George W Bush's 13 Impeachable Offenses

Any one of you Bu#es care to dispel these one by one?

1) The now famous Downing Street Memo, along with the testimony of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil constitute direct evidence of a decision by Bush to invade a sovereign foreign nation on entirely specious grounds.

2) The decision to deploy chemical weapons in Fallujah came from Rumsfeld who no doubt covered his ass by receiving assent from Bush to use these banned weapons

3) The decision by Bush to dig up dirt on UN diplomats when the General Assembly was considering his ill-fated war resolution

4) Authorizing torture of POW's - a direct violation of the protocols of the Geneva Convention

5) Holding so called "non-combatant civilians" for an indefinite period of time ,depriving them of their day in court ,acess to counsel, and acess to family members who could plead their cause to the public.

6) Kidnapping so called "terror suspects" , placing them on Rendition Airways, and sending them to countries like Uzbekistan who boil these ,untried,unconvicted people alive.

7) foreknowledge of 9/11 by Bush, Rice, and the top Neocons at the Pentagon . The only ones warned were Fmr. SF. Mayor Willie Brown, Salman Rushdie (Via Scotland Yard) and Ariel Sharon, who cancelled his trip to NYC scheduled for the weekend prior to 9/11.

8) Engaging in a massive voter suppression campaign in the state of Ohio to secure a second term by fraudulent means. Such activities carry criminal sanctions as outlined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

9) Covering up the involvement of Mossad in 9/11. The fellow that secreted these spies and explosives experts out of country and back into Israel , Michael Chertoff, was promoted from Criminal Division of the Justice Dept to lead the Dept. of Homeland Security.!

10) The attempt to quash the testimony of Sibel Edmonds using the bogus shield of the States Secret Act.

11) Engaging in a sytematic campaign of depriving political dissidents of their 1st ammendment rights to condem Bush administration policy. Protesters are removed out of crowds and summarily placed in jail. The Secret Service, under orders of the President, conduct "Harassment and intimidation Interviews" of anti -Bush political activists.

12) Conspiring with Ken Lay to rip-off the the people of California by creating false energy shortages,thus creating the causus belli for charging energy consumers illegal, confiscatory rates.

13) Conspiring to rig the vote count in the state of Fl. by hacking optical scan machines and E-voting machines and covering up the latter by passing legislation in the state of Fl to prevent post-election examination of E-voting machines. There are many more impeachable offenses ordered by Bush and carried out by his agents ,such as the "outing" of CIA operative Valerie Plame. This info is what I can recover off the top of my head. Clearly an impeachment inquiry by the US House Judiciary Committeee is an action clearly overdue. Some of the allegations are violations of international law. They fall under the impeachment clause as well . An additional action of filing criminal referral to the UN War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague is also an absolute must if the United States wants to gain the esteem of the citizens of the entire world.

I would say the first 6 are the important ones, although 12 is pretty big too.

I for one am surprised that Bush hasn't been impeached yet.

www.bangornews.com...

Let the games begin


jako



[edit on 3-6-2005 by Jakomo]

This was originally posted over at What Really Happened.
Here is a link to the original page (credit where credit is due!)

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

edit: now that i see the article you've linked - it doesn't even contain this list.

[edit on 3-6-2005 by negativenihil]

If you ever reference a website that in any way shape or form is not 100% CONSERVATIVE, the Bu#es will just say "Pfah! Whatreallyhappened.com hates America! They're in league with terrorists and they murder children, and worse yet I think they're liberal".

Watch

Originally posted by Jakomo

If you ever reference a website that in any way shape or form is not 100% CONSERVATIVE, the Bu#es will just say "Pfah! Whatreallyhappened.com hates America! They're in league with terrorists and they murder children, and worse yet I think they're liberal".

Oh I'm fully aware mate But credit should be given where it's due no matter what anyone thinks imo

Anyway i think the people who would be the first to rip on WRH should actually spend some time and read through the massive amount of information that's there.

However, that would also mean they'd need to look at the site objectively, which may be the hardest part. *shrug*

do u have ani proof that the chemical weapons were used in Falluja?

i dont think Bush ever authorize the use of torture in Iraq.

also people like Condi and Bush would not allow 9/11 to happened if they actually knew it was gonna happened. u know how bureacracy is, information sharing is just slow and government agencies dont like to share with each other, dont blame on Bush for dat.

massive voter suppression? if i remember correctly Senator Kerry decided to concede the election.

cover up Mossad's involvement of 9/11? sorry but i dont believe Jews like to commit martyr since they dont believe in Islam and that it leads to the wrong paradise thanks to their different religion.

and the supression of protestors, ususually they be committing violence and destroy public property thats why they go to jail, the other non-violent protestors can do wat they want to do as long it doesnt harm others.

Originally posted by deltaboy
also people like Condi and Bush would not allow 9/11 to happened if they actually knew it was gonna happened. u know how bureacracy is, information sharing is just slow and government agencies dont like to share with each other, dont blame on Bush for dat.

then how do you explain this?

7) foreknowledge of 9/11 by Bush, Rice, and the top Neocons at the Pentagon . The only ones warned were Fmr. SF. Mayor Willie Brown, Salman Rushdie (Via Scotland Yard) and Ariel Sharon, who canceled his trip to NYC scheduled for the weekend prior to 9/11.

How could these people be warned not to fly without some sort of existing knowledge?

www.libertyforum.org...

[edit on 3-6-2005 by negativenihil]

2) The decision to deploy chemical weapons in Fallujah came from Rumsfeld who no doubt covered his by receiving assent from Bush to use these banned weapons

What kind of chemical weapons? Do you have any proof?

It could be true, Im not sure.......I would really like to see some links on this though...just curious

Originally posted by SportyMB
What kind of chemical weapons? Do you have any proof?

Here you go:

www.greenleft.org.au...

The US military used internationally banned chemical weapons, including nerve gas, during their assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah last November, Dr Khalid ash Shaykhli, an Iraqi health ministry official, told a March 3 Baghdad press conference.

According to the Aljazeera satellite news network, Dr Shaykhli “said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that US occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city”.

Chemical weapons such as mustard gas, nerve gas and napalm have been banned by international convention since the 1980s. The main justification made by the US, British and Australian governments in March 2003 for their invasion of Iraq was the claim — since proven to have been a complete fabrication — that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed stockpiles of these banned weapons and was preparing to use them, via the al Qaeda terrorist network, to attack the United States.

Fallujah's armed residents drove the US Army out of their city, located 55 kilometres west of Baghdad, in February 2004, and had defeated a three-week long attempt to reoccupy it by 4500 US marines in April. After three-month campaign of daily aerial attacks by US warplanes, on November 8 some 10,000 US Army and Marine Corps troops — backed by a massive artillery bombardment — attacked the city.

Shaykhli said that during the US assault, fleeing residents described “seeing corpses that had melted, which suggests that US troops used napalm gas, a poisonous compound of polystyrene and aircraft fuel which melts bodies”. He also said that his researchers had found evidence of the use of mustard gas and nerve gas. “We found dozens, not to say hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses”, he told the press conference, which was held in the health ministry's Baghdad building.

and

electroniciraq.net...

"At least two kilometers of soil were removed," he explained, "Exactly as they did at Baghdad Airport after the heavy battles there during the invasion and the Americans used their special weapons."

He explained that in certain areas where the military used "special munitions" 200 square meters of soil was being removed from each blast site.

In addition, many of his friends have told him that the military brought in water tanker trucks to power blast the streets, although he hadn't seen this himself.

"They went around to every house and have shot the water tanks," he continued, "As if they are trying to hide the evidence of chemical weapons in the water, but they only did this in some areas, such as Julan and in the souk (market) there as well."

He first saw this having been done after December 20th.

edit - one more:

bellaciao.org...

U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah - Health ministry

An official in Iraq’s health ministry said that the U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah

Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq’s health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah.

Dr. ash-Shaykhli was assigned by the ministry to assess the health conditions in Fallujah following the November assault there.

He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.

The health official announced his findings at a news conference in the health ministry building in Baghdad.

[edit on 3-6-2005 by negativenihil]

Originally posted by negativenihil

then how do you explain this?

How could these people be warned not to fly without some sort of existing knowledge?

www.libertyforum.org...

[edit on 3-6-2005 by negativenihil]

there was a warning about some hijacking since sombody thought it was suspicious about Arabs in flying schools. why would a novelist be the one who is warned about the hijacking is pretty weird for since he dont sound that important.

also the warning to FAA about possible hijacking or bomb on plane is one but very vague, also there was a warning overseas for military bases etc. so its kinda like the homeland security alert, they believe something was goin to happened but they dont know wat it is, wat type of attack, on wat target, or how vast the attack is goin to be.

Originally posted by deltaboy
there was a warning about some hijacking since sombody thought it was suspicious about Arabs in flying schools. why would a novelist be the one who is warned about the hijacking is pretty weird for since he dont sound that important.

Rushdie was not the only person warned. Let me paste the entire sentence for you one more time

7) foreknowledge of 9/11 by Bush, Rice, and the top Neocons at the Pentagon . The only ones warned were Fmr. SF. Mayor Willie Brown, Salman Rushdie (Via Scotland Yard) and Ariel Sharon, who cancelled his trip to NYC scheduled for the weekend prior to 9/11.

I've added the bold so you can't miss the other somewhat important names.


[edit on 3-6-2005 by negativenihil]

Originally posted by negativenihil
However, that would also mean they'd need to look at the site objectively, which may be the hardest part. *shrug*

Wouldn't one also want to look at the accuasations objectively? I know alot of people want all that's claimed to be true, but reality hurts sometimes....

1) The now famous Downing Street Memo, along with the testimony of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil constitute direct evidence of a decision by Bush to invade a sovereign foreign nation on entirely specious grounds.

The only realistic accusation. Not an impeachable offense however as action was apporved by congress. How can congress impeach someone for doing something they allowed them to do?

2) The decision to deploy chemical weapons in Fallujah came from Rumsfeld who no doubt covered his ass by receiving assent from Bush to use these banned weapons

Absolutely no credible evidence to back this up.

3) The decision by Bush to dig up dirt on UN diplomats when the General Assembly was considering his ill-fated war resolution

Not sure where this came from, nevertheless, this is hardly and impeachable offense.

4) Authorizing torture of POW's - a direct violation of the protocols of the Geneva Convention

There is no evidence that Bush authorized anything. Even if he knew what was going on, if you're going to impeach someone you had better have enough evidence to support your claims and there is no evidence to suggest Bush officially authorized anything.

5) Holding so called "non-combatant civilians" for an indefinite period of time ,depriving them of their day in court ,acess to counsel, and acess to family members who could plead their cause to the public.

Again, there is no evidence to back the claim that Bush did all this....

6) Kidnapping so called "terror suspects" , placing them on Rendition Airways, and sending them to countries like Uzbekistan who boil these ,untried,unconvicted people alive.

Is this about Bush or the CIA?
Again, no evidence to back this claim.

7) foreknowledge of 9/11 by Bush, Rice, and the top Neocons at the Pentagon . The only ones warned were Fmr. SF. Mayor Willie Brown, Salman Rushdie (Via Scotland Yard) and Ariel Sharon, who cancelled his trip to NYC scheduled for the weekend prior to 9/11.

This is laughable.

8) Engaging in a massive voter suppression campaign in the state of Ohio to secure a second term by fraudulent means. Such activities carry criminal sanctions as outlined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Also laughable as there is about as much evidence of the Bush camp doing this as there is the Kerry camp.

