I am conflicted on this subject frankly.

It is easy at this time to be all holier than thou about it, and "Monday Morning Quarterback" everything that happened at that time, in those years.

I am shocked as well and certainly do not condone torture.

BUT, I also have recall of how our country felt on Sept 12, 2001. I recall the mood of our country for years after these attacks, and I WILL NEVER LOSE THAT FEELING.

I do, however understand the condemnation of the practices.

I offer two links for everyone to read; In 2014, a report was declassified and the link below is from the NY Times on that report

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/wo...port-says.html

NPR also did a report which I attach.....

'Torture Report': A Closer Look At When And What President Bush Knew : The Two-Way : NPR

i think it is one of those issues that will NEVER be black and white...always be gray. Over the years it has become a political football, but interesting that the "football" is only mentioned by the minions on political forums and very seldom mentioned by politicians except in general tones.

I would never object to anyone criticizing nor defending any practices done at that time....I WILL NEVER FORGET HOW I FELT.

In any case, I do not see any substance now, except as a lesson from history.

This country and others violate many many agreements during administrations of both parties and we can only hope that due diligence was used by everyone involved.

Getting involved in this simply leads to analyzing drone strikes, etc.

Bush did not torture. Perhaps someone did waterboard during his administration, but he didn't. You said he did. He didn't.

Now, as for torture in times of war. It has been going on behind the scenes throughout history. I am writing real slow so that you will be able to read it. Liberals are always protected, like they were by their mommies, and do not think that the world has any bad people in it.

Yes, I would torture a prisoner IF I thought I could save lives by doing so. Sorry if the offends your sensitivities, but that is life in the real world. If you think any other countries adhere to rules of war, then you are very, very naive.

So, get over it. Now, quit trying to divert from the theme of the thread. You do this all the time because you are ignorant of facts and have nothing to contribute to the conversation. In that case, you really should just sit back and read and learn.

Now, repeat after me "would you like fries with your burger?"

SO???? What's that got to do with Clinton? Why don't you liberals stay on the topic and quit trying to set traps? Or, go back to your video games.

I appreciate your response....I too will never forget that feeling, one of my great nieces, who worked in the WTC, was missing for many hours after attack and my family feared she was gone.

My position on torture is forged by the fact I have family currently in the services, I would not want them to be tortured...when we don't torture at least we have the moral high ground. We have lost that.

Geezer, you are really out of it right now. Must be that "sun downing" effect with your dementia.

I could never learn facts from the likes of you and your geriatric Gang of Three.

As the head of his administration, Bush did torture people. It happened under his watch. Obama did not personally bin Laden but it happened on his watch.

Ooo, have your nurse change your soiled Depends.

I understand where you are coming from, but our enemy does not respect weakness. Our enemies ALWAYS torture our military members that they capture. Now, they also behead them. Taking the moral high ground only makes you feel better. Sorry, but when you take on the job of winning a war, you have to get your hands dirty/bloody and if it requires you to do something that you find uncivilized, then buck up and do it to win. Otherwise, you put your fellow Americans lives in jeopardy. It's easy to take the moral high ground when you are safe at home, reaping the benefits of our military sacrifices. But, if I am in the field, I will do whatever it takes to ensure the safety of my comrades in arms. Americans at home don't really want to know what really goes on in war. They say they do, but when presented with the reality of war, they get nervous and scream.

It's also amazing to think that many liberals are high and mighty about the morality of warfare, and yet have no qualms over abortions or the butchery and sale of baby body parts. What a contradiction.

You are finally correct about something. You could never learn facts from the likes of me. That would take something you don't have.

Repeat the mantra "would you like fries with your order?"

I personally have never had an abortion and at my age that will never happen...as for the sale of baby body parts why don't you ask Ben Carson about his use of them?

I can not change my position on torture.....

I will try and be careful in how I respond.

You have NO idea as to whom you are replying to.

That is not a threat, but simply stated you make these references which many know of what you are speaking, but trust me,,,,,,,YOUR AIM IS TERRIBLE.

BE SURE with whom you are conversing, because you look silly a LOT and probably confuse many of those you are responding to.

It is oh so easy to pontificate about taking the "high ground" when there is no personal investment.

You have no idea what you would do in reality until such time as one is personally involved. Say a terrorist who has knowledge of your immediate family and their where abouts....after you have seen pictures of other people's family being beheaded and have good reason to belive yours could well be next.

