"Impeach Bush if he attacks Syria" Lawrence Eagleburger (recants under pressure...)

[RigorousT]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
you mean the same evidence we've never been shown that iraq has WMD. If they wanna go attacking every country in the ME, I want some verifiable proof, first and foremost that Iraq has WMD, verified from independant sources. I am not going to go along with this we have a hunch crap. Quite franky, I do not trust Bush/Cheney.

Any evidence they need then or now can so easily be fabricated even for independent sources, it's a wonder people lose sleep over it. With all the "work" Blix did, do you really think anyone will believe us if we find WMD, have scientists confess to it, and have 300 independent firms verify it?

That said, our actions are always deliberate. To this day, al Qaeda still hasn't claimed responsibility for 9/11, yet we've undergone a man hunt for Osama bin Laden, ousted the Afghanistan government, and made international arrests of suspected supporters. Our administration did not publicize the evidence until months later. On the plus side, our gov. intelligence is unparalleled.. There's really no choice but to trust those we've elected to do our dirty work -- either that or align yourself with the socialist movement.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: konichiwa
All this nonsense is just in lieu of able diplomats in the Bush administration. Look at past Preisdential administrations and the amazing diplomacy that has come out of them during and after their term (Carter comes to mind). This Rambo-esque attitude of the Bushites will be looked upon as the modern version of the Vikings and the Huns. Is that how we want to see our society? I certainly don't, I personally am very very tired of all this warmongering. There ARE OTHER SOLUTIONS.

War does not eliminate terrorism.

Yeah like the great Clinton diplomatic team that created the current situation in North Korea.

Always the Clinton administration. Did I make any mention of Clinton at all? It seems when right-minded people run out of arguments, there's always Clinton to fall back on. Get over it. Clinton did NOT cause all of the problems that Bush would like you to think he did (the economy, Syria, Israel, you being born). I'm so sick of hearing that tired old rhetoric. At least the only war that Clinton took us to was a justified one that was backed by the rest of the world...

By "only" war under clinton you are referring to Haiti correct? You definitely are just another Bush basher, I have read MANY of your posts.

As far as Clinton, he did get NK to come to the table and agree to not fire up that reactor...

 

[Mrburns2007]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Republicans always have an excuse for running deficits. The real reason we are running huge deficits under GOP presidents, is that their policies are not sustainable, and don't break even.

The problem is that we never cut programs that are useless.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: SuperTool He could not be impeached because: A. Running the economy into the ground is not a crime B. GOP Congress would never impeach Bush.

You forgot his Supreme Court buddies.

You have no understanding of the way our Constitution works.

I don't huh?

Even though the CJ of the Supreme Court presides over the impeachment proceedings does not mean that he has any power to impeach.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Kon -

My point was that Carter - the great diplomat that he is - realized that diplomacy fails. Diplomacy was given months to work by Bush, and it failed.

My point exactly. Bush and co suck at diplomacy, and I am ashamed that the president of the largest and most prominent country in the world resorts to warmongering without (in my opinion, and no, as much as Bill O'Riley would have you believe, there has not been diplomacy with Iraq for 12 years) sufficient time given to diplomacy.

Well if you say there wasn't any diplomacy for 12years - THEN WHY THE F*** NOT? Oh yeah - It's all Bush's fault - I forgot

Maybe if Clinton wouldn't have sucked at diplomacy the whole Iraq thing would have been solved. But instead of trying to solve it he ignored the Iraq situation unless it was to divert attention away from his dink. And don't give me the NK example of Clintons "diplomacy" you can see how rock solid those agreements were.

Whatever - you guys sure do make me laugh

CkG

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Kon -

My point was that Carter - the great diplomat that he is - realized that diplomacy fails. Diplomacy was given months to work by Bush, and it failed.

My point exactly. Bush and co suck at diplomacy, and I am ashamed that the president of the largest and most prominent country in the world resorts to warmongering without (in my opinion, and no, as much as Bill O'Riley would have you believe, there has not been diplomacy with Iraq for 12 years) sufficient time given to diplomacy.

