Rep. McKinney's parting shot: Bill to impeach Bush

[PrimBabUB]

It will be interesting to see what response this generates among both those who agree with it and those who disagree.

I, for one, disagree with it.

BTW Billo, that quote does not seem very credible to me.

I would like to know what exactly this committee is, and who the members of it are.

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made clear that she will not entertain proposals to sanction Bush and has warned the liberal wing of her party against making political hay of impeachment.

McKinney introduces bill to impeach Bush - Yahoo! News

 

[Gardener]

I don't know about that, but I can tell you for certain the reason her bill didn't get passed....

"The Jews have bought everybody. Jews. J-E-W-S."

:lol:

Oh, tut tut tut.

Didn't you get the memo about how we're not supposed to say the word "Jew" any more? We say "Zionist" now, and that way when we spin the same old conspiracy theories and offer up the same old tired canards but substitue "Zionist" every time we mean"Jew", then everybody is fooled!

especially us.

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

My oh my! Seems like you're one of those posters who is confused about who was responsible for 9-11? I cannot recall any movement of any kind that was against President Bush invading Afghanistan and finding the people who were responsible for 9-11, can you?

Now please enlighten this Forum with what 9-11 had to do with Iraq???


So tell us then why we went to Iraq? They attacked us when, exactly? Who was hurt? What damage did Saddam inflict on America? How many Americans did he kill? What WMDs did he use when he attacked us?

So you don't think Bush was motivated in the least by Iraqi oil? Really?

I find it remarkeable that anyone who reads or even listens to TV can actually believe that Iraq and 9-11 have any connection whatsoever!

Please amuse us with your conspiracy theory.

Well let's see there are terrorists in Iraq who are from the same groups as ones in Afganistan (which were their too, but obviously half the media is only allowed to report about Iraq and how wrong it's going) which is, oh my, the same insrugents we seem to be fighting now.Why take out Saddam...well I don't know he wasn't a tyrant or anything, actually the Iraqis loved him, knocking over his statue and celebrating his ousting was actually a late April fools joke.Okay well..now we can just leave, insurgents can take over it's cool with us.Al Qaida operatives aren't just in Afganistan, they're all over the mid-east.

I'm not saying Bush didn't go there to get us oil, that always helps, I'm saying some Dems. like to prance around exclaiming it';s the ONLY REASON AT ALL he went.We both know (hopefully you're not ignorant as hell) that that's not true.I find it hard to believe that people are actually willing to say that the war on terror and the war in Iraq are two different things, that we are doing nothing to stop terrorism and are fueling it, that Bush only went to get oil and that's it.

But I'm sure you'll fan this of as a conspiracy theory, am I right?

 

[Billo_Really]

Impeachment Is Not a Partisan Issue; It's a Democracy Issue

By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III
t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor
Saturday 09 December 2006

As we look toward January 3, 2007, the day that the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, one of the issues that must be addressed is whether or not the impeachment of President George W. Bush and others in the Bush administration should take place. Regarding the invasion of Iraq and the manner in which information was presented to the American people, did the president and/or members of his administration commit treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors?

Many see this as a partisan issue. Most if not all Republicans are against the idea. Some Democrats support impeachment. All Americans who believe in democracy should support it. Impeachment, in this instance, is not a partisan issue; it's a democracy issue.

First, a quick definition of what it means to "impeach." Article III, Section 4 of the US Constitution states the following: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." It is important to understand that impeachment is not removal from office. It is charging (a public official) with misconduct in office before a competent tribunal. After the individual is charged, a trial takes place and, if convicted, the individual is removed.

If America is a nation of laws and not of men, the US Constitution calls for, at minimum, a full investigation of possible negligent and criminal activities of President Bush and others in the Bush administration. Were the American people deceived by the Bush administration into believing that an invasion of Iraq was necessary? Why was the Office of Special Plans (OSP) set up in the Pentagon by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and run by Douglas Feith? Did the administration use the OSP to manipulate intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam Hussein? Were thousands of Americans sent to their deaths and many more thousands wounded, based on lies and deceit? Have hundreds of billions of dollars been spent to support an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation?

I believe these are valid questions that have yet to be honestly investigated and analyzed by an impartial investigatory body with subpoena powers. These questions and many others are not partisan in any way, shape, or form. These questions get to the crux of the issue: Did the president and other members of his administration "cook the books?" Also, has the Iranian directorate, which was established in 2006, been set up to replay in Iran what was done in Iraq?

Some may say, "Well, the mistakes were unintentional." First, evidence indicates that these were not mistakes; second, even if they were, Americans hold their elected officials to a higher standard, especially when invading sovereign nations and when the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are concerned. Their negligence should be no defense.

Start your own investigation! Do your own research!

Read Congressman Henry Waxman's report, "Iraq on the Record." This report chronicles 237 statements made by the five administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. All of the statements included in the report were drawn from public statements, speeches, press conferences and briefings, interviews, written statements, and testimony by the five officials.

After reading "Iraq on the Record," read Congressman John Conyers's report, "George W. Bush vs. The Constitution: The Constitution in Crisis." This book is replete with evidence that the run-up to the Iraq War was laced with administration lies and distortions to make it appear that the US was threatened.

Even though Waxman and Conyers are Democrats, their research is of the highest caliber. They are public servants who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. That's exactly what they have done. Read the documents for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Information is power, but it's what you do with the information that makes you powerful!

It is the epitome of hypocrisy for the United States to invade a sovereign country in order to bring about democracy, and turn its back on democracy at home. Some will say America will be distracted from the so-called war if it pursues impeachment. Trust me; Americans can walk and chew gum at the same time.

