If the Downing Street Memo is proved to be true...

[Ebowed]

Hmm, if Bush lied about WMD, he shouldn't be impeached... but if Clinton lies about adultery, he should?  (Don't get me wrong, I wanted Clinton impeached because he lied under oath.  He's always come off as a sleaze to me.)

If Bush eats apple pie, should he be impeached? Because it'd make a lot more sense than impeaching over a non-issue like this.

Haha, non-issue.

[The Duke]

Hmm, if Bush lied about WMD, he shouldn't be impeached... but if Clinton lies about adultery, he should?  (Don't get me wrong, I wanted Clinton impeached because he lied under oath.  He's always come off as a sleaze to me.)

If Bush eats apple pie, should he be impeached? Because it'd make a lot more sense than impeaching over a non-issue like this.

Haha, non-issue.

Its like running from a Marine sniper when you argue with Democrats.  Don't bother, you'll just die tired.

IT DOESN'T MATTER AS FAR AS IMPEACHMENT GOES WHAT HE LIED ABOUT, BUT WHERE HE LIED!

[Ebowed]

First of all, if someone's lie is used to justify a war that kills over a thousand soldiers and many more civilians in the country that has been invaded, I would think that what the lie was about would, in fact, matter, but generally I have noticed that whether or not people were killed unnecessarily in a war isn't a big issue to diehard conservatives.

Don't misinterpret my position; I'm glad that Saddam is out of power, the man was a sick and genocidal man.  In the end the Iraq war may be worth it, but for now it looks bleak and never-ending, and I'm afraid that if we can't get our leadership together, it's only going to get worse.  Now, go off and die tired; the Marine Sniper's going to catch you soon. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Do you favor or oppose the war in Iraq?

Neither. I didn't really feel that I could support it, but at the same time I didn't oppose it as such either. For the following reasons:

1. Saddam was a brutal fascist dictator responsible to the mass murder of a hell of a lot of innocent people. Much, much more than could ever die as a result of intervention by Western countries.

2. It was going to happen anyway; the situation in Iraq was a bit like watching two trains smash into each other in slow motion.

3. Because the "anti-war" movement was dominated by an unholy coalition of groups that I detest (trots, fascists, islamofascists, yuppies, trendy "arty" types, spoiled middle class students... etc, etc).

Personally I blame G.H.W.Bush for not finishing Saddam off after the first war and betraying the Kurds and Shia in the process leading to thousands of deaths.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Do you favor or oppose the war in Iraq?

Neither. I didn't really feel that I could support it, but at the same time I didn't oppose it as such either. For the following reasons:

1. Saddam was a brutal fascist dictator responsible to the mass murder of a hell of a lot of innocent people. Much, much more than could ever die as a result of intervention by Western countries.

2. It was going to happen anyway; the situation in Iraq was a bit like watching two trains smash into each other in slow motion.

3. Because the "anti-war" movement was dominated by an unholy coalition of groups that I detest (trots, fascists, islamofascists, yuppies, trendy "arty" types, spoiled middle class students... etc, etc).

Personally I blame G.H.W.Bush for not finishing Saddam off after the first war and betraying the Kurds and Shia in the process leading to thousands of deaths.

If you don't oppose it, then sign the  up, you warmonger.

[Democratic Hawk]

No (D) - but while I'm on I haven't forgiven the GOP-led Congress for trying to impeach Clinton

For the record, I'm pro-war. I'd have preferred a further UN Resolution but that would have been expecting too much from some of the feckless wonders on the UN Security Council

Dave

[Palefire]

No (D) - but while I'm on I haven't forgiven the GOP-led Congress for trying to impeach Clinton

For the record, I'm pro-war. I'd have preferred a further UN Resolution but that would have been expecting too much from some of the feckless wonders on the UN Security Council

Dave

You seem like a reasonable sort of fellow, so I'm going to ask you a question I've been wondering about. When people (and I know you can only speak for yourself) say they are "pro-war" what do they mean? Are you implying that you favor the war in Iraq or is this a larger statement intended to reflect your support of war in general? Just wondering.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If you don't oppose it, then sign the f**ck up, you warmonger.

1. I am NOT a warmonger. If you call me that, please provide some evidence of my alledged warmongering. Does saying that I hate war make me a warmonger? Or is it because I happen to take a different view over Iraq to you and people like you?

2. Just because someone doesn't share your view on Iraq does NOT mean that they should be forced to sign up. Your going way over the line with this sort of sh*t you know.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If you don't oppose it, then sign the f**ck up, you warmonger.

1. I am NOT a warmonger. If you call me that, please provide some evidence of my alledged warmongering. Does saying that I hate war make me a warmonger? Or is it because I happen to take a different view over Iraq to you and people like you?

2. Just because someone doesn't share your view on Iraq does NOT mean that they should be forced to sign up. Your going way over the line with this sort of sh*t you know.

The fact that you oppose a war started for no good reason. You seem more concerned about those people you hate who went to college opposed it than that Bush lied repeatedly about the war.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The fact that you oppose a war started for no good reason.

