Impeach Bush

[Sonart]

If your proof is so conclusive, what are you waiting for?

Passing the bar, whaddaya think.

Tell me which Republican committee will launch an objective investigation and I'll go lobby them. Saying or even proving that Bush is impeachable is meaningless. Impeachment is a political process, as the right has so gratuitiously shown.

You boy is an incompetent fool, Dieval, and he's got four more years to screw things up even more. Enjoy.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Sonart, Passing the bar, whaddaya think. Tell me which Republican committee will launch an objective investigation and I'll go lobby them. Saying or even proving that Bush is impeachable is meaningless. Impeachment is a political process, as the right has so gratuitiously shown. You boy is an incompetent fool, Dieval, and he's got four more years to screw things up even more. Enjoy.

And you're afraid that your proof won't hold up to real scrutiny under the law.

[DayBaye]

I said I'd work towards impeaching 'im for 'is crimes 'twere it possible. Unfortunately, it's not possible.

[Scribbler1]

Although I am as guilty as anyone else of incorrect usage of the word "mandate", for the record you can use the word mandate for Bush simply because he won the election. Common usage means winning by a wide margin but technically winning at ALL will suffice.

Just a point of information. I'm too tired to join this argument. Nite.

[JustinGilmore]

Originally posted by Dieval,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Gorgo, Who is going to charge him?  The Democrats?  They'd have to charge every president and their administrations.  What you're saying is that Al Capone wasn't a murderer because no one ever convicted him of murder.

Alright - Gorgo, PH, gr8, and anyone else who thinks that Bush is guilty of crimes, I'm calling you out. Put up or shut up.
Here's what you need to do to prove your point -
1)Get your "proof" together.
2)Hire a lawyer(or do it yourself)
3)Charge the President of the United States of America with whatever crimes you think he committed and present your "proof" to the court system and let them determine his guilt or innocence. (None of you are qualified to make that judgement)
4)Post updates here on your case so we know what's going on
OR
Stop with the absurd allegations.[/b][/quote]


Put up or "shut up"?

Oh, a challenge! Nothing more exciting than that. Let's see here...

1. Bush Misled the Nation with false claims that:
A. 9/11 and the war with Iraq were indeed tied.
B. Iraq has WMD's
C. Saddam was a threat to the United states
D. Saddam was a threat to neighboring countries

George W. Bush misled the nation into war. Who says? Representative Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee. On the basis of what? On the basis of information preliminarily reviewed by the intelligence committee as part of its ongoing investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Source: http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/inde...l?bid=3&pid=783

Bush consistantly told us that Saddam was a threat, the "Smoking Gun..." in the form of a "Mushroom Cloud". Those were lies.

Bush told us that Iraq was a threat to its neighbors; but apparently the Iraqi forces wouldn't fight against us. Infact, Saddams neighbors were later found to be Millitarily superior, by far. Lie.

The 9/11 commison confirmed that there were no ties to al quida, not WMDs, etc.

These were all obvious lies and deceptions. He blew enough steem to get people to cooperate with him, and his cronies. These are legal grounds of impeachment. But also:


2. Mr. Bush led the nation into an illegal, unconstitutional war in Iraq.

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Other Sources:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4534 "The War Was Illegal"
http://extension.lmu.edu/Religion/2002Fall-ICUJP.pdf "Immoal and Illegal"


Okay. Your turn to put or, or shut up.


cheers.

[JustinGilmore]

3. Bush's administration has errored with prisoners:
A. Widespread prisoner abuse due to commands sent from his administrations office, abuses which are nationally and internationally illegal
B. Guantanamo Bay prisoner abuse, prisoners held without charges, without chance of bail, without legal council

Sources:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5092776/site/newsweek/ "The Abu Ghraib Scandal Cover-Up?"
http://foi.missouri.edu/whistleblowing/rep...ortoniraqi.html "Report on Iraqi Prison Found 'Systemic and Illegal Abuse' "

[Dieval]

