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.

 

Kucinich Motions to Impeach Bush Again...This Time Pelosi Is Listening

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Was there ever a mandated Ceasefire by the UN?( i can't remember if there was or not) i know there was a cease fire imposed by the US after the first gulf war. So technically if the UN never approved and mandated a ceasefire for the first Gulf war, Then Bush really didn't have to go back to the UN and get their approval for the 2nd war. And Any nation can wage war without the approval of the UN, there is no treaty that says that you have to go to the UN, and even if you do go to them and they say no you can still take it upon yourself to take action against any country you like.

Now about these articles of impeachment How can the congress impeach a president for something they voted to give him authorization to do? If they impeach him they have to impeach themselves! And you know they won't impeach themselves.

And yes if they did manage to impeach bush before he left office then Cheney would become president by line of succession. and then they would have to impeach him seperately. i doubt they could impeach both by Jan.




posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


I was merely addressing the fact that your article did not prove they found WMD's.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by matth
It doesn't really matter if Jesus himself came back to life in January 2003 and said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The fact of the matter is that now, in 2008, we know he didn't have WMD's, we were all misled about the Iraqi War, including politicians; and if you were to ask any of those people who you are quoting from years ago what they thought of the WMD situation now, they would tell you a complete different story.

Use current quotes from these people instead of quotes from ten years ago, and once again your argument is shot down


That's something known as 20/20 hindsight. At the time, everyone thought he had WMDs, so they acted accordingly.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


Read my earlier posts. First the impeachment has 35 different accounts. Second, the fact that Bush went against intelligence that was given to him that said Iraq had no connection to Al Qi'ada and purposefully told congress and the American public the very next day the exact opposite of that is why he can be held accountable.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
Was there ever a mandated Ceasefire by the UN?( i can't remember if there was or not) i know there was a cease fire imposed by the US after the first gulf war. So technically if the UN never approved and mandated a ceasefire for the first Gulf war, Then Bush really didn't have to go back to the UN and get their approval for the 2nd war. And Any nation can wage war without the approval of the UN, there is no treaty that says that you have to go to the UN, and even if you do go to them and they say no you can still take it upon yourself to take action against any country you like.

Now about these articles of impeachment How can the congress impeach a president for something they voted to give him authorization to do? If they impeach him they have to impeach themselves! And you know they won't impeach themselves.

And yes if they did manage to impeach bush before he left office then Cheney would become president by line of succession. and then they would have to impeach him seperately. i doubt they could impeach both by Jan.


As it pertains to the United Nations, the only reason that they got brought into this discussion was that someone claimed the UN approved of the war, and people brought information forward to correct his false statement. Of course the United States, just like any other country, has the right to do whatever they want separate from the United Nations...although it does not set a good example and shows just how ineffective that group truly is, and that wasn't the original point to begin with.

As far as questioning Congress for impeaching the President because they voted to go to Iraq...have you been living under a rock for the last five years?!?! I don't mean to be rude, but I cannot believe people are still bringing this up as an argument! They were lied to, just like you were lied to and just like I was lied to! So yes, under the FALSE PRETENSES that the Bush administration gave to Congress, they voted to go to war. What do you think the point of lying is?


And yes Congress should be taken to task for allowing this war to continue as long as it has, but you cannot blame them for falling for something that the majority of Americans also fell for...what you can do, however, is blame them for their inaction since November 2006.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
Use current quotes from these people instead of quotes from ten years ago, and once again your argument is shot down


That's something known as 20/20 hindsight. At the time, everyone thought he had WMDs, so they acted accordingly.



Haha, thank you for saying "20/20 hindsight", because during that post I was typing I was trying very hard to come up with that exact word but it was on the tip of my tounge...seriously thanks, haha!



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Bravo to Kucinich for keeping this thing going. He has guts unlike many including some of his fellow democrats. He is also a democrat who did not vote for the war. I have to agree with some of the comments about dems. not taking care of business sooner and because they bury themselves as well with their vote for war. But Kucinich is right to go through with this even it does shine the light on dems. and not in a good way.

I also think that it is never too late even if it is all said and done long after Jan. At least it would have been said and done. The reason why Pelosi was against it in the beginning is, I think, that she didn't want to look in the mirror, also the dems. are really at the brink of imploding their party.

