Impeachment Resolution Against Bush

For some odd reason....alot of people now-a-days think their a lawyer or some kind of govt expert...once again...claiming "bush should be impeached"..."the war was illegal"...I dont understand it...someone heres something from someone else...says its true...then believes that its true...I honestly thought my fellow Americans had more sense then that...maybe that they'd actually look up a legallity of a situation before they spoke...but its seems like most just watch Dan Rather and take his words as gosphel...

Muaddib, there are no WMDs in Iraq, they have never been found, and never will be. The only radioactive stuff we have ever found in Iraq was the stuff the republicans gave to Saddam in the 80's and were known about and inspected by the UN, until the invasion.

So, next lie? Trasportable chemical plants. Oh wait, we found one, but it wasn't what Bush said it was, it was a fricking transport truck, transporting the crap we ordered.

Hmmm, reason to oust Saddam. He was a bad man. Well, the Saudi's can teach Saddam a thing or two on how to be evil, yet we don't invade them.

Ignorance of the Bushies, so fun to laugh at. Think there were actually WMDs in Iraq.

Marg,
You seem to be a sweet girl, but
Please answer the question I posed earlier to you,
me,

Please explain to me how telling your family your going to dig up gold in the yard, taking actions, based on the info you had at the time, becomes a lie later on when you dont discover what you thought you would?

This question is also put to J The Lesser, who says,

Ignorance of the Bushies, so fun to laugh at. Think there were actually WMDs in Iraq.

Are you willing to laugh at the UN too for passing the last unanimous resoultion also stating a serious concern about WMD in Iraq and Saddams non-compliance? Or are you only using your blinders to asses this situation in order to "get" the President? Did the UN lie too?

Ignorance of the Liberal peacenicks, so easy to pitty their delusional bliss

Marg says,

I don't need to feel pages with useless information bias �that could be truth�,

You do if you think you have ANY chance at impeaching the President....you dont if you want to form an erronious opinion.
Much like this one marg holds,

in the name of the god that talks to him, and told him to go and take out Sadam.

There is a thread where this has been bantered about, and NOONE has EVER been able to make this into anything more that 3rd party hearsay, NOONE has EVER been able to find a DIRECT quote or evidence that this came from Bush's lips.
Keep believing in 3rd party hearsay as truth, the Democrats need blind supporters like you desperatly.

Marg says,

I am not following any political party agenda like obviously some of you are

Are you so sure?
Im not following a political adgenda, but i am going to support the party that is exhibiting what i think needs to be done....if the Democrats had the guts to have stood up to say "no more spitting on America" theyd have my vote.

Marg plays the blame game,

Get it he, is the reason people are dying in Iraq and he should be brought up to justice.

OOHH so NO accountabllity for the insurgant terrorist thugs that are trying daily to continue the destabalization of the region? It amazes me how you cast no blame on them, in fact i see this as tacit SUPPORT for their efforts.

Marge scolds us,

I guess some of you wants the war in Iraq, how can anybody enjoy seen our troops been ambush and kill and like looking at picture of children death If that what the people of US likes

Some of us "want" the war because it is nessisary. Please do not think i enjoy the effects of war. (other than Enforcement and protection of our way of life) No one likes the suffering of a war, but sometimes doing the hard thing is nessisary. (example...look at the hiker that had to cut off his own arm with a pocket knife and no pain killers in order to save his life...do you think he liked this idea? No, but it was nessisary for him to do so.)

And one last question as to soldiers being under fire/dying...
What the hell do you think soldiers are for? I honor their bravery and commitments....but being put into harms way is what they exist to do!

I guess it all depends on who you believe


Bush: God Told Me To Invade Iraq, Become President

According to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, George Bush told Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas that the President's tactics of the War on Terror came directly from the mouth of God. www.patridiots.com... According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. observer.guardian.co.uk...

