Susan Rice new Secretary of State?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

dfsafa

Paul, so now you are qualified to speculate on why they didn't impeach Bush.

They didn't impeach Bush, because he (unlike Bill Clinton) didn't commit an impeachable offense.

Yes, there were a lot of folks who wanted him impeached. Mouth-breathing, unquestioning, morinic simpletons, who believe everythiyng they hear when it comes from those who despise Bush.

Bush was wrong (as were a whole lot of Democrats in the senate, and Bill and Hilary Clinton, as well as the democrats' new hero, Colin Powell). Being wrong, is not the same as lying. If it were, you would be a textbook compulsive liar. Because yu are wrong almost every time.

Paul, let's see the evidence that Bush knowingly manufactured false evidence, without which the Senate would not have voted for war. You made that accusation, so please either back it up, or admit that it's about as valid a theory as saying Obama is a Muslim (which would be less disturbing that Obama's true religion, Black Liberation Theology)

Here's what happened. Many of the Dems in the Senate voted for the war because, like Bush, they believed there were probably WMDs. When there weren't, and when the war became very unpopular, those same Dems had to distance themselves from the now-unpopular war. The easiest way to do it? Blame Bush. That's how it all started, that was Ground Zero for Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Paul, what do you think of US senators who lied about why they voted for the war, simply because public sentiment changed? Those flip-floppers are the ones who lied. Because they know they weren't 'duped'. But unlike Bush, most of them don't have the integrity to say "I made a mistake".

If there was any evidence that Bush lied, that 2006 Congress would have impeached him in a nanosecond. They hated Bush, because Bush beat them like a dog. That 2006 congress ( a huge victory for the dems) was elected with one mandate - get us the hell out of Iraq. And not only did Bush prevent them from getting out of Iraq, he forced them to go along with the Surge, which they said was doomed to fail, yet it worked like a charm. They had colossal egg on their faces, they got completely destroyed by the dumb hick Bush. They hated him for it, and they still hate him for it.

There's no way they would have decided not to impeach him, if they had a chance of doing so.

[scottw]

oh brother...Spence, quick, say something about Susan Rice.....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

oh brother...Spence, quick, say something about Susan Rice.....

I'll say somehting about her...she's precisely what I would expect from Obama, an incompetent liar who is invulnerable to criticism. She is invulnerable to criticism, because anyone who dares to criticize her is either a sexist or as racist. This is, of course, happening already. And when you flat-out accuse a titanic hero like John McCain of being a racist, you are revealing how pathetic you truly are.

And I love Obama's Rambo impression at the press conference (you wanna come after her, then you better come after ME!"). very dignified and presidential.

I hope she gets confirmed, i hope the GOP just lets him do everytihng he wants to do, so that the collapse will be that much more spectacular and undeniable in root cause.

[scottw]

don't know about all of that but Obama did win and the Republicans are in the minority in the Senate and McCain can't complain about anything as he's a panderer extraordinaire, the same people that will pat him on the back and extoll the virtues of the "maverick" when he's being "reasonable" will viciously attack him at the first opportunity on something like this and call him a racist, shouldn't surprise anyone, there are many things that are currently unavoidable....4 more years of Obama is one, further implementation of Obamacare is another(although, I just read an article in The Hill detailing the many issues they're having setting up the exchanges which will cause major problems)....a day of reckoning is coming regarding Federal spending and they can't increase taxes enough to keep up with spending and there is no will to reduce spending and more Americans seem to become dependant on government with each passing day, I think many Americans have "checked out" in many ways.....there are unavoidable problems abroad both economically and militarily which will compound problems here....Obama has not only fundamentally changed America, he's effectively divided it and will continue to because that is the key to his success, with the majority of the media acting as a propoganda machine for him the Republicans only play into his hand when they oppose him on something like this.....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

don't know about all of that but Obama did win and the Republicans are in the minority in the Senate and McCain can't complain about anything as he's a panderer extraordinaire, the same people that will pat him on the back and extoll the virtues of the "maverick" when he's being "reasonable" will viciously attack him at the first opportunity on something like this and call him a racist, shouldn't surprise anyone, there are many things that are currently unavoidable....4 more years of Obama is one, further implementation of Obamacare is another(although, I just read an article in The Hill detailing the many issues they're having setting up the exchanges which will cause major problems)....a day of reckoning is coming regarding Federal spending and they can't increase taxes enough to keep up with spending and there is no will to reduce spending and more Americans seem to become dependant on government with each passing day, I think many Americans have "checked out" in many ways.....there are unavoidable problems abroad both economically and militarily which will compound problems here....Obama has not only fundamentally changed America, he's effectively divided it and will continue to because that is the key to his success, with the majority of the media acting as a propoganda machine for him the Republicans only play into his hand when they oppose him on something like this.....

"call him (McCain) a racist, shouldn't surprise anyone"

First, we shouldn't be surprised by it, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be appalled by it. Second, I bet it comes as surprise to his adopted daughter, who isn't white.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, so now you are qualified to speculate on why they didn't impeach Bush.

You're a joke. You ask why he wasn't impeached and then when I give you why I thought he wasn't, you insult me. Just as before when you state Kerry never said he was mislead. I copy a quote where he said he was and then you say it wasn't true. You ask me why Pres. Bush wanted to go to war and I told you why I thought and what R. Clark said and again you insult me.

If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You're a joke. You ask why he wasn't impeached and then when I give you why I thought he wasn't, you insult me. Just as before when you state Kerry never said he was mislead. I copy a quote where he said he was and then you say it wasn't true. You ask me why Pres. Bush wanted to go to war and I told you why I thought and what R. Clark said and again you insult me.

If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.

Paul, I asked why he wasn't impeached. You didn't know the answer, so you invented a hypothetical that supported your previous (also false) conclusion that Bush clearly committed an impeachable offense.

You did indeed show a quote where Kerry said he was duped, and I credit you for that. Although, with no evidence, that seems about as valid a claim as Trump claiming that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.

"If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question"

You're making up answers out of thin air, answers which, shockingly, support your conclusions.

Where is the evidence that Bush intenionally fabricated evidence, without which the Senate would have voted against the war? All of your theories are based on that assumption, that the senate was 'misled'. OK, let's see it.

And situations where Bush's conclusions were wrong, are not the same as intentional deception. I'm sure you agree there's a difference between an honest mistake and a lie.

The notion that Bush lied in order to give him a pretext to invade, just because he wanted to finish what Daddy started, is absurd. When you consider the irrefutable fact that Bush gave Saddam dozens of chances to avoid war by complying with the UN treaties, your entire premise falls apart. If you 'want' war with someone, you don't give them dozens of opportunities to avoid war.

If you want to say (with the benefit of hindsight) that Bush jumped the gun, you can make a compelling case for that. To say that Bush intentionally deceived the US Senate, the UN, and all the other nations that provided troops, is anothe rmatter.

Try not to get another thread shut down if you can, please.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Try not to get another thread shut down if you can, please.

I'm Pretty sure I said GentleMEN....Plural