Anyway my $.02.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Nancy Pelosi...who ever listens to her, Impeach Bush..
Worry about how Chuck Schumer is about to take your money ...worry about the real bad guys.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Bush should be tried, even after leaving his presidency.. he is a human, ragardless and has committed scandelous crimes. Why should it be any different oustide of lets say, a rapist? or murderer? drug dealer? DOes the system stop looking or prosecuting them, becuase time ran out? NO
why should bush be any differnet? The long term affect his damage has caused us, the world, for that matter.. and i do hope, he goes down in history as the worst president, a butcherer even.
As for the United nations.. trust in them. why? Because i leanred about the NWO when i was 19, form an ex marine. im 33 now. I saw a tape his friends smugggled outta DC. The goal, was to eliminate the United nations, to that government could keep moving its evil scheme.. no one to represent the people. If youve noticed, in the past decade, in the 90's UN police were sent in..Bosnia. 2000 and up, the UN was ignored. Government does not like united nations. But, we need the UN i think of it as our representation. Its like going to court..no lawyer?(representation) your screwed.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Why this man isn't impeached already is beyond me. Oh yeah, I remember, the democrats are cowards and lied to the American people about that whole 'change' idea.

Bush and Cheney's crimes far surpass that of impeachable offenses, they border on criminals of war.

reply to post by RRconservative
 


Oh Saddam sure had WMDs. We sold them to him.

Rumsfeld's Handshake Deal with Saddam


As the most senior U.S. official to visit Iraq in six years, Rumsfeld had served as Reagan's point man for warming relations with Saddam. In 1984, the administration engineered the sale to Baghdad of 45 ostensibly civilian-use Bell 214ST helicopters. Saddam's military found them quite useful for attacking Kurdish civilians with poison gas in 1988, according to U.S. intelligence sources. "In response to the gassing," journalist Jeremy Scahill has pointed out, "sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most U.S. technology. The measure was killed by the White House."

The USA's big media institutions did little to illuminate how Washington and business interests combined to strengthen and arm Saddam Hussein during many of his worst crimes. "In the 1980s and afterward, the United States underwrote 24 American corporations so they could sell to Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction, which he used against Iran, at that time the prime Middle Eastern enemy of the United States," writes Ben Bagdikian, a former assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, in his book The New Media Monopoly. "Hussein used U.S.-supplied poison gas" against Iranians and Kurds "while the United States looked the other way."


Rumsfeld and Saddam handshake from the 1980s when [Rumsfeld] was dealing arms to the Iraqis:



How Did Iraq Get Its WMD? - We Sold Them To Saddam

Reagan’s WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein

Iraq WMD Lies: The Words of Mass Deception

Its also interesting to note the CIA told Bush Iraqi did NOT have WMDs:

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction


CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail.


Its also interesting to look at George Bush Senior and Iraq's oil connection:

source


the Americans made a deal with a large number of Iraqis that they would help them overthrow Saddam after the Gulf War was over. But they never did. So these disappointed Iraqis returned home as traitors, and Saddam used the last of his sarin nerve gas on them, killing them all.

But where did Saddam Hussein get the Sarin nerve gas?

President Ronald Reagan gave it to him several years before. After the United States helped Saddam into power in 1980, they gave him 30,000 lbs of sarin nerve gas and told Saddam to use it against the Iranians. In return, the Iraqis sold America a large quantity of oil. Oil for weapons.

Years later, Reagan also gave nerve gas to the Iranians... and told them to use it against the Iraqis. In return Iran gave America oil. Oil for weapons.


Ah, the pieces of the puzzle are starting to come together...Iraq and Iran both have weapons of mass destruction because the United States Government was in business with both countries.


[edit on 7/12/2008 by biggie smalls]



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   
considering how horrific our country is now I would say- the sooner this man's out of office, the sooner we can put him on trial and in jail.

Gas is officially $4.00 at least everywhere now...he wants a piece of Iran now too- we won't be able to withstand 10 or 20 dollar a gallon gas prices...

The sooner this man's out, the sooner maybe we can stand on our feet.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by matth
 

No i haven't been living under a rock for the last 5 years.
BUt it is a valid arguement. they got the same intell that every other world leader recieved and they chose to give him authorization to invade iraq. They all should be held accountable for their actions. I know if i screwed up at my job as big as congress has i would have been fired along time ago. and thats what needs to happen with congress now they need to be thrown out on their butts and vote people in that will work to get this country back on track.

As far as the articles of impeachment, Honestly it will be a waste of time. there is no way they could get enough votes in the house to send it to the senate. And if the Dems do try it, it will split the house and nothing will get done.

I know it gives everyone hope that Pelosi is entertaining Kucinich's Motions to Impeach Bush But she along with everyone in the house knows it will be political suicide to try it this close to elections. the time to impeach has long past they should have impeached him after he was re-elected!

