Convince me that Bush Should Be Impeached, based on DSM

[Pryderi]

I'm going to play "Bush's Advocate".

Nothing new here.

Bush reported ambiguous data in a way to support his policy. Every politician in the history of mankind has done this.

what material fact was concealed?

Can you prove that anything that Bush said or did that

"makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation"?

[johncoby2]

1. LOL. I'll let someone else educate this poster.

I dont have that much time on my hands to do this.

[Stand and Fight]

I'll call this for what it is --

F CKING FLAMEBAIT!

"Bush's Advocate," my ass!

[Avalux]

2. *sigh*

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

I hope you can read.

[spooked911]

3. I assume you want to know what specific charges could be brought against

Bush. I suggest you read John Conyer's article/website.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Don't have the links, but they are out there somewhere.

In September, * said flat out that there were no plans to invade.

As late as February he was still saying that no course of action had been decided on, even as there were bombing raids, I saw last week it said a 100 plane sortie, to wipe out Iraqi air defenses. At the time there was no indication that the bombings were anything other than ordinary patrols over the no-fly zone that were being targeted by Iraqi AA units. A 100 plane sortie is obviously not a normal patrol - it is the initiation of hostilities - so we were already at war when he told us that no decision had been made.

[gumby]

5. Why do you think Bush needs YOU as an "advocate?"

He's got the entire Corporate Media to do that.

[BOSSHOG]

6. Because conservatives say president's shouldn't lie

[damntexdem]

9. Not so:

they only say that Democratic presidents shouldn't lie. They baptize GOP presidential lies as God's truth.

[BOSSHOG]

11. I stand corrected and yield the floor

to the gentleman from Texas.

[Goblinmonger]

7. Clinton got impeached

for a goddamn blowjob. I think this is worse.

[Dr Fate]

8. Under "The Clinton Standard"- convince me he should not be.

That is how DEMs should frame this:

"Should the Republican controlled Congress impeach Bush?- looking at their own standards they used to impeach Clinton, it seems clear they should in order to be consistent- right?..."

[BOSSHOG]

10. And Dr Fate splains it perfectly once again

[lancdem]

15. Yep

Hits the nail right on the head.

[Pryderi]

16. Under the "Clinton Standard", it was proven he lied under oath

Bush hasn't.

[Dr Fate]

20. So make Bush refuse to go under oath then...

...and make the Repubs go on TV and split hairs over why he should not go under oath.

THEN ask "What are they hiding? Why not just go under oath and let the chips fall where they may?"

Are you really saying that lying is OK, so long as it is not "under oath?"

Lying is lying. Lying about why we are at war is a "high crime"- under oath or not.

[Pryderi]

23. Ok, I'll try your tactic. Take a look at what I have to argue against

Here are just a few of the quotes I get from neocons,

".you have yet to prove anything. the only thing you have done is provide more after-the-fact evidence that the intelligence being used was faulty. please provide some proof of deliberate misleading or lies.


....PROOF.....not some hairbrained thoery from some crazy broads blog

Im yet to be convinced that he knows how to prove anything or that he knows what the word actually means. I do think he is in love with the Downing Street Memo though.


haha....true....."BUT THE DOWNING STREET MEMO!!!!.... IT PROVES.....!!"

and no....he has no idea how to prove anything....."


I get that after I post a ton of misleading statements by Administration officials.

[Dr Fate]

24. Bush should have no problem answering memo questions under oath.

First bush needs to answer some questions about this memo.

You dont have a "crime" until you have an investigation.

This has yet to be investigated, and Bush has yet to go under oath.

The memo confirms the truth- no WMDs.

Compare what the memo says to what Bush said before the war- which source tells the truth???

[Ravy]

12. Yeah, I can prove it...

... he said that the decision had not been made and that he would exhaust all diplmomatic efforts before invading.

That was materially false, ficticious, and fraudulent (since he used that lie to obtain Senate approval).

[Dr Fate]

14. I wonder what Bush's "under oath" response to that charge would be???

Let the chips fall where they may, as they say.

[LunaC]

18. With or without Cheney holding his hand? n/t

[Dr Fate]

13. First DEMs need to make him refuse to agree to go under oath.

Then DEMs could cream the Republicans as "dishonest" and "hiding somthing" in '06 & '08.

We dont need actual impeachment- we just need more voters to know the truth.

[LSK]

17. how much of what he told Congress was true???

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

This should at the very least cause a full scale investigation on what he told Congress was actually true or not.

Misleading Congress to go to war is pretty serious business.

[Dr Fate]

21. Lying to congress is "serious business?" I'd call it a "high crime."

n/t

[LunaC]

19. Putting the Downing Memo in perspective

See link in sig line.

[Pryderi]

22. I ask because I argue with thick-headed neocons, and was wondering

if anyone had some more arguments I could use.

[Dr Fate]

25. Why try to convice Neocons?- the memo is aimed at the swing voters.

The memo is for those voters who are having second thoughts about why they supported Bush's hunt for WMDs.

OF COURSE the neocons will make excuses & lie for Bush- the memo issue works to wear at Bush's political & moral capital with folks who are "swing voters" or who are having 2nd thoughts about why they supported the invasion to find WMDs in Iraq.

Dont argue with Neocons- they will make excuses for Bush, no matter how hypocritical.