Should George W. Bush be Impeached?

[rccar328]

Originally posted by toms

What about that reporter they sent to jail for refusing to name her sources... even though she didn't write the story?

 

Has there been a huge fuss about that? Considering the way the US goes on about freedom of speech and freedom of the press it seems like the country should be in outrage over that event.

 

Novak on the other hand, who actually wrote the story, seems to be both a coward and scum for chickening out at the first moment and naming his source.

The thing I found disturbing about that case is the fact that the NYT, along with a few other MSM organisations, petitioned the court for her release, saying that no crime had been committed, so therefore she should be released.

 

So, the press says that no crime has been committed in this story, yet Rove is a criminal? How does this work?

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by rccar328

The thing I found disturbing about that case is the fact that the NYT, along with a few other MSM organisations, petitioned the court for her release, saying that no crime had been committed, so therefore she should be released.

 

So, the press says that no crime has been committed in this story, yet Rove is a criminal? How does this work?

Nice try playing the word game, but they're saying she committed no crime.

[rccar328]

Either way, there's no evidence that Rove committed a crime, because Plame was no longer a covert operative.

 

For John Kerry, on the other hand, the evidence is damning...I saw him out Fulton Armstrong myself on CSPAN-2...yet no one seems to care, probably because he's a liberal, and with the press, that constitutes a free pass.

[toms]

cos the US press is sooooo liberal...*choke*

 

but lets not get into THAT argument again...

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

For John Kerry, on the other hand, the evidence is damning...I saw him out Fulton Armstrong myself on CSPAN-2...yet no one seems to care, probably because he's a liberal, and with the press, that constitutes a free pass.

 

Or probably just because this is a thread critical of the Bush administration and Bush himself, and not Senators from Mass.

 

Perhaps you should start another thread.

[RevanA4]

um I'm note up to date on impeachable offences but to my knowledge he hasn't commited and impeachable offence so how can he get impeached:confused:

[TK-8252]

Originally posted by jedigoku

um I'm note up to date on impeachable offences but to my knowledge he hasn't commited and impeachable offence so how can he get impeached:confused:

 

READ THE THREAD

[RevanA4]

he has not commited a crime or an impeachable offences so he can't legally be impeached and you are all complaining about the war in Iraq *instert numerous statistics* all he is really doing is what his dad should have done in operation desert storm when he had the entire world on his side and could have gone in an taken sadam out of power at that time but didn't which i believe is the reason we are having trouble now because the people don't trust us and when we had the backing the armed forces under his father out numbered the iraqies by at least 3:1 and had most of the iraqi military surrendering anyway and this time they were ready for us:cool:

 

*i don't need to site that static becuase I did my term paper on Desert storm*

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I've been away for a while, so this "catch-up post" is quite long. Bear with me.

 

Lemme see if I follow your logic correctly. You start your rebutal with "Not so", as if to say I'm wrong and people haven't always hated America. But then, as if to do a complete 360, you follow up by saying that people do in fact hate America and always have.

Not so;). I'll re-phrase.

 

You seem to claim, with saying that "people have always hated the States and will always find reasons to do so", that the rest of the world has no good reason to dislike American politics. You follow the un-informed ideology that says that since the US of A is such a perfect nation, the reasons for 9-11 and other acts of hate have to be things like envy, akin to how the school bullies tend to target the All-A honour students.

 

I, on the other hand, claim that is a fallacy, and list some of the things US political parties have done to incur global wrath.

 

And I did not say that "people always have hated the USA". They started hating the USA when Uncle Sam became an imperialistic war-monger.

 

Norway and Canada are very unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Maybe if either of these nations did anything worth while just sometimes, you might actually see people getting pissed at them here and there.

I do see some people get pissed at us here and there, and it's not for "doing something worthwhile just sometimes".

 

The nationalist "they hate freedom"-rhetoric is quite flawed, however you look at it. If Saddam and ibn Ladin very envious with democratic countries, wouldn't they just have installed democracies themselves?

