On the “To Do” List for Democrats: Impeach Bush (1 Viewer)

[RightConservative]

On the “To Do” List for Democrats: Impeach Bush
By: Vincent Fiore
RightConservative.com 06-12-05

Having lost badly in this new century’s elections, Democrats are now sounding the alarm for impeachment proceedings against President Bush. If the word “impeachment” were not so serious in its intent, one is tempted to laugh out loud, and I will assume that many did.

But this is today’s Democratic Party, where its DNC chairman Howard Dean says that Republicans “never made an honest living in their lives,” the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid (D, NV), calls a sitting president a “loser,” and the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), equated America as a modern-day war machine when she said “America must be a light to the world, not just a missile.”

So should anyone truly be surprised to hear the “I” word finally make the rounds? The mainstream media have so far held off on any serious coverage, but that may change quickly if the blogosphere has anything to say about it.

The usual muckrakers of the left are in high gear. Websites like the Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and liberal iconoclast Michael Moore’s website are all salivating over the prospect of doing the one thing that seemingly propels their existence: finally defeating Bush.

To date, the most serious thrust regarding the impeachment of Bush have come from last year’s presidential losers, Democratic Senator John Kerry and Reform/Green party activist Ralph Nader, who returned from the college talk circuit long enough to post an op-ed in the Boston Globe titled: “The ‘I’ Word.”

(www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/the_i_word/)

In the article, Nader says that “Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ‘fixing’ the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. U.S. intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes--evidence was thin and needed fixing.”


Read the full article

 

[Pacridge]

Bush would have had to commit a crime to impeached. Not going to happen.

 

[GarzaUK]

Bush would have had to commit a crime to impeached. Not going to happen.

I'm confused then. Didn't Republicans try and inpeach Clinton for having an affair and lying to the American public. Is it a crime for a President to do such things?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I'm confused then. Didn't Republicans try and inpeach Clinton for having an affair and lying to the American public. Is it a crime for a President to do such things?

No, the Republicans attempted to impeach Clinton because he lied about his affair in a Civil Suit, therefore commiting perjury, which is a crime.

 

[LaMidRighter]

On the “To Do” List for Democrats: Impeach Bush
By: Vincent Fiore
RightConservative.com 06-12-05

Having lost badly in this new century’s elections, Democrats are now sounding the alarm for impeachment proceedings against President Bush. If the word “impeachment” were not so serious in its intent, one is tempted to laugh out loud, and I will assume that many did.

But to listen to them say it, having more than 15 votes over them doesn't a majority make.

But this is today’s Democratic Party, where its DNC chairman Howard Dean says that Republicans “never made an honest living in their lives,” the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid (D, NV), calls a sitting president a “loser,” and the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), equated America as a modern-day war machine when she said “America must be a light to the world, not just a missile.”

All of the above should be recalled for gross incompetence, slander, and probably six or seven other reasons I just can't think of yet.

So should anyone truly be surprised to hear the “I” word finally make the rounds? The mainstream media have so far held off on any serious coverage, but that may change quickly if the blogosphere has anything to say about it.

I for one am not surprised at anything these sore losers do.

The usual muckrakers of the left are in high gear. Websites like the Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and liberal iconoclast Michael Moore’s website are all salivating over the prospect of doing the one thing that seemingly propels their existence: finally defeating Bush.

Too bad for them that the American majority disagree, heh heh.

To date, the most serious thrust regarding the impeachment of Bush have come from last year’s presidential losers, Democratic Senator John Kerry and Reform/Green party activist Ralph Nader, who returned from the college talk circuit long enough to post an op-ed in the Boston Globe titled: “The ‘I’ Word.”

Of course, if Kerry actually had a platform to stand on he may have actually been a threat, he can't blame republicans forever for actually coming up with solutions, and Nader is so far gone, he probably thinks Bush cost him the election even though he didn't even have enough support to get on the ballot in all 50 states.

In the article, Nader says that “Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ‘fixing’ the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. U.S. intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes--evidence was thin and needed fixing.”

Like I said, Nader = :cuckoo:

Thanks for the post.