Woodward Shares War Secrets

Then the president saluted and he rose suddenly from his chair. �People who were there said there were tears in his eyes, not coming down his cheeks but in his eyes,� says Woodward. �And just kind of marched out of the room.�

Having given the order, the president walked alone around the circle behind the White House. Months later, he told Woodward: �As I walked around the circle, I prayed that our troops be safe, be protected by the Almighty. Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I be as good a messenger of his will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for forgiveness."

Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? �I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, �Well, no,� and then he got defensive about it,� says Woodward. �Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, �He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.� And then he said, �There's a higher Father that I appeal to.�"

Beyond not asking his father about going to war, Woodward was startled to learn that the president did not ask key cabinet members either.
www.cbsnews.com...

Bush says God chose him to lead his nation

The book, The Faith of George W. Bush, was written by Christian author Stephen Mansfield.

The book also shows that in the lead-up to announcing his candidacy for the presidency, Bush told a Texan evangelist that he had had a premonition of some form of national disaster happening.
Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'
In another incident, Mansfield recounts how, on Palm Sunday last year, Bush was flying back from El Salvador aboard the presidential jet Air Force One and seemed to be destined to miss church.
However, knowing that Bush hated to miss a service, some officials suggested they worship in the air. Bush agreed, and soon 40 officials were crammed into the plane's conference room. The service was led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, while the lesson was read by close Bush aide Karen Hughes observer.guardian.co.uk...

[edit on 28/9/2004 by Sauron]

So whats the problem sauron?
That he prays?
That he was concerned about missing church and decided to pray on ar force one?
That he ran for president because he felt the country needed him?
That he didn't ask his fther for advice?
That he has faith?

maybe that they'd actually look up a legallity of a situation before they spoke..

Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

Personally, i don't feel as if there is enough evidence to suggest that the president has deliberately misused this information. But if more evidence comes forward or someone wants to present relevant evidence that proves beyond some doubt that he has, there might be some cause for impeachment. At this point in time the argument is generally based on statements made leading up to the war, but being far from a bush lover, i lean toward the idea that he probably actually believed what he was saying.

Originally posted by marg6043
The only barking and yelling is you not body here is doing it just you if you can not get a fair debate without trashing the post then I will have nothing to said to you.

First, i am not a dog.....so i do not bark, second if I put anything in bold is because you and others like you continously want to ignore the evidence that most of the world, including democrats, were saying Saddam had wmd...

Second you have nothing to say to me because you know that you can't dispute the facts....you just keep spewing the same rethoric over and over with nothing to back you up, except some wild theories...

You can't say Bush lied, without saying the whole damn world, including Clinton, lied about wmd in Iraq and Saddam's link with Al Qaeda... But of course, you want to see one person/administration hang for the failures of the whole world in this matter...
If you want to impeach the whole world go ahead. i just want to se the statements from countries that were agreeing with this administration before the war.....

It's a little late to be thinking of an impeachment don't you think? This is so rediculus...why don't people protest and bring this stuff up early on. Granted there are people who do this, but abveous not very well or people just don't care enough to pay attention to them. Just one more thing to complain about.

-Dagger

Bush creates Sanctuary for terrorists in Iraq:

A Taliban-like regime now rules Fallujah. Mr. Rumsfeld acknowledged that it is the base of Abu Musab Zarqawi, . . . . The Zarqawi organization, . . . , has made Fallujah the most open and dangerous SANCTUARY for Islamic terrorism since Osama bin Laden was driven from Afghanistan.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Bush Administration lies repeatedly about aluminum tubes:

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, . . . The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

www.nytimes.com...
This was repeated by Colin Powell and Bush's speeches at the UN. And by Dick Cheney.
Bush's fiasco in Iraq is creating a whole new generation of terrorists in Iraq.
Bush is a sponsor of terrorism.
.

The whole Bush team needs to spend some time in Abu Ghraib. Lie in the bed you make.

Why cant the conservatives just admit Bush and his administration mislead the public, and the world to justify finishing the job his Dad didnt do.

All of the reasons to go into iraq have been proven false and yet it still being preached as being justified... Becasue Saddam is gone doesnt mean the war is justified...

