Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (4884)	11/3/2005 7:06:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541490

suppose that it turns out that Bush knowingly lied about the existence of Iraqi WMD in the State of the Union address. in order to drum up support for the war. Would you not be persuaded that this was an impeachable offense? Knowingly lied to the extent of having almost being strongly sure that there was no WMD stockpile, and deliberately making specific statements in support of it that he knew where totally false? No shading the truth, no exaggeration of facts, or exaggeration of how solid intelligence was but total outright unmitigated lies? Anything short of that and the answer IMO is clearly that it isn't an impeachable offense But if you go that far? Well I'd still probably lean to "no". But what actually is an impeachable offense is not clearly defined. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is hardly very specific. If it could be proved that Bush made a sustained deliberate effort of deception and direct specific, repeated lies, to the public and to congress about the WMD and about specific claims of solid intelligence about them, both in the SOTU address and elsewhere, I probably would not be screaming with rage against the impeachment, but I lean to the idea that impeachment should be for direct and specific and reasonably major illegal acts. Lies to support a policy should probably count against (and maybe severely against) a politician (and in some cases his party) in latter elections but probably should not result in impeachment, at least if such lies are not under oath. Still, why does the argument bother you so much? I mean, if there's absolutely nothing to it, why not just ignore it or laugh it off? If the argument is worth making, and isn't clearly true, its probably worth arguing against. Of course maybe it wasn't worth making either... I don't think it really did bother me all that much. I wasn't actually upset about it. Rational argument usually doesn't upset me. Trying to shout me down, or order me around might, but its kind of hard to do that over the internet. :) To a lesser extent insults might, but often they are things I can ignore or laugh off, or in specific cases refute without being all that upset. Tim

To: Ilaine who wrote (4884)	11/4/2005 9:46:35 AM
From: Suma	Respond to of 541490

Maybe Bush mouthed the words but I suspect, in his defense, that he was fed a bunch of propaganda by all of those who advised him and encouraged his pursuing a war... There might have been one more persuasive than another but somehow, with elder Bush saying son, I think this is ill advised, he had to have been pressured by all of those who had a vested interest in going to war.... and I cannot name them all but we all know who advised him at the time.. This does not negate that ultimately it was his decision. However, I think he regrets what he has done. I don't see how he could not. I would not want the deaths of all those who had died on my conscience and things to be as terrible as they are in Iraq... which without media coverage we are still not getting the truth.. JMO..