Well if you say there wasn't any diplomacy for 12years - THEN WHY THE F*** NOT? Oh yeah - It's all Bush's fault - I forgot

Maybe if Clinton wouldn't have sucked at diplomacy the whole Iraq thing would have been solved. But instead of trying to solve it he ignored the Iraq situation unless it was to divert attention away from his dink. And don't give me the NK example of Clintons "diplomacy" you can see how rock solid those agreements were.

Whatever - you guys sure do make me laugh

CkG

Lets just look at Clintons handling of Iraq then, in 1996 Saddam started moving forces towards Kuwait, in exaclty the same manner as in 1991. What did Bush do? Nothing, and he invaded. What did Clinton do? He dispatched a massive force, Saddam turned his troops back immediately.

Clintons diplomacy is best shown by the way the UN recieved him after his "impeachemnt", every member gave him a standing ovation in a show of support.

 

[rickn]

There's really no choice but to trust those we've elected to do our dirty work -- either that or align yourself with the socialist movement.

all the great conqueror's of the world probably said the same

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Napalm
DevilsAdvocate:

I don't give a crap if you agree or disagree with me, and I don't much care if you think I am stupid. What I do care about is that if you take the time to post in my thread, that you also take the time to think about what I have posted. If you are incapable of that then why would your bother?

N

Why are you getting upset?

Because he is pointing out flaws in your original post?

 

[galperi1]

If I recall correctly, North Korea didn't start removing the UN protections and monitoring from their nuclear reactor until AFTER GWB named them to the Axis of Evil.

I don't know about you, but if someone labeled me as an enemy and I was tremedously outmatched in every way shape and form, I would do anything in my power to prepare myself for ANYTHING

/edit spelling

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: galperi1
If I recall correctly, North Korea didn't start removing the UN protections and monitoring from their nuclear reactor until AFTER GWB named them to the Axis of Evil.

I don't know about you, but if someone labeled me as an enemy and I was tremedously outmatched in every way shape and form, I would do anything in my power to prepare myself for ANYTHING

/edit spelling

IF they werent involved in such outrageous activities which they should not have be invovled in in the first place.

 

[Moonbeam]

With a diplomatic genius like Bush in the White House, it's a good thing we have a powerful military.

 

[freegeeks]

I'm still waiting on someone to explain how Bush could be impeached. I don't understand.

If you can impeach an American president for having a blowjob it should be possible to impeach a president for attacking a country without any good reasons

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I'm still waiting on someone to explain how Bush could be impeached. I don't understand.

If you can impeach an American president for having a blowjob it should be possible to impeach a president for attacking a country without any good reasons

But, but... a BJ is so much more harmful?

 

[freegeeks]

But, but... a BJ is so much more harmful?

true -- there are some nasty proteins in sperm

 

[mboy]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
I'm still waiting on someone to explain how Bush could be impeached. I don't understand.

Unless he gets head from an intern (oh wait, that may not even do it), u are going to keep waiting. It ainty gonna happen.
Funny, the economy started to tank on Clinton's watch (yeah, I was working on Wall Street then and CLinton was CLEARLY still in office when the markets tanked). Don't forget that Bush was Pres. on 9/11 which was an economic disaster as well.

Could you imagine if the liberals like Kerry, Daschle or Pelosi were in the Whitehouse now? Everyone would be on wellfare, terrorists would be blowing things up in the US left and right, and they wouls till be blaming on the Republicans. Funny thing is how 70% of Americans are behind Bush.
Man, must really suck to be a Liberal now ( I am neither conservative nor liberal, independant and up until a few years ago, I would have to say I was much more liberal then I am now, but the weaseling of the Left pushed me towards the right)

 

[bolinger]

Syria has not been directly involved in terrorist operations since 1986

There you go Shiner, you said it yourself in your own post. If the US cannot tie the Syrian govt. directly to terrorism, there can and will be no war.