Its like framing the school bully for theft, just so you can kick him out of school... thats not fair... sure the bully is gone, but the end does not justify the means...

As for the war being illegal... The international community has dubbed it Illegal... and according to international law, it was illegal.... thus the war is illegal... Maybe not by US standards, but heres a newsflash... the USA IS NOT THE WORLD and despite what the USA thinks, international law is still law, and any action which breaks that law is dubbed illegal...

iridescent using logic states,

Personally, i don't feel as if there is enough evidence to suggest that the president has deliberately misused this information. But if more evidence comes forward or someone wants to present relevant evidence that proves beyond some doubt that he has, there might be some cause for impeachment.

This is a reasonable aproach to the impeach Bush idea....
one can not approve of the job the President is doing and question with an open eye, but must also put aside their desire to "get" the President and be realistic about the reality of the situationas well as what can/cant be done about it.

muaddib asseses marg and others correctly by saying,

you and others like you continously want to ignore the evidence that most of the world, including democrats, were saying Saddam had wmd...

Yes it appears thatthose that areonly interestedin "getting Bush" will usually conveniantly overlook the WORLD's statements and actions about Iraq prior to the war.
Its hard for any person to admit that they delude themselves...it means that they had to lie to themselves in order to justify their feelings and the realization that they were wrong.
It takes a big person to admit this and deal with it and move on, but it seems that most that believe this paticular idea (ignore worldwide WMD/Iraq attitude) are happier to play and look like the fool, than to humbally admit they could have been mislead.

Dagger asks,

It's a little late to be thinking of an impeachment don't you think?

No duh...Ive repeatedly asked this and asked why if any of Bush's opponents EVER had ANYTHING they could have used along these lines, WHY HAVENT THEY USED THIS YET?
The simple answer is because this whole impeach bush concept is a bunch of wishful thinking and pipe dreams by disgruntald and disenfranchised citizens.

Slank says,

Bush creates Sanctuary for terrorists in Iraq:

GOOD! Ever hear the President say that we'd see the evil doers "at a time and place of OUR choosing?" Hello Iraq, better there than here!!!
WE siezed the initiave against the global underworld of terrorism by choosing the time and place for this fight...
Have you ever thought our leaders KNEW that we could lure in all these jihadists into Iraq? Why waste time hunting everywhere when you can lure them into your sights? Brilliant sting style tactic if you ask me, one that seems to be working and one which is a basic police tactic...the lure and bust.
I hope the wackos keep linning up for our forces to take out...its soo much easier than trapsing all over the globe to root them out....voluntary pop-up targets. if only other criminals were as willing to be found as those that want to become jihadists...so as far as making more terrorists go...those that are willing to be terrorists now, were already that way to start with....they just didnt have the proper BAIT to flush them out of hidding, nor did they have a place to come and fufill their desire to get the chance to kill a western infidel. Well Iraq is their big chance...and i say GOOD COME AND GET SOME USA if you think you can. At least we KNOW we will find these anarchast, jihadist, killer thugs in Iraq, and then we can just spring the trap door closed on them.

Asian x spreading his usual misinformation hese says,

All of the reasons to go into iraq have been proven false and yet it still being preached as being justified... Becasue Saddam is gone doesnt mean the war is justified...

Lets just say "not yet manifest" before we rush to the conclusion (meaning we've already searched ALL of Iraq to be sure) that the reasons were false. Lets also pretend that the WORLD intelligence community along with the UN also believed this was the case, so that we can continue to live in a delusional state where the war was not justified.

AsianX continues whining here with

All of the reasons to go into iraq have been proven false and yet it still being preached as being justified... Becasue Saddam is gone doesnt mean the war is justified...

Could you provide usa link to where this declaration, by which countries, has been presented, and any actions those specific nations are calling for against the USA for this alleged illegality? Or is this just another internet feeling being kicked around?

Lets say the war WAS illegal, well what the f can/is the world gonna do about it? Nothing.

