It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush should be impeach

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Okay i know this will never happen, but I think it would be justified to impeach Bush, and get rid of Cheney, & Rumsfeild. Bush should be impeach because he lied about Iraq, there were no WMDS, no Al-Qaeda link, and now Iraq is a mess and might go into a civil war. I know bad intelligence, but if Bush would have given the UN more time when Saddam let the inspectors back in, then they would have found that there were no WMDS. Now Bush is the posterboy for recruitment in Al-Qaeda, over a 1000 US soliders KIA, for what? Let's not forget people, 9/11 happen under Bush's watch, yes he did a great job after 9/11 with a quick response, but why not before 9/11. While he was down in Crawford, TX vacationing for a entire month, a memo was put on his desk about a possilbe terrorist attack using airplanes as missles. I know he can't read every memo, but someone should have read that memo and told him, its his job to protect America. Next Cheney, Cheney must go because of his deals with the Big H, halluberan. The Big H got a contract in Iraq worth billions of dollars, and they didn't have to bid on it, thats just wrong. Rumsfeld, a person who allowed torture to Iraqi prisoners in Iraq. He knew this was happening before it leak out and he DID NOTHING. You know what's sad, the republicans impeach clinton for lying about a blow job, yet those men don't think its wrong leading a country into a war by lying?




posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Its not all that far out there that Bush could be impeached. Remember, just becaused your impeached, it doesnt mean you lose your job as president. Look at Mr. Clinton.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Oh i know that, for a president to be remove of office. The house must impeach, the senate votes to hold a trial and the supreme court of justice presides over it. Im just saying since bush led us in a war on false premises he should be remove, but it wont happen.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Yes, your right. Bush will never have to face the jury for what many Americans and other world citizens alike, consider war crimes, or crimes agianst humanity. Such is the life of the privileged few



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Bush should be impeached for war crimes but it's just wishful thinking and wanting. If there was to be an impeachment of Bush and his Administration and it was brought before the Surpreme Court Justices,.......... they'll just shoot it down because most of the Justices are the Justices that both Bushes has placed on the Surpreme Court, so they owe their loyalty to the Bush families. Corruption reaches all the way into the highest court. Might as well just face it,............ WE'RE ALL SCREWED 4 FOUR MORE YEARS



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   

but if Bush would have given the UN more time when Saddam let the inspectors back in, then they would have found that there were no WMDS


A decade wasn't enough I guess. They needed "more time".


Now Bush is the posterboy for recruitment in Al-Qaeda


Al Qaeda existed quite well before Bush. See 1998 and the entire planning for 2001 as examples of this. There were no recruitment problems then.


9/11 happen under Bush's watch


And under who's administration was the majority of the planning carried out? And under who's administration was so much intelligence ignored? Learn how to fault more than one person, it helps your point.

Nanna, I don't understand your claim about the Supreme Court Justices.

Rhenquist: Appointed by Reagan 1986
Ginsburg: Appoionted by Clinton 1993
Breyer: Appointed by Clinton 1994
Stevens: Appointed by Ford 1975
O'Connor: Appointed by Reagan 1981
Scalia: Appointed by Reagan 1986
Kennedy: Appointed by Reagan 1988
Souter: Appointed by Bush 1990
Thomas: Appointed by Bush 1991

Two Justices appointed by Bush I is hardly owning the court. I don't see how anything anyone has said shows Bush "corruption" reaching the Supreme Court. Sorry. When a Justice leaves a vacancy is opened that must be filled. If the fact that the sitting President nominates the replacement bothers you, I am truly sorry to hear that.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
Nanna, I don't understand your claim about the Supreme Court Justices.

Rhenquist: Appointed by Reagan 1986
Ginsburg: Appoionted by Clinton 1993
Breyer: Appointed by Clinton 1994
Stevens: Appointed by Ford 1975
O'Connor: Appointed by Reagan 1981
Scalia: Appointed by Reagan 1986
Kennedy: Appointed by Reagan 1988
Souter: Appointed by Bush 1990
Thomas: Appointed by Bush 1991

Two Justices appointed by Bush I is hardly owning the court. I don't see how anything anyone has said shows Bush "corruption" reaching the Supreme Court. Sorry. When a Justice leaves a vacancy is opened that must be filled. If the fact that the sitting President nominates the replacement bothers you, I am truly sorry to hear that.


But you DO see that 7 of these Justices were appointed by the Republicans, don't you?
I normanlly wouldn't think this to be a telling factor but the last couple of years has left me a little jaded as far as American politics goes.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Intrepid, that's a good point but you have to remember also the circumstances of such appointments. If a Justice was to resign tomorrow, would it be appropriate for Bush to say "Let's wait until Jan 20th, 2009 to appoint a replacement because there's too many Republicans on there already"? Of course not.

