Americans Now Want Obama Impeached Says Republican Michele Bachmann

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Originally posted by Hopechest
Plenty of democrats wanted to impeach Bush if you remember.

Yes. He started at least one war, based on total fabrication and manipulation. He made torture an official policy of the US government and he promoted an economic system that led to the near-collapse of the US economy. None of the things they have wanted to impeach Obama for have been actually proven to be impeachable offenses.

But there's always Umbrella-Gate Obama's in trouble with this one, I tell ya! /sarcasm

But I do see your point that many presidents go through this. Clinton's impeachment was a joke!

edit on 5/17/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

In all fairness to Bush, who I actually like, the democrats and other nations all looked at that information and agreed it was valid, not just Bush.

He did promote torture so I will give that one but the economic policies that led to the housing collapse were a collective effort. Bush did support the lending program at first but by 2004 signs were appearing that it was tanking so he tried to order an investigation and it was blocked by democrats, particularly Maxine Waters and Barry.

Bush was labeled a racist for trying to reign in the lending program and even openly called that by house democrats.

There have been a group of Americans that have wanted Obama impeached since the day he took office.

They are called the Tea Party.

reply to post by Hopechest


If you want to include other nations interest. Obama is liked by many countries than Bush, not only that, the "War on Terror"(i'm still laughing at this joke) had so many fooled i'm ashamed i'm with people of that mind set.

"Here is our money and freedom, make sure you get them bad guys!"

Whats worse, half of the country supported Iraq invasion... because you would think they learned from the first war.

Can the President be impeached for incompetence? Willful ignorance of activities under his jurisdiction? Outright lying about Benghazi?

He's a bumbling idiot and complete morons voted for him twice.

It's the Republicans' fault. They ran a no-win against him.

I hope Christie runs in 2016. I'd rather have a fat man in the WH than someone who "has no clue what is going on" in there.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Hopechest

 

If you want to include other nations interest. Obama is liked by many countries than Bush, not only that, the "War on Terror"(i'm still laughing at this joke) had so many fooled i'm ashamed i'm with people of that mind set.

"Here is our money and freedom, make sure you get them bad guys!"

Whats worse, half of the country supported Iraq invasion... because you would think they learned from the first war.

Yes Bush's foreign policy, which I don't agree with, did piss off a lot of other countries and Obama has a completely different vision.

I actually agree with Obama more on this particular issue however he is still walking pretty much in Bush's "war on terror" shadow.

I had hoped he would have pulled us out of this crap but he didn't.

Originally posted by flobot
There have been a group of Americans that have wanted Obama impeached since the day he took office.

They are called the Tea Party.

OWS also called for his impeachment.

Two peas in the same pod originally, but now for the most part, mouthpieces for the two parties. Oh, there are still a few who still stand with their original stance, but their voices are rarely heard. They both have been seriously co-opted.

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by flobot
There have been a group of Americans that have wanted Obama impeached since the day he took office.

They are called the Tea Party.

OWS also called for his impeachment.

Two peas in the same pod originally, but now for the most part, mouthpieces for the two parties. Oh, there are still a few who still stand with their original stance, but their voices are rarely heard. They both have been seriously co-opted.

OWS called for all kinds of stupid things, not a reference I would make to gain credibility for the calls of impeachment.

OWS also wanted student loan forgiveness, free college, and guaranteed jobs. They weren't exactly the brightest bulbs.

Originally posted by Hopechest
In all fairness to Bush, who I actually like, the democrats and other nations all looked at that information and agreed it was valid, not just Bush.

Not strictly true, is it?
The UK was dragged into that war with that false information, and the people of this country were lied to, as were Americans. Your president and our Prime Minister KNEW that the intelligence was weak, at best, and they still went to war.
The people of neither country voted for war. Democrats were lied to just as the American people were, just as the British were, just as much of Europe was.

The intelligence reports were only proven to have been mostly fiction after the war. Those who made decisions about it based on false intelligence cannot be blamed for agreeing with it, they were lied to, that is the whole point!

Originally posted by Hopechest
He did promote torture so I will give that one but the economic policies that led to the housing collapse were a collective effort. Bush did support the lending program at first but by 2004 signs were appearing that it was tanking so he tried to order an investigation and it was blocked by democrats, particularly Maxine Waters and Barry.

Regardless, he sanctioned torture, which is against international law. He also started the assassination program, and indefinite detention without trial. He also brought in the Patriot Act, which was and is the biggest theft of American rights and liberties Americans have ever seen.

