More evidence against soon to be impeached President Bush

[conjur]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Oh, you won't get an ETA on the impeachment of the chimp as long as the current crop of criminals is in power. Considering the domestic and international disasters Bush's insane policies have created, I'd say the impeachment ETA will be sometime shortly after the 2006 elections.

Yeah, look at what backing Bush cost Blair. He, like Bush, was re-elected by indisputable margins.

A real international disaster.

That's why his party is calling for him to step down because of the great # of seats they lost?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Oh, you won't get an ETA on the impeachment of the chimp as long as the current crop of criminals is in power. Considering the domestic and international disasters Bush's insane policies have created, I'd say the impeachment ETA will be sometime shortly after the 2006 elections.

Yeah, look at what backing Bush cost Blair. He, like Bush, was re-elected by indisputable margins.

A real international disaster.

Interesting spin, but that's not quite the whole story. This was Blair's worst performance. Thanks to the quirky British election rules, Blair's Labour Party received barely 35% of the vote but still kept a small majority in the House of Commons. They lost 47 seats, however. Blair definitely paid for his role as Bush's lapdog.


(Edit: oops, meant "majority", not "plurality". Fixed.)

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Oh, you won't get an ETA on the impeachment of the chimp as long as the current crop of criminals is in power. Considering the domestic and international disasters Bush's insane policies have created, I'd say the impeachment ETA will be sometime shortly after the 2006 elections.

Yeah, look at what backing Bush cost Blair. He, like Bush, was re-elected by indisputable margins.

A real international disaster.

Interesting spin, but that's not quite the whole story. This was Blair's worst performance. Thanks to the quirky British election rules, Blair's Labour Party received barely 35% of the vote but still kept a small plurality in the House of Commons. They lost 47 seats, however. Blair definitely paid for his role as Bush's lapdog.

This was posted all over the other erroneous thread touting Blair's "victory". His own party is giving him the ax.

Indisputable margin. :roll:

Here TSC, read the news American MSM won't report.

Labour's in but wants Blair out

REUTERS[ MONDAY, MAY 09, 2005 03:52:34 AM

LONDON: Members of Tony Blair?s Labour party called on Sunday for him to stand down sooner rather than later even after he won a record third term as British PM, but his allies dismissed them as isolated mavericks.

Mr Blair could have been forgiven for thinking he had lost Thursday?s election as members of Parliament from his centre-left party used media interviews to urge a swift handover to heir apparent and finance minister Gordon Brown.

Mr Blair, the first Labour leader to win three successive elections and once seen as his party?s greatest asset, has insisted he plans to serve a full term of four or five years. But with public trust in the prime minister battered by his unpopular decision to go to war in Iraq and other issues, some Labour members say he was a liability in the election campaign.

?Large numbers of people on the doorstep said that they wouldn?t vote for Labour because of the war and many went on to say they wouldn?t vote Labour so long as Tony Blair remains leader of the Labour party,? said Frank Dobson, a former health minister.

Labour won 356 Parliamentary seats on Thursday, a decrease of 47 over the last election, but enough for an absolute majority of 67 with one seat still outstanding.

The main Opposition Conservatives have 197 seats, a gain of 33. Some Labour members said Blair should quit before the party?s annual conference in the autumn. Others said he could wait till Britain finishes presiding over the Group of Eight leading nations and the EU at the end of the year.

A third group has suggested he wait until after a referendum on the new EU constitution, a tough battle expected next year.

?The sooner we could have a reasonably smooth handover, the better,? Ian Davidson, a Labour MP for a constituency in Glasgow, told ?The Sunday Times?. The public calls so soon after polls may be seen as a sign power is ebbing away from Blair.

 

[BBond]

And this is what Americans should be demanding be done to Bush.

The Brits have Galloway and we have Conyers. May they both be wildly successful in their quest to bring these criminals to justice.

Galloway: 'I'll Hound Blair Out of Downing Street'

By Rebecca Burgess, PA

Maverick MP George Galloway today pledged to hound Prime Minister Tony Blair out of office.

