It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


former U.S. Attorney General: Impeach Bush & Co.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 07:40 PM
Umm to even start the impeachment process you have to get enough votes in the house to start it. Which is a republican controlled house, and than it goes to the senate where they hold the trial, and the supreme court judge watches over the trial. Soooooooooooo its not going to happen, its four more years of Bush, theres nothing you can do about it.

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 07:50 PM

There's been too many threads resurrected recently that ends up with people thinking they're current. Before you reply, CHECK THE DATE!

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 07:54 PM
There is no shortage of talk about impeaching Bush these days, and it's from the usual suspects, such as Ramsey Clark.

Now if this were a thread about how cool the Macarena is, then yeah, I'd leave it.

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 08:02 PM
It's not current. The post was made before the full scale invasion of Iraq. If there was a case for impeachment then I'd imagine it's increased tenfold by now. "

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Majic
There is no shortage of talk about impeaching Bush these days, and it's from the usual suspects, such as Ramsey Clark.

Now if this were a thread about how cool the Macarena is, then yeah, I'd leave it.

This is a good article on the "leftist" Ramsey Clark

From the link.....
Few Americans and perhaps no other former high-ranking U.S. government officials have Clark’s standing with America’s enemies. After Sept. 11, when Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz wrote a letter to express his condolences “to the families of the victims of those events,” he mailed it to Ramsey Clark.

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 08:40 PM
Oh, this >ISN'T< the same directive that Ramsey Clark sent out today, is it?

Oh, a separate one? My my my. Maybe there won't be an inauguration after all, so many angry people "writing it up."

No, just for certain, here is TODAY's Ramsey Clark TEXT:

We, The People Demand The Impeachment Of George W. Bush
By Ramsey Clark, 11-11-4

"Bush can run, but he cannot hide from the Constitution" "The
election does not pardon the President for past, or future "high
Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Impeachment is not a partisan political issue. The House of
Representatives, possessed of the "sole power of impeachment," is
required to consider a bill of impeachment on the facts even if every
Member were of the same party, or political persuasion, as the
President. The seven specific provisions of the Constitution setting
forth the powers and duties of the Congress in considering
impeachment intend that any President or other civil officer of the
United States who has committed a high Crime or Misdemeanor "...shall
be removed from Office."

The power of impeachment assures the people against criminal acts and
despotic ambitions by government officials.

We, the People have the power to require the House of Representatives
to do its duty and act on a bill of impeachment after full
investigation and consideration. If it fails to do so those House
members who failed to perform this Constitutional duty can and should
be voted from office. Remember that President Nixon resigned under
threat of impeachment for Watergate less than two years after his
landslide reelection in 1972.

Impeachment Is Imperative

For the American people who support and defend the Constitution of
the United States, who want to prevent further crimes by a lawless
administration, who believe we can redeem our country in the eyes of
those we have assaulted and those who have witnessed this brutality
and who dare to demand of future government leadership, NEVER AGAIN,
Impeachment is Imperative. A decent respect to the opinions of
mankind requires that we Americans should declare the causes which
impel us to impeach.

President George W. Bush chose to wage a war of aggression against
Iraq, which had not attacked the United States and presented no
imminent threat to our people, or legitimate interests. A small
cabal, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby and Rove
wrested decision making processes from established institutions of
government to reinforce President Bush,s desire to seize Iraq,
defying international institutions, the opinions of humankind and the
rule of law to commence a disastrous criminal military adventure.

A Campaign of Deceit And False Propaganda

War of aggression is the first offense listed in the Nuremberg
Charter as a Crime against Peace. The Nuremberg Tribunal after
hearing evidence of Nazi crimes in World War II convicted the leaders
of waging wars of aggression, which it called "the supreme
international crime."

At Nuremberg, the Chief U.S. Prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, promised
posterity that in the future all nations, including our own, would be
held accountable for such crimes.

President Bush and key administration officials engaged in a lengthy
campaign of deceit, concealment and false propaganda to create
support for, and acceptance of, its war of aggression by claiming
Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, harbored terrorists, had
close ties with and supported Al Qaeda and intended to attack the
U.S., U.S. citizens and U.S. interests. A free society, democratic
institutions and constitutional government cannot survive such deceit
by its own government.

