• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ridge accuses Bush White House of political use of terror alert system

We Dems could have also stopped funding the war (after 2006) & impeached Bush & Cheney. I hold Spkr. Pelosi & Harry Reid responsible for not having the guts to do the right thing! (They should both be run out of office)

But alas, reality and the facts there was no legal grounds to impeach got in the way of the Democrats baseless hyperbolic claims.

:2wave:
 
His question was "How many came out with accusations", and you answered with "nothing's been proven". That does not answer his question. Many have come out since Bush was replaced by Obama, effectively decreasing his power and the fears that he would come after anyone who spoke out. It certainly is interesting that some seem to think that all of these individuals are lying.

Who in this thread has suggested that Ridge lied? Ridge didn't lie in his book. This debate, which you apparently still haven’t caught onto, is the hysterical emotional attempts to suggest that Ridge is impugning the Bush administration and claiming that the threat warnings were a corrupt attempt to turn the 2004 election to Bush's favor.

Do try to keep up! :2wave:
 
Last edited:
It's still abuse of power, an impeachable offense & aimed at stealing an election. I call that Treason.

How about Clinton bombing Iraq to draw attention away from him getting sucked off?
 
How about Clinton bombing Iraq to draw attention away from him getting sucked off?

Sure....If you can prove that was Clinton's motive. In this case we have eyewitness testimony from Tom Ridge. What proof against Clinton do you have?
 
Last edited:
Sure....If you can prove that was Clinton's motive. In this case we have eyewitness testimony from Tom Ridge. What proof against Clinton do you have?

No, we don't. Did you read the thread?
 
Right of Center brings up a good point. That blowjob.

We investigated Clinton for a BJ. But it is somehow a crazy idea to investigate into things like this.
 
Right of Center brings up a good point. That blowjob.

We investigated Clinton for a BJ. But it is somehow a crazy idea to investigate into things like this.


Of course it's crazy......Only Democrats should ever be investigated,,,Right?:lol:
How much did Clinton's hummer investigation cost us taxpayers??....Money well spent to uphold the honor of this country...right? (then we authorize torturing prisoners)
 
Last edited:
That's how I interpret Ridges's remarks. In the final analysis, it would be up to a jury to finally determine what the facts are....Not you or me.;)

No, it wouldn't. Reread the Constitution.
 
We investigated Clinton for a BJ. But it is somehow a crazy idea to investigate into things like this.

Clinton wasn't investigated for a blow job; it was abuse of his power of office and lying under oath. I am fascinated by the continuing efforts to describe this as a mere blow job.
 
Show me the portion of the Constitution saying that an impeachment trial for a president is heard by a jury.

I won't wait up.

I never claimed anything of the sort in re impeachment. Impeachment is an accusation & the removal from office "Trial" is held in the Senate.
None of which precludes later CRIMINAL indictment & trial in a court of law for possibly the same actions. I suggest you misunderstood what I was saying, either intentionally or innocently.
 
I never claimed anything of the sort in re impeachment. Impeachment is an accusation & the removal from office "Trial" is held in the Senate.
None of which precludes later CRIMINAL indictment & trial in a court of law for possibly the same actions. I suggest you misunderstood what I was saying, either intentionally or innocently.

And my point is that before it got to the point where a jury would be hearing anything, it would have to go through the Senate, so it doesn't really matter what a jury would think about treason.

(This is assuming we're living in a fantasy world where any of this would ever happen)
 
And my point is that before it got to the point where a jury would be hearing anything, it would have to go through the Senate, so it doesn't really matter what a jury would think about treason.

(This is assuming we're living in a fantasy world where any of this would ever happen)

Criminal charges can be brought with or without a preceding Impeachment/Senate Trail. One is a political remedy the other is a criminal matter. 2 completely unrelated animals.

Example:

If Nixon hadn't resigned, he would have been found guilty in the Senate & removed from office. (That's what Goldwater et al told Nixon wehn they recommended he resign)

After that, if Ford had pardoned him (which he gladly accepted)
Nixon would undoubtedly have been criminally charged with any number of criminal charges & spent the rest of his life in a federal penn...where he belonged.
 
Last edited:
Criminal charges can be brought with or without a preceding Impeachment/Senate Trail. One is a political remedy the other is a criminal matter. 2 completely unrelated animals.

This is also wrong.

The president is immune to criminal prosecution while in office. There is debate about whether it applies to the vice-president, but it's not really up for discussion as to whether the president is protected.

Example:

If Nixon hadn't resigned, he would have been found guilty in the Senate & removed from office. (That's what Goldwater et al told Nixon wehn they recommended he resign)

After that, if Ford had pardoned him (which he gladly accepted)
Nixon would undoubtedly have been criminally charged with any number of criminal charges & spent the rest of his life in a federal penn...where he belonged.

You just argued that the president can be prosecuted even prior to impeachment, and as evidence cited the fact that if Nixon had been impeached, he could have been prosecuted.
 
Last edited:
It's still abuse of power, an impeachable offense & aimed at stealing an election. I call that Treason.
Even if it actually happened it still wouldnt've been illegal.
 
This is also wrong.

The president is immune to criminal prosecution while in office. There is debate about whether it applies to the vice-president, but it's not really up for discussion as to whether the president is protected.



You just argued that the president can be prosecuted even prior to impeachment, and as evidence cited the fact that if Nixon had been impeached, he could have been prosecuted.

I never mentioned anything about a sitting President. Nixon had run like the thief he was.... & GW Bush & Cheney are (Thankfully) no longer in office, so whether they were impeached or not has no bearing on whether criminal charges can now be brought against them.
 
Last edited:
Even if it actually happened it still wouldnt've been illegal.

I beg to differ & think a smart U.S. Atty could probably find many creative criminal violations to charge them with. Violations of the Hatch Act, conspiracy violations & others jump to kind.
 
I never mentioned anything about a sitting President. Nixon had run like the thief he was.... & GW Bush & Cheney are (Thankfully) no longer in office, so whether they were impeached or not has no bearing on whether criminal charges can now be brought against them.

My apologies, I assumed that you were given your bit about how they should have been removed in 2006.

I beg to differ & think a smart U.S. Atty could probably find many creative criminal violations to charge them with. Violations of the Hatch Act, conspiracy violations & others jump to kind.

The fact that someone could come up with creative charges doesn't make them good charges.
 
I wasn't trying to specify the terrorist alert level at the time of the election, but more the approach the Bush campaign took to get re-elected. Things like saying that only Bush will keep America safe, and all of the other bull**** that the American people ate up.

Would you please point out the terrorist attacks on US soil after 9/11?

Maybe it's true, only Bush could keep us safe... everyone knows Libs are very weak on defence.
 
Back
Top Bottom