The newly-elected MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, who was touring his constituency in an open-topped bus, said: ?It is one of my first missions to bring him in front of a court in The Hague and behind bars.

?We are increasingly in a presidential system and that means the president is personally responsible and the buck stops there.

?I doubt if there are many people in the country who do not think that he is a liar.?

The former Labour rebel said his first attack would come in the Queen?s Speech debate.

?I will have plenty to say about Mr Blair ? assuming he?s still there. I don?t think he is in for a third term.?

Mr Galloway was joined by more than 100 supporters on his victory ?Sunshine Tour? through the streets of East London today to thank the people who voted him in with an 823 majority on Thursday.

Wearing blue jeans, a donkey jacket and smoking his trademark Cuban cigars, he waved and shouted to his constituents.

Many returned his waves but dozens failed to recognise the Respect party campaign bus or their new MP.

Mr Galloway said his victory had struck a decisive blow against New Labour and promised ?fireworks? for the future.

But the 50-year-old pledged not to stand at the next general election in Bethnal Green and Bow because the people needed an MP of their ?own origin?.

He said he may stand in another constituency or for the European Parliament.

?I am younger and fitter than Mr Blair and will certainly be continuing in politics,? he said.

His pledges to his constituents include campaigning for better housing, schools, public areas and action on youth unemployment.

?East London is the ?Cinderella? of our capital city and it has been grossly abandoned by both the major parties while in government.

?There is a saying that ?it?s a squeaky wheel that gets oil? and the east end did not just squeak on Thursday, it roared.?

Sybil Cock, of Bow, a college lecturer who has lived in Tower Hamlets for more than 30 years, said she voted for Mr Galloway because of his anti-war stance.

?I think that £6 billion could have been better spent on improving the living standards of Bethnal Green and Bow than on killing innocent civilians,? she said.

Shirin Hirsch, 18, of Bow, said it was the MP?s stance against the war, against privatisation and against student top-up fees which won her vote.

?I think Respect has got a lot of attraction for young people,? she said.

Campaigner Syed Ashraf Hussain said the next step for the party would be to field candidates in the local elections for the Labour-held Tower Hamlets Council.

 

[LongAce]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: LongAce

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: LongAce
Give it up people. Your comminist hero Kerry lost the presidentcy and your other hero Clinton was impeached so now you just want to get back at Bush.

Kerry is a Democrat and Clinton's impeachment failed because it was nothing more than a Republican vendetta to begin with.

Now, if you want to talk about a real impeachment proceeding with some TEETH, let's talk about the smoking gun memo from the UK wherein Bush/Blair decided to "fix the intelligence" to invade Iraq a year or so before they peddled their lies to the world.

Do you even know what being impeached mean? Kerry is a Communist and a Democrat. That doesn't make Democrat look good in this case.

Go away dumbass.

Wow, that's a real smart comment. I'll go away now.

 

[conjur]

Keith Olberman should be discussing the Downing Street Memo tonight on Countdown on MSNBC.

 

[compuwiz1]

impeachbush,

Let me go back a few years, maybe 20 or so. I will quote:
America..Love it or leave it.

I'm really not a hick, but I enjoy simplicity. The sooner people back our leadership, sans the politics, the sooner, we get back on track economically. Our people, the American people, by the majority of the people, or the electoral college, elected Mr. Bush.

Give the man your support, or get the FSCK out! (I'm really sick of un-supportive A-holes, who do nothing to contribute, but yet whine about everything) If you have a better plan, then get off your arse and do something to make a difference! 😉

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
impeachbush,

Let me go back a few years, maybe 20 or so. I will quote:
America..Love it or leave it.

I'm really not a hick, but I enjoy simplicity. The sooner people back our leadership, sans the politics, the sooner, we get back on track economically. Our people, the American people, by the majority of the people, or the electoral college, elected Mr. Bush.

