Impeach Bush

[bishop]

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-bishop, i can't even believe that this point (about republicans refusing to prosecute bush) is even something that we need to debate. maybe dieval's dribblings ought to be ignored?

So what it comes down to is that you guys know more about what is legal and illegal than all of the lawyers, lawmakers, politicians, etc, etc that are out there?? Riiiiiight....you guys are dillusional if you actually believe that.[/b][/quote]


really it's just a little bit of common sense... it's a shame that you don't seem to have it yourself.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by bishop, really it's just a little bit of common sense... it's a shame that you don't seem to have it yourself.

If only common sense was common.... :rolleyes:

[macnpat]

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'><!--QuoteBegin-bishop, i can't even believe that this point (about republicans refusing to prosecute bush) is even something that we need to debate.  maybe dieval's dribblings ought to be ignored?

I agree. Bush could probably illigelly nuke another country, and he still wouldn't be properly prosecuted.[/b][/quote]

Bush had a resolution. Congress approved it. Even if he deliberately made up the WMD's in his head instead of it being confirmed by th U.N. and the world that Saddam was using them for years, he could legally utilize that resolution. That's the reality.

You have to stop believing that Bush's cabinet are gun-wielding morons. They are slick, lawyer-types with a right-wing agenda. You can't touch them legally.

What you can do, though, is to drop the socialist rants and move towards the right to move more of their votes to the left. You start by not putting in a man like Kerry. He was a slap in the repubs face and the Dems got slapped right back.

This threads rhetoric is what keeps the extreme right strong. You guys are one of the right wingers' biggest assets.

The more you rail against the right, the more you support the reason they are sought to lead this country.

[Gorgo]

You can't be serious. These people are such extreme far-right criminals it's incredible. Kerry is more of a reasonable right-wing Republican.

I don't think Congress approved a unilateral, illegal assault on Iraq, but they sure kept quiet about it after it happened. It's their responsibility to call a criminal a criminal, and none of them did that. Not even Kucinich. They were all a party to the illegal assault on the people of Afghanistan, so yes, some of them are probably just as responsible for these crimes as Bush.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by macnpat, Bush had a resolution. Congress approved it. Even if he deliberately made up the WMD's in his head instead of it being confirmed by th U.N. and the world that Saddam was using them for years, he could legally utilize that resolution. That's the reality. You have to stop believing that Bush's cabinet are gun-wielding morons. They are slick, lawyer-types with a right-wing agenda. You can't touch them legally.

Agreed. I am always curious why the focus is on Bush to the exclusion of the complicity of Congress. And for "touching them legally", if Congress has shown one strong ability in the last few decades it's the ability to cover their asses.

What you can do, though, is to drop the socialist rants and move towards the right to move more of their votes to the left. You start by not putting in a man like Kerry. He was a slap in the repubs face and the Dems got slapped right back.

I'm not sure the record shows the election was a "slap" to the Democrats. 60-40 maybe, but not what the actual difference was.

As for people "moving" toward ANYTHING, this would mean getting a little closer to a moderate position for both sides and Americans don't seem to like that these days, regardless of WHO is running. The pendulum doesn't stay in the center position for long.

The more you rail against the right, the more you support the reason they are sought to lead this country.

Until the country has another mood swing and goes for the left side.

[Gorgo]

Here is the text. All that voted for and supported this are in support of criminal behavior, that includes John Kerry.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/...raqreshouse.htm

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Gorgo I don't think Congress approved a unilateral, illegal assault on Iraq, but they sure kept quiet about it after it happened. It's their responsibility to call a criminal a criminal, and none of them did that. Not even Kucinich.

Henry Waxman has been doing a good job of calling them on their shit:
Congress' Abdication of Oversight
Check out his Home Page too,Waxman Home Page He clocks in to kick ass. But youre right, besides a small handfull, (Ron Paul , Feinstein, Boxer could be a bit tougher. But they keep em in check) They all look the other way. You have to keep in mind we are the minority and they are the bullies.

Edit to add: Good one on Iraq injustice. Iraq on the Record

[Gorgo]

Some members of congress attempted to change the course of things to come:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/hj20.asp

[Gorgo]

http://www.michaelparenti.org/IRAQGeorge2.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 2003 (updated)
"In October 2002, after several days of full-dress debate in the House and Senate, the US Congress fell into line behind almost-elected president George W. Bush, giving him a mandate to launch a massive military assault against the already battered nation of Iraq. The discourse in Congress was marked by its usual cowardice. Even many of the senators and representatives who voted against the president's resolution did so on the narrowest procedural grounds, taking pains to tell how they too detested Saddam Hussein, how they agreed with the president on many points, how something needed to be done about Iraq but not just yet, not quite in this way. So it is with Congress: so much political discourse in so narrow a political space. Few of the members dared to question the unexamined assumptions about US virtue, and the imperial right of US leaders to decide which nations shall live and which shall die. Few, if any, pointed to the continual bloody stream of war crimes committed by a succession of arrogant US administrations in blatant violation of human rights and international law. "

[macnpat]

Originally posted by Scribbler1, I'm not sure the record shows the election was a "slap" to the Democrats. 60-40 maybe, but not what the actual difference was.

