Pelosi: "Impeachment is off the table ... making them lame ducks is good enough for me"

[Carol&Marc 0]

...it's like digging for pennies in a sandbox... only it cost the American public 40 million dollars. And what purpose did it serve? Nothing.

Well, I guess you just answered your own question about objectively looking at the evidence.

PLEASE,,,,, PLEASE lets not forget the bombs he was chuckin at milk factories to avoid attention to his dillemma! This alone is enough to impeach, I have yet to see Bush shake is finger in my face while he blantantly lied!

The CIA claimed that they had taken a soil sample from the factory site which contained a chemical precursor to VX gas. It turns out that prior to the arrival of the bombs, the Sudanese factory was sitting on paved ground. The only open soil was in a flowerbox.

President Bill Clinton knew he was bombing a civilian target when

he ordered the United States attack on a Sudan chemical plant.

Tests ordered by him showed that no nerve gas was on the site and

two British professionals who recently worked at the factory said

it clearly had no military purpose.

The disclosure will deepen the crisis, following the American

attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan, in relations between the US and

its Muslim allies, who have called upon Clinton to produce hard

evidence that the attacks had a legitimate relevance to the war

against international terrorism.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/P...UDAN/sudan.html

[yogib37 3]

I don't think he did anything wrong. I agree with the war, the terrorist eavesdropping and the way we question suspected terrorist. The only thing I didn't like is he caved to the dems pressure and didn't go farther with it.

There will be a day of reckoning. The terrorists have declared war on us. If the left gets it's way and we stop fighting them we will have a lot more problems in the future. One day soon we will have one of our cities go up in a fireball. One day we will be fighting them in our streets. Bush had the balls to do what was needed to fight them and the dems have blocked him at every turn. When all hell breaks loose they will see that he was right. But it will also be to late.

Look at what is happening to the French. They are loosing their country to these fanatics. They were soft on terrorism and it's coming back to bite them. You can't negotiate with them, you can't reason with them all you can do is kill them.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38404

That sounds like you were brain washed. THIS WAR is 100% illgeal. They were planing a war since 1997. this war had nothing to do with 9-11 or terrorisim. It had to do with Complete control over the middle east. to have a strgetic place in the middle east for OIL and to set up militry bases. Read PNAC. that spells out everything and every reason for this war. It outline who needed to go and suddam was one of them.

why are we attacking Iraq. They did nothing and did not have anything to do with 9-11.

I feel this country YES the United States of America is much more unsafe since this illgeal war. They push the patriot act thru without reading it and thus had many of my civil rights taken away.

Bush did illegal wire taps and even the federal court judge ruled agaist him. when the appleal court upheld the lower court. Bush commiet 36 plus crimes and he is a criminal. He should be strip of his Presendental rights in Jan. 2009 when he is out of office.

It will never happen. Bush did nothing to warrent a conviction.

Hypothetically speaking, if the evidence presented was convincing, would you have faith in the Republicans that party loyalty would be set aside for the sake of justice?

Not any more than the dems did for Clinton. It will always go along party lines regardless of who is under the gun.

With Nixon, it finally did stop going along party lines. The evidence becme so convincing that Reoublicans were turning against him. But otherwise you are right, from Andrew Johnson to Clinton its about party politics and not law breaking.

Now I understand your point of view that you do not see that Bush did anything wrong, I would disagree and I believe that if the media would their job and the public would begin to understand what happened here, the public would be outraged. Would tat then make Bush impeachable? I don't know, but I would like a honest investigation into what happened.

If the dems get back the house you can count on endless investigations. In fact I hope they do. It will keep them busy so they will do less damage to our country. And in the end what will we get? Same thing we have now. Half saying he did wrong and half saying he did right. But at least the public will see the dems for what they are. Bitter, vindictive and without a plan of their own. In two years they will have a backlash of major proportions and the Republicans will have the house back and another Republican president. Let them investigate. I dare them.

what damage. you think the Dems will damage our country more if they gain the senate and house?

dont make me laugh. The GOP in the last six years SOLD THIS COUNTRY OUT and they did so much damage that this is not the same country it was before the bufon retard Bush took office. Opps I mean he stole to get into office.

Go ahead and wave the american flag.. we all should hang the american flag upside down.

[GaryC 7]

I don't think he did anything wrong. I agree with the war, the terrorist eavesdropping and the way we question suspected terrorist. The only thing I didn't like is he caved to the dems pressure and didn't go farther with it.

