The door to impeachement swings WIDE open! Treasonous acts under investigation!, page 5

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:58 PM

link

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by dariousg

I don't think anyone in this thread has breathed a word of opposition to that, but the past administration isn't the topic.

Do you have anything to add about the topic? Otherwise, this just isn't a thread I would wish to see turn in to a bash one side or the other type of thread.

The real question comes down to, regardless of "who started it", what are we going to do about it now? And do two wrongs make a right? So Bush started it, I guess now it is okay for Obama to keep it going under the same agenda?

Oh, I understand full well what the thread is about. It's the title maybe that should be changed then. It was what got me in here. To say that the door to impeachment is swung wide open is just silly. Because, even though this current administration has flubbed up big time on many fronts, this war is not theirs.

Obama is obviously trying to appease both sides of the isle on the move to increase the troops in Afghanistan. Does it mean he should be impeached because it comes out that this typical practice (which happens all of the time "Iran Contra") happened before his time in office began? If it continues to happen then so be it. It's on him and his administration.

Now, my post didn't bash anyone did it? Not one bit. I simply showed my frustration in how the title of the thread and the material inside is leaning towards punishing the WRONG PERSON.

kommunist

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:01 PM

link

If this is true, which it is, than the Canadian government is just as guilty as the Americans.

Our tax dollars have been used for years to pay off Afghan warlords and others.

This isn't exactly a new development, and shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

However, some conservative zealots in the US will use this as an excuse to attempt to have Obama impeached and to satisfy their political ambitions. If there was a Republican government in power, they would be doing the exact same thing.

Your tax dollars have been spent on much worse things than paying off some warlords so coalition troops may have safe passage through some of their territory.

If by doing this they can save some soldiers lives, then in my opinion, the ends justify the means.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by kommunist]

Raven Hemp

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:16 PM

link

Try to impeach him with a majority of congress in his back pocket.

Libertygal

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:17 PM

link

reply to post by dariousg

Indeed, it is leaning towards the person in office *now*, and it is not doing the same things, IMO. There is a post a few posts back that explains how it is different.

The title is misleading? I don't think it is, because that's is exactly where this will go if it continues. Do I see it continuing? I don't know, because this is the first we have heard of any "investigation" even happening, so that remains to be seen. By the very use of the phrase "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", you can see where this is going to go, it doesn't take a psychic.

The words giving aid to the enemy are exactly what was brought up in other threads with regards to impeachment, and if this is how the *democrats* are seeing it, do you not fully expect that the republicans will jump on this band wagon and try to ride it home?

This is not about past administrations, this is about this one, and this is a bit of a different story than how some have tried to compare it to past administrations.

Again, I will ask, when does Obama begin to take responsibility for laws and policies that are his, regardless of who started what? He could have ended it, but instead, he chose to use the past adminstrations tactics? So that makes this his now.

Keep in mind, this is a democrat that started this investigation, and democrats that are behind the quotes in the article. This has nothing to do with republicans. Yet.

Libertygal

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:18 PM

link

reply to post by Raven Hemp

This would be the democratic congress that is investigating him. Did you even read the article? Just a little?

piddles

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:21 PM

link

it's hard to read an article from a news source that prides itself on being unfair and balanced.

This is seriously just another remnant from the bush administration somehow being pinned on obama (because the people who read and trust fox are THAT gullible)

Libertygal

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:21 PM

link

reply to post by kommunist

But, you see, this is the question. Exactly how is this saving troops lives when the death toll continues to rise? If the goal were to save troops why not do as I said in another post and put them there more as a defense, such as we have in South Korea, limit the numbers, and pull out?

He could have paid them off up front and acheived the exact same goal. Instead, this reeks of sneaking in the back door and trying to pull something over, but what and why is the great question.

Libertygal

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:22 PM

link

reply to post by piddles

It isn't a remnant when Obama signed the bill to insure it being done, and allotted funds specifically for this.

It isn't a remnant anymore, this is his war now.

Edit to add: I also do not see how you can justify those remarks at all about Fox, other than just being the Hate Fox propoganda, because the article is from the AP. Guess you missed that part. And the part that it is the democrats investigating Obama, too.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Libertygal]

Aggie Man

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:23 PM

link

Originally posted by die_another_day
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.

