Sharpton: Impeach Bush if He Lied!

NewsMax.com ^ | 7/09/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[kjam22]

"If [Bush] had knowledge, or the vice president had knowledge, and knowingly brought America to war on false or flawed knowledge and they knew it, they absolutely should be impeached."

My question is who wouldnt' agree with this statement???

Like I say... I don't think Bush did that.... but surely we all agree with the statement.

[UCANSEE2]

Good post. Good thoughts.

I would have to agree. I don't want a President representing me that thinks he must lie to conduct his business.

However, one must consider this. The concept he lied is coming from: (the DEMS, the media, and a fake spy)

Who do you believe?

[UCANSEE2]

I would like to be on your ping list. It amazes me the information that I miss. Thanks...

[kjam22]

I agree with you. Now the Clinton group (Carvill et al)... they would have already trashed this fake spy to the point that nobody believed a word he said. They would have dug up every single bit of dirt on this guy from the time he went to kindergarden until last Tuesday. And that would be "the" story. The dirt on this guy.

As much as I hate the Clintons, I gotta admit that they knew how to play hardball. You gotta give em that much.

[UCANSEE2]

You are correct. WE ALLOWED a precedent to be set, for all time, for our children, that ORAL SEX is not SEX, and LYING is OK.

President Bush has been setting examples that counter this concept, let's hope they have more effect than those examples set by that jerkoff that used to be called the President.

[jonalvy44]

Did Sharpton mis-represent the facts about Tawana Brawley?

[UCANSEE2]

If Bush really did that (and I don't think he did) and we gave him a pass.... then we are no better than the Clintonians who gave him a pass.

100% true. And our country is only as good as us.

[UCANSEE2]

Sure. But I won't admire or accept that using dirty tactics is the right way. It is used by people who MUST WIN AT ALL COSTS. Who have so much to hide they must use those tactics.

[zoen]

Take a pill buddy.

[UCANSEE2]

You were being satirical and I got serious. Sorry, you are right, we should all just take a pill and forget about it.

: )

[JustPiper]

I'm sorry after hearing Sharpton on Scarborough there is no way in without getting ill, to give him a vote.

[Burkeman1]

It is a quote from Calvin Coolidge- the most dry witted President ever (and the most underrated).

[Impy]

Rat attacks are butter and Bush in a no-stick pan.

[Burkeman1]

Not everything coming from liberal mouths is a lie (that seems to be a very popular notion around here.) Do I believe that Dems and libs in general are more prone to outright lying? Yes- their record speaks for itself (see Clinton years and this century for examples). But the Dems didn't create a special office of intelligence in the DOD that fed information to Bush while circumventing or bad mouthing CIA and the DOD itself. The Dems haven't hid WMDS is Iraq so they can't be found. The Dems didn't say Iraq was an imminent threat to us and had reconstituted nukes. The Dems didn't make GWII use faked info in the State of the Union address (well some actually did). That the dems exploit these issues or can be shown to be double talking hypocrites on this matter (most supported the war) is really of no importance to me. I don't trust their words or their motives. But I ain't gonna put blinders on either. As it is now- there is no proof of anything other than perhaps bad judgement and over zelous interpretation of dubious intelligence (and that is not even fact yet). But there is more than enough for questions to be asked at least! And this whole discussion is quite theoretical. If we couldn't prosecute Clinton for lying to a Grand Jury so blatantly then do you think Bush could ever be impeached on "lies" that could never in a million years be proved true?

[Burkeman1]

I don't think he did either- but to not at least ask questions is just naive and too trusting. Bush- is- after all- just another politician when it comes to the end of the day. One of the things that I always believed during the many many discussions on this board about the many many Clinton crimes and scandals was that if the situation were reversed and Clinton was a Republican- Freepers would still tear into his hide. Carter was a very bad President because he was a liberal ninny- but he wasn't a sociopathic criminal like Clinton. I didn't hate Clinton (and yes I am a "Clinton Hater") because of his politics as stupid and wrong as they were- but because the man was a corruption on the entire body politic of this nation.

Bush is not Clinton by any stretch of the imagination but I won't be a hypocrite and not poke and prod and seek honest answers to good faith questions just because he shares my party label. The GOP sheds it's dead weight - we don't rally around and protect liars and men of dishonor (how many Republicans did we get rid of during the Clinton years out of principle?) The Democrats rally around their thieves, liars, and criminals and protect them to the last no matter what dishonest argument they have to make in such defenses. In the long run the GOP is stronger because we police ourselves and enforce simple decent codes of conduct. I am not saying Bush is guilty of anything (there is zero chance of impeachment)- I am just saying we are better than the dems and we should always question even our own leaders.

[Burkeman1]

The rest of the world's media is generally a cess pool of paranoia, conspriacy theories, and fantasy (Third and Second World media- Europe not as much). Arab newspapers still publish the "Protocals of the Elders of Zion" as fact. This fake story doesn't even come close to some of the more outlandish crud the press of these countries publish.

[kjam22]

I don't think he did either- but to not at least ask questions is just naive and too trusting. Bush- is- after all- just another politician when it comes to the end of the day.

Truer words were never spoken.

..... I always believed during the many many discussions on this board about the many many Clinton crimes and scandals was that if the situation were reversed and Clinton was a Republican- Freepers would still tear into his hide.

Some would but a whole lot wouldn't. At least that's what I think.

A person could look at it like this. The fact that they haven't found WMD's (at least yet) is more evidence that the administration really thought the WMD's were there. I mean if they knew it was a lie (not saying it was)... then they would have planted some stuff to make sure they didn't get caught and into this mess.