I don't know if this has been posted before, but it's the first time I have seen this video and it left me speechless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ
I'm actually worried about HD. He never came home last night!
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
Not to worry- he was attending a all-night "preserve traditonal marriage" rally with Senator Vitter.
This video left me more disgusted than ever.
"Not to worry- he was attending a all-night "preserve traditonal marriage" rally with Senator Vitter."
Followed by an afternoon fact finding tour of the city parks with Rep. Bob Allen of Florida.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/27/05
Yeah, that's not a HIGHLY biased video. Sorry, but I like the facts, as opposed to spliced together scenes played with "scary music" and words of wisdom from comedians. The facts: every Democrat was saying that there were WMDs, too, Saddam didn't let the inspectors in right away, and he did fund terrorism, even offering bin Laden refuge in the 90's.
Not to mention that I wish people who want to impeach Bush actually knew what impeach meant. Siiigh.
"The facts: every Democrat was saying that there were WMDs, too"
Total BS. Please check your facts when you use a word like EVERY.
Spork, are you saying that GWB's rhetoric during the build-up before the invasion wasn't highly biased?
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/27/05
I probably shouldn't have said "every," but a lot of them were. Kerry, Clinton, Albright, Berger, Levin, Daschle, Pelosi, Gore, Kennedy, Byrd, Graham, Rockefellar...
Rhetoric is always biased. Everything a politician says is biased. But I do not believe that the danger of Saddam was overexaggerated. Even if there weren't WMDs, and I personally believe that there were, I believe that the mass graves justify Iraq.
And the Democrats who did believe it only did so based on the lies told to them by the administration. Specifically Colin Powell and those bogus charts he presented at the UN.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/27/05
Actually, most of the Democrats expressed support for the idea that Saddam had WMDs during the Clinton administration, namely because he had used them on his own people.
You need to make a distinction between regular weapons and weapons of MASS destruction.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/27/05
Yes, the Democrats were well aware of the difference between regular weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destructions are NBCs: Nuclear, Chemical, Biological. Saddam used chemical weapons on his people.
"Not to mention that I wish people who want to impeach Bush actually knew what impeach meant. "
Well according to Webster
Impeach:
1 a : to bring an accusation against b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office c : to remove from office especially for misconduct
2 : to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of
2 : to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
I vote for 1 a, b, and c.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/27/05
Yes, we know what the definition of impeachment is, thank you very much. But you're missing the point, which is that there are constitutional requirements to impeachment, namely "high crimes and misdemeanors." A public policy disagreement is not grounds for impeachment, otherwise every president would be impeached.
A public policy disagreement isn't grounds for impeachment. Lying to the American people to get us to go to war is.
"Not to mention that I wish people who want to impeach Bush actually knew what impeach meant."
Gee...I thought it meant to eat fleshy fruit contained within a hairy skin. I've been doing it wrong all these years. Namo, why didn't you stop me?
Main Entry: im·peach
Pronunciation: im-'pEch
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Anglo-French empecher, from Old French empeechier to hinder, from Late Latin impedicare to fetter, from Latin in- + pedica fetter, from ped- pes foot
1 : to charge with a crime or misconduct; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal (as the U.S. Senate) with misconduct in office —see also Article I and Article II of the CONSTITUTION in the back matter
NOTE: Impeachment is the first step in removing an officer from office. The president, vice president, and other federal officers (as judges) may be impeached by the House of Representatives. (Members of Congress themselves are not removed by being impeached and tried, but rather are expelled by a two-thirds majority vote in the member's house.) The House draws up articles of impeachment that itemize the charges and their factual bases. The articles of impeachment, once approved by a simple majority of the House members, are then submitted to the Senate, thereby impeaching the officer. The Senate then holds a trial, at the conclusion of which each member votes for or against conviction on each article of impeachment. Two-thirds of the Senate members present must vote in favor of conviction. Once convicted, the officer can be removed from office. Although the Constitution specifies that an officer is to be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, impeachment can also occur for misconduct that is not necessarily criminal (as violation of the Constitution). Because impeachment is the first step taken to remove an officer from office impeach is often used in general contexts to refer to the removal itself, but that is not its specific legal meaning. An officer generally cannot be impeached for acts done prior to taking office.
2 : to cast doubt on: as a : to attack the validity of (a judgment or verdict) because of judicial or juror misconduct b : to challenge the credibility of (a witness) or the validity of (a witness's testimony) —see also impeachment evidence at EVIDENCE —compare REHABILITATE
NOTE: A witness may be impeached by character evidence or circumstantial evidence relating to the credibility of the witness, and esp. on the grounds of prior convictions, prior inconsistent statements, contradiction by other evidence, and the witness's reputation for truth, prior acts of misconduct, and partiality. —im·peach·able adjective —im·peach·ment noun
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
American Psychological Association (APA):
impeach. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law.
Chicago Manual Style (CMS):
impeach. Dictionary.com. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Modern Language Association (MLA):
"impeach." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 18 Jul. 2007.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/27/05
Let's see... reason one: nope, he didn't. Reason two: nope, he didn't. Reason three: nope, he didn't. Reason four: nope, he didn't (I love how everyone thinks that terrorists are POWs, and that Geneva covers them.) Reason five: that's illegal? Crap, better get every president in history in on that indictment. Reason six: nope, he didn't.
If there were ANY way for him to be impeached, I'm sure that Bush would be, already. Democrats don't like him.
As per the lying to the American people thing: as far as I know, it's not against the law for a president to lie, especially where national security is concerned. They're saying that he lied about WMDs to start an illegal war, right? That would be impeachable were it actually true. Here's something telling: the Democrats control the House and Senate, and can therefore invoke articles of impeachment... but they aren't, because they know they can't prove Bush was lying. They had the same intelligence he had, and voted for the war. If Bush lied, so did they.
You and HD should hook up.
Thousands of solders came home in wooden boxes? I think that meets the criteria of a high crime. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The president lied to Congress and the American people. He should face impeachment.
Impeachment over a BJ? That was just a circus.
History will record both Cheney and Bush as guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
SporkGoddess, you know of course that your wild accusations destroy any credibility you think you have here.
You know perfectly well that the Iraqi WMDs and nuclear program had long since been inoperative when Bush and Cheney lied about the reasons to go to war.
If the mass graves justified a war against Iraq, why haven't we gone to war in Sudan to prevent the genocide in Darfur.
You know perfectly well that the mass graves and WMDs were trumped-up reasons to go to war.
Who do you come here to BroadwayWorld to tell lies?
HA! mom said "BJ".
Videos