Kerry to Call for IMPEACHMENT

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
By the way

RSU

If you are out there.

That book w/r/t/ the administration and its predisposed mission towards Iraq has been interesting. I think Don R. will have an interesting memoir when this is over.

Expect a deathbed bombshell on how he was behind much of this Iraq situation.

You’re starting to turn me. Good stuff[/quote]

Proper reference for those interested:

Plan of Attack–Bob Woodward
How Rummy & Cheney may have come into this current administration with purpose of avenging past and removing Saddam. Not conclusive yet, but a good perspective to how they may in fact have hoodwinked a President, Congress, and Nation into Iraq.

I don’t know, if something was done incorrectly, then it should be brought to light.

If it were found that this is in fact true, it would be huge. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives spent on a war that was justified and approved under false pretenses would be an immense scandal.

I’m not claiming I know what did or didn’t happen, but we’d obviously have to be given some evidence to take this seriously.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t know, if something was done incorrectly, then it should be brought to light.

If it were found that this is in fact true, it would be huge. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives spent on a war that was justified and approved under false pretenses would be an immense scandal.

I’m not claiming I know what did or didn’t happen, but we’d obviously have to be given some evidence to take this seriously.
[/quote]

I’m quite sure noone would argue this point. this document, though, is nowhere near evidence and certainly not enough evidence to warrant impeachment or barely the word scandal.

I think they should go ahead and try it.

Nothing would sour the American Public more then watching these clowns try and make a case against Bush, in public and on camera. Schumer and Kennedy should lead the charge. Mayber Hillary could get a few face shots too.

Hopefully they will do it right before the mid-terms. Now that would be a gift.

If they impeach Bush - which will never get further than JTF’s conspiracy theory propaganda stage - then Cheney steps in.

It’s a win/win for the conservatives.

I say bring it on. If it proves to be the crock of shit that it smells like - and the left actually takes this path, their party is dead.

Partisan bitterness to the degree displayed by the left will not help them win elections.

Please Mr. Kerry - do it. Make the charge. It would thrill my soul to see what’s left of the wacked out left go up in flames.

I think this is utter rubbish, but Kerry is trying to drum his street cred with the left-wing, so he’s probably dumb enough to try it.

Further reading on the litany of reasons to take on Saddam:

Couple of nuggets:

“Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations…”

“Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire…”

“Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region…”

In sum, there are more than 20 reasons listed in the bipartisan Senate Resolution.

Wanna impeach someone? Start with everybody who voted ‘aye’ on this Resolution.

“How does Senator Kerry vote?”

“He votes ‘Aye’.”

So does such Zionist neocon luminaries as Feinstein, Daschle, the “Breck Girl” John Edwards, Harry Reid, and Schumer.

Significant impact? Didn’t Blair get reelected?

If the memo is ‘top secret’, then how did it ever reach public consumption? Who is the Brit’s equivalent of Dan Rather?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If the memo is ‘top secret’, then how did it ever reach public consumption? Who is the Brit’s equivalent of Dan Rather?[/quote]

I don’t think it has gone public…only one sentence which is being dissected. I have yet to hear of anyone who has read the whole document.

So you say. Perhaps others would look at the document and question people to determine if something was actually amiss.

The document is indeed “evidence”, the question is whether or not there is more evidence. Whether or not there are people who are aware of the facts, and if the document were to be correct, were willing to speak to those facts.

Perhaps not. Perhaps so. I’d be surprised if the document was the only thing to come out of an attempt at impeachment.

Be careful though, I’m not trying to say the Bush administration is guilty. Unlike yourself, I’m not trying to dismiss this either. I’m going to wait for more, and if it is there, consider it.

What else can we do?

Rainjack, if there is nothing there, then sure, it would be a joke to go forward and try it. I’m sure it would indeed backfire.

But if impeachment occurred, as it did during Clinton’s era, how could that be bad for the democrats? It’s not like impeaching Clinton hurt the republicans is it?

Just questions, not trying to say there is or isn’t anything there at this point.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m quite sure noone would argue this point. this document, though, is nowhere near evidence and certainly not enough evidence to warrant impeachment or barely the word scandal.

So you say. Perhaps others would look at the document and question people to determine if something was actually amiss.

The document is indeed “evidence”, the question is whether or not there is more evidence. Whether or not there are people who are aware of the facts, and if the document were to be correct, were willing to speak to those facts.

Perhaps not. Perhaps so. I’d be surprised if the document was the only thing to come out of an attempt at impeachment.

Be careful though, I’m not trying to say the Bush administration is guilty. Unlike yourself, I’m not trying to dismiss this either. I’m going to wait for more, and if it is there, consider it.

