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.

 

Bush the impeached?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
According to this article, more and more American's (unsurprisingly) are wanting to impeach President Bush:
Bush Impeachment over Iraq gaining momentum

Near Paul Revere Country, Anti-Bush Cries Get Louder

My questions are for everyone here are:

1) When is the earliest this could happen (for the sake of this argument, let's just say the effect from any terrorist attack inside the US would be nil, since if there was one, the people would probably be more pissed at Bush for letting it happen, a la Hurrican Katrina)?

and

2) Who is the lesser of two evils...Dick Chaney or President Bush?

I'm growing concerned especially on this part, because if we thought that Bush's connections to business were bad, just think about what Chaney would do....

Personally, I don't see the actual impeachment appening until the later parts of the year, but the momentum will build until that breaking point. Please feel free to post your thoughts on when it will happen.

Let's see, nope haven't forgotten anything...hopefully my first politics post will do fine



Sorry I had to edit, I found an article also on the Washington Post on the same subject, and thought it would be nice to have a domestic news source as well.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by Sir Solomon]




posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Let's see...Bush impeached for protecting the United States...uhhh that's his job description.

Impeachment talks are just out of hatred for Bush.

I can think of only two groups of people that would be in favor of Bush's impeachment, Democrats and Terrorist.

BTW, their will not be a major terrorist attack while Bush remains President. Terrorist fear strong leadership and thrive on weakness.

9/11 was a direct result of US weakness while Clinton was President. No reponse on the 1st WTC attack, no response on numerous US embassy bombings, and no response on the bombing of the USS Cole.

The next major terrorist attack will happen when America elects another weak Democrat for President.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Funny how bush supporters trade their liberty for security on a daily bases like a bunch of scared pussies. You forget how our forefathers fought to get rid of tyranny and entitlement. So willing to surrender everything your freedoms, your rights and your minds to protect an entitled little rich frat brat and a corrupt political party. Almost every week it’s something new some new lie or corruption scandal exposed yet you still support the scum bag. Bush can’t protect you from terrorist he can’t protect you from anything he’s incompetent.

Bush will be impeached for violating our constitution. Cheney will resign before November to protect the republicans hold on the presidency. He will be replace by another Gerald Ford a man with no ties to any scandal going on right now. But will try and advance the Globalization, # the American worker corporatism agenda that the republicans have sold their soul to.

Things have to change, or our children’s future will be nothing more then Wal-Mart and poverty. We can not continue policies of entitlement, greed and corruption. We must change the political landscape and bring it back to it's purpose of the people for the people.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Trade liberty for security? Is that some kind of Democrat code talk? What freedoms or rights have you surrendered? Really, tell me, I want to know.

Let's say Bush was conducting surveilence on average Americans...Do I care if Bush knows that my wife calls me to bring home some milk? No, but I would be scared out of my mind if I were a terrorist and Al-Queda was calling for me for information.


Democrats tried the same crap with Reagan. Question his intelligence, label him as a war-monger. Bush is no Reagan, but better yet he is no Clinton either.

There will be no major attack on the United States as long as Bush remains President. Fact is that the terrorist fear Bush and will wait for a weak Democrat to take office before another attack is launched.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Trade liberty for security? Is that some kind of Democrat code talk? What freedoms or rights have you surrendered? Really, tell me, I want to know.


Rights and freedoms that have been lost under the current administration:

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

And before you democrats decide that only republicans can take away freedoms, remember, the Patriot Act was not only voted for by the majority of the dems in congress, it was also the brainchild of Clinton.

You all need to realize that the two major parties DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU OR YOUR FUTURES, SECURITY, ETC.! They are only concerned with how to better themselves.

If you REALLY want change, you will have to find a third party that fits your beliefs. The dems and reps are just two sides of the same coin.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
From the link supplied by the base article:

HOLYOKE, Mass. -- To drive through the mill towns and curling country roads here is to journey into New England's impeachment belt. Three of this state's 10 House members have called for the investigation and possible impeachment of President Bush.