Even though we still haven't justified our attack of Iraq by proving they have WMD, the only way we could and did attack them is because we tied their government directly to building WMD.

Tying the old Afghani govt. let us attack the Taliban regime in Afghanistan without significant political fallout.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: mboy

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
I'm still waiting on someone to explain how Bush could be impeached. I don't understand.

Unless he gets head from an intern (oh wait, that may not even do it), u are going to keep waiting. It ainty gonna happen.
Funny, the economy started to tank on Clinton's watch (yeah, I was working on Wall Street then and CLinton was CLEARLY still in office when the markets tanked). Don't forget that Bush was Pres. on 9/11 which was an economic disaster as well.

Could you imagine if the liberals like Kerry, Daschle or Pelosi were in the Whitehouse now? Everyone would be on wellfare, terrorists would be blowing things up in the US left and right, and they wouls till be blaming on the Republicans. Funny thing is how 70% of Americans are behind Bush.
Man, must really suck to be a Liberal now ( I am neither conservative nor liberal, independant and up until a few years ago, I would have to say I was much more liberal then I am now, but the weaseling of the Left pushed me towards the right)

One president got a BJ, one president got thousands and thousand more civilians killed...

A BJ compared to mass assasination for a threat that MIGHT develop... heh... i'll take the BJ any day of the week....

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: bolinger

Syria has not been directly involved in terrorist operations since 1986

There you go Shiner, you said it yourself in your own post. If the US cannot tie the Syrian govt. directly to terrorism, there can and will be no war.

Even though we still haven't justified our attack of Iraq by proving they have WMD, the only way we could and did attack them is because we tied their government directly to building WMD.

Tying the old Afghani govt. let us attack the Taliban regime in Afghanistan without significant political fallout.

No need to put it boldly, we all know Syria is next on the list of invaded nations... then... Iran?

 

[bolinger]

No need to put it boldly, we all know Syria is next on the list of invaded nations... then... Iran?

Umm no. See there is no list of nations that go next. Besides, how many UN resolutions has Iran or Syria violated?

There will be no war in Syria or Iran, or NK. I expected some stupidity from Bush, but even he knows better.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: bolinger

No need to put it boldly, we all know Syria is next on the list of invaded nations... then... Iran?

Umm no. See there is no list of nations that go next. Besides, how many UN resolutions has Iran or Syria violated?

There will be no war in Syria or Iran, or NK. I expected some stupidity from Bush, but even he knows better.

considering that Irak has no history of terrorism or WMD production while both Syria and Iran does i just figured that they would be next...

Don't be surprised if i am right...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: bolinger

No need to put it boldly, we all know Syria is next on the list of invaded nations... then... Iran?

Umm no. See there is no list of nations that go next. Besides, how many UN resolutions has Iran or Syria violated?

There will be no war in Syria or Iran, or NK. I expected some stupidity from Bush, but even he knows better.

considering that Irak has no history of terrorism or WMD production while both Syria and Iran does i just figured that they would be next...

Don't be surprised if i am right...

No history of terrorism? What history book are you reading from?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: bolinger

No need to put it boldly, we all know Syria is next on the list of invaded nations... then... Iran?

Umm no. See there is no list of nations that go next. Besides, how many UN resolutions has Iran or Syria violated?

There will be no war in Syria or Iran, or NK. I expected some stupidity from Bush, but even he knows better.

considering that Irak has no history of terrorism or WMD production while both Syria and Iran does i just figured that they would be next...

Don't be surprised if i am right...

I will be very surprised if you are right.

At the very most there may be a special op action to remove the higher ranking members of Saddam's regime from where they are hiding in Syria. There will be no full scale invasion.

 

[mboy]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: mboy

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
I'm still waiting on someone to explain how Bush could be impeached. I don't understand.

Unless he gets head from an intern (oh wait, that may not even do it), u are going to keep waiting. It ainty gonna happen.
Funny, the economy started to tank on Clinton's watch (yeah, I was working on Wall Street then and CLinton was CLEARLY still in office when the markets tanked). Don't forget that Bush was Pres. on 9/11 which was an economic disaster as well.

