███████████ Impeachment Proceedings On Donald Trump ███████████

[icanhelp1]

So we're skipping over the fact that the US INVADED Iraq?

You gotta let your whiny opinion of Obama go... he did what was required. It was their money and a court ruled as such.. we also staved off possibly being on the hook for a lot more and it cleared up old business.

Seeing how the US completely fucked up Iraq, we should be the last people claiming to be experts on how to act.

Keep moving the goal post. You have to let go of your TDS. You forget Iraq invaded Kuwait. On the hook for a lot more???? Who was going to make us pay that??? I think Saddam Hussein and his sons fucked up Iraq, let's put the blame where it belongs. Had Obama left the troops in Iraq after we won the peace the people of Iraq could have enjoyed the peace dividends. Intelligence from both MI6 and the CIA got it wrong on weapons of mass destruction. There was the U.N. inspection violations. History will determine whether it was the right thing to do.

 

[cowslinger64]

Keep moving the goal post. You have to let go of your TDS. You forget Iraq invaded Kuwait. On the hook for a lot more???? Who was going to make us pay that??? I think Saddam Hussein and his sons fucked up Iraq, let's put the blame where it belongs. Had Obama left the troops in Iraq after we won the peace the people of Iraq could have enjoyed the peace dividends. Intelligence from both MI6 and the CIA got it wrong on weapons of mass destruction. There was the U.N. inspection violations. History will determine whether it was the right thing to do.

Lol.. that's not why we went into Iraq.. that was the Gulf war under the first Bush.

Obama removed those troops because of a Status of Forces agreement signed by the second bush.


U.S. President George W. Bush hailed the passing of the agreement between the two countries. "The Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq", Bush said.


So I should let go of some sort of tds, but years after fulfilling his second term, you don't need to do the same????

If you wanna revisit history, bring bush, ashcroft, cheney and rumsfeld and have them tried for war crimes for the monumental lying blunder that was and still is, Iraq. Nearly 5000 AMERICAN TROOPS LOST THEIR LIVES, countless civilians and trillions in damage and money that just disappeared, many of those dollars benefiting that pos cheney.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don't need a low life sucking at the gubmint teat whining about anyone else getting anything offering up their opinion of me.

I don't suck at the gubmint teat nor do I whine about anyone else getting anything.

That's all your wild lies and ascription champ....presumably from your lack of literacy.

I didn't offer an opinion of you, I asked you a question that you're now cowering from. You still can't read very well can you Detroit???

I asked you what got you openly supporting anti-American politics.....what happened between serving your country and wanting it gone to make you hate it so much?

I made my own way without having uncle sugar financing a miserable existence like you.. fat fuck.

Says the anti-American socialist and union slug to the guy who's built and sold more than one bidnizz LOL

Name calling, just like your service, doesn't change your anti-American politics comrade.

The question still stands cowardly comrade, what happened that made you hate the USA and everything it's ever stood for so much?

 

[icanhelp1]

Lol.. that's not why we went into Iraq.. that was the Gulf war under the first Bush.

Obama removed those troops because of a Status of Forces agreement signed by the second bush.


U.S. President George W. Bush hailed the passing of the agreement between the two countries. "The Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq", Bush said.


So I should let go of some sort of tds, but years after fulfilling his second term, you don't need to do the same????

If you wanna revisit history, bring bush, ashcroft, cheney and rumsfeld and have them tried for war crimes for the monumental lying blunder that was and still is, Iraq. Nearly 5000 AMERICAN TROOPS LOST THEIR LIVES, countless civilians and trillions in damage and money that just disappeared, many of those dollars benefiting that pos cheney.

You're being intellectually dishonest. Obama had no interest in negotiating Status of Forces, had he, the Iraqis would have had no choice. ISIS was becoming a force to reckon with. Obama didn't want to deal with the JV team! He was doing exactly what Trump is doing now, fulfilling a campaign promise. It's ok for Barack but not for Trump. See how fucking hypocritical you LUNES are?

I will admit the war was a clusterfuck and I personally was not in favor until ISIS came onto the scene.

 

[cowslinger64]

You're being intellectually dishonest. Obama had no interest in negotiating Status of Forces, had he, the Iraqis would have had no choice. ISIS was becoming a force to reckon with. Obama didn't want to deal with the JV team! He was doing exactly what Trump is doing now, fulfilling a campaign promise. It's ok for Barack but not for Trump. See how fucking hypocritical you LUNES are?

I will admit the war was a clusterfuck and I personally was not in favor until ISIS came onto the scene.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...refused-sign-plan-place-leave-10000-troops-i/

Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says

When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.

It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.
----------------------

Sound like a campaign promise? Like your claims by trump?

Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War,

Austin Long, a Columbia University international and public affairs professor, said al-Maliki allegedly supported the residual force and may have signed a new plan, but the Iraqi parliament would not. Facing the prospect of a weak agreement that didn’t protect remaining troops the way the United States wanted, when neither Baghdad nor Washington wanted to leave them there, negotiations broke down. No new agreement was reached, and no residual force was formed

"I think most observers would agree that a residual U.S. force would have prevented the Islamic State from achieving as much as it has in Iraq," Long said. "But it is also unlikely that a residual force would have completely stabilized Iraq, as the sources of instability are fundamentally political."

Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left -- and mostly in Syria at first.

Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it.




Those are all snips from the article.. you can argue the politics of it all you like, but that situation was created by the horrible behavior that led the US to invade Iraq... remember that whole if you're against the Iraq war you're against the troops?


If we let trump and the right wing warmongers run free, we'll be in Iran.. it's all about the money.

