Pelosi: Bush illegal war is not Impeachable

[Bt1 5,213]

8 hours ago, Faysalaaa said:

So I was right? 

Btw, do yut only watch these interviews in the context offered by someone else? That's bad. Think for yourself. Dont be just an yes man to everything the x  youtube channel tells you to think ( progressive or conservative). 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Florin said:

So I was right? 

Btw, do yut only watch these interviews in the context offered by someone else? That's bad. Think for yourself. Dont be just an yes man to everything the x  youtube channel tells you to think ( progressive or conservative). 

I think you were saying that Pelosi was right about not impeaching Bush because she knew the senate wont vote for it? but here Pelosi says she would impeach even if the senate wont vote for impeaching.

Why do you think you know my watching history and what news source I get my information from? would you say the same thing if I posted a CNN video?

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

4 hours ago, Faysalaaa said:

are you saying if a topic is not about attacking Trump, then its irrelevant? 

In this moment in time - YES!  😠😤

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

In this moment in time - YES!  😠😤

 

This is hilarious, atleast try to hide how insane you sound

Im not America or a Democrat, I dont care about Trumps impeachment or protecting the democrats. Isnt your argument  the same argument Trump supporters use when Trump does a bad thing?

[Bt1 5,213]

5 hours ago, Faysalaaa said:

I think you were saying that Pelosi was right about not impeaching Bush because she knew the senate wont vote for it? but here Pelosi says she would impeach even if the senate wont vote for impeaching.

Why do you think you know my watching history and what news source I get my information from? would you say the same thing if I posted a CNN video?

I've never said that. So to respond to you or not? Go and read again what I've said, especially since u made the topic. 

U posted 2 videos from the same youtube channel commenting the same interview.  I'm sorry, but the signs are that u didnt watch the interview and only spread the opinions of your fav youtube channel. That's why you dont seem to be interested of the details discussed regarding the topic you created? The context is always important, especially in politics. If not, there is no difference between you and a fox news viewer or between that youtube channel and fox news, except that one follows the cult of Trump and the other the cult of Bernie.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

8 hours ago, Whispering said:

I’m saying if you don’t have support, you can’t go forward. The votes have to be there. No, I would not agree with that statement, because that’s not what happened back in 1974.

All the information wasn’t out at the time. Also, a party brings forth articles of impeachment. If the votes aren’t there, then there is no articles of impeachment. Nancy is not Queen, or the President. She is the head of the house, but she doesn’t make a decision and that’s it. She has to have the votes. 

1974? Bush was in office in the 2000's. Unless you're referring to Nixon, I'm assuming you are. Also, before Bush was finished with his term, there was plenty of evidence that he lied about WOMD and that he rallied the american people and Congress to go into a war we should have never entered on a pretense that did not exist. 

You do realize the flaw in your logic here, right?  You're saying that impeachment is only relevant when the opposing party has votes and should only be pursued if the votes are there preemptively. In other words, Trump could be putting our service members into offensive and unauthorized wars by congress and unless there were enough votes, there would be no reason for a call for impeachment even if by very definition that the president had engaged in impeachable offenses. I understand that successfully impeaching someone requires the votes but to say that we should only proceed with something as serious as impeachment based on whether the votes are there or arbitrary judgement like @Florin has suggested in this thread is irresponsible in my view. 

 

You realize that making comments like this invalidates the current impeachment process and makes people who do not view Trump's behavior as criminal look at democrats as the crazy evil people that Trump says we are? 

 

 

[gagzus 25,460]

This is her “I can tolerate racism but I can’t stand animal cruelty” basically 💀 how is committing war crimes not impeachable... hell he should’ve been jailed never mind impeached 

[uo111 5,285]

Realistically, how can you impeach a president for pushing the agenda of his/her party?

What exactly would that have done? It wouldn’t have stopped the war, the murders, or the pillaging. It also wouldn’t have played out.

This is what the republican party wanted, and it’s what the american people wanted too (and it’s even what many democrats wanted). Just because it was clearly wrong, doesn’t mean it’s not what the majority of americans wanted. 

It’s very idealistic to say she should’ve impeached him because he was doing something wrong, since that’s exactly what people wanted. People will never get impeached for doing the wrong thing, as long as it’s popular.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

3 minutes ago, uo111 said:

Realistically, how can you impeach a president for pushing the agenda of his/her party?

What exactly would that have done? It wouldn’t have stopped the war, the murders, or the pillaging. It also wouldn’t have played out.

This is what the republican party wanted, and it’s what the american people wanted too (and it’s even what many democrats wanted). Just because it was clearly wrong, doesn’t mean it’s not what the majority of americans wanted. 

It’s very idealistic to say she should’ve impeached him because he was doing something wrong, since that’s exactly what people wanted. People will never get impeached for doing the wrong thing, as long as it’s popular.

