If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Bye bye Bush administration
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
0
Comments
Rumsfeld.
Impechement.
6th May.
Donald.
They sure kept it quiet.
I must admit some ignorance, but isn't being impeched like being charge with the crime? Hardly cause for the fall of Bush, especially as Bush could still walk away 'clean' and pick another defense sectretary. Cheney would be more serious, but Rumsfeld has been on the edge for a while.
according to freesearch, to impeach is:
to make a formal statement saying that a public official is guilty of a serious offence in connection with their job
which is a bit worse than being charged with a crime because it's directly related to the job he's doing. Like, if a governor was swindling money out of taxes no-one would stand for it but say he was conning someone out of their money, but it wasn't taxes, then although people would be pissed off they wouldn't be so pissed off.
But he's still in there isn't he? In that case, the administration is severly buggered. I'm shocked this didn't come out earlier! I have never heard it mentioned even once!!
That's very interesting, thank you. Is he actively guilty, or just accused though?
It has been kept very very quiet.
Easily impressed by the lies of traitors, are you?
Why do you not investigate John Fakir Kerry and his collaborating with representatives of the Viet Cong in Paris, 1971, while still an officer in the U.S. Navy, and while the U.S. was still at war in Vietnam. Is called TREASON.
Hoping that Kerry will follow his proven form, and negotiate the surrender of the United States to bin Laden? That would make sense...
Why do you not investigate his fake "Vietnam Veterans Against the War", which was composed of frauds who had either never been in Vietnam, or more frequently, had never served in the US military? How about Kerry's attendance at meetings where the assassination of US Senators was discussed and voted on, yet never reported to ANYONE? (Kerry still a Naval officer.)
Kerry's political career is a lie, based upon a military "career" which was a lie. Only reason he did not stand court martial for treason was his doing the Lewinski for Teddy Chappaquidick Kennedy... a drunk who is complicit in the death of an aide, while he returned to party on through the night, and leave his victim to drown alone.
"Follow the line. It will take you to the showers. Your cooperation is necessary." And you would THANK them for their exquisite care of your needs, right?
Your ignorance is exceeded ONLY by your willful stupidity.
if it wasnt reported to anyone how do you know about it?
and until some brings proof of that i will not believe you, something that explosive means he would never have become senator and would never have become the democratic nominee for president
Please don't spread malicious gossip in a forum about fact. Get some sources or keep quiet.
Talk about it with the FBI. They have recorded, and reported it...
Jolly good, where is your source? No-one has any reason to believe you are talking anything but rubbish.
Don't listen to him mate, he's got no proof. You've been bothered to do some background on this guy. And I'd rather have him than Bush, though I'm torn between getting Kerry, and putting up with Bush for another term and maybe getting Clinton, because that would be interesting.
Hi Thanatos. How's things?
You wanna run Bush's "honourable" military record with us?
He was a patriot alright.
and as for the assasination thing, just by saying on this message board that the FBI has recorded and reported on it makes it as much more true as me been your father
if it had been reported then kerry would not have had any kind of political carear ever
It does strike me as curious, though, that a man who is supposed to have had high office in his sights since Vietnam, and maybe sooner, would compromise himself by a dalliance with plotters of assassination, and by maintaining a lacklustre voting record. Is Kerry such a complex person, or are conservatives simply unable to keep their barrage of lies internally consistent?
at least in kerry's case he will know what he is up to, in bush's case nobody does, and you cant deny that it does point bush out as slightly idiotic when you get the term "bushism's" coined in memory of you
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
Of course, i suspect its far more convenient to keep on regurgitating blatantly partisan lies regardless of the substantive and quite well documented authenticity of Kerry's service record.
of the swift boat veterans, only half of them are supportive of these ads, the other half support kerry, so these attack ads i view them with a fair bit of sceptecism
as he has allready got a number of veterans on his side
Have to say though, in all fairness, that I would be quite surprised if bin Laden did try anything. 911 concentrated the minds of the the US intelligence services wonderfully, and I don't see them being caught so completely off guard again. A failed attempt would help Bush appear more competent, so I think they'll concentrate on Iraq, where they currently hold most of the cards.
To be fair, the electorate of any country aren't that reasoning at large.
And personally, if I were a terrorist, I wouldn't want to be helping Bush I'd be discrediting the new administration. Wait until after the elections then commit a few atrocities to destablise the government.
What's your point?
funny i was thinking the same about Bush instead of terrorists
And that unnecessary exclaimation mark really helps us take your opinion seriously!
If they are smart, and they are, then they will plan these things to have the biggest tactical impact. Hence attacking the WTC, it was an icon, and then was gone, and that was a good target to pick.
In the same way by waiting until after the elections. They discredit Bush by attacking after all the promises he has made. Or they through a new administration into disarray.
And what makes him and his army different to any terrorist army, besides the fact that they can legally do things terrorist groups can't.
Bush believes that by destroying these groups America and only America can be protected, thats his aim and he's using terror to gain it, i.e. killing thousands of innocent Iraqi's and Afghans
Terrorists believe that western ideals are a threat to theirs and they are using terror to destroy western ideals.
Same thing just two different ways of looking at them.