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!