These are not partisan questions, issues, or reports. In a representative democracy, it is imperative that the individuals that you elect to represent you and your interests actually do so. Impeachment is not a witch hunt and it's not retribution. It's called oversight; it's called accountability; it's called Democracy in Action!

I can understand Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi working toward cooperation and bipartisanship with her political adversaries - but not at the expense of accountability. Holding your elected officials accountable is the cornerstone of democracy! Impeachment is not a partisan issue; it's a democracy issue!

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III | Impeachment Is Not a Partisan Issue; It's a Democracy Issue

Turtledude,

You of all people should know that there is enough probable cause out there to at least, at the very minimum, justify an investigation or hearing into this matter. What's wrong with officially discussing this issue like we did with Watergate?

 

[TurtleDude]

Turtledude,

You of all people should know that there is enough probable cause out there to at least, at the very minimum, justify an investigation or hearing into this matter. What's wrong with officially discussing this issue like we did with Watergate?

I know what motivates people like you-getting at the truth has no relevance in that equasion.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by RightatNYU:
Get a blowjob.

You see, it is sick humor (such as this) that is one of the biggest reason's why I like you. Good comeback! Although, I'm sure you were serious as well.

Originally posted by RightatNYU:
The fact that people could actually consider Bush's domestic policies to be "totalitarian" is a ringing endorsement for how much better off the world is as a result of the US winning the Cold War.

I'm not going to highjack this thread, so I just have 3 words
in response to your post,

1. Military
2. Commission's
3. Act

 

[Gardener]

I know what motivates people like you.

and as luck would have it, there is an entire forum here devoted to sex.

 

[RightinNYC]

Turtledude,

You of all people should know that there is enough probable cause out there to at least, at the very minimum, justify an investigation or hearing into this matter. What's wrong with officially discussing this issue like we did with Watergate?

If the dems are so confident that there's enough probable cause to warrant an impeachment hearing, why don't they schedule it as soon as they take office?

Probably because they learned a lesson from the republican impeachment attempt.

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

Nah, they can't do that.It's not part of their amazing 100 hours plan for when they step into office.

 

[Gardener]

If the Democrats are so confident that there's enough probable cause to warrant an impeachment hearing, why don't they schedule it as soon as they take office?

Probably because they learned a lesson from the republican impeachment attempt.

The smart democrats realize this country has reached its tolerance for intercene power grabs, and are keeping their eye on the big picture.


Why win the battle only to lose the war?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by RightatNYU:
If the Democrats are so confident that there's enough probable cause to warrant an impeachment hearing, why don't they schedule it as soon as they take office?

Probably because they learned a lesson from the republican impeachment attempt.

The bigger question is how come Dems and Reps don't start Senate hearings when the majority of American's in this country have made it very clear they want this issue addressed? Doesn't everyone who has lost their life as a result of 9/11 (up to today), should have their lives mean something, by us at least, being sure on whether the reason's for going to war, were sound?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Gardener:
The smart democrats realize this country has reached its tolerance for intercene power grabs, and are keeping their eye on the big picture.

Why win the battle only to lose the war?

Because it is a bullshit war being fought against an intangible enemy with no definitive way of telling how it will end.

The big picture is the wholesale rejection of the Republican platform in this past election.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Gardener:
and as luck would have it, there is an entire forum here devoted to sex.

Why are Jewish men circumsized?

Because Jewish women won't put their hands on anything
where they can't get 20% off the top!

 

[Gardener]

Because it is a bullshit war being fought against an intangible enemy with no definitive way of telling how it will end.

The big picture is the wholesale rejection of the Republican platform in this past election.

Then reject it legislatively.

Carrying out impeachment proceedings will only lead to a backlash that will hand things right back to the republicans in 08.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Gardener:
Then reject it legislatively.

Carrying out impeachment proceedings will only lead to a backlash that will hand things right back to the republicans in 08.

If the Dems don't have hearings, I will be voting Republican next election.

 

[RightinNYC]

Why are Jewish men circumsized?

Because Jewish women won't put their hands on anything
where they can't get 20% off the top!

Can I just note how much I love that this is just randomly interspersed with talk about impeachment?

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

I agree there Gardener.And right Billo...right...islamic radicals is most definately a bullshit reason to fight, they would never thing to try to attack us, they don't hate us."Death to america" is their joke slogan.

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

If the Democrats don't have hearings, I will be voting Republican next election.

I don't mean to burst your bubble or anything and I'm no psychic, but I think if this is the case then sadly, you will be voting Republican in '08

 

[Gardener]

If the Democrats don't have hearings, I will be voting Republican next election.

This is certainly your prerogative.

So is balling up your little fists and taking your toys home.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Gardener:
This is certainly your prerogative.

So is balling up your little fists and taking your toys home.

If I ball my fists, it will be to get in someone's face!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by FierceEnigma12z
I don't mean to burst your bubble or anything and I'm no psychic, but I think if this is the case then sadly, you will be voting Republican in '08

That's fine with me. For the next few elections, I'm anti-incumbant. And I will be that way until they learn to "represent!"

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by FierceEnigma12z
I agree there Gardener.And right Billo...right...islamic radicals is most definately a bullshit reason to fight, they would never thing to try to attack us, they don't hate us."Death to america" is their joke slogan.

If your not willing to find out why they hate us, then you're not willing to fight terror.

 

[Gardener]

If I ball my fists, it will be to get in someone's face!

So I see you have that in common with Ms McKinney as well.

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

One reason is because we just plain disagree with their violence and justifications for everyone to convert to their side.That's a sufficient enough reason for them at least, to kill people, seeing as that's what they've been doing.They seek to harm us, they'd rather not talk.Kill first,talk never

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Gardener:
So I see you have that in common with Ms McKinney as well.

I can't speak for her, but I do it because I'm not a *****!

Now, you tell me, is that something in common?