Could you imagine if the liberals like Kerry, Daschle or Pelosi were in the Whitehouse now? Everyone would be on wellfare, terrorists would be blowing things up in the US left and right, and they wouls till be blaming on the Republicans. Funny thing is how 70% of Americans are behind Bush.
Man, must really suck to be a Liberal now ( I am neither conservative nor liberal, independant and up until a few years ago, I would have to say I was much more liberal then I am now, but the weaseling of the Left pushed me towards the right)

One president got a BJ, one president got thousands and thousand more civilians killed...

A BJ compared to mass assasination for a threat that MIGHT develop... heh... i'll take the BJ any day of the week....

Actually, for y Pres. I would rather have one that would take steps to insure my countries safety, even if it means innocents civilians loosing their lives (um, I would like to see your thousands and thoussands figure proved. NO matter how many ACCIDENTALLY lost their lives in IRAQ directly related to the USA, I gurantee Saddam killed waaaay more then we ever have.You foreigners are the funniest bunch. Bush is a baby killer, bush attacked another country for no reason, impeach him, but if a country like Iraq, or whoever atacked you, or threw terrorirsts your way, who are you going to call 1st to bail you out?
SnapIt, I believe your European, your country gets invaded, who is the 1st country your weak as govt wil call for help? Who would have to bail you out again? Bitch bitch bitch is al you Europeans do, but when your about to be annhialated, you come crying to the US.

Do you speak German or Russian SnapIt? Well, you and your family very well could have if it weren't for my family and the families of MY countrymen who bailed (and lost a ahell of a lot more lives then any innocent Iraqi in both Gulf wars combined) you out. As a matter of fact, my grandfather lost his life bailing you Euroweanies out and saving your ass. Your welcome by the way!!!!

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: Napalm
Context: BBC Interview 04/13/03 The British government is on record as being against the idea of military action being taken against them (Iran and Syria ), but many of the so-called hawks in Washington have made it pretty clear that unless they change their ways, Tehran and Damascus should be next in line for compulsory regime change. The British will take heart from the more cautious voices coming out of Washington. Lawrence Eagleburger was Secretary of State for Bush's father, the first President Bush, and <EM>he and other leading veterans of the first Bush administration warned last summer about the dangers of attacking Iraq.</EM> In fact they were thought to be acting as proxies for their old boss, who was said to be privately unconvinced of his son's policies. Now that the military campaign seems to be drawing to a close, we ask Mr Eagleburger if it is true that winning the peace will be much harder. In an impassioned interview, Mr Eagleburger also tells us that if George W. Bush were to take military action against Iran and Syria, he should be impeached. N

First of all - Eagleburger was Secretary of State for about 15 minutes. He was appointed late in his term, August 1992.

Secondly - the "other leading veterans" were proven wrong by the success of the campaign. This is not the first time they were wrong though. The old guard is who decided to leave Saddam in power during the first gulf war.

What would possibly be the basis for impeachment? This is wonderful rhetoric, and the word "impeachment" sounds impressive and all, but really - what would be the basis?

The only thing that might come out of something like this might be a challenge to the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, but that is about it.

If we can impeach Clinton for lying about getting head, I am sure we can find a way to impeach Bush if he attacks Syria and we don't find any WMDs in Iraq, maybe for pointlessly wasting American lives and money. The war's stated purpose was the threat of WMDs, no one should ever forget that, just "liberating" Iraq was never the plan.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Wonder if anyone realizes that Eagleburger has recanted what he said in light of the new evidence they have on Syria?

you mean the same evidence we've never been shown that iraq has WMD. If they wanna go attacking every country in the ME, I want some verifiable proof, first and foremost that Iraq has WMD, verified from independant sources. I am not going to go along with this we have a hunch crap. Quite franky, I do not trust Bush/Cheney.

Ditto