Also your quoting of me made me re-read what I wrote, and I realize I didn't word Rehnquist's entry properly. In 1986 Reagan elevated him to chief Justice. He actually joined the Court itself in 1972, as appointed by Pres. Nixon.

The record for appointing Justices of course is held by FDR with 8 appointments. Why so many? Well he was President the longest, so certainly some Justices were going to leave during such a long tenure.

A closer one to look at would be Pres. Taft who appointed 5 Justices in a span of maybe 2 years.

Could it be said that Republicans control the Court, perhaps in number yes. But things like that were anticipated by the Founding Fathers.

If the Court was considering action against Bush, it would be plainly obvious from the fiery dissenting Opinions published by the minority that there was a problem. This has not happened, so unless you believe that the Rhenquist led Court is beating up the Democratic appointed Justices in the back rooms, there really isn't much to talk about. Supreme Court Justices are well known for writing powerful dissenting Opinions. We would see this if the Republican Justices were squashing some sort of legal action.

[edit on 12-3-2004 by Djarums]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   
the supreme court has three reliably conservative justices, three reliably liberla justices, and three reliably unreliable justices. anyones game, although a number are soon to be gone, its just a matter of when.

bush's impeachment. i dont think anything of this nature shud be considered until it can be proven it is his fault. his own personal fault, with a few associates. an intelligence failure is NOT his fault. its the failure of the intelligence department, for whatever reasons.

you need to have solid, logical evidence, not pissed off, irrational annoyances, for an impeachment.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CMCLA2003
Okay i know this will never happen, but I think it would be justified to impeach Bush, and get rid of Cheney, & Rumsfeild. Bush should be impeach because he lied about Iraq, there were no WMDS, no Al-Qaeda link, and now Iraq is a mess and might go into a civil war. I know bad intelligence, but if Bush would have given the UN more time when Saddam let the inspectors back in, then they would have found that there were no WMDS. Now Bush is the posterboy for recruitment in Al-Qaeda, over a 1000 US soliders KIA, for what? Let's not forget people, 9/11 happen under Bush's watch, yes he did a great job after 9/11 with a quick response, but why not before 9/11. While he was down in Crawford, TX vacationing for a entire month, a memo was put on his desk about a possilbe terrorist attack using airplanes as missles. I know he can't read every memo, but someone should have read that memo and told him, its his job to protect America. Next Cheney, Cheney must go because of his deals with the Big H, halluberan. The Big H got a contract in Iraq worth billions of dollars, and they didn't have to bid on it, thats just wrong. Rumsfeld, a person who allowed torture to Iraqi prisoners in Iraq. He knew this was happening before it leak out and he DID NOTHING. You know what's sad, the republicans impeach clinton for lying about a blow job, yet those men don't think its wrong leading a country into a war by lying?


Man someone has brainwashed you big time.

"Bush should be impeach because he lied about Iraq, there were no WMDS,"

For this to be true, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, American intelligence, French intelligence, Russian intelligence, British intelligence also are liars.

"no Al-Qaeda link,"

Zarquari (spelling?) ran Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, when he was injured, he went to Iraq. This was all before 9/11. Abu Nidal was also holed up in Iraq.

"but if Bush would have given the UN more time when Saddam let the inspectors back in"

If Clinton would have dealt with Saddam in 1998, when he kicked out the inspectors the 1st time, and defied numerous UN resolutions. We would have found the WMD's 6 years ago. Instead Saddam had time to hide and transport the WMD's.

"9/11 happen under Bush's watch,"

Al-Qaeda itself has stated that this operation took years to plan. The planning was aided by 8 Clinton years in the White House, where Clinton stood by time after time ignoring terrorist attacks against the US and US interests.

Haliburton, Haliburton, Haliburton....Just ask Clinton about Haliburton. When a big job needed to be done, Who did Clinton turn to countless amount of times? That's right....Haliburton.

You really think that was torture occuring at Abu Ghraib? Come on, at least they still have their freaking heads. Ask any terrorist who they would rather be detained by, the former dictator of their own country or the USA?

When the war on Iraq began, the cry of Blood for Oil was popular slogan for the left. What are they saying now that the UN's "Oil for Food" program was a complete hoax? France, Germany and Russia where all bribed by Saddam for there support, so they could receive and profit from OIL.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Impeach Bush nows theres a left wing wet dream.
Only one problem there is no proof that Bush lied about the WMDs in Iraq.
Bush didnt lie he was the victim of a gross intelligents failure.
Bush was or is naive about the future of Iraq but hes no liar.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join