 

Let me get this straight: [it's] OK for Middle Easterners (well, actually Islamics) to fly plane "bombs" into our buildings, killing thousands of US citizens. On the other hand, when our own leader bombs em back, he's wrong? Hussein did support terrorist leaders. It was, and still is a War on Terror[ism], and you have to hit them anyway you can.

(Oh, and [i'm] not just talking as an American citizen, im 50% [L]ebanese, and not even a native of this country.)

I don't have a problem with fighting terrorists. I do, however, have a problem with the US attacking Iraq and using the war on terrorism as an excuse to do so.

 

As I've said a hundred times before, even here, Saudi-Arabia was a ton more responsible for 9/11 than Saddam ever was. Why, then, did Bush not only refrain from invading Saudi-Arabia, but also maintain his close friendship with the Saudi royal family?

 

See, there's a mis-conception here: It's not that I don't think the USA should have the right to defend itself. It's that I don't think invading Iraq was an act of self-defence in the first place. I was always all for invading Afghanistan, and I even think NATO did nearly enough in there (look at the recent bombings of London and tell me that Al-Q'aida was taken out).

 

And no, you can't "hit them any way you can". You have to follow international rules and ethics just like everybody else. Americans are not special in any way and they don't have the right to break rules more than people in the Third World who fight terrorists.

 

And as was said, to "narrow down" your idea of the perpetrators of 9/11 from "Middle Eastern" to "Islamic" is most ignorant and offensive. It's like saying that "World War II was started by Hitler, who was a German... No, wait, a Christian". Crude analogy, but you get my idea.

 

Remember Pearl Harbor? Japan attacked us just like on 9/11, and we bombed their butts back to the stone age.

Air-raiding a military base and its anchored fleet of military vessels is like killing 3000 innocents and civilian buildings? No.

 

As a side note, the Japanese were going to declare war on the USA before bombing Pearl Harbour. The "surprise attack" was actually the result of a buraucratic mess-up. Not that it changes much.

 

Back on subject, I think the same thing could happen in the Middle East... it could become a technol[o]gical powerhouse in the next 20-30 years.

Unfair comparison.

 

Japan was not exactly a poverty-stricken country. On the contrary, it was a powerful empire that at its height controlled parts of the Pacific and parts of China, and other territories such as the Phillipines. Its navy controlled a large area of the West Pacific. In fact, at one point the Japanese succeeded in capturing an Alaskan island called Adak (if only for a short time). Afghanistan, on the other hand, was one of the world's poorest countries even before NATO went in and bombed them. ibn Ladin and his party barely had control of their own country, let alone the neighbouring nations or a single square nautical mile of naval territory. And mainland "Nippon" was not nearly as damaged as Afghanistan was. Afghanistan, you might safely say, was "bombed back to the stone age". Japan certainly was not.

 

Bottom line: A developing country with a leading party hiding out in caves isn't the same as a vast, rich, and powerful empire.

 

Look at England, I've heard a lot of Bri[t]ish were anti-Bush, right? Now that they have been attacked, I am sure they will see things from his point of view.

 

Nope. As I said, disliking the invasion of Iraq isn't disliking the war on terrorism or underestimating terrorists.

 

Do some studying of England, please. London has been the target of countless terrorist bombings for more than two decades (from mainly the Irish Republican Army fanatics). And before that, there were German bombers dropping exploding thingies on British civilians (and vice versa) in this little shoot-out known as the Second World War. And before that, the same thing happened in the First World War.

 

You forget 9-11.

You forget that the rest of the world doesn't use 9/11 as an excuse for everything, like Bush & Co. does.

 

People don't just "forget" one of the biggest terrorist acts in history. They just, as I said, DON'T THINK IT APPLIES TO IRAQ. Bush and his Republican party like to use 9/11 as a reason to do everything from wrecking large parts of the constitution to invading nations illegally and without due reason, to bashing the United Nations and regulations the United States is bound to abide by. But the rest of the world (not to mention most Americans!) aren't that easily deceived.

 

What freedoms have you lost? Besides abortion, you have lost nothing.

Yet another Neo-Con/Conservative scares me out of my good hide.

Read the USA PATRIOT ACT, friend. A google search on the subject is a good way to start.