Give the man your support, or get the FSCK out! (I'm really sick of un-supportive A-holes, who do nothing to contribute, but yet whine about everything) If you have a better plan, then get off your arse and do something to make a difference! 😉

And you're just as wrong now as you were then.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
impeachbush,

Let me go back a few years, maybe 20 or so. I will quote:
America..Love it or leave it.

I'm really not a hick, but I enjoy simplicity. The sooner people back our leadership, sans the politics, the sooner, we get back on track economically. Our people, the American people, by the majority of the people, or the electoral college, elected Mr. Bush.

Give the man your support, or get the FSCK out! (I'm really sick of un-supportive A-holes, who do nothing to contribute, but yet whine about everything) If you have a better plan, then get off your arse and do something to make a difference! 😉

And you're just as wrong now as you were then.

Looks like we found another sore winner. Someone who can't stand the fact that people dare hold this administration accountable for its deception.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
impeachbush,

Let me go back a few years, maybe 20 or so. I will quote:
America..Love it or leave it.

I'm really not a hick, but I enjoy simplicity. The sooner people back our leadership, sans the politics, the sooner, we get back on track economically. Our people, the American people, by the majority of the people, or the electoral college, elected Mr. Bush.

Give the man your support, or get the FSCK out! (I'm really sick of un-supportive A-holes, who do nothing to contribute, but yet whine about everything) If you have a better plan, then get off your arse and do something to make a difference! 😉

You're a coward. You'd rather support a corrupt administration than stick your neck out and try to fix things. Either that or you're mentally deficient, incapable of organizing a cohesive thought of your own and your lazy, deficient mind will accept any propogandized opinion that is spoon-fed to you.

Do you realize how absolutely STUPID you sound? Probably not.

You may continue scratching yourself.

 

[conjur]

'Failure is not an option, but it doesn't mean they will avoid it'
By Michael Smith
(Filed: 18/09/2004)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar118.xml

A Secret UK Eyes Only briefing paper was warning that there was no legal justification for war. So Mr Blair was advised that a strategy would have to be put in place which would provide a legal basis for war. It was also vital that the Prime Minister should be able to persuade the public that war was justified and, just as importantly, convince those among his backbench MPs who were becoming increasingly vocal in their opposition to another US-led war.

Secret and Personal

Secret - Strictly Personal

[...]

But broad support for regime change brought two real problems, Mr Ricketts said. The first was the threat. "The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programmes, but our tolerance of them post-11 September. I am relieved that you decided to postpone publication of the unclassified document.

"My meeting yesterday showed that there is more work to do to ensure the figures are accurate, and consistent with those of the US.

But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or chemical weapons/biological weapons fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.

"US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qa'eda is so far frankly unconvincing.

"To get public and Parliamentary support for military options we have to be convincing that the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for."

 

[conjur]

A timeline
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4336727.stm

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
impeachbush,

Let me go back a few years, maybe 20 or so. I will quote:
America..Love it or leave it.

I'm really not a hick, but I enjoy simplicity. The sooner people back our leadership, sans the politics, the sooner, we get back on track economically. Our people, the American people, by the majority of the people, or the electoral college, elected Mr. Bush.

Give the man your support, or get the FSCK out! (I'm really sick of un-supportive A-holes, who do nothing to contribute, but yet whine about everything) If you have a better plan, then get off your arse and do something to make a difference! 😉

And you're just as wrong now as you were then.

Looks like we found another sore winner. Someone who can't stand the fact that people dare hold this administration accountable for its deception.

Another sore winner, LMAO!! It sounds to me like even though he's doing everything he can think of, that he still feels the style of living he's used to slip/sliding away from him. Maybe..... just maybe this trickle-down economics thing isn't everything they said it was???

Nah, it's all those lazy people who don't think the same as he does, that's the problem!! Damn commie, pinko, liberals!

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
impeachbush,

Let me go back a few years, maybe 20 or so. I will quote:
America..Love it or leave it.

I'm really not a hick, but I enjoy simplicity. The sooner people back our leadership, sans the politics, the sooner, we get back on track economically. Our people, the American people, by the majority of the people, or the electoral college, elected Mr. Bush.

