Quake3World

lol, it's obvious to a non-moron that i think bush is just a figurehead. it's also obvious to a non-moron that impeaching bush would be a worthless gesture

i guess you lose on both counts, moron

when bush is impeached...cheney will be gone too...its a packaged deal...a packaged done deal...

update...i will win...

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaMa ... chment.htm

They said the hearings would focus on the secret electronic surveillance program and whether Mr. Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

pfft

the end draws near...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032806Z.shtml

hm so they'll throw a couple of fall guys to the wolves... whitewash alert?

Here's a prediction: McCain vs Lieberman in 2008

Either one in command would be a nightmare far worse than Bush. :icon14:

pray hes not impeached ppl, anything better then the moron here

Ryoki wrote:Here's a prediction: McCain vs Lieberman in 2008

Either one in command would be a nightmare far worse than Bush. :icon14:

Incorrect. Clinton vs. Rice in 2008, the ultimate nightmare scenario. I will move to Canada or Europe if this happens. I swear to god.

yea, thatll happen

Yeah, Clinton was truly as bad as the current state of affairs.

He should have been impeached for getting his hog funnelled. That's unconstitutional.

He's talking about Hillary Clinton, not the ex-president.

And judging from the names of the politicians that are being thrown around right now for the Pres. race, I think it's safe to say that this election is not going to give us any better choices than we had in the last two.

And fuck it this time, the only way I'm voting for either of the major parties is if Ron Paul runs. Otherwise It's libertarian. And I know Ron Paul will never be nominated.

For the most part, Democrats and Republicans have both lost my vote forever.

I'm almost tempted to vote libertarian in the mid-terms, but at this point it's too important to get Republicans out of Congress, and no libertarian is going to win in my state.

Nightshade wrote: Incorrect. Clinton vs. Rice in 2008, the ultimate nightmare scenario. I will move to Canada or Europe if this happens. I swear to god.

Rice running for the big P? I highly doubt it... it could happen, i guess, but i'm sceptical. She'd have to have the backing of the republicans though, and that's becoming less likely every time she opens her mouth these days.

I also think Hillary wouldn't stand a chance of getting nominated by the dems, let alone gain enough votes to win.

Lieberman vs McCain on the other hand is perfect. They both have credibility and the backing of their party. One has a rightwing democrat image, the other holds the image of principled republican. And if you read up on them, you'll discover how both want to escalate the neocon agenda moreso than Bush is doing at the moment.

I wasn't putting them forward entirely seriously, but I have seen websites advocating Cunnilingus Rice in '08. Hilary has a better chance of getting the nomination than I'd care to admit. Hell, I'm seeing bumper stickers with the dumb bitch's name on them more and more often.
I'd bet on John Edwards as a presidential candidate before Lieberman, though.

Ah, fuck 'em all. It's all bullshit anyways.

Yea I agree that McCain/Lieberman is one of the worst possibilities out there right now.

But like I said, unless someone like Ron Paul runs ( http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst032706.htm ), we're going to have no real choice no matter how you slice it.

Cunnilingus Rice

And yes, the Democrats are actually taking a Clinton ticket seriously. And that makes sense, because that's just about the only way they could manage to lose to the Republicans again.

Hillary is the front runner and she has the backing of the democratic establishment. We can only hope and pray she continues to demonstrate her penchant for waffle-kedaffling and shameless opportunism during the primary cycle. The only decent (electable)candidate the dems have is John Edwards...but he will have a lot of ground to make up when and if he declares.

Dick Cheney and Pat Robertson in 2008. FUCK THE HANDBASKET, LET'S TAKE THE EXPRESS ELEVATOR TO HELL.

R00k wrote:And yes, the Democrats are actually taking a Clinton ticket seriously. And that makes sense, because that's just about the only way they could manage to lose to the Republicans again.

Lol that's very true.

Hey, the Democrats' official National Security strategy has been leaked to Raw Story (link to .pdf of actual document in article):
http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Democrats ... _0328.html

They're going to be Bush But Better!

Also in today's news:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_ ... NlYwM5NjQ-

MONTPELIER, Vt. - Leading Democrats in Vermont plan to decide in April whether to urge state lawmakers to petition for
President Bush's impeachment using a little-known provision in the rules of the U.S. House.
Democratic committees in at least half of the state's 14 counties have passed resolutions calling for impeachment, citing a rule in "Jefferson's Manual," a book of parliamentary guidelines written by Thomas Jefferson that supplements U.S. House rules.

.....

The resolutions accuse the Bush administration of lying about the case for war in
Iraq and illegally engaging in electronic surveillance of Americans.

They rely on "Jefferson's Manual," which says impeachment proceedings can begin "by charges transmitted from the legislature of a state."

If I were a mod here he would not exist...

DRuM, the Sequel?

It's a shame impeachment hearings can't be called on a count of pure embarrassment of the public at large.

What's the idiot's latest wonderful assertion?

**********************************************************************************
March 29 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said the instability in Iraq today is a legacy of Saddam Hussein's regime and not the result of the U.S. invasion that toppled his government.

The sectarian violence that has enveloped Iraq is boiling over now because Hussein left the nation ``physically and emotionally scarred'' by purposely dividing ethnic and religious groups to prevent them from challenging him, Bush said.

``He sought to establish himself as the only force that could keep Iraqis together,'' Bush said today in Washington in an address to the Freedom House, a non-profit organization that promotes the spread of democracy. ``It is no wonder deep divisions and scars exist.''
**********************************************************************************

Presidents aren't required to read history.

Under Saddam's regime many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of his actions, the vast majority of them Muslims. According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings, and electric shocks ... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered. Allegations of prostitution are used to intimidate opponents of the regime and have been used by the regime to justify the barbaric beheading of women. There have been documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulting in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

...we probably should have left Saddam in power...