 

[GarzaUK]

LaMidRighter, it has been proven by the Downing Street Memo (something that the US liberal media has strangely missed) that Bush planned to go to war with Iraq in summer 2002 and thst regime change was the goal, however WMD's were the only way to make the war legal, thats why the Bush Admin focused on it. So in that sense Bush did lie to the public on the reasons for war. He should have said, "We don't like Saddam, we going to misplace him." :roll:

 

[LaMidRighter]

LaMidRighter, it has been proven by the Downing Street Memo (something that the US liberal media has strangely missed) that Bush planned to go to war with Iraq in summer 2002 and thst regime change was the goal, however WMD's were the only way to make the war legal, thats why the Bush Admin focused on it. So in that sense Bush did lie to the public on the reasons for war. He should have said, "We don't like Saddam, we going to misplace him." :roll:

Actually, not exactly. All we had to do was use the fact that Saddam violated 12 years worth of U.N. sanctions to go to war. Such violations as inhibiting weapons inspectors, violating the no-fly zone, as well as multiple cease-fire breaks, and suspected human rights violations against his own citizens. And if the Downing Street memo was missed by our media, it probably is faulty, those guys would use anything to attack president Bush. To tell you the truth, this war was more than legal and the end result will hopefully be a good one.
p.s.- don't forget about that little thing concerning harboring and collaborating with terrorists. (there is a paper trail.)

 

[Pacridge]

I'm confused then. Didn't Republicans try and inpeach Clinton for having an affair and lying to the American public. Is it a crime for a President to do such things?

They impeached Clinton for lying in court under oath which is a crime. Bush lies in public which isn't.

 

[flip2]

Somebody tell that to 26 Champs. He seems not to understand that. Except for the Bush statement. Yeah, ummm, Go Spurs?

 

[GarzaUK]

Actually, not exactly. All we had to do was use the fact that Saddam violated 12 years worth of U.N. sanctions to go to war. Such violations as inhibiting weapons inspectors, violating the no-fly zone, as well as multiple cease-fire breaks, and suspected human rights violations against his own citizens. And if the Downing Street memo was missed by our media, it probably is faulty, those guys would use anything to attack president Bush. To tell you the truth, this war was more than legal and the end result will hopefully be a good one.
p.s.- don't forget about that little thing concerning harboring and collaborating with terrorists. (there is a paper trail.)

The Downing Street Memo is not faulty, since it was confirmed to be authentic by the British Government and Tony Blair himself.

No substanial evidence was ever given to suggest that Saddam Hussein purposely housed Al-Queida terrorists.

If violating UN sanctions, cease-fire breaks, human right violations is a reason to go to war with a soverign state, we should have no problem going to war with Israel or North Korea or China.

Anyway this war has done more damage to the US than the terrorists.

 

[Pacridge]

Somebody tell that to 26 Champs. He seems not to understand that. Except for the Bush statement. Yeah, ummm, Go Spurs?

It would appear that people on both sides of the fence seem to be capable of only focusing on the evidence/facts that supports their position.

Hope your Spurs win, whats the series at now?

 

[LaMidRighter]

The Downing Street Memo is not faulty, since it was confirmed to be authentic by the British Government and Tony Blair himself.

I don't really know enough about it, so I can't intelligently critique the validity of it.

No substanial evidence was ever given to suggest that Saddam Hussein purposely housed Al-Queida terrorists.

There are currently Al-Quaida terrorists residing in Iraq, we have med records pertaining to terrorist groups as well as concessions to said groups as I currently understand, harboring our enemies is just cause for war.

If violating UN sanctions, cease-fire breaks, human right violations is a reason to go to war with a soverign state, we should have no problem going to war with Israel or North Korea or China.

Israel would be crushed if we didn't back them, I have reservations about our union, as far as the rest go, no argument.

Anyway this war has done more damage to the US than the terrorists.

I think that will remain to be seen, world opinion typically changes on a dime though, so I'm not terribly worried about it.

 

[Pacridge]

The Downing Street Memo is not faulty, since it was confirmed to be authentic by the British Government and Tony Blair himself.

No substanial evidence was ever given to suggest that Saddam Hussein purposely housed Al-Queida terrorists.

If violating UN sanctions, cease-fire breaks, human right violations is a reason to go to war with a soverign state, we should have no problem going to war with Israel or North Korea or China.

Anyway this war has done more damage to the US than the terrorists.

One thing you have to understand about the current political situation in the US is that there are a lot of people who see the media as completely anti Bush. Anytime they don't fawn over one of his proposals it's just because they're liberal and anti Bush. Any time they report some lame thing he says or does it's the same.

 

[Pacridge]

There are currently Al-Quaida terrorists residing in Iraq, we have med records pertaining to terrorist groups as well as concessions to said groups as I currently understand, harboring our enemies is just cause for war.

