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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (259279)	11/10/2005 12:11:06 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 1573305

That's right, you've got it. The difference between us is that you still believe Bush-Cheney were misled by someone else (who, the CIA?) while I look at the following and see that Bush-Cheney were the real misleaders: - Downing Street Memos - say Bush-Cheney were tailoring the intel to back their argument, and that WMD argument was chosen because it could be "sold" to the American people, especially nuclear weapons. Also add in Al Qaida/9-11 connection with Saddam. - The Hannity-Limbaugh echo chamber was hard at work parroting RNC Bush-Cheney mantras connecting Sadddam to 9-11, nukes, massacres, pure evil. They wouldn't do this unless Rove told them to push it. I never trust anything these guys put out, it's almost always a lie or coverup. - Cheney was known to have visited the CIA multiple times annoying analysts by pushing them for specific types of intel. CIA reported feeling bullied. Cheney pushing too hard. Over the line. - Lt. Colonel Kwiatkowski's report in Libya (saying it's no longer terrorist friendly) was rewritten by Cheney's people to say the opposite of what was true. If this is typical then it's obvious Cheney misled us. - The duping of Judith Miller at the NY Times and use of her article on Sunday talk shows as "evidence". - The use of aluminum tubes, mobile labs, Bush Sr. assassination attempt and Atta-Prague meeting intel when all three had been discredited. - The outing of Plame as revenge for whistleblowing. And Chris Matthews seemed to know about Libby a year ago. Matthews is very shrewd about innerworkings of WH. - Iraqi exiles testimonies sounded extremely fishy, and self-serving, talking about Saddam's stockpiles. Some of them were criminal types, conmen. - UN inspectors found nothing and actually searched for a long time. - Saddam had no air force and no delivery systems so even if he had a bomb how could he launch it?

To: Elroy who wrote (259279)	11/10/2005 12:25:45 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1573305

" I think you need a crime for impeachment (no?)." You need a "high crime or misdemeanor", not necessarily one on the books. The "high crime or misdemeanor" is determined by the House of Representatives, which impeaches and sends it to the Senate, which convicts or not. The founders were very vague about what the reasons for impeachment could be. In the Federalist Papers, some contended that a President could be impeached for simple incompetence, by having the House decide THAT was a "high crime or misdemeanor". I think with the chimp, we've met the standard!