George W Bush's 13 Impeachable Offenses

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Army:

I'm done with this thread...see y'all later!


I accept your surrender, maybe you'll do better next time. When the longterm health effects of Depleted Uranium are know to the public and they are seen to be as dangerous as all these studies have shown it to be, get back to me.


Jedi Master:

Doesn't matter Jacko, he was there he did the work, did you, so he doesn't need links, like you do ( because you weren't there, you need Internet links to questionable sources to verify your claims )...

Poster Army was there, and his opinions IMHO can be considered as facts, were any of the people in YOUR links there, or were YOU ?

And besids can you verify that your links are TRUE ?


LOL! Yeah, what was I thinking? Of course those in the military are FULLY BRIEFED and know EVERYTHING about the longterm effects of the weapons they are using. It's part of the military's who modus operandi to let all the troops know exactly everything about their operations. LOL. More like a hazy "need to know" basis.

The TROOPS will be the LEAST informed as to the effects (see Gulf War Syndrome, see Agent Orange, etc).

Are you for real? Being a soldier doesn't make him a rocket scientist, it means he can follow orders and do what he's told. And believe what he's told to believe.


So called "facts" can be altered on the Internet to reflect an agenda...


BoolSheet. Scientific facts are FACTS. You just disagree with them when they prove you to be wrong.

OpenSecret2012: If there's one thing I've learned on ATS over the last year and and a half, it's this:

Even when presented with CLEAR, IRREFUTABLE PROOF from a wide array of sources (internationally respected newswires like Reuters, the Associated Press, the New York Times, etc), the pro-Bu#es just decry that the sources are tainted.

I mean, let's be honest, how can ANYONE believe that a weapon with a URANIUM core isn't going to cause radiological side effects when there are MOUNDS of scientific data out there proving it. All these people have to do is do a google search for "Depleted Uranium Health Effects" and peruse any of the thousands of links.

But they won't

Because the only way you can MAINTAIN any kind of willful ignorance is to not keep your mind open to all options. So these people prefer to DENY DENY DENY instead of actually read what is written.

Willful ignorance, but I post the links anyway for those people who ARE at least open-minded enough to CONSIDER another viewpoint and base their opinions on facts instead of blindness.




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   


05/01/05 "Sunday Times"

The secret Downing Street memo

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.


(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.


ROTFLAMO!! I'm sorry folks, but this looks, smells, and tastes like it was written by a REPORTER...NOT A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE. Work for the government long enough, and you'll know what I mean. (Except for the fact that the word DEFENSE is misspelled once. But I guess even reporters can have typos.)



[edit on 22-6-2005 by Toelint]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Which aspect of the British Government do you work for? Since that looks good enough to me and I am training to be a Lawyer and have to read enough of those every day.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Unless your link says "Kill Negroes, Kill Fags, Kill Jews, and Kill anyone with a Brain/Smart." They won't like it. Hell, republicans won't like a site if it only wants to kill 1 out of 4, or 2 out of 4, or 3 out of 4. Unless the website calls for the extermination of all 4, it is anti-Bush/America to GOP.

ANyways. being republicans, they voted for Bush, therefor they can't be argued with for they are wearing blinders so strong they voted for the guy who killed the Greatest Economy, EVER!!!!!

Also, GWB reciecved documents from Condi telling him OBL was going to attack with Airplanes, the FBI told him this, so he cut the FBI Anti-Terror Budget by millions, and told the FBI Boss to "Shut Up about OBL, I don't wanna hear it anymore." Then 9/11 happens, and he blames the FBI.... who told him this was going to happen.......



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Which aspect of the British Government do you work for? Since that looks good enough to me and I am training to be a Lawyer and have to read enough of those every day.


Really? Then explain to me how a newspaper can COPYRIGHT a government document?

By the way, the word DEFENSE is misspelled THREE times. The words NEIGHBORS and AUTHORIZATION are also misspelled. Sorry, this wasn't written by a government aide. I'm beginning to wonder if it was even written by a reporter.

[edit on 25-6-2005 by Toelint]

[edit on 25-6-2005 by Toelint]



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
dictionary.reference.com...
de·fence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-fns)
n. & v. Chiefly British
Variant of defense.

