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

reply to post by daddio


some of the things you've said are right, but of course we all try to reach for the 'truth' that suits us best. it's difficult to wake up the board over here, it's full of people that are too narrow minded and 'stuck' here to do so.

yes, the answer is to love, to vibrate at that frequency... but you won't change the minds on this board that are too attached to physical and documented evidence, into thinking about every topic they approach in a spiritual manner that is right to not only themselves, but to humanity.

friend, the board will not wake up. I've been reading here and i've seen that people like us can't change their minds nor give them a helpful nudge toward enlightenment. They are still separate and are content in that way because it gives them a feeling of superiority to others in stroking their own egos, flaunting supposed intelligence by piecing together a story from various sources on the internet and in the media. It is a waste of time, but damn wouldn't it be great to educate intelligent people, some of whom can think rather than waiting for "phage" to come answer their questions.


As for Obama, I reserve judgement until all the facts are on the table. But, giving support to the enemies you are paying your soldiers to kill only ensures that your soldiers will be killed. There is no US Government, there hasn't been a democracy for a long time.

reply to post by shagreen heart


Moot: In United States law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law. Thereby the matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic.
[edit to add:] You should see what people here do to the word "alas", horrifying misuse.

Pretty much sums up this whole debate, as no war has been declared. (does the "war on terror" count?)

**************
[If someone working under Obama were to test positive for drug use, would you impeach him for giving money to an enemy of the "war on drugs?" I swear there are people on this forum who would. ]



[edit on 18-12-2009 by Missletow]

Originally posted by Libertygal
Has Obama unwittingly, -openly - exposed his agenda and opened the door for impeachment based on treason?

Congress Probes Alleged U.S. Bribes to Afghan Warlords
www.foxnews.com...
Updated December 17, 2009

AP

But Clinton said the problem is not solely an Afghan one and neither is the solution. "We just have to be honest here about how complex and difficult this problem is," she said.

The arrangement for moving supplies throughout Afghanistan, known as the Host Nation Trucking contract, began in May 2009. There are eight companies handling the work.

Before this umbrella contract was in place, there were far more contractors involved and less oversight, according to John Dawkins, chief executive officer of the Mesopotamia Group in Kabul, one of the current contractors.

But he also said it's no secret that payments are made to ensure safe passage through dangerous patches. Without U.S. or NATO security to guard the convoys and the routes, which is a risky and time intensive task, there's no other option.

"We have to pay certain security companies to get from one place to another place," Dawkins said. "And everybody's interconnected and there's huge money involved. If you don't pay for your security, you're on your own."

Dawkins also downplayed the notion that much of the money flows to the Taliban. "Most of the people are just bandits on the road," he said. "I think you'd have a really hard time defining exactly who the Taliban are."

So, if true, the president is now accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the one element needed to meet the definition of treason. Unintentional? I don't *think* so.

But, was there ever any doubt he was planning to do this?

Taliban leader rejects U.S. attempts to lure away fighters with money
www.cnn.com...

He was referring to the Taliban reintegration provision, part of the $680 billion defense appropriation bill that Obama signed Wednesday to pay for military operations in the 2010 fiscal year.

The provision would separate local Taliban from their leaders, paying the fighters to quit the organization, replicating a program used to neutralize the insurgency against Americans in Iraq, according to the Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Akhund said 19th century British invaders and Soviet fighters in the 1980s tried the same tactic, unsuccessfully.

He said the Taliban consider the U.S. measure "a sign of weakness and complete despondency of the enemy."

(snip)
"There's been an amnesty program for low-level Taliban in place for many years now, and thousands of people have taken advantage of it," he said. "So this is not entirely a new idea. The idea of bribing people, local guys, to come over. ... It's one of the most cost-effective ways to get people to lay down their arms, either to negotiate a peace or coerce them."

Obama advisers split over bribes for the Taliban
www.smh.com.au...

THE US President, Barack Obama, has been forced to delay the announcement of a new US strategy in Afghanistan because of disagreements inside his administration over paying "bribes" to the Taliban.

Sharp divisions have emerged over the ethics and effectiveness of paying militants to lay down their arms.

Emphasis mine

Is there any doubt that monies paid for protectionism would be going to Taliban insurgency? Are we actually funding the enemy in the very war we proclaim to fight? He even passed a LAW to pay them off by putting it in the spending bill!

Money buys everything, huh? Even a one way ticket to impeachment for a treasonous president?

And before you jump to attack me, this investigation was started by..


wait for it..

Wait for it...!

a

Democrat!

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Libertygal]

All of this was started under W.

All of it.

This is how we're "winning" in Iraq.