 

The USA has had a lot of rights taken away from it.

 

The reason I feel they may support (but I also agree with TK) is because now they have an actual reason to fight terror[ism] now, before they were just following the United States' decision to declare war on Iraq.

 

They weren't. 90% of the British people opposed the invasion of Iraq.

 

Read, we did absoulutley nothing to Arabic nations before 9/11 that I am awhere of.

 

You are the one who needs to read, comrade (unless you mean "we" as in the Brits, although you'll still be mistaken then).

 

Would a Christian who has an abortion/performs an abortion be a true Christian though?

 

Seeing that the murderer Moses was a "true Christian", I don't see why not (you do know he massacred 3000 of the people who were caught worshipping that gold cow while he got the ten commandments, right?).

 

A Christian is a follower of Christ, not a follower of Christ who abides 100% to Neo-Con doctrine. Reverend Phelps is a Christian. Moses was a Christian. Hitler was a Christian. The evil torturing lord that inspired Count Dracula was a Christian.

 

Christians aren't perfect, mate, and while many of you/them like to try to make it look otherwise by denouncing whoever is Christian and does something wrong as "untrue", it doesn't change the fact that they are Christians nonetheless.

 

Then again, I have to remember you're still young -I forget this at times when engaging in discussions on msg forums.

We can't all be old geezers like you, Skin (just teasin', of course:D).

 

READ THE THREAD!

For real. I just read the thing, starting halway down page II, and it only took me 30 minutes or so.

 

Youths nowadays can't even be arsed to sit down for an hour reading political debate, eh? The world's going to the pigs:p.

[RevanA4]

^^^

before you call someone young you should check there profile cuz i'm older than you:p and I read the first page and got sick of the same argument and besides i was at work:p and enough with the IRAQ thing the only reason there is no weapons is the fact that we got delayed for 2 months while during that time they all got moved out of the country

 

and for the record I'm in front of a computer for most of the day:p

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by jedigoku

^^^

before you call someone young you should check there profile cuz i'm older than you:p and I read the first page and got sick of the same argument and besides i was at work:p

 

That's no excuse for jumping into a thread and making an uninformed post. This is the Senate, not random forum number 231.

 

Originally posted by jedigoku

and enough with the IRAQ thing the only reason there is no weapons is the fact that we got delayed for 2 months while during that time they all got moved out of the country

 

An assumption or a fact?

[RevanA4]

that is more so a fact since bush only chose agression after sadamm wouldn't let the weapons inspecters into certian area's. now ask your self why would he do that. I also never heard anybody complain when clinton decided to bomb iraq for do the same thing:eek:. and Yes they have found small amounts of weapons of mass distruction a friend that was in iraq took pictures of them and they were found in one of his many palaces.

 

and 9/11 wasn't solly bush's fault since the intell was being gathered dure the time that clinton was in office and even after he got the report it was to late to stop it anyway. they still don't know who all was part of the attack. but after the attack he performed admirably which infact I have never seen a more unifide nation as I did after 9/11

 

also the reason that we are having trouble over there is. we took the same stragety last time in desert storm of which i am very firmilar with since i wrote a 10 page report on it:o

 

to say I am making an uninformed statement is completely false I just didn't read the thread. before you ask I have done debates before and won.

 

and sorry for the spelling mistake if there are any *check my sig*

[Tyrion]

that is more so a fact since bush only chose agression after sadamm wouldn't let the weapons inspecters into certian area's. now ask your self why would he do that. I also never heard anybody complain when clinton decided to bomb iraq for do the same thing:eek:. and Yes they have found small amounts of weapons of mass distruction a friend that was in iraq took pictures of them and they were found in one of his many palaces.

 

Clinton bombed Iraq; not invade it. Large difference. Besides, whether we found WMD's or not, we still ended up showing other enemies of the U.S.A. that getting WMD's is the only real way to stop an USA invasion. We took over Iraq; no real WMD's to speak of. We stopped at North Korea, why? Because it was likely they had WMD's.

