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.

 

Impeach Bush Now!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
The facts are in. BushCo. shaped the intel they wanted and needed for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Big Lie in action. We as a nation have illegally invaded and occupied a sovereign nation based on a stack of lies. It's time to bring the real criminals to justice, as Bush would say. It's time for them to face the music.

Bill Clinton was rightfully impeached for lying to a grand jury under oath. We must hold this president and his cadre equally responsible for breaking the law. If we do not, our nation as a whole WILL be held responsible and judged accordingly. And the world at large will suffer as well.



Excerpts from:

Where Are Whistleblowers with Courage?
By George H. Beres
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Wednesday 18 May 2005


"Creators of illegal wars," said Cole, "are war criminals."

Boyle sees release of the bombshell memo in England as giving credence to the legal case for impeachment. In October 2002, following speeches by Vice-President Dick Cheney calling for a preventive war against Iraq, Boyle and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark started a national campaign to impeach Bush, Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

On March 11, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, which rules on any bill of impeachment, called a meeting to discuss introducing a draft bill of impeachment. Forty legal advisers met with Conyers, Boyle and Clark to review the case for impeachment because of alleged violations of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Human Rights, the UN Charter and International Law.

Today, there is a second, revised draft bill of impeachment on Capitol Hill, ready for implementation, if that day should come. Boyle feels it has to come because of an expanded military campaign that is imminent, and the prospect of World War III looming.

"A powerful nationwide movement to impeach George W. Bush is but a matter of time," he predicts.

In his book on US Imperialism in the Middle East, Boyle accused Bush of lying to lead the nation to war. He wrote that actions of the Bush administration are an ongoing criminal conspiracy, in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, Nuremberg Judgment and Nuremberg Principles. He describes Bush war policies as "legally akin to those perpetrated by the Nazi regime in pre-World War II Germany."
www.truthout.org...




posted on May, 20 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
not gonna work, Why? cause BushCo. can twist it what ever he wants. he got the congrass and S. court on his side.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I agree this should be investigated, and if enough evidence is shown impeachment hearings should take place. People like Richard Clark, in his book "Against All Enemies" said Bush and Cheney started talking about a war with Iraq 10 days after taking office, long before 9/11 and the war on terror. Personally, I think this was for oil, and a personal vendetta against Saddam for the assassination attempt on George Bush Sr. Although the World is a better place without Saddam, it would be even better without Bush.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I personally find the American public a bit apathetic when it comes to political action. Yes, emotions were flaring at election time, but look how cartoonish the whole affair was. "He's weak on terror", "he lied about this war records", etc etc.

I just don't see how people I'm around every day would rise and form a real movement to start the impeachment proceedings.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
it isnt going to work, I know it. The evidence is already out there and many authors have scraped it up and made a condemning case against Bush.

Read John W. Dean's "worse than watergate". He worked for the Nixon Administration and was Nixon's legal advisors and he was one of the primary witnesses against Nixon during the watergate scandal. His case against the administration is condemning and some of the tricks the Bush ppl have done is awful .

If I ever get time to summarize his book for ATS I will because it has enough evidence alone to convince everyone that they lied about the war.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
It's like "Pentagon Papers" author and Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg points out in the article:



After his 2004 speech in Eugene, Oregon, Ellsberg told me: "We now need a whistleblower with official documents to reveal lies of the incumbent president. These must be documents, nothing of distant history. To do this, one must be ready to risk career and income and face imprisonment. Had there been one with the courage to take the risk at the outset, this unnecessary war could have been prevented."

Recalling how he got on the "hit list" of President Richard Nixon after release of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg said: "I think Nixon was as capable of fascism as Bush. The difference is that he had a Democratic House and Senate, unlike Bush, and a news media that was more liberal, not compliant like the media of today."

Before escaping imprisonment because of illegal prosecution by Nixon, Ellsberg was pursued by Attorney General John Mitchell, whom he described as having "the same brand of theocratic fanaticism we see in this administration today."