Originally posted by JustinGilmore,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JustinGilmore,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Put up or "shut up"? Oh, a challenge! Nothing more exciting than that. Let's see here... 1. Bush Misled the Nation with false claims that: A. 9/11 and the war with Iraq were indeed tied. B. Iraq has WMD's C. Saddam was a threat to the United states D. Saddam was a threat to neighboring countries George W. Bush misled the nation into war. Who says? Representative Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee. On the basis of what? On the basis of information preliminarily reviewed by the intelligence committee as part of its ongoing investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq. Source: http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/inde...l?bid=3&pid=783 Bush consistantly told us that Saddam was a threat, the "Smoking Gun..." in the form of a "Mushroom Cloud". Those were lies. Bush told us that Iraq was a threat to its neighbors; but apparently the Iraqi forces wouldn't fight against us. Infact, Saddams neighbors were later found to be Millitarily superior, by far. Lie. The 9/11 commison confirmed that there were no ties to al quida, not WMDs, etc. These were all obvious lies and deceptions. He blew enough steem to get people to cooperate with him, and his cronies. These are legal grounds of impeachment. But also: 2. Mr. Bush led the nation into an illegal, unconstitutional war in Iraq. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm Other Sources: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4534 "The War Was Illegal" http://extension.lmu.edu/Religion/2002Fall-ICUJP.pdf "Immoal and Illegal" Okay. Your turn to put or, or shut up. cheers.[/b]

sounds like you took step 1....
<!--QuoteBegin-Dieval,

Alright - Gorgo, PH, gr8, and anyone else who thinks that Bush is guilty of crimes, I'm calling you out. Put up or shut up.
Here's what you need to do to prove your point -
1)Get your "proof" together.
2)Hire a lawyer(or do it yourself)
3)Charge the President of the United States of America with whatever crimes you think he committed and present your "proof" to the court system and let them determine his guilt or innocence. (None of you are qualified to make that judgement)
4)Post updates here on your case so we know what's going on
OR
Stop with the absurd allegations.[/quote]
Now proceed with steps 2,3, & 4.

[JustinGilmore]

I'll pass on the rest of your steps, though I'm glad you didn't argue with me. Let this show that the grounds of impeachment for Mr. Bush are fertile, thank you Deival for submitting this by not contesting what I posted.

As far as you telling us to not talk about impeaching him, that's not understandable. This is a forum, right? Yes, it is. Do you know what that means? It means that if it pisses you off to see people discuss a particular topic, perhaps you should ignore it, and "shut up".

[Gorgo]

We are all (it seems even Dieval and Macnpat) in agreement that Bush is a criminal and should be impeached, though it is not likely that any Democrat/Republican Congress is going to start prosecuting their own for their crimes, as they would have to begin prosecuting themselves and all living Presidents.

[Gorgo]

http://vitw.org/archives/606

Over 400 Veterans for Peace (VFP) members gathered last weekend in Boston for the organization’s annual convention, hearing from Daniel Ellsberg, historian Howard Zinn, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, members of Military Families Speak Out, and the newly-formed Iraq Veterans Against the War. They also passed a resolution in the form of a memo titled “To White House Occupant After Jan. 20, 2005,” demanding

“[T]hat the next U.S. president announce, within 10 days of taking office, that he will withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq within 60 days, and that if this 10-day period following the inauguration passes without a publicly-announced decision to withdraw all troops from Iraq within 60 days, Veterans for Peace chapters around the nation will begin a campaign including, but not limited to, petitions calling for the impeachment of the president.”


The resolution states, “The United States presence in Iraq is causing, not preventing, destabilization and violence. Veterans for Peace is committed to ending this immoral, unjust war of empire regardless of who wins the 2004 U.S. presidential election.”

[Sonart]

And you're afraid that your proof won't hold up to real scrutiny under the law.

What real scrutiny under the law? You think real law has something to do with Impeachment? You think the House Judiciary Committee, led by Jim Sensebrenner [R] Wis., with 21 Republicans and 14 Democrats, is going to initiate an investigation into whether or not Dear Leader is competent?

Don't give me 'Real scrutiny under the law'. We're never going to see ANY scrutiny.

Originally posted by Justin Gilmore Oh, a challenge! Nothing more exciting than that. Let's see here...

Forget about it, Justin. Dieval's gloating. He's telling us that the House is GOP, the Senate is GOP and they're behind they're newly re-elected GOP President, and that we can talk all we like about Impeachment, it's never going to happen... and it won't, not unless Democrats take back Congress.

