Here's the wind up!
I would think that would make the news.... but I guess we'll see on Monday.
and the pitch!
All we can hope is he doesn't flip-flop on this!
Finally the guy does something brave...
I hope thsi doesnt slow down our incredibly efficient Congress :D ha
Why watch TV for news? I only see tabloid and sales pitching.
I guess we'll see Monday. I bet 'The Conservative Voice' is getting a lot of hits tonight.
After looking through a few sites, one thing is certain, no where in his statements has Kerry mentioned that he will "push for Bush impeachment". Just looking at the site's name, The Conservative Voice, more than explains why an exaggeration or falsification could take place.
Was wondering the same thing. The only article that I have found that would suggest this is true is the following:
Wait and see is all I can say. It will probably buzz around the net for the weekend and when Monday comes we'll see if Kerry or prophet Yawheh is more believable.
Below is a Washington Post article dated May 22nd that I read that same date, which mentions the Downing Street Memo. So when I saw the “Downing Street Memo” by kcballer21, I wasn’t that surprised, excerpts from the article as follows:
However, as stated in regard to this thread’s OP, the mainstream media isn’t reporting much about it, and certainly not about impeachment proceedings (though many feel it would be deserved, and it would be great to be rid of Dubya sooner than later).
Unfortunately, it seems impeachment is only rumor at this time.
The rumor mill is going global, from al-jazeera:
Plus there is a direct copy and paste from the first posting, about midway down the article:
Thoughts, speculations, premonitions?
Incompetence is an impeachable offense? Doesn't that violate some kind of modern day labor law or something? I thought you could only fire people for offenses totally unrelated to the performance of their job. :rofl:
I don't put that much stock in the Downing Street Memo, but you certainly could make a case that Bush has damaged the national security.
And there'd be a long string of retired generals testifying against him if Bush were impeached over Iraq. Right from the beginning, there have been conflicts between the military and the Pentagon over Iraq - from Army Gen Shinseki's 'outrageous estimate' that it would take several hundred thousand troops in Iraq to maintain peace after the invasion and his forced retirement for sticking by his estimate; to dissenting military intel assessments of Iraq's WMD which were ignored (in fact, the Bush administration chose to use the only intel report to conclude Iraq had WMD); to criticism of the policies at Gitmo and Abu Graib encouraged by the Pentagon (Gen McCaffrey, Army general from the first Gulf War and former anti-drug czar).
I'd say he had managed something I never thought he could do - be more unpopular with the military than Clinton - except Clinton only alienated the rank and file in the military, not the leadership while Bush is popular with the rank and file, but despised by military leaders.
I was in the military enlisted during Clinton's presidency. I don't remember any ill will towards him among the crew. Could be an isolated example. I'm skeptical how much the rank and file is enjoying Bush's reign. They have more work and are in more danger than they were with Clinton. Many have had to leave their families and their jobs and set their lives on hold in order to wage a war they disagree with. I don't believe that Bush will find much support from the military if he goes up for impeachment.
Slightly off topic - I'd like to check out Michael Moore's website but would be afraid that I would then be added to an FBI list of potential terrorists which in turn could lead to them finding out about my overdue library book. Per the thread citing the guy who did 35 years for stealing a tv I'd be in big trouble . Seriously though it makes you wonder where things are going that you really do have to be careful what information you acccess even on the anonymous web.
It doesn't mention anything about Kerry pushing for an impeachment, it just talks about John Conyers Jr.
Now let me get this straight.
Blair is saying--in 2002--that Bush "fixed" intelligence information about Iraq, when Blair himself was citing the same information right up until the start of the war in --2003?
You guys are capable of better that this!
Blair didn't say that Bush "fixed" the intelligence. Matthew Rycroft, the person who wrote the memo, is describing the minutes of their meeting.
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
full text: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html
Oh, he didn't? What does this mean then?
It sure looks to me like the author is saying that Blair said that Bush was "fixing" the intelligence.
Sounds about right.
Until they can prove he has committed a crime in office he cannot be impeached.
You know, like when Clinton committed perjury. That kind of crime.
Besides, he would never actually get impeached, even if he was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt (not likely to begin with) to have intentionally and knowningly lied, the vote in the House would go down party lines, and he would not be impeached. the 2 party system is broken, thats all there is to it.
Most of the people i know who know people in Iraq say they love Bush. My nephew is going to Iraq and although hes not into politics, he likes the guy and he agrees with the war (same with the friends' friends). Although your opinion makes sense (expect the big assumption that they disagree iwth the war), my father says over and over (in regards to the military) "boy they sure love Bush... I dunno why, but they sure do"
Tonight on MSNBC's Meet The Press, Ken Mehlman, RNC Chairman was asked about the Newsweek story about Quran abuse, the Downing Street memo, Pat Tilman, etc. Not surprisingly, Mehlman continued justification of these matters and to refer to the war in Iraq as a war on terror, and a war that makes America safer. The propaganda and insult to the intelligence of Americans continues...
Well with the left-wing pushing mroe and more lies... America surely will become less intelligent over time.
wait wait wait, lets streamline the ideological process
blah blah blah, democrats suck
now you go, be quick, 1 line, must attain super efficiency.
Interesting. Maybe this is the case. I have been out of the military since late 98. Things have changed under Bush and I haven't had first hand access to the opinions of active duty military personnel.
In my defense I will say that my assumption was not such a big one. It may appear to be, but I remember a time when I was in the military and watching the news and seeing the propaganda they told. A soldier doesn't tell his true feelings to a news reporter. One of the first things you learn in the military is respect for chain of command, and the president is at the top of that chain of command. Military personnel are cautious expressing any negative opinions of the president, especially to their superiors or reporters.
Did you know that the US was in Albania as early as January 98?
Do you believe the invasion of Iraq was to combat terrorism, and to make America safe? (Just doing a little assessment of intelligence.)
The latter... i dont like industrialized nations with the ability to construct nuclear weapons if they decided to with such hatred for the US. And of course, both of which were rather secondary in their importance for invading Iraq.
Was the economy in Iraq based on industrialization or oil exports? Is ability to construct nuclear weapons sufficient reason for invasion? We know there was no connection with 9-11 or terrorists in Iraq before the invasion, but now there are terrorists in Iraq and increasingly throughout the world. How does this make America safer?
Separate names with a comma.