Uh huh. And this makes me a warmonger, how? As an aside point I think a lot of people would disagree that the war was started for "no good reason".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, both sides were pretty dishonest IMO

[Democratic Hawk]

No (D) - but while I'm on I haven't forgiven the GOP-led Congress for trying to impeach Clinton

For the record, I'm pro-war. I'd have preferred a further UN Resolution but that would have been expecting too much from some of the feckless wonders on the UN Security Council

Dave

You seem like a reasonable sort of fellow, so I'm going to ask you a question I've been wondering about. When people (and I know you can only speak for yourself) say they are "pro-war" what do they mean? Are you implying that you favor the war in Iraq or is this a larger statement intended to reflect your support of war in general? Just wondering.

I'm implying I'm in favour of the war in Iraq. I'm not pro-war for its own sake (I don't know any one that is, other than mercenaries), I favour diplomacy but in the event of diplomacy failing then I do support military action, even when contrary to international law. Personally, I do think the course of action in Iraq was morally the right thing to do since Saddam's record of human rights abuses and atrocities against fellow Iraqis speaks for itself. What if Islamic fundamentalists, rather than the US-led coalition, has toppled Saddam (or Saddam had actively collanorated with them at some stage) and got access to chemical and biological warfare? 

Of course, I'm pretty 'hawkish' when it comes to foreign policy and, while I'm not exactly a neo-con, I do think spreading freedom throughout the 'oppressed' world is an admirable goal. In fact, so admirable, that I just wish it was the Democrats, who were at the helm of the activist US international agenda - and not the Republicans!

Dave

[Palefire]

No (D) - but while I'm on I haven't forgiven the GOP-led Congress for trying to impeach Clinton

For the record, I'm pro-war. I'd have preferred a further UN Resolution but that would have been expecting too much from some of the feckless wonders on the UN Security Council

Dave

You seem like a reasonable sort of fellow, so I'm going to ask you a question I've been wondering about. When people (and I know you can only speak for yourself) say they are "pro-war" what do they mean? Are you implying that you favor the war in Iraq or is this a larger statement intended to reflect your support of war in general? Just wondering.

I'm implying I'm in favour of the war in Iraq. I'm not pro-war for its own sake (I don't know any one that is, other than mercenaries), I favour diplomacy but in the event of diplomacy failing then I do support military action, even when contrary to international law. Personally, I do think the course of action in Iraq was morally the right thing to do since Saddam's record of human rights abuses and atrocities against fellow Iraqis speaks for itself. What if Islamic fundamentalists, rather than the US-led coalition, has toppled Saddam (or Saddam had actively collanorated with them at some stage) and got access to chemical and biological warfare? 

Of course, I'm pretty 'hawkish' when it comes to foreign policy and, while I'm not exactly a neo-con, I do think spreading freedom throughout the 'oppressed' world is an admirable goal. In fact, so admirable, that I just wish it was the Democrats, who were at the helm of the activist US international agenda - and not the Republicans!

Dave

Fair enough.

[A18]

I don't think anyone is universally "pro-war" just for the sake of having it. However, I consider myself pro-war not just in the Iraq sense, but in the sense that I'm not as reluctant to go to war as some people. Certainly the U.S. has a vested interest in seeing to it that some nutjob doesn't get his hands on a nuclear weapon of some sort.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Opposing this war in Iraq doesn't make you a peacenik. Howard Dean supported the Gulf war.

[A18]

Where did I say it does?

[Blue Rectangle]

What would the charges be in your articles of impeachment?

Something considerably more substantial than lying about a blow job.

Do any Democrats have an answer to my question?

[J. J.]

The was something interesting in the memo:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

  P. 2

Now, if the military staff does not really believe that Saddam had WMD's, why would they be talking about the possibilities that the would be used?

If you are looking the evidencial value of this, it would indicate that they thought Iraq had WMD's.  If this intended to be "proof" that the UK at least didn't think there were WMD's, it has the opposite effect.

[??????????]

Our media truly sucks. They haven't been doing their jobs since 9/11. Bush and his cronies have basically gotten a free pass on most of their gaffes.

And LBJ didn't? You want to talk about the crimes HE was guilty of? Lets see....conspiracy to assasinate a sitting president, conspiracy to assasinate a former att. general, starting a war in S.E. Asia for personal financial benefit, wiretapping the campaign airplane of Barry Goldwater, abuse of power.....should I go on or what?

[Ebowed]

You don't really think Johnson wanted JFK assassinated?

[??????????]

You don't really think Johnson wanted JFK assassinated?

I doubt he cared how JFK was gotten out of the way. As long as it was done. Whether he ordered it or not...I don't know...but he was happy either way. LBJ was a real sociopath.

[DanielX]

You don't really think Johnson wanted JFK assassinated?

I doubt he cared how JFK was gotten out of the way. As long as it was done. Whether he ordered it or not...I don't know...but he was happy either way. LBJ was a real sociopath.

StatesRights, I doubt LBJ was THAT bad.... it wasn't Johnson that should've been impeached, but McNamara and Clark...

[KEmperor]

Ok, I just read everything on that link.  It doesn't say what you claim it does.

[??????????]

You don't really think Johnson wanted JFK assassinated?

I doubt he cared how JFK was gotten out of the way. As long as it was done. Whether he ordered it or not...I don't know...but he was happy either way. LBJ was a real sociopath.

StatesRights, I doubt LBJ was THAT bad.... it wasn't Johnson that should've been impeached, but McNamara and Clark...

Well, quite obviously the schools are going to sugarcoat the truth of the matter. Especially since he was a Democrat.