Can you point me to the miss-spelled version of defence? I couldnt' find it.

Also, the Primary copy of it is not a copyrighted document which is owned by The Sunday Times, the article is copyrighted. :|

Edit:
neighbours is again the British spelling as are the other words. If your reason for it being false is the fact a British document uses the Commonwealth English, then your arguement is ruined from the start.

However, thank you for making me laugh. :-)

[edit on 25-6-2005 by Odium]



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Unless your link says "Kill Negroes, Kill Fags, Kill Jews, and Kill anyone with a Brain/Smart." They won't like it. Hell, republicans won't like a site if it only wants to kill 1 out of 4, or 2 out of 4, or 3 out of 4. Unless the website calls for the extermination of all 4, it is anti-Bush/America to GOP.

ANyways. being republicans, they voted for Bush, therefor they can't be argued with for they are wearing blinders so strong they voted for the guy who killed the Greatest Economy, EVER!!!!!

Also, GWB reciecved documents from Condi telling him OBL was going to attack with Airplanes, the FBI told him this, so he cut the FBI Anti-Terror Budget by millions, and told the FBI Boss to "Shut Up about OBL, I don't wanna hear it anymore." Then 9/11 happens, and he blames the FBI.... who told him this was going to happen.......


Please point me to a website that calls for the death of Blacks, Fags, and Jews, (Oh, I forgot, people with a brain.) that isn't run by the KKK or its offshoots, ALL of which were founded by Democrats in the South after the Civil war.

Would ya do that for me?



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Chemical weapons in Fallujah:
Uh..you have no proof. Please present some.

Authorization, by Bush, to use torture:
Again, proof please.

The same with about everything else you presented. Please try again by presenting the same claims, along with information and links that go with them. Thank you.

Until then, an intelligent response to a biased, moronic post will not be needed.

-wD



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
dictionary.reference.com...
de·fence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-fns)
n. & v. Chiefly British
Variant of defense.

Can you point me to the miss-spelled version of defence? I couldnt' find it.

Also, the Primary copy of it is not a copyrighted document which is owned by The Sunday Times, the article is copyrighted. :|

Edit:
neighbours is again the British spelling as are the other words. If your reason for it being false is the fact a British document uses the Commonwealth English, then your arguement is ruined from the start.

However, thank you for making me laugh. :-)

[edit on 25-6-2005 by Odium]


No problem, amigo! Now, if you'll kindly direct me to the kitchen, I'll help myself to a F-A-T portion of Humble Pie!



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
Please point me to a website that calls for the death of Blacks, Fags, and Jews, (Oh, I forgot, people with a brain.) that isn't run by the KKK or its offshoots, ALL of which were founded by Democrats in the South after the Civil war.

Would ya do that for me?


Just one little thing I want to correct, the KKK (Ku Klux Klan) was not founded by "democrats" or "republicans". The KKK was also just as big, vicious, brutal, in the north as well as the south. It was the re-naming of a much older secret society which existed for hundreds to thousands of years. Ku Klux comes from Greek word "kuklos" which means "circle". KKK litterally means clan of the circle or "circle clan". Which is a synonym for its old name. The entire idea of hatred of all non-whites, asians, jews, gays, lezzzbians, and all non-americans was all invented to act as a smokescreen to hide the real agenda of the KKK. To misslead the majority of "white" Americans. They originally (under their old name) murdered Lincoln cuz he was against a Central Bank aka Federal Reserve. Lincoln instead had the goverment print its own money. The higher ups in the KKK, including its founders Albert Pike and Caleb Cushing, know it involves the establishment of a central bank aka the Federal Reserve - the biggest scam done to Americans. Caleb Cushing pulled the strings in the North and Albert Pike pulled the strings in the South. Both regularly met in Paris before, during, and after the American Civil War in secret to discuss their string pulling.

politics.abovetopsecret.com...'

