Originally posted by BitRaiser

This argument will never hold water.
Just because you're not as bad as someone else doesn't mean you aren't a criminal. It's like saying that since in some countries the military randomly kills people for no good reason, that it should be OK for the western military to beat up random citizens. After all, they aren't killing them, right? Things could be worse!

The Western Administration should be held accountable to Western Standards. Period.

This is all well and true, but the problem here is majoring on the minors. A lot of the Bush hatred is based on dubious crimes at best. Whereas we have a clear and present danger in the form of muslim extremism and frankly (no thanks to Bush) we have little improvement in the security situation.

Proof?
"Saddam Hussein has weapons of Mass Destruction".
Done deal. He lied to the public to justify an illegal war.

If you want to be technical about it. Iraq was found to have stockpiled chemical weapons from their wars with Iran and the Kurds against various UN resolutions. Thus WMDs were found. Also some eyewitness accounts tell a story of WMDs being transferred to neighboring countries. Moreover it is silly to think that Saddam had no interest in pursuing WMDs. Of course he did, a leopard does not change his spots. However it does not appear to be at the same level of concern that Bush made it out to be. Bush also has plausible deniability here, he was acting on the information from his own intelligence services which he obviously interpreted in as a favorable fashion as possible. You could probably make a better case about LBJ or Nixon lying about Vietnam than Bush lying about Iraq. There is not enough evidence to impeach on this count.

It's laughable that Clinton was impeached for attempting to keep this personal life private and demonized for something which isn't a crime under the law (adultery). Much worse things have been done by various presidents who escaped unscathed. Example: Reagen and proven state sponsored terror organization, the Contras.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, a very serious crime, not for adultery. However there is plenty of evidence he received campaign cash in exchange for sending military ballistic technology to China. The Rosenbergs were executed for less.

Remember who's running the show. Clinton was guilty of not following his master's orders by making the welfare of the American People a higher priority than the feeding of Private Interest. I'm not going to say the man was perfect, but his general policy was much more moral than the current one in place.

That is why he had to go.

I'd be interested in your sources for this idea.

Originally posted by mad scientist
How pathetic and embarrassing. It is instances like this which make america a laughing stock. America is becoming weaker and weaker.

Nevermind I dont want to get banned.

To add to the thread, I think wether they are right or wrong. How is it a bad thing. If people feel a certain way this should be the norm intead its mocked and ridiculed.

[edit on 7-10-2007 by Mailman]

[edit on 7-10-2007 by Mailman]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Of course it was a publicity stunt. There was no way any citizen or citizens could put the President of the United States under arrest. In fact, it's doubtful that any federal law enforcement officer could do so either. It is the sole power of the House of Representatives to indict him and the power of the Senate to remove him from office. Only after that could any normal criminal proceeding go forward.

Who put him in office? And who elected the Congress members? We the People.

Its clear that Bush has too much power.

This is a very good thing, go people!

There should be a listing/petition online so more of us can sign up, just nationally from the net.

Originally posted by BitRaiser

Even more ridiculous is the fact that there is no evidence and no credible charge they can pin on Bush. What will you impeach him for, making bad laws? Congress is doing that 24/7. How about short sighted foreign policy or politicizing the war effort? If so then why didn't they impeach Roosevelt?

Proof?
"Saddam Hussein has weapons of Mass Destruction".
Done deal. He lied to the public to justify an illegal war.

No he didn't, and that only shows that you are another victim of the media brainwashing. Technically the U.S. could havei nvaded Iraq without any evidence whatsoever for WMDs. There were seven reasons the U.S. invaded Iraq. Now I'm not saying you have to agree with those reasons, the U.N. didn't, I do, but to say that Bush just lied over WMDs is a complete falsehood.

First of all, it was President Clinton who started this whole fiasco regarding Saddam having WMDs, Bush just actually had the guts to invade. Every major politician, Democrat and Republican, said Saddam had WMDs until Bush actually wanted to invade. And even then, the evidence was pretty clear.

The reasons for invading Iraq though were that:
1. Saddam Hussein has never abided by the terms of the Persian Gulf War cease-fire and has continued to violate 17 UN Security Council Resolutions (obviously confirmed by the United Nations).

2. Saddam Hussein is engaged in a systematic pattern of deception regarding his weapons capabilities (later confirmed by the Duelfer report and chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix) and continues to thumb his nose at the World Community.

3. Saddam Hussein possesses WMD (now apparently refuted by the Duelfer report ).

4. Saddam Hussein has ties to terrorists, including members of al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam (confirmed by the 9/11 commission).

5. Saddam Hussein intends to develop additional WMD programs, making him a threat to all counties in the Middle East (again confirmed by Duelfer).

6. Saddam Hussein's removal would help in the war on terror by initiating the democratization of the Middle East. (Imagine that, nobody ever talks about this one and recent events prove this to be true)

7. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator and war criminal, he and those members of his régime need to be brought to account for their crimes on humanity (confirmed by The UN Commission on Human Rights, the UN General Assembly, the International Red Cross and Amnesty International).

(Here they are):

Refusal to Admit Human Rights Monitors
Violence Against Women
Torture
Executions and Repression of Political Opposition
Abuse of Children
Disappearances, including over 16,000 Kurds and Shiites
Denial of Basic Freedoms: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Information
Withholding of Food
Crimes Against Muslim Religious leaders and their followers

(There’s more, but to wrap it up, Powell concluded):
In Summary, the goals of the United States are simple
1) fight terrorism, to include those that support or harbor terrorists
2) uphold and enforce United Nations Security Council Resolutions
3) disarm a dangerous regime that possesses weapons of mass destruction; and,
4) remove a ruthless dictator (i.e., Saddam Hussein) and promote Democracy in the region

I'm not going to say the man was perfect, but his general policy was much more moral than the current one in place.

No it wasn't. he clearly let Osama bin Laden escape when they knew he was responsible for the original WTC attacks. The actual footage of that was even shown in the documentary "The Pathway to 9/11."

I don't see how anyone can say throwing a dictator out of power is "immoral."

And BTW, capitalism is not the "antithesis" of democracy. Communism, fascism, socialism, etc...are

Originally posted by degenerate oto
score one for the good guys !?!George Bush is NOT America, he's an idiotic American. See the difference? He should be subject to the same fate as all other war criminals. The more this "regime" is broken down, the faster America can continue to progress into the freedom it was founded upon.

man people like you need to get their facts straightened out.
you blame everything on the current president, accusing him of commiting war crimes, which he didnt, and lying to the people. and i hope you know that our freedom was a result of war!

it is interesting how people are still getting sucked into believing the 'front man' / mouth piece ...is running the show...they provide a great 'distraction'...if anyone became leader who could actually change things for the better, they'd be shot....Jr. does what he is told, that's the main reason he's there...& because he's a Bush....the few people who still vote didn't put him there....he'll walk away & they'll get someone else to be the front.