Boo hoo but in the end absolutly NO SERIOUS ACTION (sanctions, UN resolutions, trade embargos, embassy closings...etc) have even been ATTEMPTED by any nation.
Why is this so? If this was such an illegal action where is the enforcement? There wont be ANY! All you have to do is look at Iraq for your answer.

The world community knew and acknowledged Iraq was a problem, yet only ever actually did more than file paper sanctions when Iraq's agression spilled oner its borders intio Quait, and even then they stopped at doing more (taking saddam out then)

Like the USA is affraid of a world that couldnt back up its own rhetoric against puny ole Iraq. As if ANY nation has the balls to stop doing business with the USA...or even the abillity to try this in certain aspects.

I must conclude that the alleged illegal war that the USA is prosecuting isnt being more aggressivly opposed in the world either because they dont have the will (guts) to stand up to the USA, or this issue just isnt really important enough for them to bother with except by playing lip service to the "bad USA" crowd.

Legal or not, its happening and there wont be any "enforcement" of this anti American sentament to change this reality.

.
Caz Media, I suspect your juvenile level of posts reflects the mentality of a lot of Bush supporters. It is much more like a bunch of groupies around a rock star than it is about substantiative issues.

Bush lies to get us into war. Rocket Aluminum tubes, NOT useable for a centrifuge.
Bush guards Oil ministry, NOT the ammo dump.
Our soldiers and Iraqi forces are NOW being KILLED by that same ammunition.

Osama Bin Ladan has NOT been captured or killed.
Nuclear Materials have not been rounded up or contained.

NOT keeping the weaponry out of the hands of terrorists means the 'War on Terror' WILL NEVER END.

If We want to end the 'War on Terror' We need someone competent to run it
.

Slank,
Confusing my talking down to the masses in a juvinile fashion that they can easily understand, with me actually being juvinile in age or practice, would be your first of many errors in logic.

slank claims,

Bush lies to get us into war. Rocket Aluminum tubes, NOT useable for a centrifuge.

Explain how poor intelligence from the WORLD body indicating a problem becomes a lie once actions are taken to support the previously held contentions? Example, If you call the police and tell them you see suspicious activity, and upon them checking it, dont find what you described, (only something resembling suspicion) Did you just lie to the police for taking action based on what you knew at that time?

As far as aluminum tubes go, which banned weapons system of Iraq's would you prefer those tubes be used in, the nuke program or into long range rockets? Both systems were banned...so the fact that the tubes werent the quality to be used in one weapon system make them ok to put into another prohibited one? What part of failing to stop saddam from weapons development do you support here? nukes or long range missiles?

slank contunues to plagerize Kerry,

Bush guards Oil ministry, NOT the ammo dump.

From a tactical perspective...the value of the oil,and the infrustructure to get and move it, as well as all of the information about iraq's oil industries that were contained in the oil ministry bldng were tactically FAR FAR more valuable to both the coalition and Iraq than an ammo dump. If I had to prioritize guarding one or the other, this would be a no brainer.

slank parrots Kerry again,

Our soldiers and Iraqi forces are NOW being KILLED by that same ammunition.

While overstated, ill take this as true. It is unfortunate that SOME ammo from ONE ammo supply is being used aginst SOME USA forces. But to try and blame (post haste) Bush for a tactical millitary decision, (put forth by the general in charge) for the enemy using ANY asset, weapon, tool, place or anything they can to get us with, is crazy. One should always EXPECT their opponent to sieze ANY opportunity, tool or method to attack you with. So because we didnt guard every truck in Iraq, Bush should be blamed for insurgents turning them into bombs?

slanks rant becomes desperate claiming with certainty

Osama Bin Ladan has NOT been captured or killed.