The smokescreen (disliking jews, lezzzbians, gays, non-whites, non-americans) the KKK puts up is ment to keep Americans, including 99% of white Americans, from ever finding out, from ever questioning, the real agenda of the KKK. As well as finding out its true history (the fact that its simply a new name for an old secret society.) It also helped the secret society at work to succeed the 3rd time it tried to do its biggest scam on all Americans. For more info, do a site search on "federal reserve" and read the most recent threads about the biggest scam ever done on all Americans. (Which was the reason Lincoln and JFK were murdered as both tried to re-value American money, and both had the goverment print its own money. Instead of non-goverment sources.)

politics.abovetopsecret.com...'

Also check out the book by David Icke "The Biggest Secret" (look up KKK in the index to go straight to the page. If I remember right its around pg 97.) It goes into the secret society under its old name, and its new name KKK. Also by Icke the book "And the Truth Shall Set You Free" which goes into more details about the American Civil War. All his books are at every major bookstore like Barnes & Noble, Strand, on and on. All are free to read - the bookstores even encourage people to sit and read for free! Or if one can afford it, buy em and read em anytime.


Wanted to clarify that democrats didnt create the KKK. (It was a secret society that existed hundreds to thousands of years before.) And that the KKK existed in the northern states as well.

politics.abovetopsecret.com...'

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Chemical weapons in Fallujah:
Uh..you have no proof. Please present some.

-wD


Please read pages 3 and 4 of this thread. LOL! All irrefutable proof has been presented. In fact, the poster named "Army" was more hardcore than you, more adamant than you, insaying there's no proof of chemical weapons. He ended up admitting chem weapons have been used, are in use. Then he ran away from this thread wimpering like a newborn puppy


Then again, its your choice to ignore the proof already presented. Irridated/depleated Uranium, and White Phosperous, are the most numerous and well known chemical weapons being used. Affecting everyone - reporters, Iraq people, and US soldiers.

Its the choice of all other posters and lurkers if they'll choose to also ignore the proof like you choose, or to not ignore it... think about it... accept it... and take it from there deciding to do whatever they next do.




[edit on 25-6-2005 by OpenSecret2012]

[edit on 25-6-2005 by OpenSecret2012]



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint

Originally posted by Odium
dictionary.reference.com...
de·fence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-fns)
n. & v. Chiefly British
Variant of defense.

Can you point me to the miss-spelled version of defence? I couldnt' find it.

Also, the Primary copy of it is not a copyrighted document which is owned by The Sunday Times, the article is copyrighted. :|

Edit:
neighbours is again the British spelling as are the other words. If your reason for it being false is the fact a British document uses the Commonwealth English, then your arguement is ruined from the start.

However, thank you for making me laugh. :-)

[edit on 25-6-2005 by Odium]


No problem, amigo! Now, if you'll kindly direct me to the kitchen, I'll help myself to a F-A-T portion of Humble Pie!


Okay, once and for all...is the Downing Street Memo fake or real?? Check out this site:

www.captainsquartersblog.com...

Personally, I STILL think it's fake as does this guy...but his argument is better!



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
bellaciao.org...
The similar list, with author's name affixed. A partisan site, and often not well focussed. But one of my regs! Always taken with a grain of salt.

Note that the part of the Downing Street memo saying that "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
(the Downing Street Memo itself at:
www.timesonline.co.uk...

and this from
www.usnews.com...
"Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes." "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

may be the most egregious part of it all. Personally, I HOPED they had a secret plan, 'cause the one they were touting publically wasn't very good to say the least.

Impeachable? Hard to impeach for "not having a real plan."

Most of the other points are not rock-solid. Despite the abrogation of HUGE AMOUNTS OF TREATIES, these are slippery at best. It's like trying to impeach for "making an additional billion adult males worldwide vow to destroy the United States by whatever means necessary." Where's the legal precedence for impeachment for THAT?

Here is what I, a non-lawyer, DO find to be impeachable offenses:

Conspiracy to commit many felonious and treasonous offenses. (monetary: Halliburton, Enron, etc. Election tampering. [hard to prove but some evidence exists it happened] Conspiring to endanger CIA identity.

Lying to Federal Investigators (the 9-11 Commission) - Google for yourselves the illegality of lying to such even when not under oath - it is illegal.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join