The U.S. has made civilians and civilian facilities its direct object
of attack. It has pursued assassination and summary executions as
official policy. President Bush boasted of summary executions in his
State of the Union message in 2003. Excessive and indiscriminate
force and illegal weapons have been used. Many thousands of Iraqi
citizens, whole families, women, children, elderly Iraqis have been
killed as a result.

U.S. military casualties exceed 10,000 including more than 1,100
deaths with many additional thousands returned to the United States
for physical and mental illnesses.

The U.S. has employed torture, including torture to death, rape and
sexual assault and humiliation, as approved and ordered policy from
Afghanistan and Guantanamo to Iraq, inflicted on thousands of
prisoners, many, if not most, without any evidence of wrongful
conduct. An admitted 37 human beings have been murdered while being
held in captivity by the United States under these conditions. We
know not how many more. All the mounting evidence makes clear that
this program of torture and death is not aberrational conduct of
rogue or undisciplined soldiers but is rather the policy adopted at
the highest levels of the Bush/Rumsfeld chain of command. All this in
violation of the Geneva Conventions, the International Convention
Against Torture, the laws of all nations and common human decency.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States
provides: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
United States, Shall Be Removed From Office on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and

More Than 100,000 Dead Based On A Lie

We learn from the prominent medical journal Lancet of the report by
researchers at John Hopkins University, Columbia University and the
Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad that the U.S. war of aggression
against Iraq and military occupation has cost "at least" 100,000
Iraqi lives already must civilian, women and children. Already
President Bush has launched a massive aerial and ground assault on
Falluja which may kill thousands of defenseless civilians.

Haiti, where President Bush forced the elected President Jean
Bertrand Aristide from office, is in chaos with many thousands killed
by widespread daily violence committed by U.S. supported
paramilitaries against Aristide supporters.

Nearly 500,000 have voted to impeach. Help us increase that number
into millions the Congress cannot ignore.

Every American should choose whether to vote for impeachment entirely
on the facts, straight up, or down, without political, or partisan
fear, or favor. We owe this to the country, its future, the
Constitution and our common heritage. Impeachment is Required Now.

Impeachment now is the only way we, the American people, can promise
ourselves and the world that we will not tolerate crimes against
peace and humanity by our government. Knowing what we know, to wait
longer is to condone what has been done and risk more.

Sincerely, Ramsey Clark

[edit on 11-11-2004 by Emily_Cragg]

posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 05:52 AM
In West Virginia, it's punishable by a $8,000 fine for a minor to use a floppy diskette as a weapon without a permit.

What would the punishment for fakin' ones presidential election be?

posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
*shakes head sadly*

...If we had wanted to impeach him, we wouldn't have elected him again.

Reelecting Bush wasn't so much about Bush as it was about rejecting what John Kerry represented and the philosophy behind it.

You're assuming Bush won the election fair & square?

As the presidential motorcade makes its way along Pennsylvania Avenue, will protesters still be allowed to throw eggs @ the limo?

[edit on 13-12-2004 by evilution]

posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 08:06 PM
Hello, I love the board here and my first post has to be in reply to
the election and the controversy that surrounds it. I often wonder if
Republicans would have caused mass unrest by stating that the Democrats
had rigged the election if Bush would have lost. I also wonder how a mass
conspiracy to make sure Bush won all the key states would have been
pulled off without being caught, all there seems to be is speculation
because the numbers didn't turn out the way some would have liked. If
I can remember correctly the all powerful exit polls WERE rigged to show
support for Kerry(that is fact)So what happens next election? I know.
We can put all democrats at all the booths. Then maybe, just maybe the
whining will stop.OH that won't work either we will have Republican hackers
by then to hack the voting machines. See it never ends. Too much
complaining and no actual evidence. I depsise that from people.

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:32 AM
proud american your sinking into that ideal that is actually a difference between partys, i can assure you there is none. puppet figure heads satiracally manipulated by the true governing powers that lie deep in the shadows of the compartmentalized beaucracys. a massive charade if you will, draw a line for each of you to pick sides, to ensure that you meticulously follow suit of their high profile puppets and bicker continually amongst each other as to draw attention away from the real root of the problem. left right right left, we are all living in the same country all with differing ideals, dont allow them to label you, doing such would strip any wholesome man of his dignity. keep an open mind while trolling through the media they provide, you will see what i am talking about. at times it can be painfully obvious.