Or course this investigation was started by a DEM. GW's boys are the people that set all of this # up... Obama may be continuing the stupid, but this aint a DEM started program (bribing enemies that is).

Pull your head out.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by seethelight]

The final designation of the bribe will be bullets in US soldiers. There is no way the bribe can be explained as necessary. If it was necessary will it mean that there is no control over what is going on and that the generals are not fit to conduct war. It took some 5 years to free europe from the nazi's, why can the modern sofisticated US war machine not conquer a few cavemen in 10 years? Something just does not add up....there is something really wrong with this entire war against terrorists. This war can not be won...that simple.

So I assumme we can start indicting for Iran-contra?
Reagan gave arms to Iran after all.
Looks like Bush/Cheney are going to jail.
Guess we need to look at all the deals the made post 9/11.
While we are at it, lets declassify everything, all of it. We need it all public so we can see who did what everywhere.
Yeah sure. That would really be a great idea.
This is just the latest stupid attempt by the Obama haters to somehow smear him and feed their idiotic dream of removing him from office.
It's pathetic and dumb.
Obama isn't going to be impeached. anybody want to bet on it?

Originally posted by zatara
The final designation of the bribe will be bullets in US soldiers. There is no way the bribe can be explained as necessary. If it was necessary will it mean that there is no control over what is going on and that the generals are not fit to conduct war. It took some 5 years to free europe from the nazi's, why can the modern sofisticated US war machine not conquer a few cavemen in 10 years? Something just does not add up....there is something really wrong with this entire war against terrorists. This war can not be won...that simple.

A few things:

Sophisticated isn't spelled with an "F".

The Iraqi strategy that stopped the majority of violence was based on bribes...did that work?

The Nazis were a government of a state, which is much easier to destroy then groups of people indistinguishable from civilians operating primarily out of countries we're allies with.

The only reason this doesn't add up is because you're not too clever.

I'm not a democrat or republican but I think Obama viciously eats children, and when GW ate children he chewed them in a more gentle way...

The war is stupid either way, Obama is stupid to continue it AND the OP is a disingenuous shill who is seems to be trying to win full ownership of the word, concept and practice of stupid.

Originally posted by OldDragger
So I assumme we can start indicting for Iran-contra?
Reagan gave arms to Iran after all.
Looks like Bush/Cheney are going to jail.
Guess we need to look at all the deals the made post 9/11.
While we are at it, lets declassify everything, all of it. We need it all public so we can see who did what everywhere.
Yeah sure. That would really be a great idea.
This is just the latest stupid attempt by the Obama haters to somehow smear him and feed their idiotic dream of removing him from office.
It's pathetic and dumb.
Obama isn't going to be impeached. anybody want to bet on it?

OH but OP is NOT a Democrat or Republican
and
Those other things never happened...

Too bad ATS is not set up for Polls.

It would be awesome for us to sample the 11000 people who post on ATS a month to find out what percentage of them want Obama Impeached.

Perhaps we should request this feature !

reply to post by Libertygal


i was wondering if you could point me in the direction of the bill that this was in? when was it passed?

reply to post by m khan


Articles of Impeachment aren't a freaking survey! It is a serious matter to impeach a sitting president. The OP like many others on this board have a problem with Obama politically, and so think that every action this man takes is grounds to have him removed from office. While it's fine to have political differences and to dislike a politician. It's just silly to think that every action should result in Impeachment or in some cases charges of Treason.

It's a pathological sickening condition. Some on this board need to wake up from their own personal delusions and see reality for what it is.

reply to post by whatukno


Some on this board need to wake up from their own personal delusions and see reality for what it is.

If THAT happened, there would be no ATS!

Even if all of this is true....which it most likely is, they still aren't going to do anything to Obama or that trick Hillary or anyone else in our government that is the elite. Look what George W. Bush did and his father and even Prescott Bush........ they did nothing to them. What makes ya think this case will be any different? I can't believe how many times we as Americans keep falling for the same tricks. No wonder the world thinks we are idiots. You speak as if someone is actually going to indict and convict him for treason.........this is the same old crap as always....they do what they want, when they want, usually at our expense and then they snub their noses at us and laugh knowing that there is not a damn think we can do about it. We could all rise up and overthrow the government, but then, this is exactly what they want. An out of control nation deserves nothing less than a police state. They laugh at us when we believe we are in control.

Originally posted by seethelight

Originally posted by Libertygal
Has Obama unwittingly, -openly - exposed his agenda and opened the door for impeachment based on treason?

Congress Probes Alleged U.S. Bribes to Afghan Warlords
www.foxnews.com...
Updated December 17, 2009

AP

But Clinton said the problem is not solely an Afghan one and neither is the solution. "We just have to be honest here about how complex and difficult this problem is," she said.