He reminds potential whistleblowers it is not possible for them to work within existing government channels.

"The whistles," he said, "must be blown outside those channels. It's our one way of getting rid of this gang who, while they are mad, also are shrewd."


The media could not ignore that. And that's the key.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Here's another scathing piece. I didn't see British MP Galloway's testimony in the US Senate. I sure wish I had.



Short Tales from Bizarro World
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Thursday 19 May 2005

"I met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns, and to give him maps the better to target those guns."
--George Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, 05/17/05

You know things have gone more than a bit around the bend when it takes a British MP with a hard Scottish brogue to throw a little truth against the walls of the U.S. Senate chamber to see what will stick. George Galloway, accused of profiteering in the UN oil-for-food scandal, sat before Senators Coleman and Levin on Tuesday and raked America's Iraq invasion slowly and deliberately over the coals.

"I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims, did not have weapons of mass destruction," said Galloway. "I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning. Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong, and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies."

Coleman and Levin, and anyone else listening in, must have felt like they were receiving a tongue-lashing from an angry Sean Connery. The fact that Galloway's outraged testimony went out live over the airwaves on most of the 24-hour news channels was likewise an odd twist. The American people actually saw a well-spoken contrary opinion broadcast into their homes on Tuesday, a rare event, and then watched as the talking heads scrambled to spin this square peg back into its round hole.
www.truthout.org...



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Yes, let's impeach Bush and put the great Dick Cheaney in office. Brilliant idea






We must hold this president and his cadre equally responsible for breaking the law.

What law exactly?
It was Congress approved so it didn't break national law.
And technically UN approved, though not supported, so it didn't break international law.
So whose law?

Also, what were the lies exactly?
And how did these lies differ from the ones told by the world community during the first Gulf War and also by the Clinton Administration concerning Iraq?



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Yes, let's impeach Bush and put the great Dick Cheaney in office. Brilliant idea



I guess you didn't read the article. They are going after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft (tho Ashcroft is no longer AG.)

Why stop there? Meyers, Rice, Wolfowitz and a few more should be tried as well.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I agree with thatsweird putting cheney in office will defineatly make things worse. And if your going to try to impeach bush,cheney, ashcroft etc, you need more evidence than hear say and liberal news publications. I dont like the war in iraq either but you need a stronger case to succesfully impeach the pres. and vice pres. and i dont know if you could do it simultaneously, therefore you'd have a period where cheney was inm control which is far more dangerous than bush. Ride it out for now and maybe the next election will turn out better for you dems.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   
that's just wierd--yes the congress voted to give the president war powers, but only after the blitz of lies put out by the bush administration. Bush took the rabid-dog fever of a nation in fear, with Cheny and the other neo-cons, and brutalized anyone with contrary views. And woe be the weak-a-- Democrats who didn't stick with gut feelings about the lies.

But a Bush impeachment--a very wet dream.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Yes, let's impeach Bush and put the great Dick Cheaney in office. Brilliant idea


I guess you didn't read the article. They are going after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft (tho Ashcroft is no longer AG.)

Put Frist or Hastert in office....Brilliant Idea


Anyway, impeaching just one is impossible, let alone all of them. What a waste of time.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
As much as I would love to see the man impeached I know it won't happen. We already know he started a war in which all info he had for going to war was false..... and we re-elected him. Thats it guys, if this country knows that and still let him stay in office there is nothing we can do.

[edit on 20-5-2005 by Kramthenothing]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
There may not be enough evidence to convict him now, but enough to warrant an investigation. Even if he is not impeached, it will send a message that they are not going to get away with this without taking some damage. Otherwise in the future others may think they can get away with it also.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
I agree with thatsweird putting cheney in office will defineatly make things worse. And if your going to try to impeach bush,cheney, ashcroft etc, you need more evidence than hear say and liberal news publications. I dont like the war in iraq either but you need a stronger case to succesfully impeach the pres. and vice pres. and i dont know if you could do it simultaneously, therefore you'd have a period where cheney was inm control which is far more dangerous than bush. Ride it out for now and maybe the next election will turn out better for you dems.


