So I just arrived in Providence and got to my hotel, when leaving the airport there is this massive right at the entrance to I-95 which is a big American flag with "BE PATRIOTIC: IMPEACH BUSH" written over it.

 

I just shook my head in disgust sitting in the back of the taxi.

 

You would never see something like that in Florida or pretty much anywhere else outside of the northeast or California.

oh no!!!

 

 

anti bush signage. considering all the pro bush stuff in many other areas, its not all that shocking.

I feel the same way Das does, sans the sarcasm.

Well geez, the guy only lied to this entire country. Of course that isn't an impeachable offense now is it?

 

 

 

(And no, Monica Lewinsky doesn't count because 2000+ Americans aren't dead because of it)

Well geez, the guy only lied to this entire country. Of course that isn't an impeachable offense now is it?

 

 

 

(And no, Monica Lewinsky doesn't count because 2000+ Americans aren't dead because of it)

 

 

 

Nice contradictary post there. :thumbup

I'm not trying to be an a**hole here, but this is pretty much a waste of a thread. Maybe the information presented would have been sufficient, but instead you had to make some black and white political judgements about it. There are pockets of extreme liberalism just as there are extreme pockets of conservatism. We could sling mud at each extreme of the ideaologies ad infinitum, but to what end?

 

For example...religious conservative extremists protested the funerals of military veterans who perished in the Middle East because they were gay. Where's the outrage?

Well geez, the guy only lied to this entire country. Of course that isn't an impeachable offense now is it?

 

 

 

(And no, Monica Lewinsky doesn't count because 2000+ Americans aren't dead because of it)

 

 

 

Nice contradictary post there. :thumbup How is it contradictory? I disregarded Lewinskygate because that should've never been put on trial in the first place. No where in the constitution does it say that extramarital affairs are impeachable offenses.

Well geez, the guy only lied to this entire country. Of course that isn't an impeachable offense now is it?

 

 

 

(And no, Monica Lewinsky doesn't count because 2000+ Americans aren't dead because of it)

 

 

 

Nice contradictary post there. :thumbup How is it contradictory? I disregarded Lewinskygate because that should've never been put on trial in the first place. No where in the constitution does it say that extramarital affairs are impeachable offenses.

 

It's contradictary because your basis for Bush's theoretical impeachment is that he "lied" and then you turn right around and write off that fact that your boy Clinton LIED UNDER OATH and committed perjury as A-OK!

Well geez, the guy only lied to this entire country. Of course that isn't an impeachable offense now is it?

 

 

 

(And no, Monica Lewinsky doesn't count because 2000+ Americans aren't dead because of it)

 

 

 

Nice contradictary post there. :thumbup How is it contradictory? I disregarded Lewinskygate because that should've never been put on trial in the first place. No where in the constitution does it say that extramarital affairs are impeachable offenses.

:lol

Well geez, the guy only lied to this entire country. Of course that isn't an impeachable offense now is it?

 

 

 

(And no, Monica Lewinsky doesn't count because 2000+ Americans aren't dead because of it)

 

 

 

Nice contradictary post there. :thumbup How is it contradictory? I disregarded Lewinskygate because that should've never been put on trial in the first place. No where in the constitution does it say that extramarital affairs are impeachable offenses.

 

It's contradictary because your basis for Bush's theoretical impeachment is that he "lied" and then you turn right around and write off that fact that your boy Clinton LIED UNDER OATH and committed perjury as A-OK!

Lets be honest now. The only reason Bush hasnt been foolishly driven to state things under oath, ala Lewinskygate, is because his party holds both houses. Theyve given him a free pass on his lies.

Well geez, the guy only lied to this entire country. Of course that isn't an impeachable offense now is it?

 

 

 

(And no, Monica Lewinsky doesn't count because 2000+ Americans aren't dead because of it)

 

 

 

Nice contradictary post there. :thumbup How is it contradictory? I disregarded Lewinskygate because that should've never been put on trial in the first place. No where in the constitution does it say that extramarital affairs are impeachable offenses.