There will be a day of reckoning. The terrorists have declared war on us. If the left gets it's way and we stop fighting them we will have a lot more problems in the future. One day soon we will have one of our cities go up in a fireball. One day we will be fighting them in our streets. Bush had the balls to do what was needed to fight them and the dems have blocked him at every turn. When all hell breaks loose they will see that he was right. But it will also be to late.

Look at what is happening to the French. They are loosing their country to these fanatics. They were soft on terrorism and it's coming back to bite them. You can't negotiate with them, you can't reason with them all you can do is kill them.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38404

That sounds like you were brain washed. THIS WAR is 100% illgeal. They were planing a war since 1997. this war had nothing to do with 9-11 or terrorisim. It had to do with Complete control over the middle east. to have a strgetic place in the middle east for OIL and to set up militry bases. Read PNAC. that spells out everything and every reason for this war. It outline who needed to go and suddam was one of them.

why are we attacking Iraq. They did nothing and did not have anything to do with 9-11.

I feel this country YES the United States of America is much more unsafe since this illgeal war. They push the patriot act thru without reading it and thus had many of my civil rights taken away.

Bush did illegal wire taps and even the federal court judge ruled agaist him. when the appleal court upheld the lower court. Bush commiet 36 plus crimes and he is a criminal. He should be strip of his Presendental rights in Jan. 2009 when he is out of office.

Sounds like your the one that has been brainwashed by the media and the libs. I don't care what the reasons were for taking out Sadam. Make up any you want. He needed to go. I still agree with the way Bush has conducted the war on terror. Nothing Bush did was illegal. He should be doing more.

what damage. you think the Dems will damage our country more if they gain the senate and house?

dont make me laugh. The GOP in the last six years SOLD THIS COUNTRY OUT and they did so much damage that this is not the same country it was before the bufon retard Bush took office. Opps I mean he stole to get into office.

Go ahead and wave the american flag.. we all should hang the american flag upside down.

Oh your one of THOSE! Never mind. Your a lost cause.

[yogib37 3]

I don't think he did anything wrong. I agree with the war, the terrorist eavesdropping and the way we question suspected terrorist. The only thing I didn't like is he caved to the dems pressure and didn't go farther with it.

There will be a day of reckoning. The terrorists have declared war on us. If the left gets it's way and we stop fighting them we will have a lot more problems in the future. One day soon we will have one of our cities go up in a fireball. One day we will be fighting them in our streets. Bush had the balls to do what was needed to fight them and the dems have blocked him at every turn. When all hell breaks loose they will see that he was right. But it will also be to late.

Look at what is happening to the French. They are loosing their country to these fanatics. They were soft on terrorism and it's coming back to bite them. You can't negotiate with them, you can't reason with them all you can do is kill them.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38404

That sounds like you were brain washed. THIS WAR is 100% illgeal. They were planing a war since 1997. this war had nothing to do with 9-11 or terrorisim. It had to do with Complete control over the middle east. to have a strgetic place in the middle east for OIL and to set up militry bases. Read PNAC. that spells out everything and every reason for this war. It outline who needed to go and suddam was one of them.

why are we attacking Iraq. They did nothing and did not have anything to do with 9-11.

I feel this country YES the United States of America is much more unsafe since this illgeal war. They push the patriot act thru without reading it and thus had many of my civil rights taken away.

Bush did illegal wire taps and even the federal court judge ruled agaist him. when the appleal court upheld the lower court. Bush commiet 36 plus crimes and he is a criminal. He should be strip of his Presendental rights in Jan. 2009 when he is out of office.

Sounds like your the one that has been brainwashed by the media and the libs. I don't care what the reasons were for taking out Sadam. Make up any you want. He needed to go. I still agree with the way Bush has conducted the war on terror. Nothing Bush did was illegal. He should be doing more.

what damage. you think the Dems will damage our country more if they gain the senate and house?

dont make me laugh. The GOP in the last six years SOLD THIS COUNTRY OUT and they did so much damage that this is not the same country it was before the bufon retard Bush took office. Opps I mean he stole to get into office.

Go ahead and wave the american flag.. we all should hang the american flag upside down.

Oh your one of THOSE! Never mind. Your a lost cause.

what you mean I am a lost cause. that is not very nice.

You go read PNAC it is writen but the neocon bushites.

Bush did everything wrong for this war. it was all based on LIES...He had no right to attack a country that was not doing terrior acts agaist us.

why did bush ask the WMD inspectors leave? they were reporting that they could not find anything so he did not want that so he kicked them out. The bush family is good friends with the Bin Lauden family. if he wants to get bin lauden they know where he is.

