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.

 

Biden: Obama Will Prosecute Bush's 'Crimes' After Election

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I don't know how you can go after the president without going after half of Congress too, the POTUS simply lacks "absolut power" to be the only one prosecuted. You know what? If we did this, we wouldn't have to wait another 2 years to vote the rest of these bastards out of office. We might be on to something here...




posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRooster
 


I would love nothing more than to see MOST of our state representatives and senators taken out of the respective seats. Stop voting in the same Jack***** people!! If they screw up..make them pay!!



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by nj2day
 


I plan on doing that myself. Party affiliation never mattered to me anyway, but i am voting against anyone that voted for the bailout. Kudos to anyone doing the same.


This thread by ProfEmeritus encourages everyone to do just that.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
THANKS Rooster for that link............now I know who needs to stay and who needs to go. This little notebook I wrote the names in will be with me on voting day just in case my memory wobbles on me so as to not make a mistake.

Ya its THAT important to me.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by theRiverGoddess
THANKS Rooster for that link............now I know who needs to stay and who needs to go. This little notebook I wrote the names in will be with me on voting day just in case my memory wobbles on me so as to not make a mistake.

Ya its THAT important to me.


The one guy I hate in my state was the only one to vote against it, I've personally met this man and didn't like him. And he voted against it, so he has my vote. That darn Dean Heller, good job!



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


Here is the speech George Bush might give for his farewell speech.



Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time.

If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore.

I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you:

There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.



The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people.

I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world.

Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours.

And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.



Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.



Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office.

Some guy named 'Clinton' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan, a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel . Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We w ere simply able to out spend and out-tech them.



That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die.

That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can.

But they are.. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amount s to a single season of 'Survivor.'



Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy.

Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter.

Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out,

even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below ow sea level and has a hurricane approaching.



I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from.

But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again.

Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it.

Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America .

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.


PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
Wow, even more reason to vote for obama. Interesting to see that the vid was added in september. Why hasnt this gotten any play?

but like I said, even more reason for the few undecideds left who dont like bush.

If obama had to break every single promise he has made but went forward with this one, I'd consider it one of the greatest presidencies of all time.


Yes, more reason to vote Obama....



Oh, but wait..


[edit on 2-11-2008 by West Coast]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I'd bet dollars to donuts agains this EVER happening due to Obama/Biden pursuing anything.

Think about it this way:

If Obama and his cabinet want to pursue this course of action when they assume office, they'd better watch their butts come January 2013!!!!



What's good for the goose is good for his successor. The only dirty tricks are the ones that backfire.

all the bets.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


Don't hold your breath my friend remember that one of the reasons congress is majority Democrats for the last two years is because the people in this nation wanted a new congress to go after Bush crimes.

Nothing happen so don't expect a Democratic president do a darn thing either.




posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LogicalExplanation
What crimes is Bush going to be prosecuted for? Congress authorized the war, don't forget. We should be going after them, not Bush.





Congress voted to support the war on terrorism, it didn't pass a declaration of war.

"The Washington Post was amused by the spectacle of a British reporter who tried valiantly to get President Bush to reveal his plans for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The exchange featured Bush saying that Trevor McDonald was "one of those clever reporters that keeps trying to put words in my mouth." But his grilling of the president was absolutely necessary. Bush is talking about war against Iraq and yet he has not gone to Congress for a declaration of war.
The Constitution authorizes Congress to declare war. But when the Congress voted to support the war on terrorism, it didn't pass a declaration of war. Instead, it passed an "Authorization for Use of Military Force." Osama bin Laden had issued his own Declaration of War against the U.S. back in 1996.
Rep. Lindsey Graham, who is running for the Senate, got the House of Representatives to go on record in support of a resolution for Iraq to readmit U.N. weapons inspectors. It passed 392 to 12. The resolution said Iraq was in noncompliance with U.N. resolutions passed after the Gulf War that required the regime to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.
Then, "The State," the Columbia, South Carolina newspaper, reported that Graham claimed he had inside information about a secret Bush plan to attack Iraq. "Before the end of summer or fall we'll be in a major engagement with Iraq," the story quoted Graham as saying. "We're looking at going after Saddam Hussein -- not to contain him, but to replace him." The article said Graham based his prediction on "intelligence briefings, contact with the Bush administration and his attendance at a recent international conference in Germany." Later, Graham said his comments were only conjecture.
Congress is authorized to declare war under our Constitution. That's why the questions asked by Trevor McDonald are so critical. Although Bush told him that the United States had "no immediate plans to conduct military operations," he also said, "I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go." Bush added, "That's about all I'm willing to share with you." So is the president going to take action to bring that about? "That's what I just said," replied Bush. "The policy of my government is that he goes."
"So you're going to go after him?" asked McDonald. "As I told you," said the president, " the policy of my government is that Saddam Hussein not be in power." McDonald continued, "How do you plan to achieve this, Mr. President?" "Just wait and see" was the reply.
Bush said he wanted the inspectors back in Iraq, but that alone wouldn't be enough to save the Iraqi regime. "This is not an issue of inspectors," replied Bush. "This is an issue of him not upholding his word that he would not develop weapons of mass destruction." Therefore, McDonald concluded, "whether he allows the inspectors in or not, he is on the list to be attacked." That's when Bush accused McDonald of being "clever" and "trying to put words in my mouth."
This isn't being clever. It's tough journalism - the kind we should get from the American media. The president is the commander-in-chief but he is not authorized to declare war on his own. We need some tough questions for Congress as well."



