Should the President have been impeached

He took us to war AFTER campaigning otherwise and purposefully allowed actions that directly led to loss of American life for his own personal agenda. He repeatedly lied to the American public and kept Congress in the dark, manipulated, controlled and destroyed intelligence information and the sole motive was to enter into a war that the vast percentage of Americans did not want.

So the question is, Should this President have been impeached???

Well I give up who was it?

What President lied to the public, congress and withheld valuable information from commanders on the ground which led to the loss of American lives to promote his own agenda?

You can start by reading the link.

This would give added meaning to the PNAC-Bush-Cheney document that said:

".................. the process of [military] transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor ... "

At PDF page 63 here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf#search=%22Pearl%20Harbor%20site%3Anewamericancentury.org%22

signed by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, Scooter Libby, et al.

Ah, but you are comparing a recommendation paper put out by an organization with a stated goal the actions of a setting American President who committed what amounts to treason.

Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a nonprofit,
educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.
The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project.

And you didn't answer the question. Should FDR have been impeached for his treacherous acts that cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers and billions of dollars in damage on Pearl Harbor alone?

The same general type of question could be asked about Bush and the events of 9/11/2001.

Then ask it but other then a few conspiracy theories, I doubt you'll find no where near the evidence of Bush/Cheney there is that FDR not only knew about the intended attack on PH, he set forth a chain of events with the clear intent of antagonizing Japan into attacking Pearl with the sole purpose of drawing America into the war.

And if the answer were yes, Bush was even 10% as responsible for 9/11 as FDR was for 12/7, then I’d say try him and fry him.

But for some reason you cannot comment negatively on FDR. Any particular reason?

As I have said before here, I am not going to spend a lot of my life speculating about stuff that happened before I was born and before I was expected to support it.

I have made an exception to that do discuss the anihilation of the Ameriindian culture, the American civil war and slavery and the continuing social fallout from those events.

As you certainly realize, my mental faculties are limited. I don't want to stretch them so far that they break.

So you can wail on Johnson and Bush for what you deem their failures (which fails in comparison to FDR by the way) but since he was before time, you won’t comment on FDR’s treasonous acts.

Of course that doesn’t extend to his new deal socialist programs that you’ve praised.

When I created this thread, I knew the tripe I would hear from you. You didn't disappoint.

I expect to hear even less from others on the left.

Aaron wrote:

And you didn't answer the question.

Aaron, I dun tolt ya, ..... Zig don't have any answers,

all he has got is questions

.




.

Aaron wrote:So you can wail on Johnson and Bush for what you deem their failures (which fails in comparison to FDR by the way) but since he was before time, you won’t comment on FDR’s treasonous acts.

Of course that doesn’t extend to his new deal socialist programs that you’ve praised.

Johnson had "new deal socialist" programs, too. Just ask Sodbucter. But that doesn't keep me from wailing on Johnson for his international terrorism and military recklessness.

As I said on another thread, your excuse making is predictable.