Veterans Group Calls on Congress to Impeach George W. Bush and Richard Cheney

Originally posted by C0le
I have a question... Who would be the President and Vice President should they get impeached?

The Speaker of the House. (at least pre-9-11, anyway)

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Boatphone
Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. And no if that many people wanted him impeached (the example of 60%) he still could not be [impeached] if he had not commited any high crimes. He could be pressured to step down but not impeached according to the law.

Let's see..

Lying to the nation in the state of the Union address (those 16 words)

Ok-ing systematic abuse and torture, breaking the Geneva Conventions

Invading and occupying a sovereign nation

In the very least, allowing 9-11 to happen for the benefit of his PNAC handlers

I could go on.. but why bother? I don't know what you consider high crimes to be.. if you are too blind or ignorant to see the above as being so, I truly pity you.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

Why in the world would President Bush want 9/11 to happen, he's already rich and he's the President. Get real man.

Boatphone...
read more...
the main reason he allowed it to happen is because his RAND memo said that the only thing that would allow him to abuse his power in such a way is if we were attacked by a suicidal airplane hijacker hitting tall buildings, and then established a department of homeland defense and a patriot act...

BTW... RAND sent that memo to him in febuary BEFORE 9-11


Ohhh OH OH but laz... the department of homeland defense wasn't speculated about until after 9-11...
look it up... that was a lie also... they had all this well planned from the begining.

this has all been covered and documented, but those that don't want to hear, just forget they have ears (or eyes in this case)

and as to this impeachment...
this ain't no bunch of hicks yelling at the "MAN"
it is a very large group of respected veterans, that have some very good lawyers finding all the specifics...
they have labeled out about 20 different reasons for the action, when ONE is all that is required proof...

My only concern is that the speaker of the house wont be any different, because as we have discussed before...
they are all the same...
money buys them by the dozen...

for more info about "why our leaders allow attacks" see the Northwood document. it tells about the recently declassified document that shows that Our leaders allowed Pearl Harbor to happen even though they had plenty of warning thru spy channels...



[edit on 1-4-2005 by LazarusTheLong]

Originally posted by Boatphone
There is no reason to impeach the President and Vice President. Just because some group calls for an impeachment does not mean anything. The President & Vice President were voted into office, no group can just call for them to be kicked out. I also doubt that any large numbers of Vets would call for such a thing.

Mr. Bush and other's are going to jail for many thing's, I was waiting to see this announcement but one thing you should know boat.

On two occasions so far bush has been impeached or rather the impeachment process was started and once things got moving all of a sudden the federal mail system got thing's like anthrax or ricin.

The last time there was a impeachment process going forward it was about febuary of 2004 but attempts have been made as far back as 2003.

No Mr. Bush can do the following and he will.

Go Directly To Jail Do Not Pass Go Do Not Collect 200 Dollers.

If you think I am wrong on this watch it happen.

Falcon

If you think I am wrong on this watch it happen.

I think you are wrong on this, but I would love to see it happen

Laz, why does President Bush need to abuse his power? He is already very powerful. Also, The Patriot Act only extends many laws were were aimed at drug-dealers, and aimed them at terrorists too. I mean how can we defend of nation with out it.

Falcon, President Bush will not be impeached or put in jail. He has commited no crimes and you have no proof that he did.

PEACE.

Originally posted by Boatphone
Laz, why does President Bush need to abuse his power? He is already very powerful. Also, The Patriot Act only extends many laws were were aimed at drug-dealers, and aimed them at terrorists too. I mean how can we defend of nation with out it.

Falcon, President Bush will not be impeached or put in jail. He has commited no crimes and you have no proof that he did.

PEACE.

This is my last attempt to get thru to you...
If you are unwilling to read the lengthy list of laws that have been broken, then i cant force you...

but to keep insisting that no laws were broken goes against the very reason for this boards existence... to deny ignorance...
the facts have been labeled out... to ignore them is to claim ignorance...

read them or admit that you like being ignorant by not doing so...
the choice is yours...
(follow the original link, and where it says "for a list of the charges" tap the little blue script" and be enlightened.)

[edit on 1-4-2005 by LazarusTheLong]

Laz, well thanks for looking out for me!

But I must say that I read that list of laws, and, to my surprise they were all international laws, about treatment of the State and citizens of a State that a country has occupied.

President Bush has broken no laws. Iraq was a hostile nation that harbored terrorists. Iraq fired on U.S. and U.K. war planes patrolling the north and south no-fly-zones. He abused his own people and spread anti-American propaganda to the middle-east, and even gave money to suicide bombers!

After all that the U.S. gave Saddam time to surrender but he forced war.

If you want to impeach the President for a perfectly legal war then you would also have to impeach: The United States Senate, The United States Congress, and The United Nations. Because they approved the war, Congress approved and funded it and the United Nations approved it in resolution 1441, authorizing the use of force. This is a FACT.

Even knowing that Iraq and Saddam were a threat to the U.S. and attacked U.S., and even knowing that the United Nations approved the war, and even knowing that Congress approved the war if you still are mad at the President than vote him out after the war….