Well your 1/2 right. Can you please cite your source that knows for sure that Osama isnt dead and burried in a bomb busted bunker in tora bora?

slanks rant getting booring here,

Nuclear Materials have not been rounded up or contained.

which materials are you referencing here? perhaps you mean the ones Kerry mentioned in debate 2? the russian nuke stuff? well why dont we just invade russia and take all that into custody? You ever stop to think that the USA needs cooperation from others (friend/russia or enemy/n-korea) in order to accomplish this? What about the fact that the USA doesnt even have its own national secure storage site done yet? Where are we going to store all the extra conficscated nuke stuff? Imagine the logistics in safely transporting this stuff from one side of the world to the other. Who pays for all this?
You speak of me as presenting a juvinile argument, yet your lack of indepth understanding and glossing over of the problem of securing nuke materials is truely a grade school approach to this problem, and exactly at the level of thinking that the kerry campaign is targeting with this type of weak scare tactic. Heck TV news is written to only the 8th grade level...you really think either party isnt sticking as close to this basic level in order to appeal to the masses do you? The problem is deeper than just a casual pass can give, and using it in a passing way only shows more ignorance not less.

slank attempts prophacy here,

NOT keeping the weaponry out of the hands of terrorists means the 'War on Terror' WILL NEVER END.

Predicting the future are we now? While allowing weaponry to get into the wrong hands will certantly not help the war on terror, claiming that this ideology cant be won over is a defeatist attitude weather the terrorists get weapons or not.
Plenty of people with weapons have either been defeated or surrendered in conflicts before, so trying to scare us by making this boogyman undefeatable by falsely claiming the war will never end is nothing more than a scare tactic meant to frighten children.

Why not just surrender now if these bad people are so undefeatable?
Bush is correct when he says Kerry has NO chance to get other nations to help with a defeatist, wrong war idea to start with. whimpy and pathetic!!

Will the cries to "impeach Bush" continue for the next 4 years if he is reelected? My god how old, stale and still usless waste of breath they will be then....because all of them now amount to what? Nothing actionable for sure.

Oil ministry guarded:

. . [O]ne of the sole public buildings untouched by looters has been Iraq's massive oil ministry, which is under round-the-clock surveillance by troops.

www.perspektif.net...
Ammo dumps NOT guarded:

. .[H]elicopters fly over occasionally. But it is not guarded around the clock, and officials say they believe that weapons and munitions are still being removed -- and probably being used in devices that are killing Americans and Iraqis.

www.mercurynews.com...

The Bush administration lies to the American people because 58% of us think going to war with Iraq has NOT been justified:

The tubes now sought by Iraq had precisely the same dimensions - a perfect match [for slim rockets fired from launcher pods.

DOE scientists forbidden from telling the truth:

'the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts'' . . . in fact disagreed with the [CIA]. But on Sept. 13, the day the article appeared, the Energy Department sent a directive FORBIDDING employees from discussing the subject with reporters.

www.nytimes.com...

Maybe in your book a rocket is the same as a Nuclear Warhead. To my way of thinking the former while problematic is local in nature, a nuclear weapon is potentially catastrophic.
Maybe you missed that day in school when the teacher explained what one nuclear warhead can do.

Non-recovery of Russian Nuclear materials:

Russia now holds about 150 tons of plutonium and 850 tons of highly enriched uranium. Since 1991 the United States has been committed to the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, . . . Our rate of spending on this program, however, is only about a third of what it should be. . . Last year President Bush proposed to cut spending on this program by 5 percent; this year he has asked for only about 10 percent in additional funds. We are not even adequately protecting our own nuclear weapons facilities. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has said that his department "is unable to meet the next round of security mission requirements" and has asked for $379.7 million to rectify that situation, but the White House has approved just $26.4 million. There are no technical obstacles here-only a shortage of funds.

In short this is NOT even a Billion dollar program, It is simply irresponsible not to apply the funds necessary to get this job done.

Incompetence and juvenile viewpoints will make defeating the terrorists impossible.
If you create more terrorists than you eliminate the job can never be done.
If on the other hand you stay focused and dont get distracted by ancillary projects you can essentially eliminate the terrorists.
You keep the weapons out of terrorist hands by rounding them up in Russia and keeping very close check on North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Libya. And by working with other allies to make sure nuclear materials and know-how don't get distributed around the globe.