Bush is the worst presendent we had in american history..Even worst then Regan and Nixon put together.

[GaryC 7]

what you mean I am a lost cause. that is not very nice.

You go read PNAC it is writen but the neocon bushites.

Bush did everything wrong for this war. it was all based on LIES...He had no right to attack a country that was not doing terrior acts agaist us.

why did bush ask the WMD inspectors leave? they were reporting that they could not find anything so he did not want that so he kicked them out. The bush family is good friends with the Bin Lauden family. if he wants to get bin lauden they know where he is.

Bush is the worst presendent we had in american history..Even worst then Regan and Nixon put together.

Uh huh, rant on. I find it entertaining.

[Marc and Olga 0]

Actually, to a point, Yogi is correct.

Critics allege the controversial organization proposes military and economic space, cyberspace, and global domination by the United States, so as to establish — or maintain — American dominance in world affairs (Pax Americana).

* "American leadership is good both for America and for the world"

* "such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle"

* "too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

This next part happened in 2002...

The group states that when diplomacy or sanctions fail, the United States must be prepared to take military action.

except that the sactions didn't happen because the rest of the world was listening to certain weapons inspectors, who asked for more time...funny how Bush refused them more time then the almost 4 months yet he INSISTS that "more time is needed"...he's had 3 years!

And as if to prove that neither WMD nor a "link to terrorism" existed (thus the war in Iraq is NOT the same as the War on Terrorism): (Note the date on this one)

The 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report recommends improved planning and , the report states "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein"

While President Bush is NOT a member of PNAC (Project for a New American Century)

After the 2000 election of George W. Bush, many of the PNAC's members were appointed to key positions within the new President's administration:

Elliott Abrams, Richard Armitage, John R. Bolton, Seth Cropsey, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Bruce Jackson, I. Lewis Libby, Peter W. Rodman, Randy Scheunemann, Dov S. Zakheim, Robert B. Zoellick are all members...any of those names look familiar?

How about these ones (ALSO member of PNAC):

• Richard Cheney
  
• Donald Rumsfeld
  
• Paul Wolfowitz
  
• Jeb Bush
  

Things that make you go HMMMM.

source

Please understand that I do believe that America has an important role in the future of our world...their ideas seem VERY extreme.

[GaryC 7]

Actually, to a point, Yogi is correct.

Critics allege the controversial organization proposes military and economic space, cyberspace, and global domination by the United States, so as to establish — or maintain — American dominance in world affairs (Pax Americana).

* "American leadership is good both for America and for the world"

* "such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle"

* "too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

This next part happened in 2002...

The group states that when diplomacy or sanctions fail, the United States must be prepared to take military action.

except that the sactions didn't happen because the rest of the world was listening to certain weapons inspectors, who asked for more time...funny how Bush refused them more time then the almost 4 months yet he INSISTS that "more time is needed"...he's had 3 years!

And as if to prove that neither WMD nor a "link to terrorism" existed (thus the war in Iraq is NOT the same as the War on Terrorism): (Note the date on this one)

The 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report recommends improved planning and , the report states "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein"

While President Bush is NOT a member of PNAC (Project for a New American Century)

After the 2000 election of George W. Bush, many of the PNAC's members were appointed to key positions within the new President's administration:

Elliott Abrams, Richard Armitage, John R. Bolton, Seth Cropsey, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Bruce Jackson, I. Lewis Libby, Peter W. Rodman, Randy Scheunemann, Dov S. Zakheim, Robert B. Zoellick are all members...any of those names look familiar?

How about these ones (ALSO member of PNAC):

• Richard Cheney
  
• Donald Rumsfeld
  
• Paul Wolfowitz
  
• Jeb Bush
  

Things that make you go HMMMM.

source

Please understand that I do believe that America has an important role in the future of our world...their ideas seem VERY extreme.

Everything there sounds reasonable to me. What is wrong with anything you quoted?

[Marc and Olga 0]

My problem is their ideas seem more American dominance over the world then American participation within the world.

If you think that is ok, remember the Soviet Union had plans for a Soviet World and even the Nazi's had an idea of a Nazi controlled world.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Marc and Olga

[GaryC 7]

My problem is their ideas seem more American dominance over the world then American participation within the world.

If you think that is ok, remember the Soviet Union had plans for a Soviet World and even the Nazi's had an idea of a Nazi controlled world.