And i don't see him being tried for war crimes either.

man i need to learn to speel

[edit on 12-7-2008 by Mercenary2007]



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Kucinich is from Ohio where Clinton Anderson is located. Senator Smith from oregon. Bot have taken a firm stance against the war on terror Id hoped someone else would have noticed it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
A question and I'm coming from Devil's Advocate here. If proceedings go against Bush can they be transfered from impeachment to WHAT other jurisdiction?

The Constitution answers that (italics & bold emphasis below is mine):

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

In all reason, it should be safe to presume "according to Constitutional Law"...

The only punishment for successful Impeachment is removal from Office & automatic disqualification for any other government Office or Office of Trust...Anywhere in the country (including any positions within "Foreign Diplomacy" matters). Other punishments (through "due process" with the Judicial Branch) can only be enforced on charges found "guilty" during the course of trial proceedings.


Originally posted by Shakesbeer
It definitely does matter if an impeached president can't pardon anyone...


Originally posted by iamcamouflage
Lets just say that Bush is impeached, they rush the proceedings, he doesnt resign and is found guilty. Cheney becomes president and pardons bush from any wrong doings while president and he gets off scott free.


Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

According to the Constitution, Impeachment also removes an (ex) President's Power of Pardon at the same time...Also, no President can Pardon in the case of any Impeachment. However, should Bush "retire" before he can actually be Impeached, Cheney could then Pardon Bush & save him from a messy trial.

Unless, of course, Kunich's calls for Impeachment also succeed in Impeaching Cheney (who therefore couldn't become President & never gets the Power of Pardon)...


Originally posted by Mercenary2007
I know if i screwed up at my job as big as congress has i would have been fired along time ago. and thats what needs to happen with congress now they need to be thrown out on their butts...

Heh! Heh! Sorry, but I just can't resist this one!

The only problem I can see with this is that so many Congressional Officers would be hit with Impeachment proceedings, there wouldn't be enough people in Congress left to actually cast the votes to Impeach.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I'm certain this is retarded for a variety of reasons:
1. Bush is almost out of office, so this would be pointless.
2. Impeaching Bush would put someone even worse in his place, Cheney.
3. Bush will already be tried after his Presidency is up. It just remains to be seen if he will be acquitted or not.
4. I doubt it would even go through. They didn't impeach Clinton whenever he lied on the bench. What he lied about was irrelevant, it just means that he is dishonest.
5. Impeaching the President takes our eyes off of what we really need to be paying attention to! (Iraq, United States in a recession, ect)
6. Impeaching for just a false sense of satisfaction getting out a President you don't like is just wrong.

[edit on 7/12/2008 by FadeToBlack]



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by matth
 


Excuse me children, Bush has done nothing impeachable. Wishful thinking only works in Oz. Go back to moping the floor.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by chuckk
 


Thank God there is someone with a normally operating brain in here, Dennis the Menace should worry on more important things, like actually representing his constituents. Really you morons laud him for being some kind of hero and having balls, he is and has neither. The truth about Kucinich is this while he ran off pretending he could actually be the President his District went virtually unrepresented not to mention the fact that his District is quickly becoming a jobless, crime ridden wasteland and all he can find time to do is criticize the President and come up with this trash four months before he is due to leave office damn at what point will you knuckleheads just deal with it and let it go it is almost over anyway.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
4 months until Bush is out of office anyways. I think this is to little to late. But I still give Kucinich kudos for standing up for the true meaning of a democracy.

How long did the Clinton impeachment trials last? Even if it does pass he will be out of office before they reach a verdict.

This should have been done years ago.

Just curious, but are you aware that the USA isn't a Democracy? The USA has never been a Democracy, and things are going downhill in this nation because the powers that be are trying to turn it into a Democracy. Democracy's are bad because they are controlled by mob rule, and once the majority realizes they can vote in those that will do their bidding, all honesty goes out the window.

The Founding Fathers HATED Democracies. They called them "mob-ocracies." We are not and have never been a Democracy. In fact, the word "Democracy" isn't mentioned anywhere in the Articles of the Constitution. Still, we have millions of people thinking the USA is a Democracy!

Democracies ALWAYS fail because of the corruptness of human nature. Democracies are bad and are always eventually controlled by the elitists. Eventually, they turn Socialist, then Fascist. Sound familiar?

But, yea, vote Obama. Fascism here we come.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   
I don't think anything wil come of this, but wouldn't it be great if they did impeach him? King george did some many things in his time to become a complete criminal, but absolute power comes with a no responsibility clause, so........



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ChocoTaco369
 


Every form of government that becomes corrupt ends up bringing about its on downfall.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by AgnosticX]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join