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
This is ridiculous. What crimes did George Bush commit exactly. He might have mad some choices that people dont agree with, but I dont see one crime he committed. This just reminds me of the same bull crap with Clinton. Everyone said he was a murderer and every other thing, when in reality he is just a guy that likes to get a little on the side. What possible good could it be to the country to spend a bunch of money going after an ex-president. Just wait until Obama is president, then the same crap will start with him. This whole country is just one big dysfunctional family.

I dont know what motivates so many people to go after every President like they are some sort of criminal. Is it just jealousy or some way to focus on everyone elses imperfections but our own? I would really like to know. No wonder we are stuck with these 2 idiots that are running for President. No one in their right mind would want to put up with this.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 



I accordance to the Constitution only Congress can declare War, Not the President.
Declaration of War was not Declared by Congress.The only thing that Congress did was agree to "Authorization for Use of Military Force."



[edit on 2-11-2008 by azureskys]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   


In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully-developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[37]


From wikipedia

Congress passed a measure to leave it to the discretion of the president so therefore it was considered legal by the courts. In addition, Congress never formally disputed it when he declared war, so obviously they were ok with it.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Buck Division
 


Most of Clinton's "crimes" pale in comparison to those committed by Bush. Perjury and the Vince Foster thing (which by the way, has already been investigated clearing Clinton) don't hold a candle to lying to the American people in order to drag our country's bravest into a senseless war for profit. Not to mention the treason committed by the White House in the outing of an undercover CIA operative or the illegal wiretapping of American citizens. These are just to mention a few of the crimes perpetrated by the most corrupt administration in history.

I will admit I was a bit naive to say that Clinton had done nothing worthy of prosecution, however, I feel you too were a bit naive to place Clinton's crimes in the same boat as those of George W. Bush.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRooster

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Pursue Clinton???? For what, getting a BJ an lying about it. Give me a break.


How about selling hi-tech secrets to the Chicoms, or have you been living under a rock?



No, I heard all about this when the scandal first broke almost a decade ago. Please refer to my last post as it addresses your comment as well.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


However, none of what you listed as Bush's crimes are actually war crimes... They might be against our laws in the U.S., but not international laws..

The torture of detainees, and the goings on in Gitmo, are against the Geneva Convention, and may be tried by the ICC. (most likely the reason the bush administration adamantly opposed the formation of the ICC).

If they are linked to the torture, and if a deep investigation into Gitmo comes to light, They may be tried at the Hague for war crimes.

If bush refuses to go to the Hague, well, they will and can try him in absentia.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 


Yeah, I agree, that is what Bush would say alright. It has what he ,and Cheney, and Rush, and Coulter, and FOX News have been saying for the last eight years. I think you did an excellent job of illustrating for all of us how ridiculous these positions have been all along. Good job man, I commend your efforts, you certainly do know the Bush administration and their BS quite well.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Honestly, I can't see a McCain presidency refusing to investigate Bush either.

I think McCain's party affiliations wouldn't matter... as he has been an active opponent of torture in congress...

It is pretty obvious that this administration engages in torture. They have came out and said that "Waterboarding" isn't a form of torture... I challenge any member of congress who voted saying that it is not torture to undergo a waterboarding session.

Here's an article and video by Christopher Hitchens, volunteering himself to see if this is indeed torture:

www.vanityfair.com...



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


Like I said, I was only mentioning a few of his crimes. Thanks for pointing a few of the others for in case some of the Bush cheerleaders had forgotten. It is amazing how many crimes he has committed and is still in office.

Isn't it odd that the two presidents who have been impeached, Clinton and Nixon, were done so over relatively minor offenses and yet when major offenses are committed, they are swept under the rug.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


It hasn't been swept under the rug... there are a few good people in congress who are more than willing to impeach... people from his party non the less

www.cnn.com...

However, it is impossible for these guys to get it through, because of the other scum that are afraid of hurting their political careers, or are loyal to the bush administration.

The motion to impeach was on the floor, and of course, was knocked down. Very little media coverage on this... just quick blurbs here and there.

Its probably something the PTB didn't want the public discussing too much...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join