Go to Should Bush Be Impeached?
- Add a comment
- Go to Neither Tony Blair Nor any other Member of his Cabinet Denied Its Accuracy
kingmi
I don't know how to say it any other way...you just keep speaking my mind, man!
posted by
Krisles
on June 6, 2005 at 9:56 PM
| link to this | reply
WMD
You're right. Bush wanted to take out Saddam. He was also advised by all his intelligence people that Saddam was armed to the teeth. So, he took out Saddam..looked for the WMD..found none..one out of two gets you a $100-million contract in the Major Leagues.
posted by
Burly
on June 6, 2005 at 11:41 AM
| link to this | reply
Kingmi
Nah, it took a nut to handle a nutty situation anyway. You might as well keep him to the bitter end, at least he's some kind of deterrant to the other whacko's on the planet.
posted by
WileyJohn
on June 6, 2005 at 10:05 AM
| link to this | reply
Impeaching Presidents of the United States is not a helpful solution for anyone. Such behavior only weakens the nation. If one is a pacifist, then one should refrain from voting altogether, as every Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces shall have his military and his reasons for making use of it. Every leader has his plan and his reason for implementing it.
I do, however, think it is important for each of us who is effected by the actions of our government to voice our individual complaints and concerns toward the correct authority without attempting to destroy the fabric of our society in doing so. If we find that we are leaning too heavily upon those others who seem to be in charge of our lives, then we must improve our own leadership abilities.
posted by
TARZANA
on June 6, 2005 at 6:07 AM
| link to this | reply
Apples in my Eye
If you could, would you?
posted by
Hammock_Noweilz
on June 5, 2005 at 3:16 AM
| link to this | reply
Hard to say.
It would have taken a whole lot to get the public to abide the impeachment of FDR, the Architect of the New America. Even though his policies implemented did do a lot of good, many of them did that good at the price of the good being done sooner. The problem is that hindsight is almost always 20/20.
The majority of Americans wanted no part of World War 2, and Pearl Harbor brought them into it -- and it brought them in with gusto. No one minded going to war with Germany, even if it was Japan that attacked outright. FDR set a lot of political groundwork for America's entry into the then European war. Churchill helped.
I'm not saying I don't supprt American involvment in WW2. I believe it was a must, but the thing that hits me sideways is how even though most educated Americans know our entry into the war was basically a setup by our leaders, led by FDR, they still can't fathom the present reaction to 9/11/2001. I think a lot of it has to do with what's been going on for the last 40 years, as well as FDR having been a Democrat.
I'm not a big fan of the War on Terror, as it exists, but like FDR thought about the European war (that became WW2)... It had to happen sooner or later, and sooner is a lot easier. Alas...
posted by
zenresistance
on June 5, 2005 at 1:02 AM
| link to this | reply