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:16 PM
We need a President who will go by the Constitution.

Bush is not it.

Kerry wouldn't have been it.

Impeachment does seem a distant dream. Somehow Bush's cronies would fish him out of that mess.

I was reading some news site--forgot which one--where Clinton managed to get out of his mess by blackmailing Ken Starr. Lesson learned--if you're trying to get the Prez thrown out, make sure there are no skeletons in YOUR closet!

posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 04:46 AM
Clinton got out of the impeachment process by threatening to blow the lid off the Mena AK drug operations. conspiracy/bushcoc aine.html

here's a google search you should check out...

[edit on 15-12-2004 by twitchy]

posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 09:50 PM

Originally posted by twitchy
Clinton got out of the impeachment process by threatening to blow the lid off the Mena AK drug operations. conspiracy/bushcoc aine.html

here's a google search you should check out...

[edit on 15-12-2004 by twitchy]

So essentially he did do a little blackmail. Haven't got time to visit those links right now...but if I read you right, he was guilty of blackmail.

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 04:40 AM
Alot of republican interests have the tendency to demonize and blame the Clinton administration for alot of things, but what most of the folks in this country don't realize is that Clinton was a Bush family lackey, Look into BCCI and Mena AK, the answers to that riddle are there. WE have been under the political influence of the Bush/Walker families for much longer than most people think. At least since WWII (prescott), through Vietnam(Bush Sr.), the Reagan Era (the Hinckley family was very close friends with the Bush family if that tells you anything), etc.

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:48 PM

Bout Time: 6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Banned MemberBS with little or no proof.

Oh, really? Than what do you call the Patriot Act?

Ambient sound: If we had wanted to impeach him, we wouldn't have elected him again.

We? We the People didn't elect him. The election was again stolen for the second time.

Ambient sound: As long as the left continues to prove (with topics like this one) how far out of touch with reality they really are.

That's the funniest and most rediculous thing I've ever heard of. They aren't out of touch with reality. You are.

Webtripperdude: Its about the oil

Yes! Thank you! That's what few people understand. Most think this is a war on terrorism when in fact it's war on oil.

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:01 PM

Originally posted by mrmulder
Most think this is a war on terrorism when in fact it's war on oil.

The 'New World Oilers' ambitions

A New York Times article about the Caspian Sea, September 21, 1997:

STEPHEN KINZER, "A Perilous New Contest for the Next Oil Prize," New York Times, September 21, 1997

The big players are nations including Russia, Iran and the United States, companies like Amoco, Pennzoil and Exxon and lobbyists with names like Kissinger, Haig, Baker and Brzezinski. They and every shark east of Suez have recognized that over the next decades, the greatest of games will be
played around the Caspian.

The Oil Connection: Afghanistan and Caspian Sea oil pipeline routes

Don't think there is a connection between Afghanistan and the oil monopolies? Think again. The information contained in these partial Department of Energy reports are current as of September 2001. You can read the complete texts at and This story could be bigger than the Pentagon Papers if it were discovered that the "war on terrorism" were an excuse to end Afghanistan's civil war in order to secure the Southern route of an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan. In 1998, the Taliban signed an agreement to proceed with the pipeline, but the civil war has kept the project from getting started.

ELAINE SCIOLINO, "It's a Sea! It's a Lake! No. It's a Pool of Oil!," New York Times, June 21, 1998
Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, regards the whole debate as part of a U.S.-inspired plot to impose a military presence on Iran's northern border -- the Caspian -- just as it did on Iran's southern border, the Persian Gulf. "The U.S. oil companies' presence in the Caspian Sea is aimed at paving the ground for the U.S. military presence in this sensitive oil-rich region," he said recently.

A coup d'etat for Big Oil

President Bush successfully manipulated the emotions of the American people after Sept. 11 in order to foist his father's ultra-conservative New World Order agenda upon the American people and the world, but are we willing to follow the President over a cliff just because the polls say he is popular right now? When Papa Bush spoke of the New World Order, he was referring to the day when his fellow oil barons would rule the world. He was referring to the creation of a modern Roman Empire. The implication here is that any nation that stands in the way of this Empire will be destroyed. Here is the approximate formula President Bush has used in the aftermath of 9/11:

1) Blame someone. After the Sept 11 attack, Osama bin Laden was immediately named as the person responsible, but the evidence for this blame has never been made public due to supposed "national security" concerns. It is essential that there be a single bad guy that can be blamed, as this focuses attention squarely on him rather than on other contributing factors that may reflect negatively on the United States.