Right, and every citizen should have served some jail time too...we all break laws...nobody's perfect...least of all is those with power.

EDIT: Are you implying the mere fact that any given president left behind a "conspiracy" equates to "should have been impeached"? What about evidence of said conspiracy? What about intent?

Just because President X signed some treaty or piece of legislation...then years later the wording of it is twisted so that, inadvertently, someone was wronged...doesn't make President X the guilty party...maybe a party to...but not THE party.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Aggie Man]

mrsoul2009

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:28 PM

link

You have got to be kidding me! After what Bush and his war-criminal-filled administration did over the last 8 years? Sorry I just can't listen to this nonsense.

Libertygal

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:29 PM

link

reply to post by mrsoul2009

Then don't. Move along. Why did you even post here if you have nothing to add? This isn't about Bush, so please, stay on topic.

GovtFlu

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:30 PM

link

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by GovtFlu

((snip))

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.

Oh it gets better, the taliban are playing bushbama for suckers.. helping themselves to these supplies:

"Lahore, June 23 (ANI): Several Taliban insurgents are making use of special US made infrared patches to prevent themselves from being targeted by American aircraft. The Taliban fighters are using the patches, which emits ‘friendly signals’ to ward-off attacks by the US drones, The Washington Times has revealed. The patches, which are designed to avoid fire during night-time battles, were stolen by the insurgents during raids on US supply convoys in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Read more: www.thaindian.com..."[/i ]

"ISLAMABAD (The News) -- In a daredevil operation some weeks ago that shook the Pentagon Taliban fighters in the tribal areas of Pakistan seized parts of American Chinooks, Black Hawks and Cobras. " "When these containers entered the Khyber Agency at Jamrud, the Taliban stopped the convoys and snatched away the helicopter parts." "Taliban sold this Cobra to an unidentified customer for several hundred thousand dollars. "
www.tehrantimes.com...

These choppers are flown by the iranian military, we are indirectly supplying iran with top of the line chopper parts ...lol.. it doesn't get a funnier than this!! "thanks for the supplies infidel"

And the chinese, as far back as 1998:

"The Taliban captured some unexploded Tomahawk missiles in the Khost area of eastern Afghanistan in 1998...."..."The Taliban handed over some of the unexploded U.S. missiles to the Chinese in 1998."

"Earlier this year it was revealed that over 200,000 US weapons – including assault rifles and grenade launchers – are ‘missing’ from the US army’s inventory in Afghanistan."
pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com...

The USs presence in af-pakistan is a gold mine for the taliban, iranians & chinese.. the joke is on the american people.

Keep voting for the GOP & DNC DC mafia... this is what you get...

BetweenTheLine

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link

Hilarious how the "real world" leaks out and you guys all go nuts... This is why we are kept in the dark. None of you can even begin to comprehend what is going on. There are things that are not white, nor black, nor even grey. And thats why we have agencies compartmentalized to handle this stuff without us knowing.

Also this seems like taliban propoganda. If the taliban really where getting paid they would not put it out in the air like this and trust me when i say this there is no way this leaked from our side. This is covert money and those people do their jobs well.

Again try to look at the big picture.

Libertygal

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link

reply to post by GovtFlu

Something is very, very wrong with all of this. Thanks for adding more pieces to the puzzle!

I didn't know about the things you have posted. I did know some supplies were being stoeln, but not to the effect of what you posted.

Yet, we keep on? Just wow.

This explains some things, too. Like the seizure of a chopper headed to Iran the past week or so, and the friendly fire incidents, what with the patches.

Wow.

piddles

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by piddles

It isn't a remnant when Obama signed the bill to insure it being done, and allotted funds specifically for this.

It isn't a remnant anymore, this is his war now.

Edit to add: I also do not see how you can justify those remarks at all about Fox, other than just being the Hate Fox propoganda, because the article is from the AP. Guess you missed that part. And the part that it is the democrats investigating Obama, too.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Libertygal]

Where did I even imply that this is all a republican investigation?