 

and 9/11 wasn't solly bush's fault since the intell was being gathered dure the time that clinton was in office and even after he got the report it was to late to stop it anyway. they still don't know who all was part of the attack. but after the attack he performed admirably which infact I have never seen a more unifide nation as I did after 9/11

 

Yeah, I don't think it was Bush's fault for 9/11. But I think how he handled it was awful. For one thing, we're definitely not united. If we were, the 2004 election wouldn't have been so close.

 

also the reason that we are having trouble over there is. we took the same stragety last time in desert storm of which i am very firmilar with since i wrote a 10 page report on it:o

 

Going in we were fine. Taking out the Iraqi Administration was done well. We're just having one hell of a time occupying it.

 

to say I am making an uninformed statement is completely false I just didn't read the thread. before you ask I have done debates before and won.

 

Don't tell us that you've won debates, show us why you won those debates.

[SkinWalker]

Gentlemen,

 

This is not a John Kerry thread; a Kerry v. Bush election thread; or a thread about anything other than whether or not Bush or his adminstration have earned impeachment.

 

Please stay on topic.

 

I *will* delete posts that stray into the topic of John Kerry. If you have something to say about Kerry or any other topic not directly relevant to this one, click the button at the bottom that says "New Thread."

 

Thank you for your attention

 

By the way, jedigoku, a good bit of what you are bringing up with regard to WMDs is already within the thread.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by jedigoku

he has not commited a crime or an impeachable offences so he can't legally be impeached

 

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. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

The Bush admin is guilty of:

 

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

 

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

 

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

 

4) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

 

5) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

 

Originally posted by jedigoku

and you are all complaining about the war in Iraq *instert numerous statistics* all he is really doing is what his dad should have done in operation desert storm

 

Easy for a youngster like you to say when you weren't the one that would have had to endure the sands of Desert Storm or, apparently, the current conflict. Or are you typing your posts from a laptop in Mesopotamia?

 

The nation of Iraq was in no condition to threaten even it's closest neighbors with any certainty. It most definately posed no threat to the United States. The sanctions were working. Indeed, the threat of WMD was rendered irrelevant for the most part by science, which tells us that the chemical and biological agents that Iraq was suspected of possessing had long since deteriorated because of their short shelf lives.

 

The main act of treason by our President was abandoning the war on terror in favor of this war for the economic control of oil, OPEC, you see, was about to begin switching from the dollar to the Euro as its base currency, and Iraq, with it's third largest oil field in the world, was up for grabs.

 

That oil field isn't up for grabs any longer. Thousands of my fellow servicemen and women are dead, thousands more permanently injured. Thousands of Iraqis -most of whom had nothing to do with the conflict- are dead, many thousands more permanently injured. The country is on the verge of civil war. It is a hot bed of insurgent activity on an anarchical scale. Warlords will undoubtedly take control of it as they have Afghanistan once we depart (if ever). The perpetrators of the WTC attacks on Sept. 11 are still un-harmed and at-large.

 

Bush is a traitor to the American people. Any President with a bone of loyalty would have completed the war on terror before playing cat and mouse with Iraq.

 

Now, the rest of the despotic nations know that the only way to avoid being invaded by the United States is to actually possess WMD as N. Korea does. They have WMD and we haven't attacked them. Iraq didn't have WMD and we blew them to smitherines.

 

Originally posted by jedigoku

*i don't need to site that static becuase I did my term paper on Desert storm*

 

Wow. Must've been a cool paper. You should have came here sooner, I could have given you some 1st hand accounts and some high-speed, low-drag pictures for your appendix.

 

By the way, Welcome to the Senate Chambers, jedigoku!

[RevanA4]

no I'm not in Iraq I can't even join the military do to medical reasons I found out after i tried ot join the navy

 

I thought the war in iraq was part of the war on terror but oh well

 

err the war in iraq should have been over before it started because last time we put someone in power it back fired (they didn't learn i guess) and while sadaam was sitting in iraq he wasn't causeing any trouble what so every and if he did actually launch any attack on the us from out side it would have been over before it started even a missle attack would end in failier

 

as to the fact that he lied I don't think anybody can say for sure due to the time between the accusation and the actually attack any weapon would have already been moved out because of the threat of an attack

 

and yes i am old enough to remember desert storm an I actually had my best friend dad fight in it so it isn't like it never came near me:o

 

and it doesn't appear as though anybody is looking at it from bush's side any more so I'm kind of by my self i see

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by jedigoku

and yes i am old enough to remember desert storm an I actually had my best friend dad fight in it so it isn't like it never came near me:o

 

And Skin happens to have been in the first Gulf War.