Key word there is "currently." As Garza correctly points out "No substantial evidence was ever given to suggest that Saddam Hussein purposely housed Al-Queida terrorists."

 

[vandree]

The alleged impeachable acts of President George W. Bush include:

1. Ordering and directing "first strike" war of aggression against Afghanistan causing thousands of deaths;

2. Removing the government of Afghanistan by force and installing a government of his choice;

3. Authorizing daily intrusions into Iraqi airspace and aerial attacks including attacks on alleged defense installations in Iraq which have killed hundreds of people in time of peace;

4. Authorizing, ordering and condoning attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties are unavoidable;

5. Threatening the use of nuclear weapons and ordering preparation for their use;

6. Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently proclaiming his personal intention to change its government by force;

7. Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, murder, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners;

8. Authorizing, ordering and condoning violations of rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eight Amendments to the Constitution and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other international protections of human rights;

9. Authorizing, directing and condoning bribery and coercion of individuals and governments to obtain his war ends;

10. Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda and concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment to create a climate of fear and hatred and destroy opposition to his war goals.

President Bush is accused of Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. No crimes are greater threats to the Constitution of the United States, the United Nation Charter, the rule of law or the future of humanity.

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

 

[LaMidRighter]

Key word there is "currently." As Garza correctly points out "No substantial evidence was ever given to suggest that Saddam Hussein purposely housed Al-Queida terrorists."

That wasn't the only thing I said however, there were from my understanding houses given to terrorists during Saddams reign as well as medical treatment and if I am not mistaken terrorist cells were allowed to conduct training throughout the last couple of decades under Hussein's watch. Still, the U.N. has been threatening military action now for years and we were among the only nations who let the chips fly.

 

[Squawker]

President Bush is accused of Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. No crimes are greater threats to the Constitution of the United States, the United Nation Charter, the rule of law or the future of humanity.

Do they plan on taking the entire US Government down with Bush? I recall something called Votes. More tripe thrown out by people who have nothing better to do with their lives. I don't know how many times the facts have to told to get the left to stop spreading their lies over and over and over. It gets sickening after a while. The lefts hero Kerry, is leading the pack on this one. If Bush is tried for war crimes, Kerry should be next on the list. Sore losers is you ask me.

 

[1SGRet]

Do they plan on taking the entire US Government down with Bush? I recall something called Votes. More tripe thrown out by people who have nothing better to do with their lives. I don't know how many times the facts have to told to get the left to stop spreading their lies over and over and over. It gets sickening after a while. The lefts hero Kerry, is leading the pack on this one. If Bush is tried for war crimes, Kerry should be next on the list. Sore losers is you ask me.

Yeah, and it'll never stick. The word 'impeach' really has two meanings: 1.) To bring an accusation against, and 2.) Remove from office.

I think the House has to enter 'Articles of Impeachment' and the Senate has to make the big decision (whether to eject a sitting President). Republican Congress. No can happen.

Hey, what's this Kerry stuff? He's done. Kaput. Stick a fork in him. Time to start thinking about Hillary, and on the other side, McCain. Rove, work your magic...

 

[LaMidRighter]

Hey, what's this Kerry stuff? He's done. Kaput. Stick a fork in him. Time to start thinking about Hillary, and on the other side, McCain. Rove, work your magic...

I think McCain is a horrible choice based on his voting lately, he just doesn't fit, he's too socialist to be a Republican and too Conservative to be a Democrat.

 

[ludahai]

If violating UN sanctions, cease-fire breaks, human right violations is a reason to go to war with a soverign state, we should have no problem going to war with Israel or North Korea or China.

Anyway this war has done more damage to the US than the terrorists.

None of the resolutions against those countries carried an authorization for the use of force that U.N. Security Council resolution 678 did.

 

[Pacridge]

None of the resolutions against those countries carried an authorization for the use of force that U.N. Security Council resolution 678 did.

Isn't 678 from 1990?

 

[Billo_Really]

Hussein violated the "no-fly zone" because we were flying over 20,000 sorties and dropping 600 bombs on selected targets starting in April of 2002 in order to provoke him. If you were dropping bombs in my backyard, I would shoot at you too.

The UN sanctions were so harsh, that their infant mortality rate went up by 50% during that time. Stop making these god-damn excuses for an illegal war. Clinton's lie didn't kill anyone. King George has killed over 1700 GI's with his. That's a big difference.

For those who want to dethrone King George the Bush, you can impeach him at the link below. Support these troops....

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/impeachment/petition2.htm