Oh, and this would have to be HIS war otherwise, who else's war would it be? Kinda comes with being the POTUS.

and about my hatred of FOX:
also I said this in another thread, can you name another network that has actively poured money into protesters speaking out against the president? You think the tea party had any real funds? Fox kept them out there as long as they could to try and spin as if the majority of America hates obama, when really, they just make the majority of America look like idiots.

oh god, and all you got it "oh you missed the fact that it's an AP article".

Where does it specifically say it's an AP article, besides just the two letters in a tiny font that say AP? How the hell is anyone supposed to know that based on that information? The letters aren't even a hyper link to the original story

I just spent 10 minutes on the AP trying to find the article itself. Can't really see much.

mahajohn

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link

Look, impeachment morons, this is the way it is: the only allegiances folks in Afghanistan have is to their tribe, and within that parameter, whoever can pay them and keep them and their families fed. There are few so-called extremists, sure, but the huge amounts of Taliban fighters are really just local hicks who are being paid to do what they do. Everyone's gotta eat.

The foundation of this story, that Defense Dept. funds are going to the Taliban has been an "open secret" for years and years. You can read a good article about it from "The Nation" of a few weeks ago. The point is that to get ANYTHING moved around the country, it is absolutely necessary to pay for "protection" from locals, be they warlords or whatever. Only one company doesn't pay this extortion, and they lose gobs and gobs of supplies and men. Essentially, we have to pay the enemy to let us get our supplies through so that we can more efficiently kill the enemy. This has been policy for years and years.

Further, it's really defense CONTRACTORS who are paying for the protection racket.

Libertygal

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link

reply to post by BetweenTheLine

I wouldn't say anyone is going nuts.

I do agree things are compartmentalized, but thats more to keep people from putting the pieces together, IMO.

The leaks didn't seem to come from the Taliban, however. This is from the article:

Tierney said his staff has been told by credible informants that security guards hired by the trucking companies funnel money to the local warlords or the Taliban to ensure the convoys get to their destinations unscathed.

I am only speculating, obviously, because it just says informants, but that could be other people "in the know", perhaps even some of the contractors, who is to say? I seriously doubt he and his staff were approached by the Taliban about government oversight policies.

Mythtified

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link

Wars are not about winning or losing. Wars are not about funding friend or foe. Not about right or wrong, not about people, not about freedom.
War is about keeping the war going for as long as possible.

War is what keeps the money machine going, the people on edge and insecure and power in the hands of the ones behind the scenes. And of course they fund both ends of the deal to keep it so.

Obama is just a puppet on the scene.

Eurisko2012

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link

reply to post by Libertygal

So is this AfghanistanGate ??? TalibanGate ???
Maybe impeached by the House but not removed by the Senate?
Sounds like Bill Clinton.
------------------------------
If Obama resigns then President Joe Biden?

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Eurisko2012]

Libertygal

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link

Originally posted by mahajohn
Look, impeachment morons,

Is there any call for this. Really? Really?

this is the way it is: the only allegiances folks in Afghanistan have is to their tribe, and within that parameter, whoever can pay them and keep them and their families fed. There are few so-called extremists, sure, but the huge amounts of Taliban fighters are really just local hicks who are being paid to do what they do. Everyone's gotta eat.

Thanks for making my point. This is exactly why these people would not be allowed to keep this money, and why it goes directly to fund the insurgency, and exactly why the democrats are now eating their own.

The foundation of this story, that Defense Dept. funds are going to the Taliban has been an "open secret" for years and years. You can read a good article about it from "The Nation" of a few weeks ago. The point is that to get ANYTHING moved around the country, it is absolutely necessary to pay for "protection" from locals, be they warlords or whatever. Only one company doesn't pay this extortion, and they lose gobs and gobs of supplies and men. Essentially, we have to pay the enemy to let us get our supplies through so that we can more efficiently kill the enemy. This has been policy for years and years.

Further, it's really defense CONTRACTORS who are paying for the protection racket.

I do not dispute the contractors are the ones paying it. It is however, funded by the defense department. Thanks again for making my other point, that we are in fact, paying for our own troops demise.

Why, exactly, are you being so vehement? 'Cause, this would be Obama's own party here investigating him.