 

It's contradictary because your basis for Bush's theoretical impeachment is that he "lied" and then you turn right around and write off that fact that your boy Clinton LIED UNDER OATH and committed perjury as A-OK!

Lets be honest now. The only reason Bush hasnt been foolishly driven to state things under oath, ala Lewinskygate, is because his party holds both houses. Theyve given him a free pass on his lies.

 

I'm not defending Bush, let's be clear about that.

Anyone with sense knows that the only reason Clinton had to suffer through an impeachment trial is because the Republican-controlled Congress of that time couldn't resist damaging the country's successful Democrat president. The whole thing was a waste of time. While the country was caught up in LewinskyGate, Osama and his cronies were busy planning the deaths of 3000 American citizens.

 

Unfortunately Bush is untouchable because of his party's control of both houses of Congress.

Christ almighty, when are you people going to realize that it's about the fact that Clinton committed perjury and not the donkey-punch?

I really dont think it was solely on perjury. It was a great opportunity to attack Clinton and to push the agenda of the religious right.

 

 

If you think it was solely on perjury then you are in another world.

I do realize it was about the perjury, but it was such a trivial thing. He lied about getting some action from a woman, not having secret torture camps or anything like that. There had to be a vote on whether or not to actually hold an impeachment trial, which passed. I don't think it would have if Congress was split between the parties, or Democrats controlled both houses at the time.

You don't lie in court. Period.

Pertaining to the original post:

 

OMG someone has an opinion and money. Personally I find all these "Anti-Choice" billboards up and down the highways as disgusting conservitive blotter, they should be removed. Because as we all know, billboards are infringing on you, and trying to control your mind.

 

Stupid Liberal conspiracy.

 

R.I. candidate calls for Bush impeachment

Jim Baron, Times staff reporter

02/02/2006

 

PROVIDENCE - Declaring that President George W. Bush "has repeatedly lied to our Congress and Americans, broke our laws and abused his executive authority with impunity," U.S. Senate candidate Carl Sheeler called for Bush?s impeachment at a Statehouse news conference Wednesday.

 

On Friday, Sheeler plans to have a billboard posted off Exit 18 of Route 95 at the Thurbers Avenue curve that says "Be Patriotic, Impeach Bush."

 

Advertisement

Calling the Bush administration, "a partisan machine of fear and empty promises," Sheeler said, "It?s time we as ordinary citizens stop talking and start acting to bring the change we want to see in our America."

 

He said he believes a majority of Rhode Islanders join him in wanting to see the president be impeached. Under the Constitution, impeachments start in the House of Representatives and Sheeler called on Reps. Patrick Kennedy and Jim Langevin, who are the national co-chairs of the campaign of Sheldon Whitehouse, who is opposing Sheeler for the Democratic nomination for the seat now held by Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee.

 

Questioned by reporters after his speech, Sheeler acknowledged that there are "probably in the neighborhood of 50 or 60" votes for impeachment in the House right now. There are 435 members in the House; 218 votes would be required to force an impeachment trial in the Senate.

 

In proposed articles of impeachment he provided to the media, Sheeler indicated he not only wants Bush impeached, but Vice President Richard Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as well.

 

Among the high crimes and misdemeanors that Sheeler said Bush and his underlings should be impeached for include everything from the invasion of Iraq, to wiretapping without approval of the courts to the handling of Hurricane Katrina. High crimes and misdemeanors, Sheeler said, "are what Congress says they are."

 

Kennedy and Langevin should join the movement toward impeachment started by Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, Sheeler said, "because this is an election year and this is our democracy. How many Americans earnestly feel they have been betrayed and lied to by the president of the United States? The majority, certainly here in Rhode Island. Calling for impeachment, he said, "is a sign of leadership."

 

Sheeler said impeachment "is not a question of whether it will actually be successful or not, but if our representatives are going to represent our voice."