If some Bush supporters could get the chewing gum out of their brains perhaps they could see past the lies and deceptions to truth and facts.

[edit on 12-10-2004 by slank]

slank, avoidance of the issue doesnt make it go away.
what, no answer to this?

Explain how poor intelligence from the WORLD body indicating a problem becomes a lie once actions are taken to support the previously held contentions? Example, If you call the police and tell them you see suspicious activity, and upon them checking it, dont find what you described, (only something resembling suspicion) Did you just lie to the police for taking action based on what you knew at that time?

I also notice no comment on your bin laden statement being a half truth?

slank,
i didnt question either of your statements about what was and was not being guarded. It is unclear why you posted links to things no one had a validity problem with.
Im not disputing these "facts", but must ask about why you feel that protecting the most vital information about iraq's key industry was less important to guard than a single ammo dump? In the big picture for Iraq, the oil ministry is a long term and vital part of Iraqs future, where as a single ammo supply will only be around as long as its not used up and is more "local" as far as being important to Iraqs future. The trivial citing of one single place with low importance to the big picture of iraq by contrasting it with the most important iraqi resource seems like grasping at straws...the 2 things are not even close to the same in magnitude. Trying to contrast the 2 is comparing apples to oranges., especially when considering the staffing limitations of only having so many troops to guard stuff with.

lets talk about securing nuke stuff.
if you are blaming Bush for not securing all of russia's stuff i ask, where is your accountabillity for russia on this? Or for any other legitimate power to pay for and help secure this stuff? Or have you appointed America solely responsible for this? How can you blame Bush for the success rate of a program that started a decade before he even got into office?

slank says,

Maybe in your book a rocket is the same as a Nuclear Warhead.

no they are different weapons, but both are on the banned list...so a banned weapon is a banned weapon is a banned weapon, reguardless of which system were talking about.

Here's another accountabillity question, Why dont you hold anyone in congress accountable for submitting a budget to the president that does not provide adaquate funding for securing nuke materials? Have you forgoten that CONGRESS controls the budget and allocation of spending? CONGRESS must do its job before the President can do anything about it.
IF as you say

It is simply irresponsible not to apply the funds necessary to get this job done.

then the irresponsibillity for this starts with CONGRESS not Bush, yet you will refuse to acknowledge this in your zeal to "get Bush".

You talk about creating "more" terrorists, yet how can this be proven?
Was there a known # of them to start with? How can we gauge weather "more" are actually being created, or are the ones already in existance mearly crawling out from their caves and making their presance known?
While i might accept the idea that our actions in iraq have the potential to stir some people into becomming jihadists too, i wouldnt just lay this idea out as a blanket truth that this is/does occur. Since there is no way to validate this alleged increase in the # of terrorists, lets leave this as a likley situation but not a hard fact. Assuming this as fact breaks the first rule of logic which is never assume. Stating this as fact therefore is illogical and presumptive, even if it is likley.
will the newest jihadist please stand up?

So to review slanks reasoning here,
he conveniantly avoids 2 points,
lets other nations off the hook for securing nuke materials, even their own.
Passes the buck for budget responsibillity from the legislative branch to the executitive branch....
and fabricates an unknown but scarry sounding # of unverifiable "new" terrorists.
Hmm avoidance, lack of accountabliilty, passing the buck, and fabrication sounds like the usual liberal lies if you ask me.

And this is the crap you think you can impeach a US President with? LOL.
come back when youve got something ACTIONABLE, something that his political opponents can actually USE instead of just spreading alot of hot air as truth.

Once again i ask,
IF ANY OF THIS CRAP WAS TRUE, WHY havent his opponents already pinned him with it?Why with weeks before the election are we still talking about an impeachment that hasnt happened yet? we're still lip flapping about an impeachment that hasnt even gotten off the ground?
What a pathetic notion and one that obviously isnt going to happen or we would have seen it already.
Keep believing in miracles, or liberal propaganda, whichever you prefer.

[edit on 12-10-2004 by CazMedia]