…oh, wait but the people of the United States voted him back in because most people realize that the war was a just and good move for both for Iraq, and for the U.S.

…maybe the Iraqi people should speak up on this outrage…oh, wait they did by voting in record numbers even them terrorists were threatening to kill them if they voted…

I have enjoyed exchanging views with you & wish you all the best.

United Nations approved it in resolution 1441

from my scant knowledge of the workings of the UN i believe the security council has the final say as to whether military action should be taken, if they do not agree then no action should be taken. Also if the invasion was approved by the UN then why do people claim it wasn't? and why don't the alliance soldiers have UN identification?

Originally posted by Boatphone
Laz, well thanks for looking out for me!

President Bush has broken no laws.

Drink Driving

Iraq was a hostile nation that harbored terrorists.

Saddam was hostile to Islamic terrorists as they threatened to undermine his secular rule.

Iraq fired on U.S. and U.K. war planes patrolling the north and south no-fly-zones.

This would be valid if the planes were merely patroliing, however, they were bombing Iraq.

He abused his own people

Agreed. That is the only good reason for removing him.

spread anti-American propaganda to the middle-east

No law against this. Propaganda is also quite a suggestive word, can you tell us what he said that was untrue?

and even gave money to suicide bombers!

Unlike the american citizens who gave money (and still do) to the IRA?

After all that the U.S. gave Saddam time to surrender but he forced war.

Actually, you told him to give up his weapons. He said he didn't have any. You invaded. Turns out he didn't have any after all. D'oh! Never mind, most of the people that died weren't american.

The United Nations. Because they approved the war, Congress approved and funded it and the United Nations approved it in resolution 1441, authorizing the use of force. This is a FACT.

Wrong again. The invasion was not approved by the security council, hence the 'coalition of the willing'.

Even knowing that Iraq and Saddam were a threat to the U.S.

The CIA said this wasn't the case

and attacked U.S.

When?

and even knowing that the United Nations approved the war

Doesn't matter how many times you say it, it isn't true.

Congress approved the war

True

politics.abovetopsecret.com

try it, it's real neat.

Chris Mcgee,

You agreed with me that Congress approved the war so if you wanted to impeach the President for the war in Iraq you would have to impeach the Congress as well, this is ridiculous.

And to answer your other points:

Okay, The President has broken no laws that could be considered impeachable.

Saddam gave money to support terrorists in the middle-east.

Ansr-al Islam an Islamic terrorists group had its home base in Iraq.

U.S. and U.K. planes were just patrolling, and only bombed when fired on or were targeted by Iraqi SAM sites.

This has nothing to do with the IRA, are you suggesting that President Bush gives money to them, because were talking about him.


The President will not be impeached…

Oh yeah, and The United Nations approved resoution 1441...allowing the use of force, i.e. WAR.

Actual text of resolution 1441:

Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

Paragraph 4:

Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12 below;

Paragraph 11:

Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

Paragraph 12:

Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

Show me where it authorises military action.

UN resolution 1441

Originally posted by Chris McGee

Show me where it authorises military action.

UN resolution 1441

Here you go;


Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,


13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;


Sanctions did not work, diplomacy did not work, and freezing of funds did not work…what other serious consequences are there?

Also, the President of the United States is sworn to protect American no matter what any foreign powers say. But he still respected their views as long as he could. President Bush does not play games with our families safety.

Get them all out of office, impeach, congressional act what ever it takes.
Misuse of power, act of war without provocation.
Loss of revenue for American business and labor forces.
Reductions in public health and welfare.
Reductions in polution controls, energy regulation and lack of direction in renewable sources.
Disregard for human life and safety, rights violations and torture.
Waste and misuse of capitol funds on useless projects, IE Star Wars.
Degradation of the protection of religious rights by government intervention.
Illegal use of national guard services for war machines (See miss use of power).
Exposing and endangering employees of pruvate corporations to hostile areas and battle fields.
Global damage to US and foreign economies with bad domestic affairs.
Destablizing countries that were becoming more neutral and less hostile.
Disrupting trade and upsetting fuel production.

*** IMO *** Gasoline would be about $1.60 average in the US under Al Gore's Administration and a 50% chance 2 towers might still be standing in New York.

Dude, you have no idea what your talking about. Twin Towers would still be standing with Al Gore......

Boatphone you need to get your head out of your arse and join a little thing I like to call reality. Give it a try, it will really open up your eyes as to what this Admin is doing.

Saying it over and over doesn't make it true

Originally posted by Boatphone
He can only be impeached for "high crimes".

Hah! So let me get this straight. Getting a "BJ" by an intern is considered a "high crime", but taking the country to an illegal, immoral and unnecessary war, which has killed thousands and thousands on both sides, not to mention is costing a bundle, while making a fortune for family, friends and business colleagues is not a "high crime?"

I dunno but that is some f'cked up logic from where I sit.

High crimes and no misdemeanors. Go for the jugular.
Justice must be served.

I specially like the idea that "veterans" are taking action...