The door to impeachement swings WIDE open! Treasonous acts under investigation!

reply to post by AlienChaser

Impeachment means nothing, and if it means anything it will not remove Obama. Bill Clinton WAS impeached and he remained president as if nothing happened. Richard Nixon WAS NOT impeached (he resigned in the face of impeachment).

Impeachment is the only way a sitting President can be removed from office, but it does not mean that any impeachment will result in a removal from office. Impeachment is an indictment. Clinton was not removed from office because his impeachment was over perjury. Nixon's threatened impeachment was much more serious, and quite probably would not only have removed him from office, but also would likely have been prosecuted for his crimes. Thus, he appointed Ford as VP after Agnew resigned, who then pardoned him for all crimes after his resignation.

That was the most brilliant stroke of covering one's posterior I have ever seen, and was the reason I became interested in politics. Ringling Brothers would have given their eyeteeth to have entertainment like this!

In the case of treason, impeachment would definitely lead to removal from office, and more likely than not would result in civilian criminal charges as well. Am I correct that treason still carries the death penalty?

Not that I expect such a punishment to be administered... again, just sayin'...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by jtma508
I know that pointing out that Petreus was doing this in Iraq under the Bush Adminnistration will spoil your bash-Obama party but it is a fact.

The OP wasn,t "bashing" Obama.

She was merely reporting a investigation.

Any "bashing" of Obama , was all self inflicted.


48

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Sean48]

reply to post by Libertygal

Something else is in the woodpile, my friend.

Yes there is. I used to think that the smell of victory in the morning, was OIL. I do not think that anymore. I have realized that there is a larger global strategy coming to fruition before our eyes.

Yes they have families, but do you seriously think they are going to, or would even be *allowed* to keep that money? They would be beheaded if found out, don't you think?

Here you assume that those receiving the payoffs are just "regular people". What if those families where elite and powerful? Wouldn't they then be allowed, or make it so that they are "allowed" to keep that money?

reply to post by AlienChaser

At the risk of debating a mod...

You are not debating a Mod; you are debating a member.

It is quite possible that you are correct and that 2010 will bring about another shift in the balance of power. I sincerely hope it does, not because I especially like the Republican Party, but because I tend to support anything that makes it harder for the government to function. Their function seems lately to be more tied to taxing and regulating the people to the maximum extent possible, and I would like to see this delayed as long as is possible.

That goes for both parties. Hence my ill-advised vote for Barack Obama in 2008.

But it could be argued that the result is not some sort of 'natural' correction mechanism. Politics is anything but natural. If there is a shift in power, I would attribute it to a dissatisfaction with the present leaders instead of some group consciousness that tries to maintain a balance.

I would hope you are well aware that the landslides in 2008 were the result of this type of public dissatisfaction with the Bush administration.

Again, you have no one left to blame. If the Democratic Party were capable of leading the country in the direction its citizenry wished it to go, then they would have no worry about 2010. Any shift toward the Republican Party is the Democratic Party's own doing.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Libertygal


And i wonder what little dark secrets they would reveal if and when they investigate why the Iraqi "surge" worked so efficiently under the Bush administration. So out of the kindness of their heart, alqaeda-sympathetic militants just happened to say "meh, this whole fighting for our religion thing against the Americans is really getting old, let's cooperate." I think not... And besides, this wouldn't be the first time the U.S. authorized some sort of bribe to foreign powers, enemy or on-the-line countries.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Yes, you are correct, that a conviction of treason carries the death penalty. I think there is an explicit provision for a conviction during a "war time". I think though, the "usual" penalty is life imprisonment.

If the act is committed against one's own government, then, it is considered a crime of high treason, I believe.

Just how they would wish to pursue this, or are persuing it, remains open to speculation. It will probably just go away, but it may well not.

It would probably be a better question left to someone who knows more about constitutional law, though.

reply to post by daddio


I understand where you are going with that, but not agreeing with the war, and having solid proof that Osama is dead are two different things bud.

Im not saying hes NOT dead, but theres no solid proof that he is...and you stated that it was a FACT, but its not, its just speculation.

Nothing in any of that information lead to Osama being dead as a fact.

I understand your viewpoint tho

Originally posted by AlienChaser
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Something else is in the woodpile, my friend.

Yes there is. I used to think that the smell of victory in the morning, was OIL. I do not think that anymore. I have realized that there is a larger global strategy coming to fruition before our eyes.