However you look at his time in office, he was a massive failure of a president. He made millions suspicious of 9/11 through his actions (and inactions), he catastrophically failed in dealing with Katrina, he failed disastrously in economics, taking the USA into two wars on a credit card, and failing to fix the ballooning debt crisis.

Granted, other American leaders have failed in various ways too, but none were so disastrous for Americans, and damaging to the view of America all around the world, than Bush Jr.

I once saw a documentary about George Dubya which talked about his failings in business and his life before he became president, and many seemed to agree that he had no clue about basic economics, no idea how to run a business, was easily impressed by men with intelligence and money, was a party boy who loved to spend but didn't know how to earn... and when you look at his presidency, and everything that has happened since, you have to wonder if there was some kind of coup while he was in office, and would he have even had the intelligence to see it happening right in front of him?

Michelle Bachman is a right wing, religious lunatic. I prefer that my leaders don't get inspiration from the Old Testament. Back on topic though, those on the right seem to have blinders on. They think that Obama caused the recession...he didn't. They think that Obama caused every penny of our debt..he didn't. They think that government doesn't grow under Republican presidents....it does. They think that republican administrations don't have scandals. Iran Contra anyone? Where were the cries for impeachment then? Just saying.

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by Hopechest
In all fairness to Bush, who I actually like, the democrats and other nations all looked at that information and agreed it was valid, not just Bush.

Not strictly true, is it?
The UK was dragged into that war with that false information, and the people of this country were lied to, as were Americans. Your president and our Prime Minister KNEW that the intelligence was weak, at best, and they still went to war.
The people of neither country voted for war. Democrats were lied to just as the American people were, just as the British were, just as much of Europe was.

The intelligence reports were only proven to have been mostly fiction after the war. Those who made decisions about it based on false intelligence cannot be blamed for agreeing with it, they were lied to, that is the whole point!

Originally posted by Hopechest
He did promote torture so I will give that one but the economic policies that led to the housing collapse were a collective effort. Bush did support the lending program at first but by 2004 signs were appearing that it was tanking so he tried to order an investigation and it was blocked by democrats, particularly Maxine Waters and Barry.

Regardless, he sanctioned torture, which is against international law. He also started the assassination program, and indefinite detention without trial. He also brought in the Patriot Act, which was and is the biggest theft of American rights and liberties Americans have ever seen.

However you look at his time in office, he was a massive failure of a president. He made millions suspicious of 9/11 through his actions (and inactions), he catastrophically failed in dealing with Katrina, he failed disastrously in economics, taking the USA into two wars on a credit card, and failing to fix the ballooning debt crisis.

Granted, other American leaders have failed in various ways too, but none were so disastrous for Americans, and damaging to the view of America all around the world, than Bush Jr.

I once saw a documentary about George Dubya which talked about his failings in business and his life before he became president, and many seemed to agree that he had no clue about basic economics, no idea how to run a business, was easily impressed by men with intelligence and money, was a party boy who loved to spend but didn't know how to earn... and when you look at his presidency, and everything that has happened since, you have to wonder if there was some kind of coup while he was in office, and would he have even had the intelligence to see it happening right in front of him?

As for the actual war, the evidence wasn't weak, it was fairly strong. Yes it was faulty but that is not Bush's fault. The world also gave Saddam plenty of time to comply with World demands yet he chose not to. He could still be in power today if he had wanted to.

However, I will not justify everything Bush did as I don't agree with many of his actions. He did not sanction assassination as you claim though. Executive Order 12333 prevents that and he did not get rid of it.

He did sanction torture and with that I do not agree with since as we all know, torture is unreliable at best. I also hate the Patriot Act and the associated problems, such as indefinite detention so I will agree with you on that. How much of this was Bush as compared to Cheney and Rumsfield is debatable however. Bush was not a man who was involved with details, he liked to be presented with options and make a decision...not work out those options himself.

We also know that the last year of his presidency he had a falling out with Cheney and the two men hardly even spoke....Bush basically dismissed Cheney so I find it hard to blame Bush for everything.

reply to post by grimghost


I vote yay.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
Quite frankly anyone who votes for any incumbent is a traitor to their country at this point. Anyone spouting left/right crap is one as well. Neither party does anything close to what they say they stand for. It's all a sham and any vote for anyone currently serving office should result in the forfeiture of their voting rights.

Yes - it has gotten that serious folks.

so....your answer is....vote for new people in every senate seat and house seat in all of congress? have a civil war and dissolve the current government? how about something a little closer to a realistic solution.

The left has Nancy Pelosi .... The right has Michelle Bachmann. They both get to about the same place in the end with all the depth to their logic of a rain puddle.

