OP/ED: Impeach Bush Now!

When Bush said that the USA would attack any country that supported terrorism he was advocating that the USA bomb itself.

So he was threatening the US.

Impeach him.

truth isnt measured in mass appeal. just because we managed to get tricked a second time into voting for him, doesnt mean it was true at any point and time. stupid programs like psyops, to get everyone to be pro war with at times pretty BS type stuff, is considered lying to me. If bush cared he should have checked where his info was coming from. But he didnt, and if he cant run the country better then any other average amercian, i see that as pretty scary. The right thing to do would be for him to just step down because hes not capable of running a country if hes just acting like a spokes man for what everyone else in the backround is telling him.

Bush certainly had a hard-on for Saddam related to his father's own adventure there in a 'mine's bigger than yours' kind of childish attitude of frat-boy competition, but this time it had as much or more to do with privatizing the economy and oil wealth of Iraq as it was a personal vendetta or one-upmanship. Perhaps more. They put on a dog and pony show to sell Iraq to the business community years ago in an attempt to generate corporate interests in taking over. It would have worked if they could have secured Iraq, but the ongoing and, at times, random violence has frightened off the fat cats - for now.

This was the neocon wet dream of privatization. They've closed out Iraqis in the "rebuilding" process and have divided up the public sector as well to American companies. Water, when it comes back online, will be as expensive as the privatized electricity and other services necessary to life in the desert.

On September 19, Bremer enacted the now-infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100 percent ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100 percent of their profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream."

www.thenation.com...

First of all, I am sorry that I had to post three times regarding the debate between dperry and myself about the Geneva Convention Protocols.

Second of all, I am glad that Benevolent Heretic brought up the fact that the states across the country are exploiting that little known impeachment law. State Legislatures have to use the right to launch impeachment proceedings against the President. It goes to show me that the Founding Fathers truly did have a "checks and balances" system. And that the buck doesn't only stop at the government. Knowing that states can initiate proceedings, then that means that our states can also do something about this travesty.

For the people who don't want Mr. Bush impeached, what is it that you don't see? No, better yet, I will open up my question to dperry for anyone to answer: Give me five good reasons with proof why you think Mr. Bush in light of the evidence does not deserve to be impeached.

For my part, Mr. Bush has been complicit even before he reached office (with the Florida election and the open violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965), with violations against the Constitution and against the American people. This is especially the case with the "redistricting" of Texas, not to mention the Proposition in California that didn't pass in November 2005 that was about to allow three judges to "redistrict" the state to allow more republicans in (that proposition was authored by Mr. DeLay). Voter disenfranchisement alone should make people outraged.

What is even more, that the FISA law does not allow domestic wiretapping, but only the surveillance, if okayed, in Foreign countries. This was passed in 2002. So, Mr. Bush's action of wiretapping Quaker Groups and other anti-war activists, not to mention other cases within the borders of the U.S. is illegal.

Believe it or not, will people who support Mr. Bush believe John Dean, who was counsel to Mr. Nixon during the Watergate proceedings? Now if he is coming out and saying that what Mr. Bush did was "Worse Than Watergate", something is definitely not registering within the infrastructure of government.

But even with this, I still believe that like terrorists, Bush supporters cannot be negotiated with. I hope that I can be proven wrong.









[edit on 26-4-2006 by ceci2006]

Another reason to impeach Bush is to emasculate him politically. With 1000 days remaining in his faux presidency, if he is humiliated on the world stage there is less chance of Congress granting him carte blanche authority to go into Iran. There is some serious thought being given to nuking Iran at this point. Some members of the Joint Chiefs are considering quitting in protest of the fact that the nuclear (or as Dubya says, the nucular) option has not been taken off the table WRT Iraq.

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

www.newyorker.com...

Go ahead and Impeach him than... knocnk your socks of, and than who will you put there ??? LOL

Well ceci,

The fact that I assumed we were talking reasonably about a disagreement sort of evaporated with your ending statement, that apparently Bush supporters are equivalent in mentality to a terrorist in your book. So obviously it appears that while you hoped desperately for me to be open-minded, I guess all that means is you assume my opinion should change to equal that of yours. With the paucity of evidence given that is simply not going to happen.

To try and turn the tables to have anti-impeachment supporters somehow prove why Bush should NOT be impeached is simply sophmoric. It would be like forcing the defense in a murder trial to prove that their client was innocent, which simply isn't the way the justice system works, and similarly not the way the impeachment process works.

That being said, your 'reasons' for impeachment (which seem to shift around from post to post) include the vague 'violations against the Constitution and against the American people'. Please state how the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was violated. Also, by all means please state how the election of 2000 could in any way shape or form lead to Bush's impeachment. The man was not even president at that point. You realize that, right?

