Democrats may impeach bush over Iraq if they win the house in 06 .

[MissCatholic]

Bush Misled Us about the Threat from Iraq

If Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to America, as the White House claimed, then Bush might have been justified in invading Iraq. But it appears that Bush misled the public, the Congress and the UN by consistently overstating the threat from Iraq.

* Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address. But he had been informed by intelligence officials months before his speech that the documentary evidence had been forged. The Ambassador Joseph Wilson who investigated this and contradicted Bush was punished by having his wife, Valerie Plame, outed as a CIA operative by someone in the White House staff. [USA Today] [CNN]

* Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speaches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.

* Iraq and Al Qaeda - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused.

* Iraqi military - The Iraqi military had no air force before the invasion and could not launch a military attack on the United States. The speed at which the US forces were able to sweep over Iraq is proof that their military was not very strong despite having a "home field" advantage.

* Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq posessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarised student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

* Secret Propaganda Team - Bush wanted so much to convince people of the need to invade Iraq that the White House set up a secret team in the Pentagon to create evidence. The Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as "likely," "probably" and "may" as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat. They also used unreliable sources to create reports that ultimately proved to be false. [Mother Jones] [New Yorker] [Wikipedia]

* Aluminum Tubes - Bush said that aluminum tubes imported by Iraq were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [NYTimes]

[TheresNoMoney]

I don't think they have any interest in impeaching him.

[MODU]

Troll thread.  "Democrats may impeach" is more along the lines of "Miss Catholic hopes the Democrats may impeach..."

[minionofmidas]

They won't. Would be fun to watch, though.

[dazzleman]

There is no impeachable offense.   The Democrats had all the same intelligence information that Bush did, and prominent Democrats said all the same things about the threat from Iraq years before Bush was president.

This is a stupid and useless thread, as are most of the threads you create, "Miss"Catholic.

[nini2287]

If they move to impeach Bush, I will switch my party registration.

[MasterJedi]

It won't happen but I'd love to see this! Talk about no hope for winning in 2008!   But this is a super troll thread, let's clap!

[minionofmidas]

It won't happen but I'd love to see this! Talk about no hope for winning in 2008!   But this is a super troll thread, let's clap!

Republicans won in 2000 after a much more obviously frivolous impeachment.

[TX_1824]

It won't happen but I'd love to see this! Talk about no hope for winning in 2008!   But this is a super troll thread, let's clap!

Republicans won in 2000 after a much more obviously frivolous impeachment.

I'll have to agree with that. It was rather silly.

[phk]

Anybody who can kill nearly 40,000 people for political purposes while keeping thier face straight should be impeached.

[MODU]

Anybody who can kill nearly 40,000 people for political purposes while keeping thier face straight should be impeached.

Gee, now let's just think about this one for a while . . .

[DanielX]

Unless Bush is revealed to have done something actually criminal (as opposed to unwise, ill-informed, or politically charged), any such action would seriously harm the Democrats, and will likely fail. 

[The Duke]

I impeached your mom last night.

[Giant Saguaro]

If Hussein were an immediate threat, Bush *might* have been justified? Good policy. Let's ignore all threats until invaders have landed on both shores. Sound. For the 11th century.

Even if Intel were cherry-picked, so what? There's more than enough of it there, apparently, to warrant serious attention and it's hardly impeachable to try to defend the country. Especially since it was done legally and since many Dems made exactly similar statements as Bush in late 1998 and throughout 1999.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Unless Bush is revealed to have done something actually criminal (as opposed to unwise, ill-informed, or politically charged), any such action would seriously harm the Democrats, and will likely fail. 

Conspiracy with the whole Valerie Plame/ faking reasons to go to war in Iraq thing.

[Speed of Sound]

Of course.

[Defarge]

Absolutely not.  We don't need another Monica situation on our hands.  Impeachment will hurt us, not help us.  Unless something really big comes out

[J. J.]

Absolutely not.  We don't need another Monica situation on our hands.  Impeachment will hurt us, not help us.  Unless something really big comes out

Ditto.  So far there is nothing big expept bad spying by the CIA (for about 5 years prior to the Iraq War).

[MarkDel]

Unfortunately, this might not be as far-fetched as the "normal" people on this forum might think. The Democratic Party has undergone a MASSIVE change in the past 5 or so years. The business-oriented, center/left folks who dominated under Clinton have been pushed aside in favor of the Moveon.org/Howard Dean crowd. If the Democrats somehow win back the House in 2006, this may in fact happen.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"Waaaaah, so what we impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job, you Democrats are mean if you're going to impeach Bush for lying about all of the reasons for going to war, and being a war criminal. Waaaaah"
The sad thing is that we won't have the 67 Senators to remove the war criminal from office.

[The Duke]

"Waaaaah, so what we impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job, you Democrats are mean if you're going to impeach Bush for lying about all of the reasons for going to war, and being a war criminal. Waaaaah"
The sad thing is that we won't have the 67 Senators to remove the war criminal from office.

I think you may be legally retarded.

[Erc]

In fact, I sort of hope the Democrats do take the house, just so that this can happen...

It won't even get through the House, of course...but it'll be damned funny and will result in massive Republican landslides in '08.

Most sane Democrats have learned at least something from their successes in '98 and 2000...


Bush misled the country in 2002 and 2003.  Big deal.  So what?  I knew something was fishy at the time, as did anyone with half a brain.  But so has every other President since William McKinley.  It's just not an impeachable offense.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In fact, I sort of hope the Democrats do take the house, just so that this can happen...

It won't even get through the House, of course...but it'll be damned funny and will result in massive Republican landslides in '08.

Most sane Democrats have learned at least something from their successes in '98 and 2000...


Bush misled the country in 2002 and 2003.  Big deal.  So what?  I knew something was fishy at the time, as did anyone with half a brain.  But so has every other President since William McKinley.  It's just not an impeachable offense.

Let me get this straight, lying about the war, and being a war criminal isn't an impeachable offense, but a blow job is?

[Jake]

They won't. Would be fun to watch, though.

Very true Lewis. I kinda hope they do. 2008 would be a foregone conclusion.

Jfraud is showing his foolishness again. Clinton not only received a blow job, but lied under oath about it and attempted to cover it up and hinder the investigation of it. Bush never has lied under oath about Iraq, so his lies are no more prosecutable than any of yours or mine.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Very true Lewis. I kinda hope they do. 2008 would be a foregone conclusion.

Jfraud is showing his foolishness again. Clinton not only received a blow job, but lied under oath about it and attempted to cover it up and hinder the investigation of it. Bush never has lied under oath about Iraq, so his lies are no more prosecutable than any of yours or mine.

^^^ Typical extremist Republican, caring more about a blow job than invading a country for no reason. Hmm, maybe Bush didn't lie under oath because his lying ass knew he'd better never say anything under oath?