2) Tell the public why we were attacked. President Bush told us that the WTC attack was an attack on our freedom and liberty, on our "American way of life." He stated that we are now at war with terrorism and told us that it is our patriotic duty to support a "long and protracted war." He also dictated that "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists," meaning that there is no middle ground and no room for dissent.

3) Focus on humanitarian concerns. Considering the fate of starving civilians and abused women is good PR during war. The Bush administration never considered humanitarian food drops before Sept. 11, yet this became a focus as the bombs started falling. And while the administration was secretly negotiating with the Taliban, the fate of Afghanistan's women was not even a concern in the negotiations, yet this became another focus after the bombs started falling.

4) Get the mass media involved. The administration knew that the corporate media would not dispute any administration claims regarding the attacks and would keep practicing self-censorship in the name of the "war on terrorism." They knew from experience that reporters would not ask tough, probing questions, but would loyally report each White House and Pentagon briefing as if every word were true.

5) Get Congress involved. With no public hearings and little discussion, Congress has given the President broad new war powers and has sharply curtailed the civil rights of private citizens and political organizations by passing new COINTELPRO-like legislation authorizing domestic spying and wiretapping. Congress has also raided the national treasury and has given away billions in taxpayer dollars to "needy" oil and airline companies and other corporate beggars.

6) Attack Afghanistan. No surprise here that the government would begin bombing Afghanistan under the guise of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. And it is certainly no coincidence that Afghanistan happens to be very important to the long-term strategic plans of Big Oil. According to the Department of Energy, the oil reserves in Central Asia alone are worth about $3 trillion at today's prices, but the oil is worthless until it can be brought to market via an oil pipeline. There is no denying that the President and his father are Big Oil men. In addition, the President's top advisors have a background in Big Oil. Vice President Dick Cheney is the former president of Halliburton, an oil consulting firm; National Security Council Advisor Condoleeza Rice is the former manager of Chevron; and Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans and Energy Secretary Stanley Abraham both worked for Tom Brown, another Big Oil conglomerate.

7) Continue attacks. Once Afghanistan is secure, look for the "war on terrorism" to spread to other countries in the region under one pretext or another. Iraq, certainly, must be high on the list to be bombed again. Other possibilities include Iran, the Phillipines and Columbia, depending upon the level of civilian dissent that surfaces in the weeks and months ahead. We can also expect more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil as the cycle of war and retaliation continues.

The Caspian Basin: USA and pipeline politics

It is not clear but is alleged that soon after George W. Bush gained presidency energy resources became a topic of conversation between the US and the Taliban. A book by Jean Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, “Bin Laden: la verite interdite” (Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth) claims that the Bush administration held meetings with Taliban officials before 9/11 to discuss once again the prospect of a pipeline through Afghanistan. The book asserts that very close ties with the oil industry motivated the Bush administration to revive pipeline discussions with the Taliban despite the American dislike for the regime.

There are many reported connections, too numerous to recount here, but some of these ties include Vice-president Dick Cheney's involvement with Halliburton, an oil drilling services provider. It is very difficult to find out deals that happened when public figures were in private office but such connections have been widely reported in the American press.
Also in question is the US manoeuvre of the rise to power of two former Unocal employees: Hamid Karzai, the new interim president of Afghanistan, and Zalmay Khalizad, the Bush administration's Afghanistan envoy. The National Security advisor Condoleeza Rice's former seat on the board of directors for Chevron has also been questioned.

Basing their claims on interviews with former FBI deputy director John O'Neill, co-authors of the above mentioned book “Bin Laden: la verite interdite” state that the White House impeded investigations into Osama bin Laden's activities while pipeline talks were active. The most shocking claim in this book concerns a statement alleged to have come out of talks between Taliban representatives and the US government in Washington, in March 2001.

