lewrockwell.com — Impeachment and removal, followed later by indictment and conviction, will be a long struggle. (It will, sadly, slow Congress down for a while in its work of destroying the world.) But it is needed to restore the U.S. Constitution as well as international law, and to establish a standard of accountability for the launching of aggressive wars. ....
Oct 9, 2006 View in Crawl 4
wsucksOct 9, 2006
Bush absolutely should be impeached, as well as any other politician who swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution only to ignore it, violate it, and break criminal statutes at the same time! In my mind those actions are tantamount to treason.Bush Co. is praying that 'signing statements' and retroactive legislation will save his ass, I'm not so sure.
haapiOct 9, 2006
The intelligence was not piss-poor. 85% said there were no WMD. 15% said what the neocons wanted to hear.
tucsonwcOct 9, 2006
Stay afraid. So you can keep the repubis**ts in power.Better Elevate the Terra alert.Better take away more citizen's rights.Better bash some more gays.Ahhhh. I feel safer already. So do the lobbyists and Karl Rove. Employed for 4 more years!Keep being afraid. Asshat.
Closed AccountOct 9, 2006
"c**ksucking bastard!""you asshat.""Who gives a s**t about them? ""Hey f**ktard how about N Korea? You rather play ostrich with them?"This is the type of leadership people are looking for in the Democratic partyActually I'll dignify the last one with a response, but this does not legitimze your obtuse attlemindedness.China has done a study about North Korea and what would happen if they attacked an American Allie with nukes, they basically said that if that happened, and the us Retaliated, they would stop after 3 thousand soldiers deaths if and only if the republicans were in power because the democrats would force them to due to blind partisan politics. The attack should not be an option if the Democrats would be in power because the Republicans would not put US partisan politics ahead of global war.THIS IS THE MESSAGE YOU PEOPLE ARE SENDING TO THE WORLD.
joybranOct 9, 2006
"Whether or not we should be in Iraq, we are there. Either wage war to win or get out."What does winning even mean in Iraq? If winning means destroying the infrastructure of the country, taking control of its government, and establishing permanent military bases and a permanent fortress-like embassy, we have already won. If winning means killing all our enemies there (i.e., everyone in the country who wants us out), we still have a few million Iraqis left to kill.If winning means imposing peace and "democracy" on Iraq, it will never happen, no matter how many troops we send or how many Iraqis we kill. Besides, that was never the goal, no matter how much propaganda claimed it was.So what is left to win? If we could find another Saddam Hussein who would be ruthless enough to rule Iraq as a dictator while being our CIA asset and protecting our access to Iraq's oil, we would have everything our government wanted going in. However, our new puppet dictator would eventually have to do what Saddam did, turn against us to hold on to his own power over the Iraqi people.
jammerOct 10, 2006
I agree. This is what happens when you get a bunch of loser unemployed Liberals with nothing else to do all day except surf the 'net for this tripe.