Bush and the 20,000 extra troops

[Ephemeral]

For a good laugh, check out Hilary's annoucement yesterday that she is running for President in 08.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/...ent/index.html
She is seeking 'input' on how she should be President. Yes, I hope Bubba contacts her and gives her this kind of direction.

But look at the video or the picture in the above link. Notice anything out of place? Look at out the window, at the green trees. When was this video recorded? Certainly not in the last few months since it is winter and trees aren't green in winter.

[GoldenPlums]

Nobody is supporting sending in additional troops at this point. Nobody but Bush.

That's not entirely true.

"I ask him, why send 20,000 (troops) only - why not send 50,000 or 100,000?" he said.

"Aren't you aware that the dogs of Iraq are pining for your troops' dead bodies?"

Al-Qaeda deputy 'mocks Bush plan'

[K2Grey]

In regards to CLinton being impeached and the debate on if it was carried out notes that President Bill Clinton was impeached as President of the United States on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives and subsequently not removed from office by the Senate on February 12, 1999.

The charges were perjury and obstruction of justice, arising from the Lewinsky scandal. After a 21-day trial, the Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction and removal from office under the Constitution.

So was he actually impeached? NO

Clinton was impeached. He was just not convicted. For someone to be impeached does not necessarily mean that they are removed from office. Impeachment is a process, not an end result.

[genocidal]

And FYI, since the President is the highest ranking officer in the military, I assume that Clinton could have also been charged with fraternizing with subordinates. It is against military law to have sex with those ranking under you for obvious reasons.

This was funny.

[Ephemeral]

This was funny.

Even in business, most corporations have rules against dating/fucking subordinates. Does this not make sense to anyone? About the situation that arises when this happens?

[404 Not Found]

Clinton was impeached. He was just not convicted. For someone to be impeached does not necessarily mean that they are removed from office. Impeachment is a process, not an end result.

He was only impeached by vote in The House of Representatives, not Senate.

It would have required both the house and senate to have made this a true impeachment. If you want to call it impeachment, due to the HOR vote, I can agree and say you are correct.

As for the process of Impeachment, this usually would take between 2 - 3 years. How much tax money was wasted on finding out that Clinton got a blowjob from some pig. Did we really need to waste the millions of dollars to know this? I guess it is a bad thing when you think of it...a blowjob is much worse than ignoring advise pre and post hurricane Katrina, false information used to invade a country, the loss of over 3000 military. That crap is all trivial when you put it up against the Clinton blowjob.

In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. He was tried in the Senate and found not guilty of the charges brought against him. He apologized to the nation for his actions and continued to have unprecedented popular approval ratings for his job as president.

BTW the entire system is corrupt:

(AP) The price tag for the five-month congressional impeachment proceedings, ending in President Clinton's acquittal, was more than $1.2 million, expense records show. The House paid its top impeachment investigators as much as $20,000 a month.

In addition, chief Republican investigator David Schippers and Democratic counsel Abbe Lowell requested and were given special consultant status that allowed them to bypass congressional restrictions on outside income and continue work at their private law firms.

Schippers, whose private practice is in Chicago, was paid at the rate of $20,000 a month during the height of the investigation, according to House Judiciary Committee records. Lowell, a Washington lawyer, was paid at a monthly rate of $18,000, according to expense records reviewed by The Associated Press.

Adjusted to annual salary, both men were being paid at a rate of more than $200,000 per year.

In contrast, staff lawyers for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr earn between $66,563 and $118,400 annually. The independent counsel's deputies must also sever ties with their private law firms -- a prohibition that does not apply to Starr.

House members and senators earn $136,700 a year

This does not compare to the debt our nation is in now due to the bogus war on to make a profit..I meant war on terror

[Epinephrine]

For a good laugh, check out Hilary's annoucement yesterday that she is running for President in 08.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/...ent/index.html
She is seeking 'input' on how she should be President. Yes, I hope Bubba contacts her and gives her this kind of direction.

But look at the video or the picture in the above link. Notice anything out of place? Look at out the window, at the green trees. When was this video recorded? Certainly not in the last few months since it is winter and trees aren't green in winter.

Er... the grass was green until last week here in Toronto.. CANADA. Those trees/bushes behind her could be evergreens... it's not exactly in focus.

Chalk one up to global warming!

[genocidal]

Even in business, most corporations have rules against dating/fucking subordinates. Does this not make sense to anyone? About the situation that arises when this happens?

Yes there are rules but it's more of a "don't ask don't tell" policy. It's against the rules at my job and I can immediately think of 2-3 relationships that should not happen. It's not like the President is going to lose his job for fucking a secretary or we'd be at a serious loss for Presidents.

What was funny was your logic about the President being bound to military rules (he's Commander in Chief by virtue of office but still a civilian). Also funny is how you assume Monica Lewinsky/Linda Tripp/whoever is a military service member - obviously not the case.

[Subjugation]

My main concern is that modern American culture has no respect for history, and 20 years from now, people might forget how much of a shitstain GWB was in his role as President.

Reagan wasn't anywhere near as bad as GWB, but when he died, people acted like he was a fucking hero who did no wrong. Nobody mentioned Oliver North, the CIA coke stuff, or the Contras.

Historical revisionism in popular culture is pretty easy to do, since the media nowadays pretty much just "talks" about the news instead of actually "reporting" it. As long as you have the money and influence, the media will not really spend their time analyzing in-depth talking about some stuff that happened 20-30 years ago. I just get sick to my stomach when I imagine how likely it will be for GWB to go down as a great President 20-30 years from now, despite all the dirty, incompetent, fucked up shit he's done during his time as President. It will turn me into one of those bitter old people that fucking despise the Youth of the nation.

[Voth]

For a good laugh, check out Hilary's annoucement yesterday that she is running for President in 08.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/...ent/index.html
She is seeking 'input' on how she should be President. Yes, I hope Bubba contacts her and gives her this kind of direction.

But look at the video or the picture in the above link. Notice anything out of place? Look at out the window, at the green trees. When was this video recorded? Certainly not in the last few months since it is winter and trees aren't green in winter.

Heard on the radio today that it was filmed on a TV set.

[K2Grey]

IMHO, your definition of impeachment is not the same as the standard one. It seems to me that Wikipedia is reliable in a large topic such as "Impeachment" and it appears that a person is impeached in the House of Representatives. Following that, they are convicted in the Senate; but that's not the same as finalizing an impeachment. They aren't impeached in the Senate, they are convicted.

To me it seems like saying "Well, he was put on trial, but he wasn't convicted, so it wasn't a true trial." The impeachment is the trial and the conviction is, well, the conviction.

Even your quote directly says it: "In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives.".

[Voth]

whoever considers wikipedia a reliable source of information is a fool

[Subjugation]

Doesn't mean he's wrong, though. Just because some of the stuff is not reliable doesn't mean it all is.

[Voth]

let me rephrase; whoever uses wikipedia as a source of information in a debate/argument is a fool

[Galleleo]

Reagan wasn't anywhere near as bad as GWB, but when he died, people acted like he was a fucking hero who did no wrong. Nobody mentioned Oliver North, the CIA coke stuff, or the Contras.

It kinda annoys me that when people die, others act as if the person was a saint. Like, someone will get murdered, and yes that is shitty and wrong, but you'll have all these people going on tv going: he was such a nice kid, no never did anything wrong, I don't know why anyone would wanna kill him, he was so perfect. And I am like, yea.. sure.