I agree with you totally, now the question is, what, exactly? As I stated in another post, I don't think this comes down to Pakistan being a nuclear nation. I used to believe that, but not now. The only other huge money I know of is the opium trade, so that leaves us what, investing in that?

Yes they have families, but do you seriously think they are going to, or would even be *allowed* to keep that money? They would be beheaded if found out, don't you think?

Here you assume that those receiving the payoffs are just "regular people". What if those families where elite and powerful? Wouldn't they then be allowed, or make it so that they are "allowed" to keep that money?

I am only assuming that these are just regular folks because the article points out that we have been paying off what are known as "simply road bandits". This does lead me to believe they are just "regular folks" that are towing the line for the oppressive Taliban, or they face death.

This is also exactly why I think the money is funnelled upstream, they won't allow the "simple" folks to hold on to that type of cassh, and trust me, in those areas, an influx of money would be noticed and discovered almost immediately.

The article also does state they are paying off the warlords, too, but as I stated, did they *seriously* think this would, or has changed anything? The "elite" and powerful in those areas are the Taliban, not the poorer people living there. The poorer ones are the ones that want the Taliban out, but they have to do what they are told, or the penalty is death.

If they hid payoffs, they would pay the ultimate price for this. This is why the whole thing makes no sense.

edit to fix brackets, I hope

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Libertygal]

I figured I would chime in on the matter of Osama Bin Laden...Who really knows if he is alive or dead...we don't have a body to prove it.

However, we DO know he was on kidney dialysis, right? And the life expectancy of a person on dialysis is 3 to 5 years....so here we are 8 years later...if he were treated in a proper medical facility, the odds of him being alive would be minimal...so, given that he received his treatment in a cave (presumably) in a worse than 3rd world country...my guess is that he is dead.

But only a corpse will ever prove it. Even then, there will be doubters....he will probably live on forever...along with Elvis and Tupac.

Just my 2-cents

reply to post by TheRedneck

But it could be argued that the result is not some sort of 'natural' correction mechanism. Politics is anything but natural. If there is a shift in power, I would attribute it to a dissatisfaction with the present leaders instead of some group consciousness that tries to maintain a balance.

Yes politics is anything but natural, but the "system" is designed to maintain that unnatural balance. The idea of "group consciousness" maintaining this unnatural balance is akin to the "group think" mentality. Where a person will more likely follow than lead. The "balance" comes from the natural human feelings of "rooting for the underdog". It is and has been the result of the childood manipulation we experience, and is why there remains a two party (two sides of the same party) "system"

Group consciousness is another topic, but it's reality is displayed in our fear based society.

Again, you have no one left to blame. If the Democratic Party were capable of leading the country in the direction its citizenry wished it to go, then they would have no worry about 2010. Any shift toward the Republican Party is the Democratic Party's own doing.

This is partially my point. If the Democrats where capable of leading according to the will of the people there would be no worries for them, and the same holds true for the Republicans.

The reason there is "balance" is because there is but one party. When one party or the other is in power they get the blame for leading the country against the peoples will. The dominant faux party will be overturned in favor of the underdog, every time. The real problem is that we are only presented with one option, masqueradeing as two.

I think the "system" itself is falling apart. The landslides you mention are evidence of violent shifts in public thinking. Extremes one way or the other, this feeling reminds me of driving on the highway with an unbalanced wheel. The whole thing will correct, or will collapse.

Edit: had to change "resented" to "presented". Freudian? mabey


[edit on 12/17/2009 by AlienChaser]

reply to post by TheRedneck

Impeachment is the only way a sitting President can be removed from office, but it does not mean that any impeachment will result in a removal from office.

JFK says hi.

Just saying.

Wow some of you guys must be smoking the same stuff as Glen Beck this policy is a continuation of Cheney/bush policy. It was under bush that the bribery thing started oh but they called it a surge the success of the surge was from bribing all the militia's to stop killing each other and us, long enough to get them to talk to us and each other . Where were you guys screaming evil conspiracy then you guys are late the conspiracy happened Cheney was running the country started an illegal war outed an undercover CIA agent oh and made millions while rome burned but lets blame it on the new black guy frankly the bribery thing was a good idea when bush did it and its a good idea now.

