Bill Clinton Blows a Gasket On Fox

[gc1765]

Okay, I'll bite: when was he told and by whom was he told and who is it that is saying so? (I'm hoping your not going to say it's Dan Rather who is saying so.)

Read the 9/11 commission report. You can find a copy of it Here

Here's some select quotes:

Clarke has written that on the evening of September 12,President Bush told

him and some of his staff to explore possible Iraqi links to 9/11. “See if Saddam

did this,” Clarke recalls the President telling them.“See if he’s linked in any

way.”

Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke’s office sent a memo to Rice

on September 18, titled “Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq

Involvement in the September 11 Attacks.” Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan,

Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence

linked Iraq to al Qaeda.The memo found no “compelling case” that Iraq

had either planned or perpetrated the attacks.....

.....Arguing that the case for links between Iraq

and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the

secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no

confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional

weapons.

[sharkman]

How exactly would they impeach him right now? He is doing his best to wield dictatorial power over this kind of stuff. He would say, " You can't impeach me, I'm a president during war time, blah, blah, blah... " When exactly did they US make an actual declaration of war, and against whom? You can't declare war on a tactic, and the two actual " wars " are over, so all of his bull about his powers is a load of crap. If any of the Republicans had any spine, -maybe- they could pull it off, but as long as it is coming from anyone but the Republicans, they will just spin more lies and commit more crimes.

So he's the dumbest president who's ever been in office, while at the same time outsmarting the Dems at every turn, eh? Whatever.

If they had the evidence they would impeach him. They do not, and all the crappy accusations of Bush lying are without merit, otherwise THEY WOULD IMPEACH HIM.

And this nonsense of Clarke, he's the guy who had a book to sell and an axe to grind. How come they didn't impeach Bush based on Clarke's testimony ? Because he wasn't the be all and end all on Iraq's activities. There were other organizations in play, and not just American ones.

[jdobbin]

So he's the dumbest president who's ever been in office, while at the same time outsmarting the Dems at every turn, eh? Whatever.

If they had the evidence they would impeach him. They do not, and all the crappy accusations of Bush lying are without merit, otherwise THEY WOULD IMPEACH HIM.

At the moment, Bush's presidency is basically stuck because of Iraq. Almost every initiative from the White House is being stymied by Republicans who fear the war is hurting their election prospects.

[Remiel]

Besides, don't you need a majority vote in either the Senate or Congress to impeach the President? And, well, the Republicans have a majority in both, so it falls to Republicans to do the right thing, except we know they are incapable of that. After the November mid-term, maybe something will actually start to materialize if the Democrats win a majority. If they don't, I think we can basically kiss U.S. " democracy " good-bye.

[Riverwind]

So he's the dumbest president who's ever been in office, while at the same time outsmarting the Dems at every turn, eh? Whatever.

Bush is incompentant when it comes to running a country - getting elected requires a different set of skills. Unfortunately, the democrats in the US seem to be lacking the 'getting elected' skills at this time.

If they had the evidence they would impeach him. They do not, and all the crappy accusations of Bush lying are without merit, otherwise THEY WOULD IMPEACH HIM.

Incompetance, unfortunately, is not an impeachable office (as we discovered in the Reagan era). Bush has plausable deniability when it comes to whether he deliberately lied or he willfully misintepreted intelligence. The ballot box is the only way to punish Bush and the Republicians. Unfortunately, the Democrats have not been able to present an alternative that appears to be less incompetant leaving Americans no choice but to choose between the idiots in charge now or the idiots who would like to be in charge.

[jdobbin]

Besides, don't you need a majority vote in either the Senate or Congress to impeach the President? And, well, the Republicans have a majority in both, so it falls to Republicans to do the right thing, except we know they are incapable of that. After the November mid-term, maybe something will actually start to materialize if the Democrats win a majority. If they don't, I think we can basically kiss U.S. " democracy " good-bye.

You are correct that an impeachment doesn't come from majority led Congress that is equally culpable for a decision like going to war.

[BubberMiley]

You need control of congress to impeach. Perhaps if the Dems have any balls, they'll ITMFA next year.