And dignified waiting for cooperation from stone cold obstructionists. They won't budge. Repukes 'play' politics like a count, counterpoint, game.


WE ARE NOT PLAYING A GAME HERE!

And I will let it go at that.. whew.. its unbelievable sometimes.. K&R

Hatred and fear are powerful fuels.

They were so convinced they'd "out" him for being born in Africa, for being Muslim, for all sorts of whack reasons they could hide their racism behind.

They'll convince themselves they'll be successful in this, too. I'm weary of it already.

There were about a half dozen lies.

Its keeps a detailed record of things. Perhaps some day, some future historian will find another and academia will break out into the great debate over the 936th lie.

Broadly speaking, there were only two categorical lies:

• Saddam had weapons of mass destruction; and
• Saddam had ties to Al Qaida and may have been complicit in the September 11 attacks.

Wolfowitz's "the war will pay for itself" crap.

There were some others that don't fall into the two broad categories named.

The ironic thing about this lie is that I took it to be truth at the time, but one that confirmed my principle reason for opposing the war. Wolfowitz was saying that the war would pay for itself by passing the profits from Iraq's oil production to US oil companies. In my view, that is out-and-out colonial piracy, but that's what the war was really about. That being the case, there was nothing about the war that was "pre-emptive." It was, at least in a manner of speaking, a war of liberation. The Bushies and their corporate backers wanted to liberate the Iraqi people from their mineral rights.

Speaking of Wolfowitz, he's now taken to telling more flagrant lies about the war.

In Dec. of 2000 w, Cheney, Rummy, & Wolfowitz went to an operations
room in the Pentagon to discuss plans for a war in Iraq. This was in one
of Bob Woodward's books and I had to stop reading the book @ that point
because I just couldn't handle my thoughts about those unelected war
criminals planning an unneeded war as the SCOTUS was stopping the
count of legitimate votes in Florida.

bush v Gore is still giving us "pay back."

Those mother fuckers should be in jail for what they did to the world. I try
to keep it down but I live in Ohio and watched as "they" stole another election
in 2004 and yet it still makes me crazy to think of the shit they pulled. To this
day i have some right wing friends who tell me about how Obama ran up the
nation's debt and when I tell them it was w and his two wars off the books,
tax cuts for the rich, an unfunded Medicaid part D drug plan, and crashing the
economy they tell me I am living in the past.



Welcome to the new al Qaeda nation of ISIS.

2016 when a Dem wins the WH, the process would have already begun, UNLESS -GOPers are voted out.

VOTE

Neither Reagan or Bush 41 were impeached over Iran/Contra (a scandal in many ways much worse than Watergate), yet the GOP self-righteously demanded the impeachment of Bill Clinton for having an affair when many of the right leaders of the cause (Newt, Henry "Youthful Indiscretion" Hyde (a great band name, by the way), Dan Barton, etc.) were not exactly "moral upstanding Christians" themselves.

How can so many, in theory, intelligent people not see that the GOP thinks you're stupid and counts on it every November in America?

A blessing for propagandists.


Get the pukes out in November!

Priceless!

... give his skin that bronze tinge, it would be perfect!

If Bush One had gotten a second term, he would have been impeached because of his dealings with Sadaam. He actually financially supported Saddam's NUCLEAR program! This nuclear program support is not well known although the general U.S. support of Saddam is well known.

It was all in a book called Spider’s Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq.

This book was discussed on DU too:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5084637

left out the biggest reason Bush43 should have been impeached...he committed war crimes by condoning and carrying out torture.
I will never understand why in Nov. 2006, right after the election that put Nancy Pelosi in as Speaker-Elect she immediately took impeachment off the table.

Takes 2/3 of the... $enate.

to start over because you end up with.... cheny?

By announcing "impeachment is off the table" the Speaker told the criminals they could get away with their crimes and there would be no consequences. It's as if a District Attorney stated "Well regardless of where the investigation takes us, we are not going to pursue criminal charges." Do you not think this will embolden future presidents? (Probably Republicans)

Also, the Senate might not have had the votes at the beginning of the trial, but as the criminal acts became more public, pressure would have mounted on some Republican Senators to support the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

not on 'he said, she said' or classified documents (it's not 'easy' to 'get' as they barely got Libby...).

Also, about the current (and the 'then') repuke $enators, forget it: it's like you have no idea.

Really? I think there was plenty of evidence on each of the topics mentioned in the original post. However, when you have wimpy Democrats like Pelosi, who let Karl Rove blow off his subpoena and nothing ever happens to these men, the message you can do what- ever you want. On the other hand, the Republicans will make up shit and go for it. Don't you think the Democrats should play offensive once in awhile?

PS: I started my response "respectfully I disagree." Why did you write, "it's like you have no idea?" Do you have a monopoly on the truth when, in fact, you are stating your opinion, just as I am?

... it's not what happened in reality, which proves that we can think we have the truth, what we think and write on a message board very seldomly becomes reality in the 3D world.

I apologize if the "like you have no idea" meme I wrote may have looked like as it was directed to you personally: it was not.

You end up with.... Nancy. Nice, but what would all the corporate-media shills accuse her of? Umm?

The never ending wars in Iraq only exist to funnel ungodly sums of money into the greedy coffers of the military industrial complex.

but they actually DID impeach Clinton, who is white.

he has not conducted himself in any way, shape, or form warranting an impeachment. This is just racist Murika in action.

... who charged that Bush had raped her, and later was found dead of a gunshot wound.

Had this been Clinton or Obama, the GOP and the press would have been ALL OVER IT! Instead, how many here even have forgotten about that incident? At least it should have been having some visibility about being INVESTIGATED!



http://www.opednews.com/thoreau1103bush_rape_suicide.htm

They'll make fools of themselves and asses of moderate voters (see what I did there?).

So many of them have committed offenses that are arguably impeachable too. If the GOP has a record of impeaching Clinton and then Obama for CRAP, then why not take down one or more Supreme Court justices for far more legitimate reasons!

.....to what those reasons are. You did not specify any.

for failing to prosecute Bush and Co.

.....been president for 6 years now. Talking about him is an indicator that the speaker does not want to address the real problems.

1 happens under Obama (despite that a GOP owned movie studio produced the movie to intentionally provoke Muslims overseas) And the GOP acts like monkeys throwing their crap ar each other.