 

Neither Kennedy nor Langevin appeared eager to join Sheeler?s call for impeachment, but both seemed to sympathize with their fellow Democrat?s dissatisfaction with the Bush administration.

 

"While I appreciate and share Mr. Sheeler?s frustration with this administration," Kennedy said through Spokeswoman Robin Costello, "I think the larger point, which I have often stated, is that the Republicans who run Congress have repeatedly put political protectionism ahead of constitutional checks and balances."

 

Still speaking of the GOP leadership, Kennedy said, "they have failed to hold any meaningful oversight hearings on any issue, such as prewar intelligence in Iraq, the lack of body armor and equipment for the troops, the absence of postwar planning and, most recently, illegal spying on lawful citizens."

 

Without those oversight hearings, Kennedy said, "we don?t know if the president and his administration are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors or are just disasterously incompetent.

 

"Unlike the Republicans during the Clinton administration," Kennedy said, "I refuse to play politics with something so grave and potentially dangerous for our democracy as impeachment."

 

Without the knowledge that would be gained at oversight hearings, Kennedy said, "calling for impeachment now would be putting the cart before the horse."

 

Langevin offered similar sentiments through Spokeswoman Joy Fox.

 

"The congressman?s position is that it is Congress? constitutional duty to oversee" the executive branch.

 

Although Langevin believes "the Republican Congress hasn?t taken those duties seriously," he thinks "there is other stuff we have to work for, like health care and an energy policy.

 

"He thinks that oversight is needed, that questions need to be answered," Fox said, but that impeachment, "is still a way away."

thank god you didn't see people running around yelling impeach Clinton back then too!

 

whiny liberals.... I remember when we used to have REAL scandals. With stained dresses and ten year old land deals and fat women. Not this lame stuff with war, spies, natural disasters, and drummed-up intel. Get a clue libs!

 

are there areas of the country where they still actually like Bush?

Who cares about a single expression against Bush? The Clinton stuff is fine, too. I don't care about people expressing their opinions. That stuff SHOULD be out there.

 

If all it took was a sign I hope you're not going to college, because I see "worse" liberal bumper stickers and conservative propaganda billboards at school.

Well geez, the guy only lied to this entire country. Of course that isn't an impeachable offense now is it?

 

 

 

(And no, Monica Lewinsky doesn't count because 2000+ Americans aren't dead because of it)

 

 

Please provide concrete proof that Bush himself knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq before the invasion. Hard to do unless your a mind reader. By the way during clintons impeachment hearings, what was the US military doing? Oh yea!! Bombing Iraq. So im guessing none of those bombs killed anybody...o well

"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-Truth!

This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

 

"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-Truth!

Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.

His remarks followed that briefing.

 

"Iraq is a long way from USA 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-Truth!

This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.

 

"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-Truth!

This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.

 

"We 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-Truth!

According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

 

"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-Truth!

The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.

 

"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-Truth!

This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.

She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."

 

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace 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, December 5, 2001Truth!

The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.

It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.

 

"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 mandated 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-Truth!

These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!

This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

 

"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-Truth!

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-Truth!

Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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-Truth!

On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.

He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- 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-Truth!

Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

 

"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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!

Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.

 

"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-Truth!

Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.

 

"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-Truth!

Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

 

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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-Truth!

In a speech to Georgetown University.

 

Truth or Fiction

 

As for lying under oath, Martha Stewart went to jail for the same offense. There was no evidence whatsoever that her receiving an unsolicited phone call recommending to sell as the president of a corporation filed with the SEC to sell all his shares, and was thus public knowledge. On the otherhand, a certain Senator from New York sold short shares in health care, then, later that day, announced that as chair of the health care reform that she was going to crush those companies, causing a huge decline in their value, making almost 15 times as much on that insider trade than Stewart made on a public trade.

 

Make no mistake, I think Bush, like Clinton, will be remembered very poorly. Bush was the reason I changed my party affiliation. But the closed-mindedness of those of you on what used to be the far left, but by today's standard is the moderate left, is still even more appalling.