Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Mr. President, should a president who's lied be impeached"?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
mopaul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 08:16 AM
Original message
"Mr. President, should a president who's lied be impeached"?
i mean, didn't we actually impeach the last legally elected president for telling a little white lie? why should you yourself not be impeached for your INUMERABLE lies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Lying to the American people to get us into war is an impeachable offense.
Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southernleftylady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. but can we PROVE that he lied..
thats what i hear everytime i say that bush lied
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. No WMD's. No ties to Al-Queda. No direct threat to the United States.
And those are the lies this President told the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southernleftylady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. but did he really believe that there were wmd? (im just playing D.A. here)
or did he really know that there werent any there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. The weapons inspectors couldn't find any.
But it didn't matter to this President if they didn't, because he was in a hurry to get us into war anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. how's THIS for starters?
no room for ambiguity, or interpretation on this one:

at a press conference with Kofi Anan, he SAID that Saddam would NOT let the inspectors back in during the fall of 2002, so that's one of the reasons we had to invade!!!!!!!

do you remember the constant stream of RIDICULE at those incompetents led by Blix, for not being able to find what wasn't there?

remember THAT?

he repeated this transparent lie at least one more time, and maybe once more

NOBODY in the lazy, cowardly WH press corpsE has ever called him on that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. But no more than possibly one or two Rethug(s) in the House would
ever vote to impeach a Republican (p)resident, no matter how compelling the known evidence of multiple high crimes: their partisanship is always put before our country, the Constitution, in every situation, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. It would be a losing cause, but it sure would be a distraction to Bush.
I'd like to see the Democrats introduce articles of impeachment. Nothing would happen, of course, but it would focus attention to the heinous lies this Administration has told the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southernleftylady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. well why havent they yet ? seriously? maybe we should write to them?
but he only has a few months left.. maybe if he steals this election too then they could...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frankly_fedup2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
10. A major rant (I couldn't stop myself . . . sorry) . . .
A very little white Lie about something he should have never been asked. They asked about his private life and they had no right to do that. I remember when the impeachment was going on and I would scream at the T.V. There was no one that would listen.

I called the White House, told them I supported the president 100%, and that I hope he does not resign.

Funny that everything the Clinton's were being investigated for, they were completely exonerated a day or two after they were out of the white house. The Independent Council felt the need to announce this publicly as well. However, that was not good enough. They had to continue with the Clinton's stealing furniture, paintings, etc. This was later found not to be true, and I could not believe they would even accuse them of stealing ashtrays off of Air Force One. Do people really think the Clinton's packed their belongings and carried those boxes and furniture out of the White House? Why would they steal ashtrays when they do not even smoke. Plus, why were there no pictures of all the destruction of cabinets, desks, walls and taking all the "W's" off of the keyboards by the Clinton Administration employees? Because it didn't happen.

The Republican propaganda machine works unbelievably well with the people across this country who think they are the true Christians. These true Christians take in every word from Rush Limbaugh as the Gospel truth. That man has hate radio, but they believe he is right, and they will parrot him in a minute on Washington Journal on C-Span every morning. Some of the comments he makes are so totally warped and far from the truth, but he has been doing this for a long time and gets paid very well to tell the Republicans what they want to hear . . . that they are always right. They are adamant regarding the second amendment and their guns; however, they state that the first amendment says nothing regarding separation of church and state. These people believe that the Constitution was, basically, founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. They claim there were 55 men who worked on the Constitution, and out of the 55, 52 were "Evangelical Christians." I did not know there were "Evangelical" Christians in the 1700's. They claim that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. They believe the simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. They also believe our Founding Fathers were "God-fearing men." I don't know what book they are getting their information from, however, Jefferson was a Deist, which does not believe in a miracles or a God. (sorry, got a little off track there) . . .

They claim life begins at conception, when the sperm fertilizes the egg, and they claim they are trying to save the babies (if they really cared about the "babies" they would save the "babies" that are still in petri dishes waiting to be inseminated. These are fertilized eggs that, if not used, are either thrown out with the trash or frozen in case the couple decide to have more children. A perfect example of this is Celine Dion. Remember when she had her little boy? She had in-vitro fertilization and admitted there was another fertilized egg that was frozen and was the twin of her son she had just given birth too. She claims she will one day go back and have that fertilized egg inseminated. Time will tell I suppose. They claim life begins at conception, right? Well, wonder why they are not protesting over the millions of babies that are frozen or thrown out because the woman becomes pregnant and they did not use all the fertilized eggs, nor will they need them in the future. I find this such total hypocrisy on their anti-abortion arguments. What about the "babies" that are poured down a sink, frozen, or flushed in a toilet at these fertility clinics?

Ummmm . . . what was the question? :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radio Donating Member (32 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-04 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
11. We need to fire the weatherman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 02:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC