Impeach Bush

[Texans 4 Furors]

Originally posted by bullshitdetector, As if the democratic anti Bush team are never guilty of this to counter their opponent? Get real Tech.

Both of you need to "get real". They both deserved/ deserve impeachment.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I am not Clintons biggest fan. I find particularly abhorent, his pardons in his final days. Aside from that I think Clinton was a decent president on many levels, not a saint, but that wasnt his job title. Bush on the other hand claims to be doing Gods handy work, with bloodied hands and teeth. Wake Up people, there will be a test at the end of class.

[bullshitdetector]

You wouldn't know what the hell to do with your rhetoric if Bush were an athiest, would you? You do nothing but spew propaganda.

[Texans 4 Furors]

It doesn't matter what Bush claims as his so-called "faith". Christians don't drop bombs on poor people. He acts like a Satanist so I simply assume as such. If you were a real "BS Detector" I would return you for a cash refund.

[OberonDOtherseid]

Reality hurts those who are happy living in limbo, I can understand how you would want a refund. Want a daisy and a lock of hair to complete the chain or should I just break out and start chanting Kum Bay Ya? Ya know, there is like 3 of you against one of him, and you all maintain such an aura of confidence you're so right. Why then do you act like you're losing this battle and resort to hypocrisy, little sneers and rhetorical blunders?

[gr8fuldaniel]

In light of new revelations, Impeachment looking more and more promising:

RAW STORY Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) is drafting a letter to Defense Secretary —Donald Rumsfeld <SNIP> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • The new information goes on to indicate that our military decided “on August 5, 2002, for a ‘hybrid plan” in which a continuous air offensive and special forces would begin while the main ground force built up in Kuwait for a full-scale invasion.” According to the article, “despite the lack of an Iraqi reaction, the air war began anyway in September with a 100-plane raid.” The allegations and factual assertions made in the May 29 London Times are in many respects just as serious as those made in the earlier article. If true, these assertions indicate that not only had our nation secretly and perhaps illegally agreed to go to war by the summer of 2002, but that we had gone on to take specific and tangible military actions before asking Congress or the United Nations for authority. Thus, while there is considerable doubt as to whether the U.S. had authority to invade Iraq, given, among other things, the failure of the U.N. to issue a follow-up resolution to the November 8, 2002 Resolution 1441, it would seem that the act of engaging in military action via stepped up bombing raids that were not in response to an actual or imminent threat before our government asked for military authority would be even more problematic from a legal as well as a moral perspective. As a result of these new disclosures, I would ask that you respond as promptly as possible to the following questions: LINK

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because the decision to go to war is far too grave for only one man to decide.........Our founders decided to put the decision in the lap of Congress. Any action taken by the Executive Branch to "(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;" to orchestrate or force a war, is High Treason, worthy of immediate impeachment.

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/do...7/sec1001.html United State Code TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Code as of: 01/26/1998 Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully - (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. © With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to - (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate. .... AMENDMENTS 1996 - Pub. L. 104-292 reenacted section catchline without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: ''Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.'' 1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted ''fined under this title'' for ''fined not more than $10,000''. SHORT TITLE OF 1996 AMENDMENT Section 1 of Pub. L. 104-292 provided that: ''This Act (amending this section, sections 1515 and 6005 of this title, and section 1365 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) may be cited as the 'False Statements Accountability Act of 1996'.'' ....

[gr8fuldaniel]

This will not just go away.
The policy of BushCorp is to ignore, sidestep, whitewash and LIE. We the People dont want to hear it anymore. Its like the repetitious lies of a cheating spouse. Enough is enough.
From Star Tribune

In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse. The "smoking gun," as some call it, surfaced on May 1 in the London Times. It is a highly classified document containing the minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting at 10 Downing Street in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair on talks he'd just held in Washington. His mission was to determine the Bush administration's intentions toward Iraq. At a time when the White House was saying it had "no plans" for an invasion, the British document says Dearlove reported that there had been "a perceptible shift in attitude" in Washington. "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." <SNIP> As this bloody month of car bombs and American deaths -- the most since January -- comes to a close, as we gather in groups small and large to honor our war dead, let us all sing of their bravery and sacrifice. But let us also ask their forgiveness for sending them to a war that should never have happened. In the 1960s it was Vietnam. Today it is Iraq. Let us resolve to never, ever make this mistake again. Our young people are simply too precious.

[PatrickHenry]

The State of Emergency authorizes the President to do as he sees fit. It is a sign of the Empire that there will be no censure for such unconstitutional actions. Our Republic, so highly lauded, is no more. We must fight...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency

In the United States, the chief executive is typically empowered to declare a State of Emergency. The President of the United States, ...may declare a State of Emergency ... Typically, a state of emergency empowers the executive to name coordinating officials to deal with the emergency and to override normal administrative processes regarding the passage of administrative rules. Depending on the needs of that emergency, people may be arrested without cause, private places may be searched without warrant, or private property may be seized without immediate compensation or a chance to prior appeal. The courts in the United States are often very lenient in allowing almost any action to be taken in the case of such a declared emergency, if it is reasonably related. For example, habeas corpus is the right to challenge an arrest in court. The U.S. Constitution says, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

The wikipedia article also states:

Some political theorists have argued that the power to declare a state of emergency is the most fundamental power of government, and that knowing who decides on declaring a state of emergency in a given country or territory tells you a lot about where the real power in that country or territory is located, even if the country's constitution paints a different image on the surface.

So get used to it, Daniel. The US, under emergency rule for 72 years, is a benevolent dictatorship or a tyranny, depending on your viewpoint. But Constitutional rules do not apply in this situation. There will be no impeachment...

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: PatrickHenry So get used to it, Daniel. The US, under emergency rule for 72 years, is a benevolent dictatorship or a tyranny, depending on your viewpoint. But Constitutional rules do not apply in this situation. There will be no impeachment...

Then how was Nixon impeached, his crimes were like jaywalking compared to this. And Clintons blow job was adultery, which is not even a misdemeanor. The 'False Statements Accountability Act of 1996', I sited above prolly emerged from Clintons boyishness. Hardly to be compared with the massacre of men women and children happening today. I say "Get a Rope"

[MotherJones]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel This will not just go away. The policy of BushCorp is to ignore, sidestep, whitewash and LIE. We the People dont want to hear it anymore. Its like the repetitious lies of a cheating spouse. Enough is enough. From Star Tribune

I certainly hope you signed the petition!!

[RickSp]

Today the same sumbitch who declared "Mission Accomplished" over 1500 dead Americans ago, said that finishing the mission is the best memorial to the fallen. As his insane policy of preemptive war will never be finished, there can be no memorial to the dead. Only more and more dead.

If there was justice in the world, Bush would be charged with war crimes. Impeachment will do.

[James]

People want to impeach Bush when they're out killing their unborn children, condoning homosexual marriage, and other abominations.

[Osborn F Enready]

Id rather see him get shot as his penalty, but impeachment first would be nice. Shot as a penalty of his crimes.

Its kind of funny. They were talking about how heroic G.H.W. Bush was in WWII on CNN the other night, but they never seemed to mention that while George Sr. was in the air bombing Japanese radio stations, His grandad Prescott Bush was selling materials to the Nazis to supply their war effort for his own profit.

Funny how the media never covers that aspect.

[RickSp]

Duplicate post. Need another cup of coffee, I guess.

[RickSp]

Quote by: James People want to impeach Bush when they're out killing their unborn children, condoning homosexual marriage, and other abominations.

That's right. You good "freedom" loving gay-bashers who fly the flag of slavery, who don't give a damn about living, breathing folks getting butchered, but get weepy over the "unborn".

As a Southerner, born and raised, I will admit to getting annoyed by good old boys who know squat about their history. As a father of two I have little patience being lectured by anti-abortion zealots who think that rights begin at conception and end with birth. So I have never "killed my unborn children", fool, even if I do support a woman's right to choose. I believe in good old family values like tolerance, unlike you Eric Robert Rudolph wannabes.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Good point, well put Ricksp.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Could Florida be the next Iraq? Jeb Bush seems to be giving asylum to a terrorist, because the "Worldwide War on Terror" actually encourages and embraces the "right kind" of terrorism. Like Hitler said, terrorism is good!

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." -- Adolf Hitler

Check This!

NATIONAL DESK | May 9, 2005, Monday Case of Cuban Exile Could Test The U.S. Definition of Terrorist By TIM WEINER (NYT) 1872 words Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 1 ABSTRACT - Case of Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles could create tension for Bush administration between politics of global war on terrorism and ghosts of cold war on communism; Posada, long a symbol for armed anti-Castro movement in US, reportedly snuck back into Florida recently, seeking political asylum for serving as cold war soldier on payroll of Central Intelligence Agency in 1960's; he has admitted to plotting attacks that damaged tourist spots in Havana and killed Italian visitor there in 1997; he was convicted in Panama in 2000 in bomb plot against Fidel Castro; Venezuela seeks extradition to retry him for 1967 bombing of Cuban airliner that killed 73 people; Bush administration has three choices if Posada has indeed entered US illegally: grant him asylum, jail him for illegal entry, or grant Venezuela's request for extradition; grant of asylum could invite charges that Bush administration is compromising its principle that no nation should harbor suspected terrorist; turning Posada away could provoke political wrath in Cuban-American communities of South Florida, sources of support and campaign money for Pres Bush and Gov Jeb Bush; photos (L)

It seems there should be NO QUESTION, how to handle this. Hand him over. BushCorp has a double standard if they have to even THINK about it. We invade foreign countries to get "terrorists", and then when the birds land on our lap we harbor them? Impeach Jeb and GW Bush for the double standard when defining terrorism.

[gr8fuldaniel]

The NYT story above is archived and you have to pay to get it. If you want to read more on this case, this is a good article:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/051005.html Bush, Posada & Terrorism Hypocrisy By Robert Parry May 10, 2005 The New York Times has finally put the case of fugitive terrorist Luis Posada Carriles on Page One, observing that the violent anti-Castro Cuban’s presence in Florida “could test” George W. Bush’s universal condemnation of terrorism. But that principle already has been tested and failed. Without doubt, Posada – who reportedly has been hiding in South Florida for six weeks – is getting the benefit of a conscious U.S. policy of benign neglect, a Bush version of the “I know nothing” approach made popular by Sgt. Schultz, the German prison guard in the TV comedy “Hogan’s Heroes.” If Posada were a suspected Islamic terrorist – not a CIA-trained right-wing Cuban exile – there’s no question that the Bush administration would be showing zero tolerance for his presence inside the United States. Certainly, the U.S. government wouldn’t be waiting around patiently for the terrorist to check in with immigration authorities. All legal niceties would be swept aside. The Bush administration – and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s state police – would be leaving no stone unturned in searching for the fugitive. There would be a manhunt with every known associate hauled in for questioning while the national news would be giving the story around-the-clock coverage. Read the rest

[RickSp]

Are you aware that Posada was arrested ?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: RickSp Are you aware that Posada was arrested ?

No I wasnt, thank you.

[Chris]

I said no because it would be another circus like Clinton.