Things like proof or just cause are irrelevent.

[Gorgo]

No Congress is going to impeach a president for his foreign policy, doesn't matter if it's Democrat or Republican. They all do it to the point that people think that murder is 'moral' and re-elect people on the basis of their love for brutality.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by JustinGilmore, I'll pass on the rest of your steps, though I'm glad you didn't argue with me. Let this show that the grounds of impeachment for Mr. Bush are fertile, thank you Deival for submitting this by not contesting what I posted. As far as you telling us to not talk about impeaching him, that's not understandable. This is a forum, right? Yes, it is. Do you know what that means? It means that if it pisses you off to see people discuss a particular topic, perhaps you should ignore it, and "shut up".

Actually, you know what really pisses me off? When people say that the President of our country is GUILTY of crimes. Under our laws (the whole - innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - thing), how can people here say that he is guilty of anything? He has not been tried in a court of law! If you want to call him guilty, follow my steps and have the courts decide. Otherwise you all need to STFU about him being guilty of crimes.

[gr8fuldaniel]

OK how about the "Courts" at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib?

[Edit to add:] ooops, one liner. After all he is an enemy combatant (with American blood on his hands)which can be held without any rights or due process for as long as they damn well please. They know how to interview to get the necessary truths they seek.
there thats more than one line.

[JustinGilmore]

Originally posted by Dieval,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-JustinGilmore, I'll pass on the rest of your steps, though I'm glad you didn't argue with me. Let this show that the grounds of impeachment for Mr. Bush are fertile, thank you Deival for submitting this by not contesting what I posted. As far as you telling us to not talk about impeaching him, that's not understandable. This is a forum, right? Yes, it is. Do you know what that means? It means that if it pisses you off to see people discuss a particular topic, perhaps you should ignore it, and "shut up".

Actually, you know what really pisses me off? When people say that the President of our country is GUILTY of crimes. Under our laws (the whole - innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - thing), how can people here say that he is guilty of anything? He has not been tried in a court of law! If you want to call him guilty, follow my steps and have the courts decide. Otherwise you all need to STFU about him being guilty of crimes.[/b][/quote]

He is guilty! His was violated national law. It's been confirmed! Hello!?! As noted above, only congress can impeach him. GEORGE W BUSH'S administration allowed prisoner abuse, and also negelcted information which could have saved 3,000 lives on 9/11. These are impeachable grounds, all of which are fully transparent and obvious. He's guilty, however the Republicans own both houses, so the chances of him getting impeached, or even an impeachment process is dismal.



ps: he's guilty

[Dieval]

Originally posted by JustinGilmore, He is guilty!

Which court of law was that proven in? Please tell me.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, OK how about the "Courts" at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib? [Edit to add:] ooops, one liner. After all he is an enemy combatant (with American blood on his hands)which can be held without any rights or due process for as long as they damn well please. They know how to interview to get the necessary truths they seek. there thats more than one line.

When were enemy combatants given rights under our laws and what do they have to do with the President(which we were talking about gr8 - I guess you missed that part)?

[bishop]

dieval - how will a court of law get the OPPORTUNITY to declare him guilty or innocent if the republicans would never allow the issue to reach a court?

the geneva convention is domestic law.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by bishop, dieval - how will a court of law get the OPPORTUNITY to declare him guilty or innocent if the republicans would never allow the issue to reach a court?

That's an assumption on your part that they wouldn't allow a guilty person to be charged with a crime.

Please show me where he was proven guilty by a COURT OF LAW.

[macnpat]

Originally posted by JustinGilmore, He is guilty! His was violated national law. It's been confirmed! Hello!?!

George Bush stands accused of nothing. Hello?

As noted above, only congress can impeach him. GEORGE W BUSH'S administration allowed prisoner abuse,

If they allowed it, why did they then put through a judicial process? So they could catch themselves?

and also negelcted information which could have saved 3,000 lives on 9/11.

If you cannot state exactly what that information was that our President willfully neglected, then everyone should ignore your useless diatribes.

These are impeachable grounds, all of which are fully transparent and obvious.

You've given us nothing substantive. Care to try again?

ps: he's guilty

p.s. of what?