Chuck Baldwin: Is Impeachment in Order?

Chuck Baldwin Ministries ^ | 07-15-03 | Bal;dwin, Chuck

[Dont Mention the War]

There were two posts the other night on FR from former Navy intel officers, and they said that if the public knew half of what went on in the world that posed a threat to this nation, none of us would ever sleep at night.

Did they give any details/examples that would be worth asking for a pointer to?

[Michael.SF.]

After learning of the falsehoods and outright lies upon which the war against Iraq was waged

Is he talkin g about the 1998 resolution that Clinton received to stop Saddam Hussein?

Why are democrats suddenly so concerned about the truth?

[Poohbah]

Actually, it's more like coming up with a big road apple.

[Billthedrill]

Former President Bill Clinton was rightly impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives for lying under oath. Of course, his crimes were not limited to that. However, if lying is reason enough to impeach...

Note how the criterion slips neatly from "lying under oath" to simply "lying" in the course of a sentence? Nice try, Chuckie.

[Poohbah]

The boy is almost as slick as the Slickmeister himself, that's for sure.

[Dog Gone]

Since you only post things that are negative about Republicans, no matter how dumb they are, I'd like to know which party you support.

[My2Cents]

Neither gave any details. I wish they would have.

[cwb]

There were "non-specific" warnings that Al-Qaeda could be looking to hijack airliners (big surprise there), which made no mention of them being used as suicide missiles...which is a blatant lie by this Baldwin character. One of the reports I found said this:

Associated Press ^ | Published: May 16, 2002 | By Ron Fournier The Associated Press

"U.S. intelligence told President Bush a month before Sept. 11 that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack American airplanes, prompting the administration to issue a private alert to law enforcement agencies, the White House revealed as Congress studies whether the government failed to heed warning signs.

But officials said the president and U.S. intelligence did not know that suicide hijackers were plotting to use planes as missiles, as they did against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "There has been long-standing "speculation", shared with the president, about the potential of hijackings in the traditional sense," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Thursday night. "We had general threats involving Osama bin Laden around the world and including in the United States."

He said the administration, acting on the information received in early August, notified the "appropriate agencies" that hijackings "in the traditional sense" were possible. The warning was never made public, he said."

What I would like to know is why liberals expected Bush to do something before 9/11 based on non-specific, "speculative" information while at the same time they attack Bush for doing just that with regards to Saddam? We have much more than speculation when it comes to Saddam and yet they are throwing a fit because Bush is doing something. The only possible thing the administration could've done to prevent 9/11 was to either ground all flights (and we didn't have a date that this would occur) or engaged in a serious, thorough policy of racial profiling to meet this threat. And guess what...box cutters weren't even illegal on flights at that time. In any case, I doubt that America...and espeically liberal's would've allowed this to happen since even since 9/11 they have resisted these very policies (racial profiling). Clinton had the same report sitting on his desk from 1998...and had Gore in charge of the airline security task force, which made no changes to security because the airlines objected (re: Linda Daschle's lobbying efforts).

[Bahbah]

"as Congress studies whether the government failed to heed warning signs."

Putting this together with the comment of the Navy Intel guys, I am led to believe that there are so many threats out there one scarcely knows where to direct one's attention. It is more an issue of what to do about warning signs than it is "failing to heed" them.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Bush wasn't under any kind of oath during the state of the union speech.

Furthermore, Bush didn't lie in the speech.

Chuck Baldwin is a kook.

[montanus]

Chuck Baldwin has been a First Class Kook in good standing for many years now. He's one of those guys whose talk radio show is on shortwave, which should tell you all you need to know. (I think he may be on a couple of local stations in Florida.)

Yeah, the Pensacola talk radio station hosted his program for a while. It was a big money maker back when Clinton was in office. But he kept the same style of rhetoric up when Bush came in, and they canned him fast. I've heard he's back on the air with that station, but I'm not sure.

[Publius6961]

Who is this idiot?
And why is this crap posted on FR?

What possible purpose does a delusionary rant serve?

[Petronski]

Chuck Baldwin can be impeached? What's the procedure? How do we start?

[yooper]

"President George W. Bush has been prevaricating and stonewalling ever since 9/11/2001."

The writer of this article needs serious psyciatric help......

[arasina]

There were two posts the other night on FR from former Navy intel officers, and they said that if the public knew half of what went on in the world that posed a threat to this nation, none of us would ever sleep at night.

Did they give any details/examples that would be worth asking for a pointer to?

Here are the links to both very interesting threads/posts:

***Democrats Are About To See Trap They set for GWB Close On Themselves***

I think the Democrats are being set up. (Why is everyone so worried?)

[arasina]

And why is this crap posted on FR?

'cause it's the thing to do these days if you're a Libertarian-Anarchist like Teddy.

[L_Von_Mises]

I wish Bush and the Republican Party would speak up decisively on this issue. It gets more and more annoying every time I hear it. No one on the left ever disputed the assertions that Sadam had CBWs. Their battle cry was that it was no different than us having nuclear weapons and many went beyond trying to draw moral equivalence and state they were less comfortable with us having weapons than Sadam having them. I clearly recall them also saying that the only way Sadam was going to use the weapons that he had stockpiled (accepted as fact based on several years of intelligence under Clinton and from the UN) was if we dared to provoke him by attacking.

So we err on the side of caution by accepting information from years of intelligence under Clinton and reports from the UN and no huge stockpiles of CBWs are found and it is the most severe of all sins. Yet the same people asking for his head for acting on intelligence were the ones blaming him for not acting strongly enough prior to 9/11 so as to avert that tragedy.

Now they are clamoring for us to go into Liberia simply for humanitarian reasons. And we can't forget all the hand-wringing over Serbia/Bosnia. I believe that we are still there in some capacity. But somehow, the atrocities in Iraq count for nothing. I thought everything was "for the children." I guess the children being tortured in Iraq's prisons simply don't count.

Perhaps if those on the left that went so far out of their way to defend Sadam had not done so he would have been less defiant. It was a situation with no positive outcome because without a real threat of force there was no incentive for Sadam to cooperate. And as long as he felt that the left was protecting him from attack he would be able to thumb his nose at us.

I doubt that we ever will find anything significant but we did what we had to do considering what we believed to be an accurate depiction of an Iraq loaded for bear, so to speak, in a post 9/11 world combined with his complete lack of cooperation.

As things heat up with North Korea it is going to be interesting to see where these people fall. Another one of their lines was how we should be looking at Noth Korea, not Iraq, because they posed the larger, more imminent threat. I am sure that they will come down on the side of Kim Il Jong over America.

[xrp]

I post plenty of negative items regarding Republicans. Would you like to know which party I support?

[Pharmboy]

Nah...this is Sobran/Buchanan stuff.