I think it was a slap in a way that Bush was highly preferred over Kerry. Another Dem nominee might have told a very different story.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by macnpat,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (macnpat,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Scribbler1, I'm not sure the record shows the election was a "slap" to the Democrats.  60-40 maybe, but not what the actual difference was.

I think it was a slap in a way that Bush was highly preferred over Kerry. Another Dem nominee might have told a very different story.[/b][/quote]

If you consider the act of losing an election alone a slap, I would agree, but this was in no way a landslide and a slim margin doesn't indicate "highly preferred" in my book.
Kerry lost, that's all. The outcome this time only indicates a still highly divided country. I'm not sure and I'll have to look it up, but I don't know if ANY president running for re election in time of war ever won by such a small margin.
But I have to agree Kerry could have done better, but considering the field up to the primaries I don't think any other Dem could have won either.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Gorgo, There is plenty of information on this, but this is enough for me: \http://www.cesr.org/iraq/docs/tearinguptherules.pdf

The link is "dead".

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, 1) Abu Ghraib torture was authorized by GW Bush. Unprecedented violation of International Human Rights and Geneva Conventions 2) Marianni Trial verdict could be grounds for impeachment. 3) Declaring war on Iraq, defrauding Americans by using trumped up intelligence and stupidity. 4) Perjury. The President is under oath at all times. He lied to America during the SOTUA of 2003. Declaring "The rape and torture rooms were closed" (While he spoke, he was aware of torture at Abu Ghraib, GOING ON AT THAT MOMENT...AS HE SPOKE, but thought he was above those laws) 5) Bush has sworn to protect and enforce the Constitution at all times. The Patriot ACT fucked that up.

#1
Documents.
#2
Documents.
#3
Read U.S. Resolution #1441 (point 12 and 13)
#4
Documents or Exhibits (written statements).
#5
Develope something better (than Patriot Act) to protect U.S. or persuade others to give up their attacks on U.S.

[Rainbow]

Take it to your banks, guys, please :-)))
U.S. used U.N. Resolution #1441 (as a cover) and went to Iraq, in order to protect U.S. interests in the following fields :
- steady oil and gas supplies
- intelligence and military
- economy (marketting)
- restoring U.S. dollar value ( U.S. dollar vs. Euro)
- future influence and control in the Midlle-East region (with eventual expansion on East Africa and Asia)
- some "unknown" :-))) ("Made in Iraq", most likely, if everything goes as "acceptable", at least)

If some of you would enjoy higher prices for oil and gas (services, transportation, utility, ect.), or do not need it, no problem.
Just enter a cave near you, and have fun :-)))

THAT is politics, and not fan, definitely, guys.
No place for populism, idealism or conformity.
Money, that is all what it takes.

[Gorgo]

Try this:

http://cesr.org/filestore2/download/523

Originally posted by Gorgo, There is plenty of information on this, but this is enough for me: \http://www.cesr.org/iraq/docs/tearinguptherules.pdf

"If they were even remotely possible, he would have been investigated and charged. Has that happened"

the wool has been successfully pulled over the eyes of the majority of americans. congratulations you b-tards.

[macnpat]

Originally posted by Scribbler1, I'm not sure the record shows the election was a "slap" to the Democrats.  60-40 maybe, but not what the actual difference was. I think it was a slap in a way that Bush was highly preferred over Kerry. Another Dem nominee might have told a very different story.

Then let's look at the map.

This was posted at my site by one of our regulars. It tells a shocking story.

http://www.bouncersplace.com/forums/viewto...opic.php?t=3702

I'd put the map itself here, but it's huge. Anyway it tells the story.

[tusaki]

The 'map' doesn't matter, because the same system goes for every little county as for the state, or the entire nation for that mater. When 51% of the people in a small 'region' vote red or blue, the entire region goes that way. That's why all that matters are the absolute combined numbers and their relative difference. And that difference is slim.

[macnpat]

Originally posted by tusaki, The 'map' doesn't matter, because the same system goes for every little county as for the state, or the entire nation for that mater. When 51% of the people in a small 'region' vote red or blue, the entire region goes that way. That's why all that matters are the absolute combined numbers and their relative difference. And that difference is slim.

LOL, you can't handle the truth.

Bush won.....................................................again.

This time by more than last time. But, instead of analyzing why which would be so enlightening for you and educational, you put yourself in a state of denial, the consequences of which is more lost elections.

I really feel sorry for you.

[Gorgo]

Hopefully, I will continue to vote for people who lose elections, if Bush represents the people that win elections.

I doubt sincerely that I'll be voting for Democrats or Republicans again for a very long time.