http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/the_i_word?mode=PF The 'I' word By Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese | May 31, 2005 THE IMPEACHMENT of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, should be part of mainstream political discourse. Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ''fixing" the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. US intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes -- evidence was thin and needed fixing. President Clinton was impeached for perjury about his sexual relationships. Comparing Clinton's misbehavior to a destructive and costly war occupation launched in March 2003 under false pretenses in violation of domestic and international law certainly merits introduction of an impeachment resolution. Eighty-nine members of Congress have asked the president whether intelligence was manipulated to lead the United States to war. The letter points to British meeting minutes that raise ''troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war." Those minutes describe the case for war as ''thin" and Saddam as ''nonthreatening to his neighbors," and ''Britain and America had to create conditions to justify a war." Finally, military action was ''seen as inevitable . . . But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." I agree wholeheartedly that there should be more discussion about this, but not for the first reason Nader goes to. It shouldn't be a case of "gee, look what Clinton was impeached for", it should be done on the merits of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq.
total waste of time. even if bush was impeached, and that could never happen in a million years, you cant tell bush what his intent was. the war was either justified or it wasnt, and that is a judgement call. besides, it isnt really manipultaing the facts unless you change them. if he cherry-picked only info that supported him to make a case, when contradicting info existed, he can just claim he believed his info over the rest. the only thing that could ever get bush is if he straight up made something up, which he didnt. nader is a joke. he is for lunatics and stupid college kids who do not understand politics.
Man, here comes the Ralph Nader flamefest. I agree with the article, but you have to know that people around here are going to instantly discredit the source, despite any actual validity.
my post only addressed the source in the last two sentences. the rest was why impeachment is stupid. simply put, if you dont see why impeachment is a waste of everyone's time, you dont understand politics.
So it's not manipulation if you lie about what they mean? I'm pretty sure it is. Changing the facts is just that...changing them, making them up. Manipulating them means giving a false idea of their significance. It sure is funny how people's definitions of 'lying' seem to waver with their political preference. How do you know he didn't, or that no one did? You don't think it's at all coincidental that our 'intelligence' turned out to be unequivocally dead wrong about everything? Our intel has never even been close to being this catastrophically wrong. That doesn't seem fishy? Yeah, I mean, no sane person could ever actually agree with him. That's just too far outside of martin's political realm to actually happen. No one could ever think that differently from martin...he just won't allow it. :sob:
My, such a rapier wit. You really put me in my place. How long did it take you to come up w/ that one? You know, sometimes it's better to just let some things pass without comment. You come off looking a lot less silly.
