I think that average people are looking for checks and balances in the system to ensure that one person can't go of half cocked and just attack people without any immediate provocation. Or that there are implications for when things do go off the rails.gjohnson5 said:I'm not sure if we can truely say he is a murderer. If he wants to go to war , doesn't have have the authority to kill people??? I mean he is the commander of the military
The Clinton impeachment was a total sham and circus and it shameful that it even happened , but holding GW up for murder because of a Clinton impeachment seems like revenge and retribution more then anything
don't you think congress does a pretty good job at checking a prez's war aims?EnderJE said:I think that average people are looking for checks and balances in the system to ensure that one person can't go of half cocked and just attack people without any immediate provocation. Or that there are implications for when things do go off the rails.
However, in any government, it seems to rarely works out like that.
Bino said:don't you think congress does a pretty good job at checking a prez's war aims?
pretty sure a prez is impotent in military matters without congressional backing
^^^gjohnson5 said:I think the point of the video was to show that GW withheld information from Congress to get them to approve of military action
But if he knowingly used falsified evidence to get Congress to vote in the war?heatherrae said:I think GW should be impeached, but going to war when ratified by Congress is not murder. I think they are barking up the wrong tree. I think he should be impeached for lying to the American people and to Congress.
Then he should be impeached for lying to Congress and submitting false evidence. We don't want to set a precedence of trying presidents for murder for going to war just because the war ends up being unpopular. That would be a really BAD decision.EnderJE said:But if he knowingly used falsified evidence to get Congress to vote in the war?
heatherrae said:Then he should be impeached for lying to Congress and submitting false evidence. We don't want to set a precedence of trying presidents for murder for going to war just because the war ends up being unpopular. That would be a really BAD decision.
Being impeached is serious enough, IMO.EnderJE said:In your scenario, it seems like he isn't truly held accountable for his actions.
The justification would not be that the war is unpopular. The justification was that he knowingly submitted falsified evidence. BTW, I have no idea if he actually did. It would be for the courts to decide.
Stoßtruppe said:Won't happen seeing as Tony Blair (arguably) did the same thing and got off Scot free (lying to parliament / the public with regards to false evidence / WMDs in Iraq).
Yeah, but he's saying that he should be impeached too.gjohnson5 said:Last I checked Tony Blair was the prime minister of a country other then the one being discussed....
gjohnson5 said:Last I checked Tony Blair was the prime minister of a country other then the one being discussed....
EnderJE said:Yeah, but he's saying that he should be impeached too.
heatherrae said:I think Tony Blair was snowed by GW and felt pressured to join up. I don't think Tony Blair is even 1/10 as culpable as GW
I'm saying that I think that Tony Blair was fed false intelligence and had a difficult political choice to make. England and the US have backed each other up for ages. He was put in a decision where he couldn't win.Stoßtruppe said:So if I commit an atrocity as a private soldier because my platoon leader, section commander & fellow privates pressured me in to doing so then I'm only a fraction as culpable as them?
Great, I'd be thrilled to have you as my lawyer seeing as you genuinely believe it and thus would give it 100%![]()
clinton lied about getting a blow job, which was no one's business but his and his wife's.Bino said:impeaching bush would set a terrible precedent for politics.
and lol olool at all those that are so eager to impeach bush, i bet $100 they didn't want to impeach clinton.
purely political driven
it takes millions of dollars in advertising/campaigning to teach the american public about anything (any public in the world really. hell just the "wear your seatbelt" campaigns you see cost ridiculous amounts of moneyPat_McCrotch said:OMG!!!!! The libs bitch about how we could use the Iraq money for other things but yet ar Ok with Congress wasting time on a bullshit accusation of murder. Dont we need to fix healthcare, hunger, the economy...?
as a lawyer i would expect you of all people to understand the importance of truthfullness in a court of lawheatherrae said:clinton lied about getting a blow job, which was no one's business but his and his wife's.
bush lied about WMD and led us into a war that cost billions, put our economy in the shitter and has killed thousands of American and Iraqi citizens.
BIG DIFFERENCE
The fuck up was the Supreme Court allowing a sitting Pres to be subject to a civil suit.Bino said:as a lawyer i would expect you of all people to understand the importance of truthfullness in a court of law
perjury is a big deal, how can you not see that?
a lot of us don't view it as needless thoughGoldenDelicious said:it takes millions of dollars in advertising/campaigning to teach the american public about anything (any public in the world really. hell just the "wear your seatbelt" campaigns you see cost ridiculous amounts of money
taking your president to court for ANYTHING, whether murder, genocide, war crimes etc would actually be a really effective way to increase the publics awareness about their country. a bargain in terms of political eduaction, really.
besides, whatever the cost of taking your president to court, it pales in comparison to the alternative - which is to allow them to keep spending hundreds of billions overseas on needless wars
heatherrae said:Then he should be impeached for lying to Congress and submitting false evidence. We don't want to set a precedence of trying presidents for murder for going to war just because the war ends up being unpopular. That would be a really BAD decision.
FDR as well, he killed a bunch of innocent germanssuperdave said:Looks like we gotta round up the whole gang from the LBJ administration and try them for murder also.
As a human being, I would of thought you would of seen that a blow job vs 4000+ deaths as not being compari...actually forget it.Bino said:as a lawyer i would expect you of all people to understand the importance of truthfullness in a court of law
perjury is a big deal, how can you not see that?
obviously the deaths are a more serious matterEnderJE said:As a human being, I would of thought you would of seen that a blow job vs 4000+ deaths as not being compari...actually forget it.
![]()
I agree that it's serious (perjury), but I'm not sure if it's as serious as using false evidence to start a war. On the same token, I'm also not saying that GW used false evidence. Maybe he was duped too.Bino said:obviously the deaths are a more serious matter
but it is war, and death is a part of war.
lying in front of a court, though it may seem petty, is a serious offense and undermines the justice system imo
EnderJE said:I agree that it's serious (perjury), but I'm not sure if it's as serious as using false evidence to start a war. On the same token, I'm also not saying that GW used false evidence. Maybe he was duped too.
While typing that post, I figured that we'd probably spiral like we did before and you'd think that I hate you again. So, I just stopped my post and smiled.![]()
I think you have beautiful blue eyes.Bino said:i think the world is better of w.o saddam
i'm not sure wether to fight youEnderJE said:I think you have beautiful blue eyes.
This page contains mature content. By continuing, you confirm you are over 18 and agree to our TOS and User Agreement.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 