1. Cheney would go too.

2. hearsay? Liberal source? This is not hearsay, my friend. This is the public record. Invading and occupying Iraq and torturing detainees, many who are and were innocent men, women and children is defined as WAR CRIMES. It's a mystery to me how so many Americans do not comprehend that our leaders, like so many despots around the world, are just as capable of acting dispicably and lawlessly - and often times do. Just cause we're Americans doesn not immunize us from depravity. That's universal.

3. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath - about sex.
What a circus that was. And he didn't get anyone killed, btw (that we know of), in that situation. Having said that, I was beyond angry that the senate pussied out and let him off the hook. Bunch of compromised pantywastes.


Bush's actions have caused an untold number of deaths, maimings, and chaos in general in at least two nations, so far. Based on a pack of lies. I won't even say what should happen to him and minions.
I will say this, though; they better enjoy life now. God's got a special place in hell for war criminals and their sycophants.

4. I know you Neo Con, pseudo Republicans can't bear this, but its worth repeating one more time: I am a REPUBLICAN. Some of us are just able to think independently and to cast aside the idiotic party talking points that are nothing but BU#.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Pipe dreams! GW Bush is the one of the greatest Presidents elected in the twentieth century and will be the greatest president of the twenty-first century for many decades to come. Bush will be honored when all the whiners are dead in their graves and forgotten by all.

[edit on 05/5/21 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Pipe dreams! GW Bush is the one of the greatest Presidents elected in the twentieth century and will be the greatest president of the twenty-first century for many decades to come. Bush willed be honored when all the whiners are dead in their graves and forgotten by all.




Put down the crackpipe, O wise one.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Here's a guy who worked for President Reagan (Assistant Treasury Secretary) saying that Bush should be impeached. Believe it or not, there are a lot of Republicans out there who can see all this for what it is and are sick to death over it. It's past time for them to stand and be counted. It's the only way justice will prevail.




Paul Craig Roberts
A Reputation in Tatters
Wednesday, May 18, 2005

George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America’s reputation. It is likely to stay destroyed, because at this point the only way to restore America’s reputation would be to impeach and convict President Bush for intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people in order to start a war of aggression against a country that posed no threat to the United States.

America can redeem itself only by holding Bush accountable.

As intent as Republicans were to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual affair, they have a blind eye for President Bush’s far more serious lies. Bush’s lies have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, injured and maimed tens of thousands more, devastated a country, destroyed America’s reputation, caused 1 billion Muslims to hate America, ruined our alliances with Europe, created a police state at home, and squandered $300 billion dollars and counting.

America’s reputation is so damaged that not even our puppets can stand the heat. Anti-American riots, which have left Afghan cities and towns in flames and hospitals overflowing with casualties, have forced Bush’s Afghan puppet, “President” Hamid Karzai, to assert his independence from his U.S. overlords. In a belated act of sovereignty, Karzai asserted authority over heavy-handed U.S. troops whose brutal and stupid ways sparked the devastating riots. Karzai demanded control of U.S. military activities in Afghanistan and called for the return of the Afghan detainees who are being held at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Abundant evidence now exists in the public domain to convict George W. Bush of the crime of the century. The secret British government memo (dated July 23, 2002, and available here), leaked to the Sunday Times (which printed it on May 1, 2005), reports that 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. . . . But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. . . . The (United Kingdom) attorney general said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC (U.N. Security Council) authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.”

This memo is the mother of all smoking guns. Why isn’t Bush in the dock?

Has American democracy failed at home?

COPYRIGHT 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
www.chroniclesmagazine.org...




top topics



 
0

log in

join