The arrangement for moving supplies throughout Afghanistan, known as the Host Nation Trucking contract, began in May 2009. There are eight companies handling the work.

Before this umbrella contract was in place, there were far more contractors involved and less oversight, according to John Dawkins, chief executive officer of the Mesopotamia Group in Kabul, one of the current contractors.

But he also said it's no secret that payments are made to ensure safe passage through dangerous patches. Without U.S. or NATO security to guard the convoys and the routes, which is a risky and time intensive task, there's no other option.

"We have to pay certain security companies to get from one place to another place," Dawkins said. "And everybody's interconnected and there's huge money involved. If you don't pay for your security, you're on your own."

Dawkins also downplayed the notion that much of the money flows to the Taliban. "Most of the people are just bandits on the road," he said. "I think you'd have a really hard time defining exactly who the Taliban are."

So, if true, the president is now accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the one element needed to meet the definition of treason. Unintentional? I don't *think* so.

But, was there ever any doubt he was planning to do this?

Taliban leader rejects U.S. attempts to lure away fighters with money
www.cnn.com...

He was referring to the Taliban reintegration provision, part of the $680 billion defense appropriation bill that Obama signed Wednesday to pay for military operations in the 2010 fiscal year.

The provision would separate local Taliban from their leaders, paying the fighters to quit the organization, replicating a program used to neutralize the insurgency against Americans in Iraq, according to the Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Akhund said 19th century British invaders and Soviet fighters in the 1980s tried the same tactic, unsuccessfully.

He said the Taliban consider the U.S. measure "a sign of weakness and complete despondency of the enemy."

(snip)
"There's been an amnesty program for low-level Taliban in place for many years now, and thousands of people have taken advantage of it," he said. "So this is not entirely a new idea. The idea of bribing people, local guys, to come over. ... It's one of the most cost-effective ways to get people to lay down their arms, either to negotiate a peace or coerce them."

Obama advisers split over bribes for the Taliban
www.smh.com.au...

THE US President, Barack Obama, has been forced to delay the announcement of a new US strategy in Afghanistan because of disagreements inside his administration over paying "bribes" to the Taliban.

Sharp divisions have emerged over the ethics and effectiveness of paying militants to lay down their arms.

Emphasis mine

Is there any doubt that monies paid for protectionism would be going to Taliban insurgency? Are we actually funding the enemy in the very war we proclaim to fight? He even passed a LAW to pay them off by putting it in the spending bill!

Money buys everything, huh? Even a one way ticket to impeachment for a treasonous president?

And before you jump to attack me, this investigation was started by..


wait for it..

Wait for it...!

a

Democrat!

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Libertygal]

All of this was started under W.

All of it.

This is how we're "winning" in Iraq.

Or course this investigation was started by a DEM. GW's boys are the people that set all of this # up... Obama may be continuing the stupid, but this aint a DEM started program (bribing enemies that is).

Pull your head out.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by seethelight]

Its all the American rage

Do not look inward, deny, deny, deny, shake it off and fook it up just the same.
Just read all the red baiting here, all these war loving, corporate praising, bound to repeat that same shiite.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Too bad ATS is not set up for Polls.

It would be awesome for us to sample the 11000 people who post on ATS a month to find out what percentage of them want Obama Impeached.

Perhaps we should request this feature !

Yes wouldn't it be interesting to see what Throatyogurt thinks as Throatyogurt, then when he votes as cameron fox, and then with his new name. And Joey Canoli can vote once and then again as Beard...and on and on. Any place where people sign up more than once to cover themselves when they get banned and to star their own posts seems like a real good place to do polling.

Originally posted by Wrath5639
very interesting post. I think we all knew that Obama was up to no good, now apparently he's just stopped caring about hiding it.

What? you seriously think this only just started? I pity Obama, young, smart, black... all the things you don't want in a president.

"Pssst, Mr President someone flew a plane into the North Tower"

"Wait, I have not finished My Pet Goat"

Originally posted by zosimos
reply to post by Libertygal

 

i was wondering if you could point me in the direction of the bill that this was in? when was it passed?

www.youtube.com...



politics.nytimes.com...
H.R.2647: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
Oct. 27, 2009 Signed by President
oct. 27, 2009 Became Public Law No: 111-84

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by m khan

 

Articles of Impeachment aren't a freaking survey! It is a serious matter to impeach a sitting president. The OP like many others on this board have a problem with Obama politically, and so think that every action this man takes is grounds to have him removed from office. While it's fine to have political differences and to dislike a politician. It's just silly to think that every action should result in Impeachment or in some cases charges of Treason.