What did Bush have to do about the "redistricting" in Texas? That action was prompted by Rep. Tom Delay and undertaken by the STATE Legislature of Texas. What simply boggles the mind is that prior to re-districting, the majority of votes cast in Texas elections were Republican, yet a large majority of the seats in the state were somehow held by Democrats. I have little hope that you would somehow see the inequity and complete unfairness of that situation considering you liken my mindset to a terrorist, but I am sorry; any REASONABLE person seeing those facts would realize that past Democratic gerrymandering in the state of Texas had finally come to en end, and the majority Republicans in Texas had FINALLY assumed their rightful place in the majority of the seats. I apologize if that offends your sensibilities (not really, as I can assume that if the parties had been reversed and a past injustice had been righted, you would be cheerleading the event.) Again, please state Bush's role in this, and why you think it is illegal. Similarly (I hate to even ask this), please state Mr. Bush's role (and illegal acts associated with) the California referendum (that didn't pass) that would have changed the redistricting process in that state.

References to Quaker groups and other anti-war groups being wire-tapped is simply false. You are implying that the President/government has no right to moniter groups whatsoever within the US, which is patently false. I have seen no reference to the use of the NSA to wire-tap these groups, however law enforcement organizations like the FBI, whose charter is domestic, have been tasked with keeping tabs on potentially subversive groups. Sorry, but some 'peace' organizations are simple fronts for anarchist/communist groups, which sort of defines subversive in many people's estimations.

Lastly, if Mr. Dean can answer these questions, by all means get him on the board. Maybe he can do better than the other pro-impeachment posters as of yet.

dperry

Wow. I thought that we were debating about the Geneva convention. But if I am being sophmoric in your eyes, that's fine. I truly don't care what you think about me personally. I will have my opinions whether or not you like them. And I will also retain my open-mindedness, even though I might get rhetorical sometimes. But my question about disproving impeachment is legitimate as the ones about the violations of the Geneva Conventions.

I listed two sets of articles that disprove the notion of "collateral damage". I also sought legal opinions and posted them about "torture" in prisons in Iraq. And I do admit, that you were right about the rapes. So far, I could not find any other articles about them. It doesn't mean that they don't exist, however.

I won't give in to labeling what I think about your comments. I will only wait for your answers to proving Mr. Bush's worthiness or his non-complicity in violating the Geneva Conventions.



[edit on 27-4-2006 by ceci2006]

And debating the Geneva conv is what we were doing, until you admitted you thought Bush supporters could not be reasoned with and were thus like terrorists, which would put a mild pall on any discussion.

WRT your links to various articles regarding the looting, my earlier opinion stands. The language of the Geneva convention does not imply that the US was under any onus to protect said artifacts; it simply prohibits targeting of said objects. In what way is that unclear?

Your own cite #2 states that the laws of war (no reference) prohibit the willful damage to or destruction of said treasures, and that the 1954 Hague Convention requires a more positive obligation. Only problem is the US is not a party to said treay if your cite is correct. (Also, the link is faulty in that the entire document is not posted, ie the conclusion is not included.)

Of note, I found this:
www.iraqfoundation.org...
and this:
www.usatoday.com...
which cast doubt on the hysterical claims of so much being looted, as well as how much has been recovered.

If you would like me to revisit the Abu Graib scandal I will, but you are not shedding any new light at all. That crimes were committed all will admit. That these crimes were condoned by the President and thus he should be impeached, that is simply a bridge to far. Like I stated before, if your line of reasoning is simply that since he was in charge when it happened, he should be impeached, then my gosh where does that stop? How can you not see the weakness of that argument?

So again, impeachable offenses? None here.

dperry

[edit on 29-4-2006 by dperry4930]

Fine. You win. Mr. Bush does not deserve to be impeached. After all, you've disproved all my points. I laud you for your genius and logical skills. You've displayed them well. And you can feel secure that perhaps Mr. Bush won't be impeached because you have proved to be the voice of reason. I'm sure you'll be rewarded. Rest on your laurels.

I still believe Mr. Bush ought to be impeached. But, I will keep an open mind about the matter and continue searching for evidence. And I will hope that the Hague notices wrongdoing. And I will also put a little extra hope of those state legislatures using the law to impeach him. And I hope that other people interested in the law could put the case of impeachment here better than I can because you've refuted my texts and disproved them.

So, I will wait and brace myself for the next attack upon my statements whether its "sophomoric",
or "laughable" or "hysterical". I just imagine you typing it all in with a Thesaurus in your hand.

But you haven't given me five reasons to not impeach Bush yet. With proof. I won't concede on that.

And if I find other things to submit for a polite discourse on impeachment, I will post something new.











[edit on 28-4-2006 by ceci2006]

With the overwhelming evidence of asking for Mr Bush's impeachment, I feel that our nation is already so vulnerable that the best of two evils which one truly is most beneficial? Would this also make USA a laughing stock for the rest of the world? Would we become more vulnerable for other outside attacks? It's as if USA has two socks on the wrong feet? So, we impeach Bush and are left with whom? Will this candidate be beneficial or follow like agendas? So many questions surround the entire issue. I wish I had faith in any potential candidate.

United we stand...divided we fall...what a truth.

[edit on 28-4-2006 by LadyPropag8r]

Originally posted by ceci2006
But you haven't given me five reasons to not impeach Bush yet.

But we only need one reason to impeach him and we have four. See my posts on page 1 and 2 of this thread. High Crimes and Misdemeanors. With all the proof needed to take Bush and Cheney out of office.

