I'm not sure but I think the consensus in right wing circles has now reached the point where "fixing" actually means lying and being deceptive. Several steps up from ignoring the memo or saying that it has no credibility.

Anyways, I would like to suggest that whilst it might be a hard sell to impeach Bush on this one document alone, surely its existence is justification for an investigation?
It is afterall an incriminating top level memo concerning the reports of Britain's top spy(dearlove right?), not the usual opponents of Bush- as some people need pointing out.

So. In a leaked document (which usualy have far more truth then the ones we are supposed to see), concerning the minutes of a meeting between Britains' top spy and Blair, and his top ministers, circulated to others of importance, claims that Bush lied to get his war-an impeachable offence.
Could somone explain to me why again this is not to be investigated?

Memo does not mean anything because it boils down to the opinion of a single foreigner...even assuming it is completly true.

This has been discussed to death in other threads. Feel free to scan those threads to find out exactly why no one thinks the memo is a big deal except people that already hated Bush to begin with.

We dont impeach Presidents in America based on the opinion of one person. Thuh end.

Can someone keep a count of how many times this particular thread gets posted and eviscerated by SS?

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

every President we have is going to meet with "impeachment" topics on discussion boards.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

No way!!

Junior is too "fortified". Plus, he has not been caught in a "lie", has he?

__________________
"Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet."

Junior isn't going down this way, no matter how the left might fantasize he will.

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

Yeah, pretty much.

Because they are just NOT getting this. Impeachment is something that occurs VERY rarely. In the entire US history, it's only occured TWICE; once with Andrew Johnson (who replaced Abraham Lincoln) and of course with Bill Clinton. Both happened when the opposition were in power in the house and the senate. And both were based on conclusive evidence on wrongdoing by the President. Thus far, we have seen none of this. Thus, the prospect of President Bush being impeached is simply a pipe dream by the far left loonies of this world...

You cant impeach a President just because you dont like the descisions he made.

So if he did lie it doesnt matter if someone who was born in Britain knows it. I don't know exactly what highly charged xenophobia has to do with the truth.
This is not an opinion piece from the sidelines- I stress again that this is highly confidential and was not some tourist coming home with his head full of American political rhetoric- this is someone who is vastly more informed then the huge majority of the world about Bushes' intentions. Also note that he is not going to put anything frivilous in his report, and that this peice of information is not subject to the usual spin that drenches anything coming from the top these days.
So it is the opion of a singe foreigner- a highly placed spy who is well informed and is paid to be unbiased in his reports-presumably . And you should discount this because he is born on the otherside of the Atlantic...a-huh.

Not much of a disscussion for me though . Besides I want anyone who hasn't seen this to do so.

Well heres a useless and, incidentally reacurring theme. Note the part where I am not arguing that, and indeed say that it would be a "hard sell". Let me upgrade that to "impossible". More of a language feature then a difference of oppinion though I do value the memo more than you. Obviously.
I believe you have said though that you dont see this as proof for an investigation., mainly because it is biased? Now why so? It was not meant for public release (no spin), and I'm sure Blair would like unbiased reporting from his top spy in the lead up to war. If you'd like to point out how you know its biased, I'd appreciate it. Keep in mind what i said- some arguers find it easier to win if they ignore what others say. Not a monopoly for either left/right I'm sure.

Mmm your words seem to glow with groupie-like admiration.

This the worthiest.

No he probably has actually. Anyone else concerned about the use of inverted commas here?

Indeed! Lets all have an independant investigation. You lads really go off on a tangent when your left alone together dont you?

I don't pretend to have a wide knowledge of the US Constitution, but I bet there is no quota on impeachments. So thanks for stressing the unimportant part of your post.
As for the rest well lets see. Nixon. He quit before he could be impeached right? So lets not forget him as he has some relevance.
All I say is that the memo is cause for a larger investigation- Clinton needed one, so did Nixon.
I'm not sure but for Nixon didnt it take some of his own to pull him down? As in the Republicans did have the numbers?

Not really a sterling argument when it you say that even if Bush was guilty he would be protected by his cronies. Sad if true.