[RevanA4]

yes I gathered that by his post:D

[riceplant]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Do some studying of England, please. London has been the target of countless terrorist bombings for more than two decades (from mainly the Irish Republican Army fanatics).

The IRA have been around since 1919, and by some accounts recieve financial backing from America, or at least some Americans who originally emmigrated from Ireland. England has been the target of attacks throughout the whole of the Twentieth Century, and although I realise that 9/11 was the first such attack on America, I still believe you have all over-reacted.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by riceplant

I still believe you have all over-reacted.

 

Thank you Captain Obvious. What would we ever do without you? How would your non-existence impact our lives, would we die from not knowing that which is right infront of our face?

[RevanA4]

OT 9/11 was the first such attack on American soil not on America itself because our embassies have been getting bombed for a while before this

[Rogue15]

uh....pearl harbor.

[RevanA4]

ot

 

perl harbor was an act of war not a terrorist act like 9/11 so it doesn't count

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Rogue15

uh....pearl harbor.

War /= terrorist attack. Especially when it was an attack on a military installation.

[SkinWalker]

"At its worst, treason was committed by high-ranking White House officials. At its best, we have witnessed a startling abuse of power by this administration [...] [a]s a direct result, an entire intelligence network was destroyed, and our ability to thwart another terrorist attack was recklessly compromised."

 

That quote is a from the transcript of the recent Senate hearing on the outing of a covert operative (June 22, 2005).

 

President Bush made a promise to the American people that he would fire anyone in the Whitehouse found to be connected to exposing Valerie Plame when the story first broke by Novack. Bush broke that promise since it was discovered that the bastard that committed the act of treason was, none other, than his own boy Rove.

 

President Bush has set a standard that devalues the office of the President and sends a message to the world that we care little about our covert operatives.

 

President Bush is a traitor to the American People and to those who work in the Intelligence community in general. Certainly, there are NOCs abroad who are wondering if they will be exposed -frightened out of their skins that they may be executed in the non-friendly nations they are working in.

 

What amazes me, is the juvenile attitude that the blind supporters of the Bush administration take with regard to the news that a whitehouse official committed treason: they minimize its impact by making comments that Plame wasn't actually "covert" or that she wasn't actually named -apparently Rove stated that he didn't give her "name" to Novack, only that it was Wilson's wife.

 

What is really the outrage here, is that an American patriot -a hero of our own nation- makes an effort to rebuke the "yellow cake from Niger" hoax and assholes like Rove wage a smear campaign that includes taking retribution on the man's wife. Not only a treasonous act, but a cowardly one as well. Rove was so inscensed that Wilson had the audacity to criticize him and Bush (one must wonder which bothered Rove more), that he resorted to the same style of dirty tricks he's been doing since his college days.

 

So what do the Juvenile Supporters of the Bush crime syndicate do? They can only announce in juvenile fashion, "well John Kerry exposed a CIA agent too!"

 

Who gives a crap? Kerry isn't the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. Moreover, nobody even knows wtf they're going on about since it was barely in the news at all. Sure... arrest Kerry to.

 

Back to business... what to do with the traitors that currently occupy the Whitehouse?

 

The American people will eventually have enough of the antics of the boobs in the Whitehouse. Our executive branch is a joke. Their interests are self-centered and elitist and people are just starting to wake up. Polls put Bush at his worst approval ratings yet.

 

The only reason why Impeachment is a thread topic in this Senate and not a motion on the floor of the American Senate is because of the domination of Republicans in all branches of government.

 

Bush is a traitor to the American People; to the United States Constitution; and to every thing the Founding Fathers stood for. Not only should he be Impeached - ...