wars with that many dead in an hour (and this from a veteran).
2. WMD's was a supporting argument, not a primary reason, for going to war. I thought the urgency wasn't there, and he thought it was. He probably let his personal biases color his judgment on which bits of intelligence to believe, but that's always the way it is with intelligence.
3. Impeachment is for criminal acts, not things that are unpopular.
4. Our Republican friends never griped much about the stained dress. This seems to be a hard concept for some people to comprehend: We have a president, not a king, and his power is limited by a written constitution. The shorthand phrase for this break with tradition is "rule by law, not by men." In times past, kings were the law, but that doesn't apply to presidents. Terrible as the visage of Hillary might be, it does not excuse perjury, which is a crime described in the criminal codes. Moreover, with the rest of the country being careful about sexual harrassment, it was stupid of him to take advantage of a young employee in his charge.
I hate to sound so Republican, but your arguments just don't hold water the way you present them and do nothing to further political discourse. We already have too much polarizing and pointless political haranguing.
2007-10-20 23:18:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
More than 3000, young drivers die on our roads every year so should we impeach the motor vehicle companies? We are at war and it's not all about WMD. What about the dead Kurds what were they killed by? Saddam would have got a nuclear weapon if we hadn't stopped him. He also gave support to terrorist. He was barbaric to his people. He also convinced the USA that he had WMD and would not allow checks. The world is a much safer place without Saddam and his sons.
2007-10-21 00:16:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you see the real picture you would understand that we are in Iraq to stop the next world war which would be nuclear.
If Eisenhower was our president today, perhaps he could better explain it to the people, for our President has not.
There are reasons why he does not discuss it. The world is the biggest chess board and millions of lives are in the balance for how it plays out. Sometimes it is better not to discuss your moves and why to have a better chance of winning and saving lives.
I am amused how the Democrats today rave against the war, when i can remember a Democrat named Johnson created the Vietnam war, and a Republican named Nixon got us out of it. Funny how the tables turn in history.
The Saddam army and weapons were a serious threat to the region and he killed hundreds of thousands of his people.
Imagine if we had stopped Hitler before Poland, 25 million people would not have died stopping him later.
Saddam was the same.
Iran, is next.
As to President Bush never serving in the military: he was a jet pilot, for the Texas National Guard. He protected Texas from invasion by Mexico or Oklahoma.
Hehehehehe! It's the truth folks!
2007-10-20 23:22:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
thats not a lot, more troops died in WWII especially on D-day. Besides there is nothing to impeach bush about and your hero hilary clinton even said they had WMDS also and so did the some other democrats.
2007-10-21 00:04:01 · answer #5 · answered by Reality Has A Libertarian Bias 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no.....you cant go impeaching a president just bc he made a mistake....besides id bet that they were moving what they did have out of iraq just before we went in, when they wernt letting inspectors in, they had enough time to move them out. i dont even agree that we should have gone in in the first place, knowing now what a mess it made but hindsite is 20/20. that still doesent justify the idea of impeachment
2007-10-20 23:00:15 · answer #6 · answered by humm 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here is what I think is the easiest case for impeachment:
Being AWOL for 30 plus years. We all know the man at some point signed a contract to join the military, but there is no evidence that he ever actually fulfilled that contract.
2007-10-21 11:13:03 · answer #7 · answered by nick 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We already did that. Impeached the president of Iraq whose entire army was a weapon of mass destruction.
2007-10-20 23:03:41 · answer #8 · answered by jbertrope 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1993-2001: 7,500 U.S. active duty dead.
1980-1984: 9,555 active duty dead.
2007-10-20 23:56:06 · answer #9 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here is your answer
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2026497320071020?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
NO to impeaching.
2007-10-21 00:45:50 · answer #10 · answered by HAGAR!!! 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