We aren't going to take over the world. We will even give back Iraq when they get on their feet. Big difference between that and what the Nazi's or Soviets did.

[Marc and Olga 0]

My problem is their ideas seem more American dominance over the world then American participation within the world.

If you think that is ok, remember the Soviet Union had plans for a Soviet World and even the Nazi's had an idea of a Nazi controlled world.

We aren't going to take over the world. We will even give back Iraq when they get on their feet. Big difference between that and what the Nazi's or Soviets did.

Will we? The Iraqis have asked for a timeline of our withdrawl, we have implied, never.

[GaryC 7]

My problem is their ideas seem more American dominance over the world then American participation within the world.

If you think that is ok, remember the Soviet Union had plans for a Soviet World and even the Nazi's had an idea of a Nazi controlled world.

We aren't going to take over the world. We will even give back Iraq when they get on their feet. Big difference between that and what the Nazi's or Soviets did.

Will we? The Iraqis have asked for a timeline of our withdrawl, we have implied, never.

Yes we will. If we were going to make Iraq USA-east we would have already set up our own governmet there Soviet style. The Iraq people chose their own leaders. And I read that the Iraq government has asked us NOT to cut and run.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My problem is their ideas seem more American dominance over the world then American participation within the world.

If you think that is ok, remember the Soviet Union had plans for a Soviet World and even the Nazi's had an idea of a Nazi controlled world.

We aren't going to take over the world. We will even give back Iraq when they get on their feet. Big difference between that and what the Nazi's or Soviets did.

Will we? The Iraqis have asked for a timeline of our withdrawl, we have implied, never.

Well said!

[GaryC 7]

Well said? The Iraq government does not want us to leave.

Don't cut and run, says Iraq chief Monday October 23, 05:44 PM

Iraq's deputy prime minister has urged the international community not to "cut and run" from his country.

Barham Salih was speaking after talks with Prime Minister Tony Blair, amid growing controversy on both sides of the Atlantic over how long coalition troops can remain in the country.

He told reporters in Downing Street: "We do believe there is no option for the international community to cut and run, the future of Iraq is vital to the future of the Middle East and the world order."

He said Iraqis had to give the lead but they would need help for some time. He said: "This is a society that was traumatised by 35 years of tyranny, and trying to build a functioning democracy in the heart of the Islamic Middle East.

"This is not an easy situation, but we are mindful of our responsibility. At the end of the day, it is for the elected government of Iraq to make tough choices, but for some time we need the support of the international community."

Earlier a Downing Street spokesman rejected reports that Mr Blair would use the meeting to press Mr Salih for assurances that Iraqi security forces would be ready to take over control of the south of the country within 12 months.

Speculation over Britain's exit strategy was heightened this weekend by Foreign Office minister Kim Howells, who said he expected the home-grown police and army to be in a position to take over responsibility for security within a year.

But Defence Secretary Des Browne declined to back up this prediction, saying only: "British forces out when the job is done. This is a process and not an event."

Meanwhile, there are reports that US President George Bush is considering punishing the Baghdad administration if it fails to meet deadlines to stop the violence, which has flared to new heights in the past month.

Reports suggested the US would set benchmarks covering progress on military, law and order and economic goals - including the disarming of militias - with "penalties" to be imposed by Washington if they were missed.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/23102006/344/don-...iraq-chief.html

Edited October 24, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Marc and Olga 0]

My problem is their ideas seem more American dominance over the world then American participation within the world.

If you think that is ok, remember the Soviet Union had plans for a Soviet World and even the Nazi's had an idea of a Nazi controlled world.

We aren't going to take over the world. We will even give back Iraq when they get on their feet. Big difference between that and what the Nazi's or Soviets did.

Will we? The Iraqis have asked for a timeline of our withdrawl, we have implied, never.

Yes we will. If we were going to make Iraq USA-east we would have already set up our own governmet there Soviet style. The Iraq people chose their own leaders. And I read that the Iraq government has asked us NOT to cut and run.

There's a long, hard road ahead - but as long as we sustain our military in Iraq, absolute victory is assured.

source

emphasis added

this is coming from the conservatives, which is contradictory to what you said, Gary.

[GaryC 7]

There's a long, hard road ahead - but as long as we sustain our military in Iraq, absolute victory is assured.

source

emphasis added

this is coming from the conservatives, which is contradictory to what you said, Gary.

Yes thats true. As long as we don't cut and run we will win in Iraq. As I said in my previous post the Iraq government wants us to stay. If we leave the terrorist's and Iran will take over and everyone looses.