rawstory.com — "The language in [the Constitution] about impeachment is nice and precise -– it's high crimes and misdemeanors," Lawrence Wilkerson said. "You compare Bill Clinton's peccadilloes for which he was impeached to George Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors or Dick Cheney's high crimes and misdemeanors, and I think they pale in significance."
May 10, 2007 View in Crawl 4
sven007May 10, 2007
If the war is legal (as in only defend instead of preemptive strikes, aswell as following the guidelines and procedures), then there will be no war crimes to worry about.And don't anyone bring up "but they were going to attack us" NO ONE WILL ATTACK THE COUNTRY HOLDING EVERY SINGLE NUKE IN THE WORLD. an attack by a major country on the US is suicide.
jll3sonexMay 11, 2007
You're going to need someone better than the current Anointed Obama and St. Hillary - and I don't see the Democratic Party being currently willing to field someone that anyone other than the far left will vote for. Both sides are scraping the bottom of the barrel - and I'm getting tired of the stink that's being passed off as perfume on both sides.
Closed AccountMay 11, 2007
@missinglinkPeople like you still exist? My god, I guess you can find someone who believes in anything.
edverbMay 13, 2007
//It appears this Marxist idiot above (edverb), is insinuating that Bushie 41, was in office///Listen you wacakaloon....I'm not insinuating anything, I'm flat out telling you. Bush 41 was in office. Maybe you'll learn something, but I doubt it. The incident at Ruby Ridge occurred in August 1992. Bill Clinton took office in January of 1993. Do you understand the concept of linear time...or is that a "Marxist" plot too?
dahatMay 17, 2007
@MercymillenniumWow, someone responded... and yet not the original person who made the accusation.. oh well.> How exactly do you get incrimating evidence from Bush if he does not want to give it up? How can you prove wrong doing when the people with the proof won't (and I don't understand why not) give it to you?You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the President or any individual has the duty to prove themselves innocent; instead it is up to the accusers to prove guilt. Furthermore it is not the duty of the accused to give up any and all possibly incriminating evidence at the slightest accusation of something... instead there are rules which must be followed and in general fishing expeditions are not a legitimate way of discovering if anything illegal occurred, instead they are used to determine if a specific crime did occur.> You make it out like any evidence is just laying around and none must exist if we have not stumbled upon it walking doen the street.There would be enough people involved with such incriminating evidence that someone, somewhere who does not have a political axe to grind would come forward and bring the evidence with them... and yet, we don't see that. Instead we see an extensive history of people on both sides of the isle talking about the threat from Saddam Hussein and his WMD?s for many years... well before the swearing in of Bush-43.> Most people believe that evidence exists but that Bush hides and supresses it.And? Just because people believe something to be true doesn't necessarily make it so... many people believe that the Republican party is the party of small government and yet... we know how that has turned out. Never ever rely on a poll to prove anything.To answer your question of which is more true... I?d say that neither, as you are trying to play the ?Well if he?s got nothing to hide, why doesn?t he show all of his cards?? It is more likely that the President does not believe it appropriate to turn over such information without a warrant outside of a legal proceeding, something that has not yet happened.> Even with that said I have to point out wiretapping as a slam dunk crime he has commited, and the proof is all around you to check out.Really? And here I thought the courts were still deciding that case.