Why do conservatives STILL bleat and whine that Bush/Cheney have broken no laws?

BLT

bekaus dey must remaing loyal to zie furher.

Jadis

Why do you care so much what other people think? And *who* lied??

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force â€” if necessary â€” to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Fred P

OK - let's be specific.

Identify specifically what crimes they've committed. Be specific as to which sections of the US Code he violated - don't be evasive and don't deal in generalities.

As to the military - he is the Commander-in-Chief. The military is NOT run by two committees consisting of 535 members in total.

What "....public's need to get the troops out of Iraq..."?

Now PROVE it! Until then, stop spouting the Demo's party line and do your research.

PARVFAN

You need to learn this quote, " it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt." Enough allready, Peace

superbaler

I would say violating the constitution is the same as breaking a law? Considering it is (or was) the major set of rules our country has been founded on. As I have posted before:

"I DO KNOW that Bush has taken away more rights/privacy away from our country than every president ever.

Besides the Patriot Act and his being able to cancel elections (see 1st link below) if he declares a "state of emergency", he just made an executive order outlawing criticizing the war in Iraq (2nd and 3rd link).

Hopefully they'll catch him before he's written into history books that find their way into the hands of highschool students as a "GOOD" president...

Congratulations Bush, you're the biggest Tyrant in the history of the US. Here's a medal: yes that is the Nazi symbol. Fascist."

Maybe on a very technical level none of these things are "against the law" but violating the constitution is even worse if you ask me. Laws are placed as rules and guidelines to follow to keep peace and stability. Do we have peace or stability now? No. We aren't even following our own constitution, the very document that is supposed to be the ultimate set of rules for our country.

We all know what is right and what is wrong, so why are the people in power still in power? Why are we at war? And why does nobody care that the constitution is constantly being ignored and violated?

It's simple, because we are allowing it.

booman17

Because the 2 examples you submitted are both false. If they were true he would have been impeached, why do you think he hasn't? uuuuhhhh, Maybe because your version of the truth is not true?

Biran_Sefar

Let us not forget that Bush and Cheney are also war criminals and pariahs to the rest of the world. If conservatives are still in denial about the horrors of the present administration, it is most likely because they, as wealthy elites and as participants in the corporatization of our government and society, are guilty of collaborating with the administration in the follies it has committed.

rare2findd

simply
because
they
can.
They're
all
liars.

acct10132002

Bush was for the Dubai ports which Democrats thought was OK apparently...Bush also sought open borders, amnesty, printing government documents in foreign languages, and American culture erosion via "Presidents' Day". He seems OK with "No Prayer in Schools" and other de-religionization.

jim h

Quoting the info he was given by our intelligence agencies is not lying. Are you ready to impeach all the democratic congressmen who voted in favor of the war after reading the same intel reports. If Bush was lying they ALL were lying and if he should be impeached they ALL should be impeached. Also, not following the polls is not a crime.

tacomadc

Sorry, but at the Federal level, this is all he said/she said. He will not be impeached. The public elected him, and got what it paid for.

Butterbar Bob

Telling the truth isn't "bleat[ing] or whin[ing]".

They haven't broken any laws. Your BDS is blinding you to the truth.

So stop your whining!

laughter_every_day

Lying to congress in a state of the union address, when not sworn, is NOT a crime. Find it in the penal code. Perjury before congress is a crime, but that requires that witness be sworn. Stupidity is not a crime. Lying to the american people is not a crime. Outing a CIA agent can be a crime but thus far no one has asserted that Bush/Cheney personally revealed any classified info to anyone. So, even though I would love to see those clowns impeached out of office, thus far no one has been able to identify what section of the penal code of the United States was personally violated by either one of them.

fairly smart

But...Bush 2 is telling them so, that's why! Blind devotion is scary & what got him elected twice...scary, very, very scary.

RitchWilliams

Um, because they haven't. And your 'opinion' doesn't change that. Shall I break it down for you?

No he didn't.
No he didn't.

Again, he didn't.

No he won't. Seen the congressional approval ratings lately?
No he didn't.
No he's not. Besides, who cares. He's a leader not a follower.
You can't accuse someone unless they are believed to have committed a crime.

Thanks for playing. Hope this helps. And given your take on legal issues, I really hope you're not a lawyer..or plan to become one.

moon_flower_unicorn_power

all they do is whine...about everything

Robert K

They seem to feel that if we can't prove them guilty, then we have no right to suspect that they are guilty.

Never mind the fact that they give us plenty of reason to think they are. Oh well, the worst is over. This President (and administration) is just about through with the conversion to lame-duck status.

Sky

Because in their eyes, Bush and Cheney can do NO WRONG.

But when Clinton was President?

Holy Hell!!!

Impeach for lying about a *******!

Talk about hypocritical.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: