George W Bush's 13 Impeachable Offenses

www.wiolawapress.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.dailytimes.com.pk...

english.pravda.ru...

portland.indymedia.org...

and there are many more......so I guess we're all wrong and the threat is coming from outer space!

[edit on 3-6-2005 by ferretman]

Thank you Jakomo and ThatsJustWeird For two sides of the story. I must make a decision based on what I know and what you have told me.

1. George W. Bush is just plain evil.
2. George W. Bush is being controlled (mind control or brain washed)
3. George W. Bush is being controlled (and he's clueless)
4. George W. Bush is completely innocent.

All are possible, but I'm leaning towards 2 and 3 right now. I believe someone in our government is responsible for this mess, I'm just not quite sure who that someone is.

darkelf:

I go with:

3. George W. Bush is being controlled (and he's clueless)

I do think he's a bit of a moron (anyone who can't pronounce NUCLEAR at age 56 is a frickin tool). I also think that he is doing what his handlers want him to.

Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle (the NeoCon Unholy Trinity) have PLANS, man, and they need these plans to come to fruition, so they use Georgie to push through their plans.


You just have to watch Bush speak when it's not a 100% controlled environment and he has no teleprompter to realize that he may even be mildly retarded.

The first Bush-Kerry debate, anyone? Bush looked and acted like a stupid petulant child.

He's born in Connecticut yet pretends to be a cowboy, because if a cowboy is a bit dumb it's less of a shock. Could even be a little folksy


jako

Originally posted by negativenihil
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.

Nevertheless, everything went through all the processes they needed to go through, meaning technically......nothing was done illegally.

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?

1. This is a conspiricy site, but the theme is to deny ignorance. There are plenty of photos and videos of our troops in Fallujah (even on this site).

2. Yes, I do question the official who said all that. According to him we also used nuclear weapons in Fallujah. Why should I believe him?
I'm pretty sure this guy is NOT a weapons expert and certainly not a US weapons expert.
He also provides no evidence to back his claim.
**

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

No, a pilot claimed, the US didn't admit anything.
Plus "The US, which did not sign the treaty...." so even if the report was true, the US is/was not bound by that law.

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?

Ok, let's say it's true.

The part of the article you missed:
"The existence of the surveillance operation, understood to have been requested by President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice"

This thread was regarding Bush's impeachable offenses....

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?

There you go again, thinking you know how our country is run. This is not true in this sense. Those responsible for any illegal actions would be held responsible.
That's like if you own a company and one of your employees steals from you, but you get arrested. It doesn't work like that.


If you're are trying to come up with a impeachment case, you all have got to do a better job. None of the stuff you all have provided would hold up in a regular court, let alone a republican held congress.

While I'm all for impeaching Bush...

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

The insurgents do not follow the rules to be recognized as an enemy force by this Convention. Therefore, one cannot violate their "rights" under this Convention, because they do no apply here. We've gone this route on several threads...

That said though, I'm all for throwing out the boozehound/cokehead/awol brat though....

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Nevertheless, everything went through all the processes they needed to go through, meaning technically......nothing was done illegally.

So by this logic - if your home was broken into and i then went to scam you on some fake home security system - it's not illegal as long as i have all kinds of offical looking forms and statistics and if we go through the same routine a normal security system salesmen would go though, right?

ThatsJustWeird:

No, a pilot claimed, the US didn't admit anything.
Plus "The US, which did not sign the treaty...." so even if the report was true, the US is/was not bound by that law.

Sorry, the US admitted to using what they called Mark 77 bombs.


www.politicalaffairs.net...

This briefing examines the continuing use of incendiary weapons by the US military in Iraq. US officials have been forced to admit using the MK-77 incendiary, a modern form of napalm, at least during the initial fighting stage of the war. In direct contradiction, the UK government continues to deny that such weapons have been used in Iraq at any time. The UK is party to an international convention banning incendiaries where they may cause harm to civilians....

...Despite this and other eyewitness accounts, US officials initially denied claims that napalm weapons were being deployed[4]. However, as military personnel and journalists in Iraq persistently presented evidence of their use, by August 2003 Pentagon spokesmen were forced to admit that MK-77 firebombs had been dropped[5]. This has since been confirmed by the State Department, in direct contradiction to UK government statements[6].

Past denials were justified on the grounds that questioners had used the term ‘napalm’ instead of ‘firebombs’ or ‘MK-77s’. The US claims to have destroyed all its stocks of ‘napalm’ and argues that the MK-77 cannot be included in this term. However, the Pentagon admits that the MK-77 is an incendiary with a function ‘remarkably similar’ to that of napalm[7].

In fact, the US military itself refers to the new-generation MK-77 as ‘napalm’. The term is even used in official documents such as Defend America, the monthly US Department of Defense publication describing the progress of the ‘war on terror’. In February 2003 the publication proudly described preparations for the coming war, detailing the build-up of weapons in Kuwait:

Everything from hand grenades to 2,000-pound bombs and napalm are shipped, ready for use whenever 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing needs them.[8]

I suggest you read the link, there are many footnotes you can click on.

"The existence of the surveillance operation, understood to have been requested by President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice"

Haha! So it's Condi who was totally behind it, huh? Nobody told Bush at all, he's totally blameless. Bush was chasing armadillos or something.

If you're are trying to come up with a impeachment case, you all have got to do a better job. None of the stuff you all have provided would hold up in a regular court, let alone a republican held congress.

The Downing Street Memo is enough in itself to impeach Bush. Despite your self-alleged expertise, you appear to know little about what it takes to impeach a President.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Baaaaa.


jako

Originally posted by Jakomo
3. George W. Bush is being controlled (and he's clueless)

I do think he's a bit of a moron (anyone who can't pronounce NUCLEAR at age 56 is a frickin tool). I also think that he is doing what his handlers want him to.

Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle (the NeoCon Unholy Trinity) have PLANS, man, and they need these plans to come to fruition, so they use Georgie to push through their plans.

Then 3.5 (my pick) is a much better option because;

1. He's not totally clueless, he's knows some of the stuff going on
2. While not completely innocent, he's not completely guilty either. If he's being controlled then the people in charge are the completely guilty ones.




Coming up with credible evidence to support you alls theories concerning Bush seem to be an area you all having trouble with. tsk tsk tsk

Haha! So it's Condi who was totally behind it, huh? Nobody told Bush at all, he's totally blameless. Bush was chasing armadillos or something.

He probably was chasing armadillos or something...

I can just see the Saturday Night Live skit now....

Originally posted by negativenihil
So by this logic - if your home was broken into and i then went to scam you on some fake home security system - it's not illegal as long as i have all kinds of offical looking forms and statistics and if we go through the same routine a normal security system salesmen would go though, right?

Look, the bottom line is: Congress makes the law. If congress disagrees with the law they made, then congress must make a new law saying the law they previously made was a mistake. Until they do that the law still stands and they cannot prosecute anyone for carrying out the law they made.

Haha! So it's Condi who was totally behind it, huh? Nobody told Bush at all, he's totally blameless. Bush was chasing armadillos or something.

Hey if you got proof Bush was behind it, please present it!
We're talking about impeachment here, that's not something to be taken lightly. You can't go on feelings, you have to provide that pesky thing called evidence.

The Downing Street Memo is enough in itself to impeach Bush. Despite your self-alleged expertise, you appear to know little about what it takes to impeach a President.

I never said I was an expert, however by your statement and most of your posts, I guarentee I know more than you on what it takes to impeach a President. You obviously don't have a clue.
Here's a little help...
en.wikipedia.org...

OMG you're an idiot.
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.
So I guess FDR's lend lease act was an impeachable offense. Diid you know FDR used false reports to force Hitler to declare war on the US?
And no one ever had a clue that the US wanted Sadaam out since 1990. And just forget about the axis of evil speech when he said he wanted Sadaam out.
Oh yeah, Iraq was a peaceful soverign country full of kids flying kites, no WMD infrastructure, and no terrorist ties. Thanks Michael.

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
You're the first person I heard make this accusation. But it must be true. The US is worst than Nazi Germany. Just forget all the casualities we suffered because we wanted to lower civilian deaths.

3) The decision by Bush to dig up dirt on UN diplomats when the General Assembly was considering his ill-fated war resolution
Another new one I've never heard before.

4) Authorizing torture of POW's - a direct violation of the protocols of the Geneva Convention
Yeah, Gitmo is a hellhole. A modern day gulag. You're insane. The people there are living in air conditioned mini-condos and are eating better than they have ever been in their lives.

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're right. Terrorists that target civilians should get full US constitutional rights. Never mind that they don't wear a uniform, shoot from schools and Mosques, and decapitate their POWs. Oh and we can't forget you're track record of Mamdouh Habib, Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane. Abdullah Mehsud and dozen others who were released and then took hostages.


Kidnapping so called "terror suspects" , placing them on Rendition Airways, and sending them to countries like Uzbekistan who boil these ,untried,unconvicted people alive.
Look above. These are not innocent people.

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.
Osama, is that you?

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.
Barbara Boxer, is that you?

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.!
Noam Chomsky, is that you?

10) The attempt to quash the testimony of Sibel Edmonds using the bogus shield of the States Secret Act.
Never heard of it.

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.
Hahaha. The first amendment ensures your right to provoke a riot and throw hand grenades at the president. Hahahaha. And the protestors are really in a world of hurt. Michael Moore just bought a 1.5 million dollar host off lake Superior. Howard Dean loves the limelight. The network evening news MAKES UP accusations (Dan Rather, What did Bush know?, Kitty Kelly, Richard Ben Viniste.)

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.
You have no knowledge what went on at Enron. CA has power trouble due to insane enviromental regulations. Enron got in trouble by trading energy and broadband futures like hedges and options. They could have pulled it off and had a good business model, but Jeff Skilling was insane and hid debt in fake companies. The worst thing was when they locked employees out of selling their stock. And I bet Ken Lay really didn't know everything Skilling was doing.

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.
So Bush didn't give in to Al Gore's recount until I win motive so impeach him. And why look at FL for voting irregularities? I'm sure they're were irregularities in PA too?

There are many more impeachable offenses ordered by Bush and carried out by his agents
This usually means I ran out of crap to make up or steal from other people's websites, so I need to wind down.
,such as the "outing" of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Funny, Harry Reid did the same thing. Where's your outrage?

This info is what I can recover off the top of my head.
Very scholary.
Clearly an impeachment inquiry by the US House Judiciary Committeee is an action clearly overdue.
My mom and dad were Democrats, so I'm a Democrat, and I just can't stand Bush winning. IMPEACH HIM! Hopefully this will change the conservative thinking American is switching too since the Great Society failed.

Some of the allegations are violations of international law.
It's European, so it must be right.

They fall under the impeachment clause as well.
Uh-huh. I think only Bernie Sanders, a socialist, and Maxime Waters, who thinks the CIA invented crack, will impeach him. John McCain will strongly weigh the issues to appear moderate and get more free campaign time on TV.
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.
Hahahaha. The UN will only try an American for war crimes. They will ignore Yassar Arafat, the mullahs in Iran, Kim Jong Ill, the Narco terrorists in Columbia and Sadaam Hussein. Hahahaha.

en.wikipedia.org...

During World War I both the Allies and Germany used gasoline as a weapon in flamethrowers, but gasoline burns itself too quickly to be an effective incendiary device. A substance was needed which would produce a powerful and persistent fuel but would not consume itself too quickly.

Though researchers had found ways to make jellied gasoline earlier, many of them required rubber as a principal component, which during wartime was a scarce commodity. In 1942, researchers at Harvard University (led by Dr. Louis Fieser) and the U.S. Army Chemical Warfare Service found a rubber-less solution: mixing an aluminum soap powder of naphthalene and palmitate (naphthenic acid and palmitic acid, sodium palmitrate) with gasoline. This produced a substance which was highly flammable, yet slow burning. In World War II, incendiary bombs using napalm as their fuel were used against the German city of Dresden and during the firebombings of Japan.

After World War II, further refinement and development of napalm was undertaken by the government and its affiliated laboratories. Modern "napalm" contains neither naphthenic nor palmitic acids (despite the name), but often uses a bevy of other chemicals to stabilize the gasoline base. It is manufactured by Dow Chemical Company.

See Bombing of Tokyo in World War II and Bombing of Dresden in World War II for more information on the usage of napalm in the Second World War and chemical warfare for more details on chemical weaponry.

Napalm is a flammable, gasoline-based weapon invented in 1942. The name is a portmanteau word for naphthenic palmitic acids. It produces horrific wounds, and although its use is not specifically prohibited by the laws of war, most nations no longer use it.

it is not considered a WMD, and the US of A did not violate the law even if they used napalm.

ThatsJustWeird:

impeachbush.pephost.org...

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H.
Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft have committed violations and
subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with
impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights
of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial
executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those
reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law;
carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting
in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and
locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its
government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

4) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret
and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of
prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and
individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents
elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

5) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign
governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media
and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public
discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain
weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to
U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

6) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a
part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an
attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and
threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United
Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting
treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy
any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the
exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

7) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering
indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without
opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the
discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

8) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without
charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

9) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of
detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a
detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

10) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens
who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official,
prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

11) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have
been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in
response to Congressional inquiry.

12) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right
to public trials.

13) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the
government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not
been charged with a crime.

14) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to
hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary
designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

15) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by
federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and
political activity.

16) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional
right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

17) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of
the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without
consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the
United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome
which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.

Even I'll admit some of these are a little specious.

But it only takes ONE. And Numbers 1 to 4 are totally valid.

Er, even the second number 4.


If he lied to the American people he deserves to be fired from his job. And he did. Whether he realized he was lying or not is not the issue either. If he quotes false info without putting it through some kind of fact check, he is still responsible for the lie.

Another thing for you guys to consider is that if any of this was true, don't you think the people who oppose the President would have taken him out already? Nixon was taken out with a lot less. And before you argue that they don't have any balls, or that they are pawns of the president, think about these people:

Sadaam's torture chambers opened up under new leadership, US leadership.
Ted Kennedy

I believe Bush knew of 9/11 and did nothing to stop it ahead of time
Howard Dean

He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!
Al Gore

Bush is a loser
Harry Reid, in front of high school students.

Those killed on 9/11 were little Eichmans
Ward Churchill

The Iraqi resistance aren't terrorists or insurgents, they are THE REVOLUTION! The new minutemen
Michael Moore

The Iraqi War was all about oil and was waged to get his brother as the next president
Jim Jeffers

And let's not forget about the media. Ted Koppel brings out "expert" CIA agents like a parade, saying Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time. Dan Rather used forged documents to try to influenece an election. Katie Kouric interviews Kitty Kelly everyday on the Today show, talking about how George Bush uses coc aine THAT SHE JUST MADE UP and completly ignores the Swift Boat Vets.

If he lied to the American people he deserves to be fired from his job. And he did. Whether he realized he was lying or not is not the issue either. If he quotes false info without putting it through some kind of fact check, he is still responsible for the lie.
Then every President would be fired. Even Abe Lincoln and George Washington.

And please explain how we defeat Islamic terror with Sadaam still in power in Iraq. It's impossible. And this was Bush's no. 1 reason for going to war and it was delivered in the Axis of Evil speech.

lukethedrifter: Either you're a liar or ignorant.

And please explain how we defeat Islamic terror with Sadaam still in power in Iraq. It's impossible. And this was Bush's no. 1 reason for going to war and it was delivered in the Axis of Evil speech.

?! Islamic terror and Saddam were not allies. Osama wanted Saddam as dead as Bush did.

Bush's Number One reason for going to war with Iraq was THAT HE WAS 100% CERTAIN HE HAD WMDS. I remember, I was there.

There are 1000 times more terrorists in Iraq NOW then there were under Saddam Hussein.

800 dead Iraqi civilians since the "free election".

SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS NON-SECULAR!!!!! IRAQ HAD A NON-SECULAR GOVERNMENT!!!!! READ SOMETHING!!!

Now that Saddam is out of power is "Islamic Terror" hurting or in fact is it stronger than ever and getting stronger?



jako

?! Islamic terror and Saddam were not allies. Osama wanted Saddam as dead as Bush did.
Sadaam funded Palestinian terrorists. Sadaam was a major reason Iran armed itself. Sadaam destablized the Middle East. With Sadaam still in power, there would be no hope of a democratic Iran, a democratic Palestine, Syria withdrawing from Lebanon, Saudi Arabia lowering it's rhetoric, and overall peace in the middle east. Logically, it can't be done. And imagine what would happen 10 years from now when Sadaam dies and his sons gain power.

h's Number One reason for going to war with Iraq was THAT HE WAS 100% CERTAIN HE HAD WMDS. I remember, I was there.
Look at the Axis of Evil Speech. First time he ever mentioned Iraq. He mentions WMD, but the focus is that we can no longer afford nations that want to destroy the US to exist. And wasn't their a Uranium African importation that proved to be true, and you are ignoring?Here's the linkj.

There are 1000 times more terrorists in Iraq NOW then there were under Saddam Hussein.
Yeah, and these were well to do, middle class cab drivers, construction workers and electricians that suddenly "turned terrorists" since the US invaded. It's our fault, all the time.
Don't you think it has something to do with Sadaam's former army that turned to terrorist tactics instead of facing war crimes that they know they would be executed for?
And also take in account that we have brought the fight to the enemy. They're hasn't been one terrorist attack on the US homeland. Before you had 9/11, the Cole, the milenium bomber, the embassy bombings and a ton of others.

800 dead Iraqi civilians since the "free election".
That's really cute how you put in quotes free election. I love how you mock millions of people that stood up to death threats to vote for the first time. And at the same time, you try to discredit the results just for your own selfish reasons because a minority Sunni party lost their tyrannical power to a majority. Very classy of you.
And 800 dead is nothing in a country the size of Iraq. I can make the US seem like a hell hole by focusing on downtown Detroit or LA.

SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS NON-SECULAR!!!!! IRAQ HAD A NON-SECULAR GOVERNMENT!!!!! READ SOMETHING!!!
I understand. But he funded terrorists. His sole existence was to destroy the US. He sent one of his security agents to blow up the WTC in 1993. He would have no qualms about selling a WMD to Osama bin Laden. The Taliban almost took us out with far less money, resources and infrastructure than Sadaam did. Didn't 9/11 teach you something? Are we to just sit down, bury our heads in the sand, and just hope he doesn't decide to attack us?

Now that Saddam is out of power is "Islamic Terror" hurting or in fact is it stronger than ever and getting stronger?
Over 60% of Iraqis say different. More Arabs are optimistic about the future than ever. When Iraq becomes a global economy rivaling S. Korea, Japan, and Germany, Arabs in Pakistan, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia will be asking "If it is good for Iraqis, why not us?"
Palestine held free elections. Libya disarmed. Syria withdrew from Lebanon. Saudi Arabia is fighting al Qaeda. Iran has all the pressure to allow UN Inspectors and has no more excuses.
Things sound good to me.

as posted by Jakomo
George W Bush's 13 Impeachable Offenses

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

Certainly not.
Won't even make an attempt.
Why?
Two reasons:
1) There will be no impeachment proceedings brought against Bush.
2) Being a Canadian that you are, any attempt to impeach Bush will prove futile. You'd be better off waiting for Chirac to get voted out of office so that you can then advocate that he move to Montreal and run for the head of government there. I'm certain he would win....





seekerof

[edit on 3-6-2005 by Seekerof]

I did not see this article mentioned : news.yahoo.com...&printer=1

The US military was trying to provoke Iraq, long before "shock and awe", even as Bush was telling the world the US was looking at all other options.

Its absolutely amazing to me die hard Republicans cant see this administration for what it is.

I recently listened to an audio book, that I now recommend to anyone who wants to learn a little history about US policy. John Perkins was an insider in the world of Global Capitalism. His book "Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man" is a must for background on this topic. I have come to the realization Iraq and Afghanistan are just the latest developments of "Corporatocracy" run amok.

I've signed the petition at John Conyers website : johnconyers.campaignoffice.com...[1167E04C-1943-4ACA-8CC2-803FEE90E589]

If you die hard Republicans are really the patriots you think you are, you should too. It is about inquiry, after all. Afraid of the truth?

Originally posted by lukethedrifter
?! Islamic terror and Saddam were not allies. Osama wanted Saddam as dead as Bush did.
Sadaam funded Palestinian terrorists. Sadaam was a major reason Iran armed itself. Sadaam destablized the Middle East. With Sadaam still in power, there would be no hope of a democratic Iran, a democratic Palestine, Syria withdrawing from Lebanon, Saudi Arabia lowering it's rhetoric, and overall peace in the middle east. Logically, it can't be done. And imagine what would happen 10 years from now when Sadaam dies and his sons gain power.

There was no evidence that saddam was supporting osama despite what Bush and Fox might tell you. They had nothing to do with 9/11 and were not capable of threatening the US.

h's Number One reason for going to war with Iraq was THAT HE WAS 100% CERTAIN HE HAD WMDS. I remember, I was there.
Look at the Axis of Evil Speech. First time he ever mentioned Iraq. He mentions WMD, but the focus is that we can no longer afford nations that want to destroy the US to exist. And wasn't their a Uranium African importation that proved to be true, and you are ignoring?Here's the linkj.

This so called evidence of uranium was made up by the US administration (another blatant lie by bush)

www.lynnejones.org.uk...

That this House notes that in response to concerns raised by honourable Members about the validity of the case made for war, the Prime Minister referred to House to the findings of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), for example stating on 21st January that it was the job of the Iraq Survey Group to find out what has happened, which it will do; notes that the ISG makes it clear that it found no evidence that Iraq sought uranium abroad after the first Gulf War in 1991, stating that it has uncovered no information to support allegations of Iraqi pursuit of uranium from abroad in the post-Operation Desert Storm era; further notes that the ISG report goes on to state it it had found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991, an approach which Iraq appeared to have turned down

There are 1000 times more terrorists in Iraq NOW then there were under Saddam Hussein.
Yeah, and these were well to do, middle class cab drivers, construction workers and electricians that suddenly "turned terrorists" since the US invaded. It's our fault, all the time.
Don't you think it has something to do with Sadaam's former army that turned to terrorist tactics instead of facing war crimes that they know they would be executed for?
And also take in account that we have brought the fight to the enemy. They're hasn't been one terrorist attack on the US homeland. Before you had 9/11, the Cole, the milenium bomber, the embassy bombings and a ton of others.

Saddams army wanted him out at least as much as you did! There is no evidence of thousands of terrorists in iraq before the war. All this war has achieved is a civil war in Iraq!

800 dead Iraqi civilians since the "free election".
That's really cute how you put in quotes free election. I love how you mock millions of people that stood up to death threats to vote for the first time. And at the same time, you try to discredit the results just for your own selfish reasons because a minority Sunni party lost their tyrannical power to a majority. Very classy of you.
And 800 dead is nothing in a country the size of Iraq. I can make the US seem like a hell hole by focusing on downtown Detroit or LA.

why dont you compare the number of death since the election to a true democratic civilised country.

www.nationmaster.com...


Hmmm the number of murders in the US in 2003 was 16,503 thats an average of 1375 a month.

The number of Murders in Iraq in since election as stated before 800

In a civilised european country such as Finland....148 !! and they've got the highest murder rate in europe!

SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS NON-SECULAR!!!!! IRAQ HAD A NON-SECULAR GOVERNMENT!!!!! READ SOMETHING!!!
I understand. But he funded terrorists. His sole existence was to destroy the US. He sent one of his security agents to blow up the WTC in 1993. He would have no qualms about selling a WMD to Osama bin Laden. The Taliban almost took us out with far less money, resources and infrastructure than Sadaam did. Didn't 9/11 teach you something? Are we to just sit down, bury our heads in the sand, and just hope he doesn't decide to attack us?

have you ever asked yourself why they want to attack you? of course it would have nothing to do with your support of corrupt dictactorships such as Saudi Arabia?

The CIA concluded that Iraq had nothing to do with the attempt to blow up the WTC? I take it you have some evidence that they dont?

www.wnd.com...

He didn't have any WMD, The ISG didn't find any, noone has found any? I guess you know better though?

Now that Saddam is out of power is "Islamic Terror" hurting or in fact is it stronger than ever and getting stronger?
Over 60% of Iraqis say different. More Arabs are optimistic about the future than ever. When Iraq becomes a global economy rivaling S. Korea, Japan, and Germany, Arabs in Pakistan, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia will be asking "If it is good for Iraqis, why not us?"
Palestine held free elections. Libya disarmed. Syria withdrew from Lebanon. Saudi Arabia is fighting al Qaeda. Iran has all the pressure to allow UN Inspectors and has no more excuses.
Things sound good to me.

um thats why terror attacks have increased since the invasion then?
www.pfavoterfund.com...
www.globalcontinuity.com...

I'd hardly hold up saudi arabia as a inspiration to the world and your own country is less optimistic about the future!

www.usatoday.com...

[edit on 5-6-2005 by arnold_vosloo]