According to the book, increasingly frustrated US negotiators told the Taliban, "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." The parties talked for many months before reaching an impasse in August 2001. And ironically the September 11 attack provided the Bush administration a legitimate reason to use the US military to pave the way for the long-sought Afghan oil route.
There are reports that demonstrative support for the war on terrorism against the Taliban was most clearly visible in US energy company boardrooms. In this context Osama bin Laden offered a golden opportunity to further expand American geopolitical influence into South and Central Asia.

After the ousting of the Taliban government the interim government began to shape the economic and political future of Afghanistan and things seemed conducive enough for the Bush administration to accelerate the pipeline projects that were abandoned. Pakistan and Turkmenistan have shown keen interest in the construction of a gas pipeline on the lines of the one initiated by Unocal and proposed as the “CentGas” pipeline.

The possibility that the president of the United States would either allow an attack on Americans to further a political agenda is so horrifying that many reject the possibility out of hand. - From 'Ambushed', by Toby Rogers

[edit on 16-12-2004 by evilution]

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:41 PM
Let's take a quick look at this former Attorney General.

He has called Jesus a "terrorist"

from the link...

Provided legal support to Nazi's, Slobodon Milosevic, Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, leader of Rawanda's genocide.

Clark is affiliated with VoteToImpeach, an organization advocating the impeachment of President George W. Bush. He has been an opponent of both Gulf Wars. It is also widely claimed that his association with Lyndon LaRouche in the early 1990s went beyond legal counsel to advocacy. He is the founder of the International Action Center, which has much overlapping membership with the Workers' World Party. Clark and the IAC helped found the anti-war group ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism).

from this link

Clark and Kerry were strongly against the Reagan policy of supporting the anti-communist “Contra” freedom fighters in Nicaragua. The policy, though opposed by a liberal Congress, resulted in the holding of elections in Nicaragua, the electoral defeat of the Communist Sandinistas, and an end to the communist insurgency in El Salvador.

More recently, Clark has been collaborating with the communist Workers World Party (WWP) in staging “anti-war” demonstrations against U.S. Iraq policy. Brian Becker, a member of the WWP secretariat, helped organize those protests and was the moderator of the Ramsey Clark press event on Haiti.

So this communist, Nazi sympathizer wants Bush impeached? Who would have thought that?

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:26 PM
Guess who is leading Saddam's defense. Yep, the same guy who wants Bush impeached. Who would have thought that?

posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 03:11 PM
The latest in a long list of reasons why Bush and his friends should be in jail
From 'Aspects of Treason' by John Kaminski

We have the welfare of giant corporations taking precedence over the health of nations, as millions of families across the entire world suffer from the sadistic invasion of Iraq while certain favored business entities such as Halliburton and Dyncorp fatten up on the fresh blood of innocents.

America has been revealed as an incompetent, psychotic, and cowardly military force. The future of American citizens can be correctly predicted as the same as what we are doing to many thousands of Iraqi families at this precise moment in time.

... given the unjust and unfair behavior of the United States and its vigilante financial whores known as the International Monetary Fund, it is only a matter of time before the regions permanently defaced by war would creep closer to our own borders.

Therefore, it is a matter of treason that Bush and his handlers, with their insincere prattling about terror threats, should have created a genuine war hazard from their many false pronouncements about terrorists that they have created as a pretext for accelerated profits for military contractors.

Al-Qaeda may not exist except as a public relations creation of the CIA, but the monstrous conception of this fictional threat has led to the emergence of new real threats — the karma of self-deception is always self-destruction — all because the moral and logistical weaknesses of the U.S. military machine have been startlingly revealed by the disingenuous incompetence of the lying fools (Bush, Cheney, Kissinger, Rockefeller et al) who devised the hoax (remember the World Trade Center?) in the first place.

In their ruse to create an incident that would rally the gullible American public to endorse their heartless war against the whole world, they failed to foresee that in their sorceror's apprentice utilization of murderous fraud would be revealed to the world the American hypocrisy

To confront the Beast the USA has become — the realization is growing around the world.

These people didn't want to be our enemies, but we made them be, because it was good for business. Or so our leaders told us.

This is treason, and a tragedy of very likely unprecedented proportions.

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
The power of impeachment assures the people against criminal acts and
despotic ambitions by government officials.

[edit on 31-12-2004 by evilution]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in