I don't like Obama. I never really have...and it's about his mind set and world view. It's so far from mine in ideology, never the two shall meet. However, Impeachment is WAY ahead of things here. These stories have been breaking for about a WEEK.... A week for goodness sakes. This isn't a Western town in a Hollywood movie. Justice doesn't come in '24'. These things take a wee bit of time ...and NO one really knows WHAT all happened ...in ANY one of the different scandals.

Impeachment is the end point of months of process to get there. If ever. If called for. Frankly. the world is an unstable and dangerous place right now. Underlings up and down the food chain and probably to Cabinet level people NEED to go and after the record shows who did what. Obama though? There is a bad trade off here between a politically unstable and ineffective United States in this world, for time period and events ....to get one man.

If impeachment must happen, then so be it... I just say, it's the last step and choice...as it should be. It needs to be 100% CERTAIN too. Clinton was impeached. Impeachment is JUST the "indictment" side of the process. It goes to trial in the Senate after that. Harry Reid's Senate. The case has to be certain and rock solid. This isn't even half baked yet.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


As usual wrabbit your assessment is dead on.

Impeachment is never a good thing and hurts the US in international relations and should only be considered when they evidence is overwhelming.

That is hardly the case here. Heads should roll, definitely, but not at the Presidential level.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

If impeachment must happen, then so be it... I just say, it's the last step and choice...as it should be. It needs to be 100% CERTAIN too. Clinton was impeached. Impeachment is JUST the "indictment" side of the process. It goes to trial in the Senate after that. Harry Reid's Senate. The case has to be certain and rock solid. This isn't even half baked yet.

Finally a "non-biased, make sense" reply. i agree 100%/

Originally posted by amazing
Michelle Bachman is a right wing, religious lunatic. I prefer that my leaders don't get inspiration from the Old Testament. Back on topic though, those on the right seem to have blinders on. They think that Obama caused the recession...he didn't. They think that Obama caused every penny of our debt..he didn't. They think that government doesn't grow under Republican presidents....it does. They think that republican administrations don't have scandals. Iran Contra anyone? Where were the cries for impeachment then? Just saying.

hey, hey, hey....just because ol' ronny had over 60 people in his administration get convicted for the Iran-contra scandal, doesn't mean he should have been impeached....now....if he lied about having a sexual affair in the white house, then impeachment is a must.

reply to post by jimmyx


Perjury is a felony.

Originally posted by Hopechest
As for the actual war, the evidence wasn't weak, it was fairly strong. Yes it was faulty but that is not Bush's fault. The world also gave Saddam plenty of time to comply with World demands yet he chose not to. He could still be in power today if he had wanted to.

Give me a for instance.
The evidence I recall was that there were mobile labs, large stores of chemical and biological weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction. But all of this relied on people reading reports by others saying "it's real, trust us!"
Yes, people should have demanded more evidence, but the evidence they were given was blatantly false!

People were lied to, there was no strong evidence, it was all a pile of steaming BS.

Originally posted by Hopechest
However, I will not justify everything Bush did as I don't agree with many of his actions. He did not sanction assassination as you claim though. Executive Order 12333 prevents that and he did not get rid of it.

Drone attacks are assassinations. America is killing people based on suspicion of a crime, n foreign soil, with no recourse, no accusation of crime, no opportunity for the accused to defend themselves...

Drone strikes ARE assassinations whether you agree with the semantics of it or not.

Originally posted by Hopechest
He did sanction torture and with that I do not agree with since as we all know, torture is unreliable at best. I also hate the Patriot Act and the associated problems, such as indefinite detention so I will agree with you on that. How much of this was Bush as compared to Cheney and Rumsfield is debatable however. Bush was not a man who was involved with details, he liked to be presented with options and make a decision...not work out those options himself.

So the President can be forgiven for just being a yes man for his advisers?
The President is the one who should be held accountable, if he just let Cheney and Rumsfeld make such decisions then that just makes him even worse!
He's supposed to be leading your country and he lets others make decisions that could affect national security and global opinion of America all around the world!?

Why bother electing a President at all? Just let a couple of old men make all the decisions and then blame no one when it all goes wrong!

Originally posted by Hopechest
We also know that the last year of his presidency he had a falling out with Cheney and the two men hardly even spoke....Bush basically dismissed Cheney so I find it hard to blame Bush for everything.

So at what point do you let your President off the hook for the things he does wrong? Is there are signal, a watershed moment when his complete stupidity makes him a victim of others bad decisions?

It sounds like you're suggesting Bush Jr got "in over his head" and that he should be forgiven.

Any body have a corn dog to keep her quiet? Or did she swallow them all?