reply to post by Daedalus24


Trying to compare Iraq to Afghanistan requires looking at the differences in the enemies. Iraq was a problem for US troops because we were dealing with different religious factions. The Sunni/#tie[?] problem was our biggest obstacle. One group was not willing to give up the power they possessed and the other wanted at least their fair share. The only agreement for some time was that the US was in the way. The "bribery" worked in Iraq because the foreign fighters started to p@$$ off the natives and it was in their best interest. Afghanistan is more backwater than Iraq and the people have been fighting for generations. If not against a foreign enemy then each other. To the best of my knowledge there is not a schism between the sects native to the population.
So our POTUS tries to use a tactic that worked once in a different conflict and expects it to work again? The variables are different between the 2 surges. Considering the US's past record with abandoning allies it is no wonder that things in Afghanistan are like they are. The common folks can hold the US accountable for anything, since we are always ready to beat ourselves up for any wrong doing and its not like any Taliban or warlords will say oops if they kill non-combatants. The military "strategy" is no strategy but recycling a previous tactic.

Of course the US is bribing the Taliban... they're probably paying the exact same families the brits and soviets did. These people have a lot of experience in how to fleece a big dumb clumsy violent empire with more money than sense.

"US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the Pentagon's logistics contracts--hundreds of millions of dollars--consists of payments to insurgents."

In some cases, as Roston describes, Afghan contracting firms simply pay the Taliban directly, and Taliban vehicles escort the supply convoys. One Afghan private security official tells Roston that most of the escorting is being done by Taliban.

The mighty US & NATO are too weak to secure these roads and in order to keep the phony war going for the bankers they contract whoever can get the job done.. blackwater or taliban.. same turd, different polish.

Look at it this way, now bushbama can say he has "created jobs".. they may be taliban jobs, but jobs none-the-less.

Here's how the chain works: The U.S. government pays trucking firms to move supplies around Afghanistan to its rural and far flung outposts. These trucking companies then pay private security contracting firms, operated by druglords, warlords, the Taliban and relatives of senior Afghan Administration officials, or consortiums of any or all of them, for safe passage to American installations. As one American trucking executive said, ""The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them. It is Department of Defense money.""


www.alternet.org...

You are right it is recycling a previous strat and it most likely will not work but the strat comes from the generals and not the white house there just going along with it but what else are the going to do they have no ideas and its what the commanders want them to do and if it works great if it dosent we lose a few bucks but to use this story to question a presidents loyalty to his country and accuse him of treason is wrong and highly flawed

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Silverdragon2517]

reply to post by hangedman13


Thank you, you put into words something I wasn't able to do, but you did a wonderful job of it.

Your point is well made, a re-used strategy within a different set of circumstances is the perfect explanation of the differences. Thanks.

reply to post by Silverdragon2517


This was his decision, not some commander. He is, afterall, the Commander in Chief.

At some point, he has to take responsiblity for his actions. He cannot continue to stand back and throw up his hands and say, "It wasn't me!" He is the one who passed the bill. If he didn't know what was in it.. which I seriously doubt, then shame on him.

One of the other links even shows that he delayed the Afghan troop decision based on this tactic, so he cannot claim no knowledge, and support of this!

edit to add "no" in last sentence.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Libertygal]

Wow Obama and Biden are making Bush and Chaine look good.

Hell I don't think even Dick was so two face that he would aid the enemy.

All this # is going down in year 1. What more levels of evil is he going go though in the next 3 years.

Every president we've had in the past should have been impeached for their crimes.

I had a thread about how there hasn't been 1 president that left no conspiracies.

reply to post by GovtFlu

Here's how the chain works: The U.S. government pays trucking firms to move supplies around Afghanistan to its rural and far flung outposts. These trucking companies then pay private security contracting firms, operated by druglords, warlords, the Taliban and relatives of senior Afghan Administration officials, or consortiums of any or all of them, for safe passage to American installations. As one American trucking executive said, ""The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them. It is Department of Defense money.""

So then, after they get paid, they shoot at them anyway? Is this why they have the orders not to shoot unless shot at? No matter which way it is summed up, it all reverts back to the undeniable fact that we are indeed funding the insurgency against which we are proclaiming to fight.

We are leading our troops to slaughter, and this is ok to anyone... why?

The more I think about this, the more angry that I become. Why won't they just bring our troops home, instead of sending 30,000 more to their deaths? Death we are funding, and when I say we, I mean us, the taxpayers, this is our money... and the government is doing this.

I feel about this much like I do government funded abortion. I don't wish my tax dollars to go to funding this, because the outcome is the same no matter how you look at this. Our troops are dying, quite probably from our own money, and we have their blood on our hands. Moreso now, with these revelations.