9) Covering up the involvement of Mossad in 9/11. The fellow that secreted these spies and explosives experts out of country and back into Israel , Michael Chertoff, was promoted from Criminal Division of the Justice Dept to lead the Dept. of Homeland Security.

This a joke?

10) The attempt to quash the testimony of Sibel Edmonds using the bogus shield of the States Secret Act.

lol
It's a whole lot more complicated than that and again, hardly an impeachable offense.

11) Engaging in a sytematic campaign of depriving political dissidents of their 1st ammendment rights to condem Bush administration policy. Protesters are removed out of crowds and summarily placed in jail. The Secret Service, under orders of the President, conduct "Harassment and intimidation Interviews" of anti -Bush political activists.

Now this IS a joke.
More people have spoken out against this president than any other president in recent memory. More websites have been dedicated to bashing Bush than any other president. We have had some of the biggest protests in American history.
How can all that take place if people are being "deprived"?

12) Conspiring with Ken Lay to rip-off the the people of California by creating false energy shortages,thus creating the causus belli for charging energy consumers illegal, confiscatory rates.

This is just stupid....

13) Conspiring to rig the vote count in the state of Fl. by hacking optical scan machines and E-voting machines and covering up the latter by passing legislation in the state of Fl to prevent post-election examination of E-voting machines.

Bush is an idiot, but he's also a computer genius with god-like foresight.
Hmmm....
In order to do all that he would have had to start years before the 2000 race, when he was a governor of Texas. Passing legislation in another state? I didn't realize that was possible.

Originally posted by negativenihil
I've added the bold so you can't miss the other somewhat important names.


[edit on 3-6-2005 by negativenihil]

i know he aint the only one warned, but why a novelist that is making me scratch my head.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by negativenihil

1) The now famous Downing Street Memo, along with the testimony of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil constitute direct evidence of a decision by Bush to invade a sovereign foreign nation on entirely specious grounds.

The only realistic accusation. Not an impeachable offense however as action was approved by congress. How can congress impeach someone for doing something they allowed them to do?

Let me lay it out for you like this:

Let's say you met someone on the street, who told you this sob story about how they had locked their keys in their car, and needed your help to get them back.

Being the good citizen that you are, you are more than happy to help.

After some work, the car is opened and the person who's asked you for help then proceeds to hot wire and steal the car.

Does this mean you are now pro-car theft? does this mean you cannot step back and say "wait a second - you lied to me, and I'm reporting you to the authorities!"?

2) The decision to deploy chemical weapons in Fallujah came from Rumsfeld who no doubt covered his ass by receiving assent from Bush to use these banned weapons
Absolutely no credible evidence to back this up.

Check one of my prior posts, i link to 3 separate sources on this.



[edit on 3-6-2005 by negativenihil]

[edit on 3-6-2005 by negativenihil]

Originally posted by negativenihil
......

Does this mean you are now pro-car theft? does this mean you cannot step back and say "wait a second - you lied to me, and I'm reporting you to the authorities!"?

In this case Congress is the authority.
They had every oppurtunity to look over all the evidence for themselves. As posted in another thread, remember the Iraqi Liberty Act? That was from '98, so it wasn't like anything Bush said or did was new. I'm pretty sure we had plans concerning Iraq before Bush took office.

Check one of my prior posts, i link to 3 separate sources on this.

You can have 10 seperate sources. None of that matters if you can't come up with credible evidence.

Question: How did they get away with using banned weapons with all those (unprotected) reporters there? And why didn't our troops have on the proper protection if they were using chemical weapons?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
In this case Congress is the authority.
They had every oppurtunity to look over all the evidence for themselves. As posted in another thread, remember the Iraqi Liberty Act? That was from '98, so it wasn't like anything Bush said or did was new. I'm pretty sure we had plans concerning Iraq before Bush took office.

But you're forgetting - congress, like the rest of us common people, were still shaken after 9/11. At that point in time i dont think any bill that had anything to do with anti-terrorism would have a chance in hell of *not* passing.

We were all scared and itching for retribution, and Bush sold us a bill of goods that was suppost to help this war on terror.

Question: How did they get away with using banned weapons with all those (unprotected) reporters there? And why didn't our troops have on the proper protection if they were using chemical weapons?

Maybe because there were no US "embedded" reporters there?
Who said the troops *didn't* have protection while doing this?

This is a conspiracy site afterall...

Also- are you saying the Iraqi Health Ministry isn't credible? i mean really - if we can't trust the government we've just installed... who can we trust?

[edit on 3-6-2005 by negativenihil]

The U.S. admitted to using napalm in Iraq already. Napalm is a chemical weapon and its' use is banned according to international law.

www.globalsecurity.org...

They also used napalm in Fallujah, it was a big stink in the UK but went unreported in the US media.

www.sundaymirror.co.uk...=14920109&method=full&siteid=106694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html


ThatsJustWeird: Your attempts to deflect the real issues are not exactly ironclad.

quote: 2) The decision to deploy chemical weapons in Fallujah came from Rumsfeld who no doubt covered his ass by receiving assent from Bush to use these banned weapons

You write: Absolutely no credible evidence to back this up.

? ABSOLUTELY no credible evidence? Read any of the links above.

quote: 3) The decision by Bush to dig up dirt on UN diplomats when the General Assembly was considering his ill-fated war resolution

You write: Not sure where this came from, nevertheless, this is hardly and impeachable offense.

? It's tantamount to Watergate. It's fine for an Administration to put UN diplomats under illegal survellaince in order to blackmail them to vote their way?

observer.guardian.co.uk...

Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer.

quote: 4) Authorizing torture of POW's - a direct violation of the protocols of the Geneva Convention

You write: There is no evidence that Bush authorized anything. Even if he knew what was going on, if you're going to impeach someone you had better have enough evidence to support your claims and there is no evidence to suggest Bush officially authorized anything.

If Bush DIDN'T authorize the use of torture, and it is being used according to someone's permissions (let's say Rumsfeld) then as Commander In Chief, Bush is responsible and is negligent. HE is ultimately liable. The buck stops there. Torture IS and was being used in Guantanomo, just do a google search for "Guantanomo torture". Where have you been for the last 3 years?

quote: 5) Holding so called "non-combatant civilians" for an indefinite period of time ,depriving them of their day in court ,acess to counsel, and acess to family members who could plead their cause to the public.

You write: Again, there is no evidence to back the claim that Bush did all this....

?!?!?! No evidence that Bush has allowed people to be illegally held?! WHAT?! What about Jose Padilla? ANYONE in Gitmo. Many in Abu Ghraib. Many ACROSS the Middle East in any one of the American-run prisons.

[quote: 6) Kidnapping so called "terror suspects" , placing them on Rendition Airways, and sending them to countries like Uzbekistan who boil these ,untried,unconvicted people alive.
I
You write: Is this about Bush or the CIA?
Again, no evidence to back this claim.

Do a search for ARAR SYRIA USA.

The President of the United States is, as a sort of CEO of America, RESPONSIBLE for what those under him do. Is that not clear to you?

You have obvisously done to much damage to you brains. It is obivious that you are just trying to provoke a reaction out of people. I'm sure I could find an article on the internet stating that aliens are all to blame. Maybe you should reenforce your tinfoil hat you loon.

negativenihil: You have voted negativenihil for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month

Also- are you saying the Iraqi Health Ministry isn't credible? i mean really - if we can't trust the government we've just installed... who can we trust?

Oh that's pure gold!

don't forget he endangered and killed thousands of Americans and even citizens of other countries for an oil war.

Originally posted by ferretman
Maybe you should reenforce your tinfoil hat you loon.

Did you forget that this is a ... *gasp*.... conspiracy website?

you know, one of those funny pictures on that there interweb where you can type stuff about conspiracies?