Thirty miles north, residents in four Vermont villages voted earlier this month at annual town meetings to buy more rock salt, approve school budgets, and impeach the president for lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and for sanctioning torture.
Near Paul Revere Country, Anti-Bush Cries Get Louder

Massachussetts is a BLUE state. Teddy Kennedy country, so what did you expect? Vermont is a socialist state. Once again, no surprise here.




Originally posted by VeeTwin60
Rights and freedoms that have been lost under the current administration:

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.


You still can say whatever you want, same as always. You can still associate with whomever you want; just look at the demonstrations last week. You can still hire the best lawyer you can afford. You still have the right to a speedy trial.

The gov't has been doing monitoring for a long time. The war on terror has tightened the rules for suspected terrorists, to be sure. But we haven't lost the liberties you say we have.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
The next major terrorist attack will happen when America elects another weak Democrat for President.


Evidently you aren't the only one that thinks that Democrats are weak on the leadership:

Chene y: If Democrats can lead, then I can sing on American Idol

Something I find extrememly funny was this part of the story:



While introducing the vice president, Keller said Cheney had responded to Keller's recent votes against the administration on three issues by telling him: "Don't be too hasty. Let's go hunting. We'll talk about it."

Cheney himself said that when he returned to the White House from the hunting trip, Bush told him, "Dick, I'm 38 percent in the polls and you shot the only trial lawyer who supports me."


Well, at least someone can have a laugh through all this



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
If Bush goes who thinks that it will change anything at all?? Please put your hands up... hmm I don't see anybody, did you put your hands up over there...?

Tell me one person that the democrats can put forward that doesn't have NWO stamped on his/her forehead.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
changing bush would change one thing for me. I would at least have a president who could use big words to listen to.



all that aside, i think the gov has gotten out of control. There is no "we the people" any more. Its just "WE THE POWERFUL" now. well, me excluded since i am neither rich nor powerful.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Sir Solomon,

This is a very interesting post solely because it presents a dichotomy existing within America. On one side of the ring, you have the die-hard Bush supporters who think that he is doing right things for the country, no matter what. On the other side of the ring, you have citizens who feel that Bush employed unconstitutional acts and should be at least put on trial. Lest, he be impeached.

To me, this represents the social and political unrest that is happening in the country. Die-hard Republicans want to blame Democrats for their "unpatriotic" notions. Die hard Democrats want to blame Republicans for being "sheep to the slaughter". And for the third parties in between? They blame both major platforms for this dispute. Then, it results in namecalling and accusations resulting in one side winning while blaming the other side for being "weak-willed" and "illogical" for their thinking. In fact, the champion revels while the loser runs whining into the night.

This contributes to the notion of the right to dissent, believe it or not. Calls for impeachment is a cry that lets all of us know that something just isn't right with the way the United States is run. And believe me, that's the difference between a petty political play and real wrongs going unanswered. Sexual innuendos or lies about wars, impeachment is a serious matter that needs to be addressed either way.

Forget the political rhetoric for a moment and think about this:

Why doesn't GWB go on trial and prove his innocence if he feels what he is doing is right? If he feels that he has not been stealing from the government, restricting rights from the Patriot Act and going into a war that has been justified, let him testify to it. If "something funny" didn't happen during the 2000 or 2004 elections, let him tell us so. This is not a partisan matter. He needs to be straight with the American people and give them the answers instead of pussyfooting around the issue. Then, at least we would know what side he stands on instead of this cloak and dagger routine engineered by Karl Rove.

Take away the pre-planned audiences and the canned interviews. Put the man in front of an independent committee, like a grand jury. They address the problems regarding impeachment. He gives the answers. That is all it is being asked. It all goes in front of a public setting without political commentary or bias from the media.

And if GWB is proven wrong, how will the pro-Bush supporters feel? Would they still believe him despite the charges? I wonder.

If he's right, then all the truth would be out in the open and there would be nothing to complain about.

What it comes down to is that if unconstitutional wrongs were committed, we all lose. After all, what does the meaning of the war represent? Nothing. We have become paranoid and patriotic for false reasons. And I think it is the illusionist preservation of safety and patriotism that the government wants us to keep. Because if we did ever know the truth, everyone would feel betrayed.

I think the calls of impeachment should be a challenge. Put him on trial by an independent party. Let's see what he says.



[edit on 27-3-2006 by ceci2006]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join