What else can we do?[/quote]

vroom
I have read the memo in question so your double speak means naught here. Once again you accuse me through twists of words of dismissing it for no reason. I’ve read it and know a little about the publication of origin.

Evidence would be something that tends to prove. This document does little of that.

unlike myself, you haven’t read the document, you just want to once again try to take a side, make a point for others to see that quite frankly I’ve already evaluated for myself. That doesn’t make it so. It makes it my opinion and my stance. I’ll stick with it.

Hahahahahaha. You are priceless man. I’m merely suggesting others might come to a different conclusion than you. That is possible isn’t it? Or is your conclusion the only one that could possibly be correct?

[quote]vroom wrote:
I have read the memo in question so your double speak means naught here.

Hahahahahaha. You are priceless man. I’m merely suggesting others might come to a different conclusion than you. That is possible isn’t it? Or is your conclusion the only one that could possibly be correct?[/quote]

Can you discuss without resorting to BS.

There is no statememnt directly or indirectly from Pres. Bush that validates this paper. Even in the original link from the other source it was tempered with the question of repudiation of the source of this document, as well as the validity of the publication that ran with it.

Please vroom, I understand my conclusion could differ from others, but have your facts in order should you choose to discuss. How can you intelligently discuss something you haven’t even read? It just happens to support your stance so you want to give it credence before evaluating it on your own. I’ve evaluated it and give it quite little. You are welcome to your own.

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
vroom wrote:
I have read the memo in question so your double speak means naught here.

Hahahahahaha. You are priceless man. I’m merely suggesting others might come to a different conclusion than you. That is possible isn’t it? Or is your conclusion the only one that could possibly be correct?

Can you discuss without resorting to BS.

There is no statememnt directly or indirectly from Pres. Bush that validates this paper. Even in the original link from the other source it was tempered with the question of repudiation of the source of this document, as well as the validity of the publication that ran with it.

Please vroom, I understand my conclusion could differ from others, but have your facts in order should you choose to discuss. How can you intelligently discuss something you haven’t even read? It just happens to support your stance so you want to give it credence before evaluating it on your own. I’ve evaluated it and give it quite little. You are welcome to your own.[/quote]

now that’s funny right there. Sasquatch, he does it all the time.
Then, if you disagree with him too much he gets really nasty.

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Can you discuss without resorting to BS.

There is no statememnt directly or indirectly from Pres. Bush that validates this paper. Even in the original link from the other source it was tempered with the question of repudiation of the source of this document, as well as the validity of the publication that ran with it.

Please vroom, I understand my conclusion could differ from others, but have your facts in order should you choose to discuss. How can you intelligently discuss something you haven’t even read? It just happens to support your stance so you want to give it credence before evaluating it on your own. I’ve evaluated it and give it quite little. You are welcome to your own.[/quote]

Is this the memo I haven’t read?

I haven’t given it any credence at all at this point. It is suggestive, but I said I’d be surprised if it was the only thing in hand if Kerry was really going to try for impeachment. If there are other things, then it would become one piece of evidence amongst those others.

That isn’t clear, simple and evident?

Of course the Bush administration would never validate the paper. Do you live in Bizarro world? Do you think the president or the administration would admit to doing something like this if it was actually done? That would be like expecting Clinton to own up to getting blowjobs voluntarily.

Where is this BS you refer to? How the heck have I done anything to take a stance other than wait and see? You are really very amusing – if I claimed it was too hot outside you’d tell me it was too cold.

Joe, I can always trust you to jump in with a slam even if it isn’t deserved. Thanks.

[quote]vroom wrote:
But if impeachment occurred, as it did during Clinton’s era, how could that be bad for the democrats? It’s not like impeaching Clinton hurt the republicans is it?
[/quote]

If Bush goes, Cheney takes over. If Cheney goes too, then Dennis Hassert takes over. No matter what happens, a republican will be in office.

But that is a worst case scenario. The odds of anything coming from Kerrry’s supposed launching of impeachment proceedings is slim and none.

The only thing that can come of this is further implosion of the Dem party. They have been losing steadily since 1994, and this is just another attempt to take back some of the poweer that the voters have been taking from them and giving to the republicans for the last 11 years.

[quote]vroom wrote:

Joe, I can always trust you to jump in with a slam even if it isn’t deserved. Thanks.[/quote]

who’s the arbiter of what is or isn’t deserved?

the biggest problem is that Kerry’s already tagged as a loser and a whiner.
That and the apparent rumored soon canning of Howard Dean–the “D’s” are in trouble.

Rainjack, I’m inclined to agree. If they try and fail miserably, it would be an incredibly stupid thing to have done.

If they are going to do this, they’d better have a lot more in their pocket than this memo. I wonder if they realize this and if so I wonder what it is they think they might have.