Kucinich Motions to Impeach Bush Again...This Time Pelosi Is Listening, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times


reply posted on 11-7-2008 @ 02:48 PM by Keyhole
Why doesn't the US government have any other means of getting rid of a leader who just isn't taking care or running the country satisfactorily or isn't satisfying the will or wants of the people?

Kind of like the "No Confidence" vote that was made in the Ukraine.

Ukraine's Tymoshenko Survives No-Confidence Vote

Ukraine's Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko survived a no-confidence vote called by the opposition in protest at her pro-Western government's handling of high inflation and other economic ills.



Instead of having to go through all the hearings and all to get a President impeached, there would only have to be a vote of "No Confidence", yes or no and it's all over!

I'm sure Bush would be out on his keester at the end of THAT vote!


[edit on 7/11/2008 by Keyhole]


reply posted on 11-7-2008 @ 03:12 PM by matth
Originally posted by RRconservative
Wait what are the reasons they want to impeach him for? The "illegal war" that was approved by Congress and the United Nations? Is that really an impeachable offense?


While I have no intention of getting into an argument with you over this, I think you are slightly mistaken. The Iraqi War was never approved by the United Nations.

As a matter of fact, the United Nations (and don't get me wrong, I don't have any confidence in the United Nations, but you have to be fair) former Secretary General Kofi Annan has gone on the record stating that not only did the United Nations Security Council NOT approve of the Iraqi War, but the war itself was against the United Nations Charter and WAS, in fact, illegal.

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."


Full Article Here

As far as Congress approving the War, I can't really argue that. However, I can say that they were misled into approving this war, based on 1.)false intelligence and 2.) Post 9/11 Blind Patriotism that the majority of Americans (and hell even the rest of the "western" world) were suffering from at the time. Hence, the impeachment.

And even if it is too late to really take him out of office when he's on his way out anyway, it would be great to have that (*) next to George W.'s name in the Presidency history books, and maybe that would open up the pandora's box that could hopefully get more charges laid against him in the future, like war crimes. I know, wishful thinking on that point, but hey people can dream can't they?

[edit on 11-7-2008 by matth]


reply posted on 11-7-2008 @ 03:33 PM by Grambler
reply to post by RRconservative


I'm not going to go deeply into this, but your claims of what the impeachment is about is very misleading. For one, there were 35 charges, and not all of them have to do with the Iraq war.

One of the big ones that Kucinich is going for was one that was outlined in Vincent Bugliosi's book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. It is the fact that intelligence officials met with Bush on one day, and told him that there was no connection whatsoever to Iraq and Al Qi'ada, and the on the very next day, Bush addressed Congress and the public and and purposefully misled them by claiming there was a connection.

That means that the blame can't be placed on faulty intelligence, because the intelligence was right, and Bush chose to lie about it. Hence, one of the major reason we went to war and countlessf people have died is because Bush intentionally lied.

Again, this is just one reason out of 35. Honestly, even if you are a Bush supporter, you should read the list and watch or read Kucinich's presenting of it. At the very least you will be able to be more informed to make your comments.


reply posted on 11-7-2008 @ 04:30 PM by RRconservative
The original UN resolution states it clearly...

www.whitehouse.gov...

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990



Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."


Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."


This is what gave the US to use force....This is straight from the UN.

What sense does it make after the fact for the UN to contradict its own resolution?

[edit on 11-7-2008 by RRconservative]


reply posted on 11-7-2008 @ 04:33 PM by intrepid
reply to post by RRconservative


Why not? You are aware of all the UN resolutions placed against Israel, right? So why choose these ones and ignore the others? See my point? It's picking and choosing.

Edit to add:

regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait


Did Iraq invade Kuwait again? I missed that.



[edit on 11-7-2008 by intrepid]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^