Tell me why Bush shouldn't be impeached

Now, on that we can agree. I like the discussions here. If I seem to yell sometimes, it is just from my passion for what I believe. I love these guys and gals on either side of the topic. It's a great community.

 

Clinton WAS IMPEACHED!!!

 

Uhh...yes, Proudfoot (or is it Proudfeet?) we all know Clinton was impeached. On December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, arising from the Lewinsky scandal.

Could you explain why you felt the need for your post and how it fits into the discussion?

 

Clinton's problem was he held his country and countrymen in the highest regard, and worked hard through 8 years of Republicans dogging him to leave the country in a better shape than when he arrived. Compare his reign to that of George Junior. Scandolous I tell you!!! Through all the manufactured sideshows he had to put up with Clinton still hit a home run. Junior was born on third base and still can't make a single to score a run. He'll soon be waltzing out of DC with his tail between his legs and into the family fortune and leaving a train wreck behind, but from his republican point of view, 'who cares?' HE will personally be better off than when his coup d'etat placed him in power and after all isn't that the name of the game? And thus the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

 

George Bush makes Warren Harding look, well, statesmanlike.

And yes, we're getting exactly what we deserve.

 

We have met the enemy, and he is ruining us for generations to come.

 

All except the elderly. He stealthily raised taxes on social security.

Ok. After I said that, I knew it was correct. But I wanted a source. Here it is:

The NRSC cites only one vote by Byrd that was actually in favor of raising taxes. That one wasn't "today," it was a dozen years ago – the 1993 Clinton deficit-reduction measure, which also contained spending cuts. That 1993 measure did raise taxes on the middle class but only very slightly. It raised the gasoline tax by 4.3 cents per gallon. It also increased the amount of Social Security benefits that are subject to taxation, but only for those making $44,000 a year for a married couple. The rest of the increase was focused almost exclusively on the highest-earning one percent of households.

Here is the link:

http://www.factcheck.org/article339.html

 

And Bush has tried to blatantly gut social security by privatizing it, and the elderly fought back and sank his plan completely.

 

Clinton did the same thing.

"In 1997, Clinton used his State of the Union address to call for bipartisan action to preserve Social Security. "I know this is not going to be easy. But I really believe one of the reasons the American people gave me a second term was to take the tough decisions," he said.

Lessons from Clinton

A year later, Republicans like to point out, Clinton warned that Social Security faced a "looming fiscal crisis." Clinton proposed that the government invest 15% of Social Security funds in stocks and bonds to bolster the trust fund. In 1999, he abandoned that proposal."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...cover-sou_x.htm

 

So Bush is the same as clinton you say.

 

No. I'm just saying that you are criticizing President Bush for this and failing to mention that Golden Boy President tried the same thing.

 

But no one mentioned Clinton. You don't have to compare our criticising Bush with Clinton. No president desersves to have his failings go uncriticised.... That's our RIGHT, and that's the President's CURSE. That comes with the job.

 

It was not the same thing. According to the information you posted, Clinton proposed that the government invest 15% of the Social Security trust fund in order to bolster the fund. That is a far cry from individual private accounts.

 

Boy could I add to these ...."statements"

Bush was elected both times, get over it

New Orleans was a perfect example of DEMOCRAT management, they were in COMPLETE control of that state and city for 4-50 yrs. Funding was never decreased over time, both in DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN hands. That place should have been a UTOPIA for the unfortunates, and yes...the Governor and Mayor in my opinion commited murder of its poorer populations, due to NEGLECT AND DERILICTION of duty. They never followed their own MANDATORY evacuation plan, and REFUSED to do so later when requested by FEMA and the President.

I live in Port Arthur Texas..IE Hurricane RITA...we handled it, some of our close towns were 80-90 % destroyed, we had wind damage of 130 MPH winds, and yes ALL EVACUATED, or WERE evacuated. NO STORM deaths ie drownings etc.. FROM THE STORM ITSELF, and yes HOUSTON lost 23 souls evacuating, and some elderly died from the evacuation

The "Rove" and "Libby" affair..well now the Special Proscecutor has just publically warned news outlets that NO DECISION has been made as to WHO will be part of any indictments. Suggest you all don't jump the gun too FAST., you may get a surprise..... The involved reporters were not the perfect blameless angels either, and neither was the NY Times.

How about comments on this current constitutional election, it seems to be going well. Iraq is handling the security, is able to do so, and has used over 200,000 of its own armed forces and police effectively, how about some good news for a change ??