Because the president lied about the reason we went to that war in the first place. The support for that war was because we were told that there were WOMD and those weapons were linked to the 9/11 terror attack. Bush and company knew there weren't weapons of mass destruction but told the american people and everybody else that they existed. As a result, we went into war on false pretenses and bush committed additional WAR CRIMES as a president. Wasted over 6 trillion tax payer dollars. Many people who fought in a war where our country was in the wrong. Those people died because the government lied to them and led them to believe they were defending our country when they were really the aggressor on a mission that didn't exist. If there was a reason to impeach a president, it would be this. 

[uo111 5,285]

48 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

Because the president lied about the reason we went to that war in the first place. The support for that war was because we were told that there were WOMD and those weapons were linked to the 9/11 terror attack. Bush and company knew there weren't weapons of mass destruction but told the american people and everybody else that they existed. As a result, we went into war on false pretenses and bush committed additional WAR CRIMES as a president. Wasted over 6 trillion tax payer dollars. Many people who fought in a war where our country was in the wrong. Those people died because the government lied to them and led them to believe they were defending our country when they were really the aggressor on a mission that didn't exist. If there was a reason to impeach a president, it would be this. 

Lying isn't an impeachable offense because.... america? That, however, isn't Pelosi's fault.

I don't agree with it at all but literally nothing you said is impeachable. Combine that with the fact that it was a popular decision because americans are ****ing stupid and this is what you get.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

16 minutes ago, uo111 said:

Lying isn't an impeachable offense because.... america? That, however, isn't Pelosi's fault.

I don't agree with it at all but literally nothing you said is impeachable. Combine that with the fact that it was a popular decision because americans are ****ing stupid and this is what you get.

Using torture is breaking international law and is a war crime. This is an impeachable offense. Idk how else to make this point to you. If you think torture and going to war that killed civilians on false pretense is not an impeachable offense because it doesn’t rise to a high crime then I don’t know what else to tell you except that you are wrong. 

[Whispering 18,865]

4 hours ago, HorusRa2 said:

1974? Bush was in office in the 2000's. Unless you're referring to Nixon, I'm assuming you are. Also, before Bush was finished with his term, there was plenty of evidence that he lied about WOMD and that he rallied the american people and Congress to go into a war we should have never entered on a pretense that did not exist. 

You do realize the flaw in your logic here, right?  You're saying that impeachment is only relevant when the opposing party has votes and should only be pursued if the votes are there preemptively. In other words, Trump could be putting our service members into offensive and unauthorized wars by congress and unless there were enough votes, there would be no reason for a call for impeachment even if by very definition that the president had engaged in impeachable offenses. I understand that successfully impeaching someone requires the votes but to say that we should only proceed with something as serious as impeachment based on whether the votes are there or arbitrary judgement like @Florin has suggested in this thread is irresponsible in my view. 

 

You realize that making comments like this invalidates the current impeachment process and makes people who do not view Trump's behavior as criminal look at democrats as the crazy evil people that Trump says we are? 

 

 

This was your comment I responded to:

“I'm sure you would agree that impeachment is largely a contest of smoke and mirrors among the two political parties.”

So, I don’t agree, due to what happened in 1974. At the current time, the GOP would never impeach a sitting President for anything. What the Democrats would do is debatable, considering the offense.

 

Pelosi can’t bring articles of impeachment forward if it doesn’t have the votes. If seventy, eighty, ninety per cent of the Democrats won’t vote for it, she doesn’t have the votes to go forward. Pelosi and a handful of Dems can’t impeach the President.

The Robb-Silverman Report wasn’t a slam dunk: “Finally, it was a failure to communicate effectively with policymakers; the Intelligence Community didn’t adequately explain just how little good intelligence it had — or how much its assessments were driven by assumptions and inferences rather than concrete evidence.” 

It wasn’t until the Senate Intelligence Committee Report in 2008 — that a thorough examination was conducted on whether the public statements by U.S. government officials were substantiated by the intelligence. In particular, the committee looked at five major policy speeches by Bush, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. The Robb-Silberman report specifically was not allowed to look at that issue, noting, “We were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community.”

Basing decisions in the past on what we know now, and where we are as a country, isn’t the same. 

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, HorusRa2 said:

Using torture is breaking international law and is a war crime. This is an impeachable offense. Idk how else to make this point to you. If you think torture and going to war that killed civilians on false pretense is not an impeachable offense because it doesn’t rise to a high crime then I don’t know what else to tell you except that you are wrong. 

Same situation with torture. The Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, The Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program, wasn’t released until 2014-2015. 

Bush and Cheney were long gone by the time this report came out. 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

8 hours ago, Faysalaaa said:

This is hilarious, atleast try to hide how insane you sound

You know that is really hurtful!  You don’t have to call me insane, or say I sound insane just because we don’t agree on this!  Smh 

 

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

You know that is really hurtful!  You don’t have to call me insane, or say I sound insane just because we don’t agree on this!  Smh 

 

I know, it was wrong of me. I apologize  for saying that. Its just alot here started attacking me so I took your comment as one.