Give the man your support, or get the FSCK out! (I'm really sick of un-supportive A-holes, who do nothing to contribute, but yet whine about everything) If you have a better plan, then get off your arse and do something to make a difference! 😉

And you're just as wrong now as you were then.

Looks like we found another sore winner. Someone who can't stand the fact that people dare hold this administration accountable for its deception.

That's precious conjur. I hope you held Clinton to the same standard for his administrations deceptive practices. When Bush lies to a Grand Jury and commits perjury, I'll be inline calling for his impeachment as well.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: conjur
Neo-liberals aren't much different from the neoconservatives. The neoliberals seek a global move to capitalism. They are in favor of more global and multi-national corporations having more power. WTO and NAFTA would be neoliberal ideals. Where the neocons differ is they prefer to spread that capitalism by force when they deem it necessary. The neocons are more ideological.

I can buy most of that. Here is my frame of reference re: the "neo" nomenclature.
Neoconservative
An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: ?The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s? (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

Neoliberal
A political movement beginning in the 1960s that blends traditional liberal concerns for social justice with an emphasis on economic growth.

I uterly reject your assertion of neoconservatives spreading capitalism by force. Rather, I see the neo liberal group spreading a socialistic version of capitalism where teh state plays a greater role.

Utterly reject it, eh? Then explain the PNAC and explain our presence in Iraq.

???


And, BTW, I was all for the impeachment hearings against Clinton. The investigation into his sex life was unwarranted but he lied to the Senate. That's a crime no President should get away with.


And, you think lying to the Senate, the UN and the American public *hasn't* happened in this administration? What's the color of the sky in your world?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
impeachbush,

Let me go back a few years, maybe 20 or so. I will quote:
America..Love it or leave it.

I'm really not a hick, but I enjoy simplicity. The sooner people back our leadership, sans the politics, the sooner, we get back on track economically. Our people, the American people, by the majority of the people, or the electoral college, elected Mr. Bush.

Give the man your support, or get the FSCK out! (I'm really sick of un-supportive A-holes, who do nothing to contribute, but yet whine about everything) If you have a better plan, then get off your arse and do something to make a difference! 😉

And you're just as wrong now as you were then.

Looks like we found another sore winner. Someone who can't stand the fact that people dare hold this administration accountable for its deception.

That's precious conjur. I hope you held Clinton to the same standard for his administrations deceptive practices. When Bush lies to a Grand Jury and commits perjury, I'll be inline calling for his impeachment as well.

So lying us into a war is just peachy. Got it. As long as you're killing towelheads, right?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: conjur


And, BTW, I was all for the impeachment hearings against Clinton. The investigation into his sex life was unwarranted but he lied to the Senate. That's a crime no President should get away with.


And, you think lying to the Senate, the UN and the American public *hasn't* happened in this administration? What's the color of the sky in your world?

Blue. And I am encouraged to hear you were for impeachment against Clinton. I do NOT think the President lied. I think the President and his senior staff were badly lisled by faulty analysis of intelligence. At the point were there is proof, not just assertions, that Bush or his staff did lie, then we will have a serious matter to investigate that could lead to impeachment.

In the meantime, I will continue to support this administrations efforts in what I consider to be a third world war, and that is one against radical extremists - primarily Islam - who would require all "infidels" to adhere to an interpretation of a faith that denigrates women, destroys religous icons and fails the most basic democratic and human rights.

 

[conjur]

What's your take on the Downing Street Memo?

And, btw, you don't realize we're fighting against people who did nothing against us (in Iraq)? The WoT is a ruse, too, btw.

 

[dphantom]

Too early to tell on that memo. I am followign the story closely. Obviously, if true, has serious implications.

It appears "most" of the people we are fighting against are Baathist remnants and a significant influx of foreign fighters - Saudi, Yemeni Pakistani and Syrian. Others too to a lesser extent.

There are reports that Sunnis in Al Anbar are fed up with these extremists/terrorists and aer beginning to cooperate with Baghad on their elimination/removal.

