Rep. Dennis Kucinich motions to Impeach Bush, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 30 times


reply posted on 10-6-2008 @ 03:34 PM by sos37
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Originally posted by sos37
The timing of this impeachment should raise all sorts of bells and alarms for people. Of course the Bush-haters will come out applauding and saying "about time!" like the mindless sheep they are.

Instead, I submit the following:
* Why wasn't this done in 2005 after Bush admitted the Iraq pre-war intelligence was flawed?
* Why wasn't this done in 2004 when the 9/11 Commission released its final report?
* Why wasn't this done when the Iraqi government was shown to not be meeting their benchmarks?
* Why wasn't this done at anytime other than now during the current administration?

I'll tell you why - because the Democratic party wants to play on the people's emotions. Nevermind that people have had their minds made up about Bush for years now, but the Democrats want to open old wounds and make you mad ALL OVER AGAIN for the SAME OLD CRAP they've been saying all along in an effort to SWING THE VOTE, particularly the votes of Republicans who are on the fence about John McCain.

Sorry, Kucinich and all you other Liberal monkeys, some of us see this farce for what it is. The rest of you sheep go right ahead on bleating.


there is nothing to do with the timing here or political games. this is the right thing to do. period. as are the following steps.


You cannot ignore the timing in this case. What would good does it do to start the impeachment process now? Bush will be out of office by the time any conclusions are drawn. If impeachment was the true goal, seems like one of the timelines I pointed out in that previous post would have made more sense.


reply posted on 10-6-2008 @ 03:36 PM by ~Lucidity
Originally posted by centurion1211
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to
post by centurion1211



Tit for tat?

Are you being serious here or facetious?



I'm being totally serious. I see this as the start, or at least a very serious escalation, of a partisan war in this country. One that will bring it to a standstill as each party does nothing else but try to get even on the other party's latest elected official.



ah maybe i misunderstood. that war started long ago...before clinton. it has simply escalated in the past 8 years, almost to a level of civil war, imo. i say the parties must go altogether (a GREAT place to start real reform), be disbanded, and we should not rest until we have at minimum 6 or 8 to take their place to represent the true diversity of this nation.



reply posted on 10-6-2008 @ 04:01 PM by TheRepublic
reply to post by Keyhole



wow 600,000 responses with 89% saying yes. what say you now democrats why wont you support kucinich? oh yeah thats right you are a bunch of lobbiest loving whores just like the republicans...


reply posted on 10-6-2008 @ 04:25 PM by sos37

How has he kept us safe? Seriously. By attacking other countries without just cause? By inciting the hatred of these people or actually making people that liked or didn't give a damn about us to hate us?


How about creating the Office of Homeland Security after the 9/11 attacks? One could argue that it's because of the efforts of this office in conjunction with localized law enforcement that there have been no further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

In fact you want a list of thwarted attacks?

• May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking "dirty bomb," convicted of conspiracy.

• September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.

• May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with trying to topple the Brooklyn Bridge.

• June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.

• August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers (see additional images).

• August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.

• August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat on American soil.

• June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violation.

• August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.

• December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up refinery in Wyoming, convicted of providing material support to terrorists.

• February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq.

• April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.

• June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.

• July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to hit New York City train tunnels.

• August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners over the United States.

• May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey.

• June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries underneath JFK Airport in New York.

• March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

So what was that you were saying?


reply posted on 10-6-2008 @ 04:47 PM by AnOldFriend
reply to post by sos37



Were all those stifled by DHS? And wouldn't the FBI be just as capable of handling this without having to create another government org?



reply posted on 10-6-2008 @ 04:51 PM by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by sos37



Since we have "homeland security" does that mean we can go around the world bullying everyone that does not agree with american foreign policy and hope terrorists either get caught at the gate or love america so much that they never join?

Seriously, one has to wonder about the greater aspirations of neo-conservative policy makers. You see the government has to be right all the time while a few rag-tag terrorists only have to be right once. You can never expect to catch them all and security is never foolproof. Just ask the Israelis.

The best solution is change foreign policy before terrorism gets out of control. Talk with the syrians, iranians, iraqis, north koreans, burmesse. Talk with everyone. Use dimplomacy first, ask questions and if worst comes to worst then go to war. Sometimes war is unavoidable but shooting first and asking questions later is STUPID and that is why we are in this mess to begin with. The iraqi war was certainly uncalled for and greatly destabilized the middle east as well as causing the financial crisis we are now facing.


reply posted on 10-6-2008 @ 05:12 PM by sos37
Originally posted by AnOldFriend
reply to
post by sos37



Were all those stifled by DHS? And wouldn't the FBI be just as capable of handling this without having to create another government org?


It's a list of known terror plots thwarted BY the U.S. Government. I'm sure some were the direct result of DHS, though I'm not exactly sure which ones. I'm sure some of the attacks, possibly others that weren't listed on here, were also stopped by information our government retrieved from prisoners at Guantanamo.


reply posted on 10-6-2008 @ 05:15 PM by sos37
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to
post by sos37



Since we have "homeland security" does that mean we can go around the world bullying everyone that does not agree with american foreign policy and hope terrorists either get caught at the gate or love america so much that they never join?

Seriously, one has to wonder about the greater aspirations of neo-conservative policy makers. You see the government has to be right all the time while a few rag-tag terrorists only have to be right once. You can never expect to catch them all and security is never foolproof. Just ask the Israelis.

The best solution is change foreign policy before terrorism gets out of control. Talk with the syrians, iranians, iraqis, north koreans, burmesse. Talk with everyone. Use dimplomacy first, ask questions and if worst comes to worst then go to war. Sometimes war is unavoidable but shooting first and asking questions later is STUPID and that is why we are in this mess to begin with. The iraqi war was certainly uncalled for and greatly destabilized the middle east as well as causing the financial crisis we are now facing.



What does one have to do with the other in the context of my post? I was responding to another poster who said "What exactly has Bush done to protect this country since 9/11?" and I answered him. I'm trying to show that we are, in fact, SAFER now in this country than we were on Sept 11, 2001, in part because of Bush and in part because of beefed up security and awareness.

Each and every one of those incidents mentioned was covered in the news when they occurred. How soon we forget is truly unbelievable.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by sos37]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^