Then we would see where the "high ground" really is.

And please save any response that would sound like it would not make a difference or there are alternatives or some other, safe in TV, no threat, no involvement, no risk response.

Now i am confused.....

What does you having an abortion relate to the post?
What does Ben Carson have to do with Clinton?
What position on torture? And what does that have to do with Clinton?

I am not posting in defense of Dr Carson but as you surely know, he has answered this question and perhaps you should post it on here so everyone knows and your cryptic response which implies something bad would not hold much water.

This thread has spun completely out of control from the idea od the OP.

Instead of the sniping at each other's character, the character or lack of character of the candidates, just stick to the original concept of whether or not it would be feasible to bring about impeachment hearings for past transgressions if Hillary gets to be elected President.

The "face to face" rule has gone astray or vanished from this thread. I suggest all just dial it back, hit the "re-set" button, and move forward in a civil manner - and stay on topic.

I believe impeachment would only be called for in cases which happen while in the presidency. For things before, they would either have been resolved or not dealing with the current situation. For example, George Bush admitted to using cocaine in college. That was illegal but had nothing to do with being president.

I attempted to respond in post 22 to this while fixing some revisionist history and said and still feel this way....impeachment revolving around Obama or Hillary Clinton is all political speak and has not bearing on anything except for rock throwing political minions.

By the way, speaking of revisionist history, can you supply a credible link to Bush using cocaine ? I know of marijuana experimenting but the cocaine thing is new except on a few of the whacko websites.

We all know by his admission that Obama used cocaine or at least experimented with it.

But in any case, I still cannot understand why such a thread was begun. People are so far off the many issues in the world and picking up on whatever they read somewhere that somebody said that they can attack another on.

Check back on a CNN article from 1999. Cannot link it with this iPad. Anyhow, it said basically that Bush - in 1999 - said through a spokesman that he had not done illegal drugs in over 25 years. That would be around 1974. No one cared then or cares now.

ILLEGAL DRUGS....yes, but you said COCAINE. That was new to me except from some of the wild web sites. Common knowledge and admittance on marijuana ta, but you are correct...means nothing....just asked since you mentioned it and somehow differentiated it from admitance of cocaine use by our current President.

But, the thread is about impeaching Clinton and again...why this thread was begun I do not know.

What would be interesting would be if she is elected and as this period of Secy of State is unwinding on her, there are offenses found, or with the security thing. I do not think you can be impeached as President if you commit high crimes as Secy of State. Maybe some day that would be a great discussion.

We have so many issues on going in this world now that this discussion makes no sense.

The start of this post was that Hillary Clinton should be impeached the first day she takes office. I just pointed out other presidents who could have been impeached. One example was GW Bush and torture.

What does Ben Carson have to do with Clinton?
What does you having an abortion relate to the post?

One person responded with how I as a "liberal have a stance on torture and accept abortions and fetal tissue use. I have never had an abortion and never will so that comment doesn't apply to me. And Ben Carson used fetal tissue when he was a doctor.

Hope this helps.....

He told Megan Kelly on Fox News the was never a reason to use fetal tissue. And yet:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ssue-research/

So he either lied or is a hypocrite...

Practicing some political skills!

With all due respect....

DID YOU EVEN READ YOUR LINK ?

It contradicts what you are trying to say. Please read it.

Yes, it does. As a liberal diversion from the post....very convenient. I like how you threw in the blame Bush tactic. That seems to work very well as a diversion. But the question is, why do liberals go to such extremes to divert from the subject? Is it because they have no defense for bad or failed policies of this administration? Is it because their only viable candidate is so bad that they can't defend her? Or, are liberals just very miserable people?

This has nothing to do with the thread related to "Clinton impeachment."

Nice try, but your ignorance and lies about Bush are nothing more than an impotent attempt to divert.

Alright, ignore the part about Bush using cocaine back in his college days. It still stands on possible illegal things done before assuming the presidency are not grounds for impeachment. That is similar to an ex post facto law.

Is there a statute of limitations on the federal law pertaining to blatantly mishandling of classified material, jeopardizing national security?

I believe the time period is ten years from the date of the violation. The penalty is ten years imprisonment. I guess she could run her administration from behind bars, but the White House would be vacant during her term, other than tourist tours.

obviously 24 hours or less!