Up armoring..my son was there and I have some specific intelligence. First the question was a good one from the GUARD soldier that placed the question, BUT IT WAS spoon fed to him by a REPORTER. The defense secretary gave him a good answer, but his last part of his response was the part highlighted by the PRESS., ie you go to war with what you got.. No war is perfect, yes we needed to address that problem and at the time the question was posed it was being MORE then adequately being addressed by all SERVICES.

Bottom line..you all need to register and vote, and if as a voting block your side WINS., then you can make all these 'WONDERFUL' changes you seem to advocate. Right now it just seems to me, anything done you are against it or not satisfied, and you just critisize for political reasons ONLY. Perhaps you should all consider what damage you do to this country's foreign and domestic policies. I do not recall your side and the wonderful former President making any changes, that catered to your complaints regarding this President. As for impeachment, you need to study your Constitution and the grounds that are to be met for such a man to be charged and impeached. Not a chance in hell will you ever be close to even getting this to a national level, simply because this current man has brought pride and honor back to this country and its Presidency, despite your rantings.

 

We really need to add when these agencies are run by starry eyed idealists who think hurting business is the same as saving the environment and protecting the little guy. Multigenerational welfare is one fruit of such mismanagement. There are many others.

As bad as Iraq is, we have had zero terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11, and until we do, no one can say that the Bush Doctrine isn't working. He promised to protect America and it looks as if he is doing it.

If we impeach Bush what should happen to those who came before him who made UBL so sure that the US would do nothing after 9/11? Nixon fled Vietnam, but he's dead. Carter let the Shah of Iran fall and bungled the Embassy take over. He's still around. Bush I didn't flatten Saddam last time, and Clinton's responses to several attacks convinced UBL that we are impotent in the face of attack, that we lack the will to respond meaninfully. Even Reagan bugged out of Beruit.

Maybe UBL is right.

Look at the might empires of the past. The Greeks fell because they didnt' spend enough on defense. They were great idealists. The Romans because they lost their way and fell as much from within as anything else.

I wonder what history will say of us?

 

I believe my point was more like "damn that electorate." Americans are political infants who are, for the most part, perfectly content to let others run their lives and make hundreds of millions of enemies for them overseas--all in the name of "spreading democracy". They can be led around by their balls and other visceral parts tying yellow ribbons and planting flags on anything that stands still. And they can regularly be led to cut their own throats every couple of years at the polls by voting for politicians who have only the interests of their largest campaign contributors at heart.

 

That was a real low point in American political culture. It was like living through a piece of satirical fiction. Imagine, if you will, a country the political culture of which is so impoverished that it makes a "scandal" out of a president getting a blowjob at work and then declining to admit to the blowjob in public. This counts as political scandal? Imagine a citizenry that stands for someone like Kenneth Starr, who was unable to uncover any wrongdoing in his infamous "Whitewater" investigation, suddenly turning the whole multimillion dollar investigation into a fight over a blow job.

 

You have a remarkably easy--and embarrassingly selfish--test for "working." You might think a wee bit broader. Consider that the hatred with which much of the world regards the United States is a result of a long-standing policy of imperialism going back to the Spanish-American War and intensifying since the end of the Second World War. Consider that the 9/11 attacks were a predictable result of our post-war foreign policy--a result that would have come far sooner had we not enjoyed the geographic isolation provided by two oceans and an entire hemisphere securely under our thumb. Consider also that this "working" policy has killed many more people than Bin Laden ever has. You might think things are just hunkey dorey; America's many victims see things from a different perspective.

 

I agree with the low part. I did not like President Clinton, but he was the President and was the figurehead of the United States. I wish the media would have respected that like they used to and not trumpeted it on every paper in the country. But it was not about a blowjob. It was about lying under oath or on the stand. I'm pretty sure that is a crime.

If you have a daughter, wouldn't you like to believe that it would be a good thing to work for the president? Wouldn't you like to believe that he would not have your daughter under his desk?

 

I stand by my post #64. Republicans tried everything in their power to bring The most intelligent president we have had in 2 generations down, even to the point where the rest of the world began laughing at the USA for it's antics. In itself a bad way to oppose a LEGIMITATELY ELECTED president. But then the tables were turned and look who their best and brightest candidate turned out to be! An AOL scardycat, Legacy student who got special treatment, whose daddy handed him a share in a ball team which he did nothing to improve, but sold his share for an ungodly profit. Look at the murderous lies he has laid on us daily and then gotten away with. REMEMBER Regan's mantra..."are you better now than you were 4 years ago" and the majority of the country in the short term can only answer NO! Then look at the long term. Budget deficits laid on future generations like never before. The USA's standing in world opinion. A new low for expectations. Regulatory regulations gutted for the benefit of a few. and the list goes on and on. Perhaps we should turn this thread into a list of violations against his countrymen which Junior has made his legacy.