First of all, this has nothing to do with the OP, and everything to do with the poster. You make assumptions about me without any basis in reality, and expect people to take you seriously?

You lump me in with "many others", then go on to say it is silly to think "every action should result in impeachment".

I challenge you, since you are making this about the poster, to show me where I have pointed to, or supported "every action" in terms of impeachment.

In fact, I challenge you to show me, where in this thread, I have supported *this* action as one for impeachment.

I have in fact, stated I did not think an impeachment would happen, but I do not believe I have stated anywhere that *I* felt he should be impeached.

So put up or shut up. Prove your points based on facts rather than assumptions about a person that you put forward as a fact.

It's a pathological sickening condition. Some on this board need to wake up from their own personal delusions and see reality for what it is.

Then you go on to attack me, labeling me as having a pathological and sickening condition. I thought personal attacks were against T&C on this board? Yet, you get away with this.

Then you go on to label me as delusional.

You are an idiot. You are the delusional one, a koolaid drinker, and boot kisser. You tow the party line regardless of what it does to our nation, and you are a pathetic excuse for an American.

I figured I may as well join this ad hominem party, and call names, too. I will stoop to your level and make this about the poster and not the post, lets see how far I get.

The OP (me!) does in fact have a problem with Obama politically, along with millions of other Americans. I do not deny this.

I have a problem with Hope and Change translating into more of the same.

I have a problem with a lot of things Obama does. But, really, what does it have to do with the things he is doing? Is it because I pointed it out? It is ok when it is Obama, but not when it is Bush? Bush did it, so this makes it all okey dokie for Obama to.

I do have a problem with hopey changey koolaid drinkers that make excuses when Obama talked about Bush's failed policies, then follows those exact policies, and so should anyone else with a lick of sense.

I also have the right to disagree with Obama's actions, I am free, and over 18. So what's your point? Just because I disagree with Obama, what? What? What is the point except to use it as a straw man to attack me in an effort to somehow elevate you as a better person, to somehow put you above me on the scale of some invisible measurement of humanity according to your rules?

So you read and dislike what I post, and you feel it makes you cool somehow to come in here and falsely make accusations about me, to lob personal attacks, why? What is your purpose in this thread? Why are you allowed to continue to behave in this manner?

Do mods bother to follow the rules consistantly? We shall see how long my post stands.

Epic fail.

Originally posted by Phenomium
Even if all of this is true....which it most likely is, they still aren't going to do anything to Obama or that trick Hillary or anyone else in our government that is the elite. Look what George W. Bush did and his father and even Prescott Bush........ they did nothing to them. What makes ya think this case will be any different?

I don't think it will be any different.. I have stated in several posts I don't think an impeachment would happen.

I can't believe how many times we as Americans keep falling for the same tricks. No wonder the world thinks we are idiots. You speak as if someone is actually going to indict and convict him for treason.........

No, I speak as someone who found it rather interesting the Dems are eating thier own.

I found it rather interesting an investigation was begun and it took 2 weeks for anything to come out about it.

I find it interesting this was all done in the open, and it is somehow okay.

I speak as someone who thinks the repubs are going to pounce on this with claws out ready to try to push this forward in an attempt to rake Obama over the coals.

But alas, allow me to point out officially, just in case anyone missed it the first severeal times I posted it, I do not think he will be impeached.

That does not mean I do not think the repubs will try to go forward with it, especially when they sense that Dems are seemingly supporting that.

this is the same old crap as always....they do what they want, when they want, usually at our expense and then they snub their noses at us and laugh knowing that there is not a damn think we can do about it. We could all rise up and overthrow the government, but then, this is exactly what they want. An out of control nation deserves nothing less than a police state. They laugh at us when we believe we are in control.

I could not agree with you more. Same old crap as always. This One is no different.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Libertygal]

Originally posted by seethelight

Originally posted by Libertygal
All of this was started under W.

All of it.

This is how we're "winning" in Iraq.

Or course this investigation was started by a DEM. GW's boys are the people that set all of this # up... Obama may be continuing the stupid, but this aint a DEM started program (bribing enemies that is).

Pull your head out.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by seethelight]

No, it is a DEM started investigation, though.

Obama is continuing the stupid by making it a part of the Defense Spending Bill, thereby signing it into law.

Not so sure Bush did that? I would have to do a lot of research.

Perhaps one of the enlightened attackers in the thread could post some links where Bush signed it into law? I would be grateful, since I wasn't aware of that, and somehow others seem to be much more elightened than I.

(this is not to you personally, unless you just happen to have that info)

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Libertygal]