Orbat Post

Bill Roggio

 

[conjur]

The resistance is a melange. It's some foreign fighters (now we're finding out many of them are Saudi) and some Ba'athist remnants. But, there are also members of al Da'awa, SCIRI, and probably some of Chalabi's goons running around, too. Not to mention just general thugs and thieves.

And, now with the U.S. ramming through privatization of Iraqi industries, workers are joining the resistance in order to fight that. Iraqis are very nationalistic people.



Also, Bill Roggio? Give me a break. :roll:

Why don't you just post up some Michael Savage links?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: conjur
The resistance is a melange. It's some foreign fighters (now we're finding out many of them are Saudi) and some Ba'athist remnants. But, there are also members of al Da'awa, SCIRI, and probably some of Chalabi's goons running around, too. Not to mention just general thugs and thieves.

And, now with the U.S. ramming through privatization of Iraqi industries, workers are joining the resistance in order to fight that. Iraqis are very nationalistic people.



Also, Bill Roggio? Give me a break. :roll:

Why don't you just post up some Michael Savage links?

I could and they would be as good as any you or bond post. 🙂

 

[conjur]

mmm hmmm

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: conjur
mmm hmmm

And why not? Are your left-wing/anti-american blogs telling the full story. No they do not. They tell a story slanted to their viewpoint. If you use those, then your opponents are allowed to use equally slanted viewpoints to the opposite.

So your comment above indicates that you cannot argue a case using your own sources effectively against an opposing view. I have provided links, especially Orbat is an excellent source, particularly their paid stuff though it is expensive.

There's nothing wrong with not liking Bush or any other president, polictical offical etc. But your statements are so at odds with what I have seen first hand and from direct contacts that I have to call in question the sources you are using. They all sem to have an anything goes anti-american agenda you repeat.

I wonder why you do that. Is America today so distateful to you and how is it different than the previous administraiton or quite frnakly anyone before?

Reagan will go down as one of the century's greatest presidents, nearly on par with FDR. I do not like FDR's policies but acknowledge him to be arguably are greatest president of the 20th century.

Are you so blinded by hatred of Bush and your virulent anti-americanism that you cannot take an objective look at the question of our war against terrorism and what we must do, with or without the world's good graces.

I personally could care less about France/Germany's approval. My sole concern is the safety and security of American citizens and if that means dealing with Syria, Iran or N Korea next, so be it.

 

[conjur]

The blogs typical link back to articles on major news sites.

If I was going to post leftist stuff, I'd post something from an op/ed page, something from MotherJones or maybe a transcript of an Al Franken shows.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: conjur
mmm hmmm

And why not? Are your left-wing/anti-american blogs telling the full story. No they do not. They tell a story slanted to their viewpoint. If you use those, then your opponents are allowed to use equally slanted viewpoints to the opposite.

So your comment above indicates that you cannot argue a case using your own sources effectively against an opposing view. I have provided links, especially Orbat is an excellent source, particularly their paid stuff though it is expensive.

There's nothing wrong with not liking Bush or any other president, polictical offical etc. But your statements are so at odds with what I have seen first hand and from direct contacts that I have to call in question the sources you are using. They all sem to have an anything goes anti-american agenda you repeat.

I wonder why you do that. Is America today so distateful to you and how is it different than the previous administraiton or quite frnakly anyone before?

Reagan will go down as one of the century's greatest presidents, nearly on par with FDR. I do not like FDR's policies but acknowledge him to be arguably are greatest president of the 20th century.

Are you so blinded by hatred of Bush and your virulent anti-americanism that you cannot take an objective look at the question of our war against terrorism and what we must do, with or without the world's good graces.

I personally could care less about France/Germany's approval. My sole concern is the safety and security of American citizens and if that means dealing with Syria, Iran or N Korea next, so be it.

I take it your view is that it's us against the rest of the world and anybody who has the gall to resist that view is anti-american and needs to leave the country. It's OK to not like the Prez as long as you keep it to yourself and do as your told.

What an intersting view of a democracy at work.