Who cares who we're left with? Is someone implying that we should just bear with the known evil instead of forge ahead with what's RIGHT??? What a wimpy position to take! We have to take our country back and we might have to go without cable for a few weeks because of the unrest.

I can't believe people are using the excuse that it might get worse! Who cares? Where are the guts that the Founding Fathers had? They'd be so ashamed of people saying, "well, who's going to take over, next? what will we do? Wah! it might be uncomfortable. i might have to DO SOMETHING!!!"

Oh, its going to get worse before it gets better, that is for sure, imo. We will have to deal with more than just the cable going out before all is said and done on this one.

I agree with you BH, we can't just stick with the one's that got us into this mess in the first place because we don't want to suffer further in the course of getting rid of them. We are going to suffer further either way.

The question is, do we want to suffer further for the chance at a better tomorrow, or do we want to suffer futher for more of the same ol', same ol' further suffering?

Either way, there will be a wailing and a gnashing of teeth. We are too far down the road to perdition for there to be a painless path to the perfect paradise.

Benevolent Heretic,

I'm sorry you got the impression that I gave up on the aspect of impeachment. I didn't. I know he violated the Geneva Conventions. I also feel that he has violated the Voting Rights Law of 1965. And of course, he has lessened, which his over-reaching of executive power, effectively dismanted the system of "checks and balanaces". Not to mention a whole lot of other impeachable offenses. One proven fact is that he violated the Vienna Conventions, with the treatment of 51 Mexican citizens in Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (click on the links on the subsection to get a summary and judgement of the case).

But no, I have not given up. I care more about the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions than that. I care about this country. And I know that what has happened the last six years is not propaganda and rhetoric. There are violations that have taken place. And there are people that refuse to acknowledge them.

But believe me. I do think, by virtue of the evidence, Mr. Bush ought to be impeached.

Sorry, cici, it was only my first paragraph that was directed at something you said. The rest of my post was directed at those who say we shouldn't impeach Bush because it might get worse.

Yeah, I'm clear on where you stand on the issue.

Icarus Rising - Well said! And I am more than willing to suffer for a chance at a better tomorrow!

Originally posted by BaastetNoir

Go ahead and Impeach him than... knocnk your socks of, and than who will you put there ??? LOL

Even if he is impeached he might not leave the office. It requires only a simple majority in the House to pass articles of impeachment. It would take two-thirds of the Senate to actually remove him. That won't happen IMO without something like hard proof that he was responsible for the demolition of the twin towers. Accountability does not seem to apply to Dubya and his associates in the Senate would not allow him to be removed anyway. Additionally, I fully epect the incoming president to give him a pardon for all sins real or imagined.

Nonetheless, articles of impeachment should be brought in the House and will be if the Dem's take it back this fall. This guy should be in jail. The least they can do is impeach him.

Speaking as a Brit, I'm all for Dubya being impeached. He got Tony Bliar (who should suffer the same fate) to drag us into the Iraq mess. But it's not just Dubya, is it? Behind him is the Prince of Darkness, Cheney, and one can only hope that in the unlikely but (for most everyone else on the planet) longed-for eventuality that impeachment goes ahead, a way is found to prevent Cheney from becoming president.

It's interesting to note, too, that a bunch of generals - albeit retired with no career to consider - have come out against Rummy, as there seems to have been more than a hint that it was the military who emasculated Nixon, forcing his resignation, even before impeachment proceedings could begin. Bush protects Rummy, Rummy antagonises the military... the military undo Bush. That's an interesting scenario.

And, from an outsider's perspective, the scariest post on this whole thread was the soldier who wanted people to wear red on Fridays, wanted to stop the aggression but wanted everyone to support Bush. And who posted verse after verse of onward Christian soldiers. It's a worry, frankly, that such people are allowed out of bed, let alone given a gun and the chance to kill for their country.

And Seattlelaw - your posts are an oasis of clarity in a sea of muddied thought. Thank you. If people accuse me of being anti-American (always a risk when one criticises the continuing follies) I can point to you as an exemplar of American decency and intelligence.

Where's Monica when we need her?

[edit on 29-4-2006 by FallenFromTheTree]

Rich23, thanks so much. Like-minded souls have got to stick together in this mess. I also enjoy that the British posters seem to be educating the Americans about the lunacy of their own president along with their dismay at the cow-towing of the conspiratorial Bliar (LOL). We must laugh at them while we take the bastards down.

And what a great photo! Indeed, won't somebody give Bush a blow-job so we can impeach him. That had me laughing out loud. My 10 year old daughter ran over to see what I was laughing at. I was like ... uh never mind.

I'm hoping that Bush is impeached too cause then Hillary can come to power aka the Rockefeller/Rothschild cartel and really get this world rockin.'

Hillary will make GWB look like a wimp... she will fight against anybody that even looks at her the wrong way.

Besides, it makes sense to take out the lower level pawns in the world domination game in a blind need for blood and just leaving the higher level players to continue their game of world domiantion. After all we really don't want real change but the illusion of change, it is preferable because it is easier and cheaper and hey we all buy into illusions at one time or other in our lives.



Sometimes what you think you want is really not what you want at all.