 

[icanhelp1]

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...refused-sign-plan-place-leave-10000-troops-i/

Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says

When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.

It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.
----------------------

Sound like a campaign promise? Like your claims by trump?

Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War,

Austin Long, a Columbia University international and public affairs professor, said al-Maliki allegedly supported the residual force and may have signed a new plan, but the Iraqi parliament would not. Facing the prospect of a weak agreement that didn’t protect remaining troops the way the United States wanted, when neither Baghdad nor Washington wanted to leave them there, negotiations broke down. No new agreement was reached, and no residual force was formed

"I think most observers would agree that a residual U.S. force would have prevented the Islamic State from achieving as much as it has in Iraq," Long said. "But it is also unlikely that a residual force would have completely stabilized Iraq, as the sources of instability are fundamentally political."

Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left -- and mostly in Syria at first.

Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it.




Those are all snips from the article.. you can argue the politics of it all you like, but that situation was created by the horrible behavior that led the US to invade Iraq... remember that whole if you're against the Iraq war you're against the troops?


If we let trump and the right wing warmongers run free, we'll be in Iran.. it's all about the money.

"Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.

He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.

When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount. (For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)

Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call."


Having a negative opinion on the war has no impact on your feeling towards the troops. The U.N lost control of the inspections, lot's of bad intel and the rest is history. I retired in 2004 and contracted for DOD for 2 years helping units mobilize and I hated watching them deploy.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If we let trump and the right wing warmongers run free, we'll be in Iran.. it's all about the money.

Democrats are screaming for MOAR WAR in the middle east and you're calling the right wing warmongers? LOL


Can't help but notice you're still running from the question I asked...fucking cowardly as you ever were.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Democrats are screaming for MOAR WAR in the middle east and you're calling the right wing warmongers? LOL


Can't help but notice you're still running from the question I asked...fucking cowardly as you ever were.

Which Ds are screaming for more war?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Which Ds are screaming for more war?

All of them so far as I can tell....Orange Man Bad!!!

Orange man leave Syria? Terrible disaster!!!! Eternal war for no reason good!!!

 

[LincolnDuncan]

All of them so far as I can tell....Orange Man Bad!!!

Orange man leave Syria? Terrible disaster!!!! Eternal war for no reason good!!!

Oh, you mean bullshit

and you know it's bullshit, don't you?

 

[KeithD]

Oh, you mean bullshit

and you know it's bullshit, don't you?

No, I didn't think BB would or could back up his hysterical claim, either.

 

[Conager]

Fiction like StolenValorPilot71 had written it:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/opinions/25th-amendment-impeachment-opinion-callan/index.html

Ahahaha!

 

[jaF0]

"Overall, 51 percent of respondents said they want Trump impeached and removed from the White House."

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/201...han-did-Nixon-during-Watergate/5451572969137/

 

[Curmudgeonly]

"Overall, 51 percent of respondents said they want Trump impeached and removed from the White House."

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/201...han-did-Nixon-during-Watergate/5451572969137/

https://i.makeagif.com/media/12-23-2015/g-9Csw.gif

This does not bode well for Trump "winning" the popular vote this time around. . .He might even lose California, Illinois, and New York. . .

 

[Rightguide]

"Overall, 51 percent of respondents said they want Trump impeached and removed from the White House."

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/201...han-did-Nixon-during-Watergate/5451572969137/

If that is a national poll, it has little relevance in a presidential race. Look at the state polls.

 

[Adre]

Sure, it’s irrelevant when over half the citizenry wants their leader convicted and removed. Must mean he’s doing a real bangup job. Righto.

 

[icanhelp1]

If that is a national poll, it has little relevance in a presidential race. Look at the state polls.

Polls are really accurate

 

[Conager]

Sure, it’s irrelevant when over half the citizenry wants their leader convicted and removed. Must mean he’s doing a real bangup job. Righto.

You are correct. 100% irrelevant.

We don't elect or retain presidents based on a national popularity contest. There's no such thing as a no-confidence vote in American politics.

"Well Pete, I figured it should be the one with the capacity for abstract thought. But if that ain't the consensus view, then hell, let's put it to a vote." - Ulysses Everett McGill

 

[Rightguide]

Sure, it’s irrelevant when over half the citizenry wants their leader convicted and removed. Must mean he’s doing a real bangup job. Righto.

Are you saying over half the "voters" in America want Trump removed from office, or half of the Democrats? Have you investigated the methodology of those polls? It should have made you wonder how this could be with Trump enjoying almost 90% support in the Republican Party and their representatives in Congress failed to surrender a single vote in favor of the last fake impeachment bill. This alone should have given you some pause when reading the fake polls you refer to.

Here's some more polling for you:


https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...MIsoKfquDT5QIVmh-tBh13Ngd4EAMYASAAEgIc1PD_BwE

 

[Adre]

Really? A poll from December 2018? You’re a true moron.

 

[Adre]

And besides, when did 90% of the Republican Party come close to equaling in number Democrats + Independents. As I said, you’re a moron.

 

[Adre]

WASHINGTON — A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.

The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged.


(Oh, what have we here?)

 

[phrodeau]

In case folks don’t know, here is what a Javelin missile does to a tank.

https://youtu.be/jIlROqW0fnc

 

[RoryN]

WASHINGTON — A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.

The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged.


(Oh, what have we here?)

Indeed. Bad news for Deplorables - this is a big development!

Sondland changes testimony, acknowledges delivering quid pro quo message to Ukraine

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...ivering-quid-pro-quo-message-ukraine-n1076736

 

[Adre]

Let’s see, they can’t call him a Deep State Never Trumper, so what will it be?