Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Move on from a case of lying that didn't affect this country to one that got over 500 of us killed
Theres a difference there.
And testimony strongly suggests that that Bush has ignored the intelligence community's insistance that we don't know whether or not Saddam has WMD and it is prudent not to push that supposition.
And a censure movement would ascertain whether or not he did act improperly and lied about what our intelligence community told him.
Also, for your second post.---------
Why make an argument for censure against Clinton? There was no public support for censure. Most americans don't even know what censure means and does.
They thought it was right for him to be censured but not right to be impeached over something so trivial.
Likewise they are not looking for impeachment against Bush for lying, which is a charge they, their supporters and I believe. Only a censure.
It's consistent and an honorable purpose.
|
Sorry but, at the time of the impeachment discussions, censure was very much in the vocabulary of the average US citizen. Prior to the impeachment discussions it wasn't very well known but the press made it VERY well known soon after. Here's a story which quotes poll numbers from BEFORE Move On started the petition you speak of:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/1998/98sep15/head5.htm
Censure is a punishment to be meted out not a rallying point to start an investigation. There is currently no evidence to support censuring Bush and there's absolutely no evidence to support an impeachment.
As I've said, the allegations that Move On make require that they either were in Bush's head and knew his thoughts or that there is evidence to support that he knowingly lied. Neither of which is the case at this point.