Americans Now Want Obama Impeached Says Republican Michele Bachmann

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by amazing
Michelle Bachman is a right wing, religious lunatic. I prefer that my leaders don't get inspiration from the Old Testament. Back on topic though, those on the right seem to have blinders on. They think that Obama caused the recession...he didn't. They think that Obama caused every penny of our debt..he didn't. They think that government doesn't grow under Republican presidents....it does. They think that republican administrations don't have scandals. Iran Contra anyone? Where were the cries for impeachment then? Just saying.

hey, hey, hey....just because ol' ronny had over 60 people in his administration get convicted for the Iran-contra scandal, doesn't mean he should have been impeached....now....if he lied about having a sexual affair in the white house, then impeachment is a must.

Or if he had someone hold an umbrella for him he would have needed to be impeached

reply to post by Rocker2013


Why the looong side trip to focus on Bush, as always seems to end up with anything about Obama? It just struck me as quite a lot of effort there to argue the points of a man I've seen no one much defend and hasn't had power in over 4 years now.

The President is Obama...Not Bush.

reply to post by Rocker2013


It was not false, it was inaccurate and inconclusive and we know this now but we didn't back then.

It was verified that Saddam had a nuclear program....absolutely no dispute about this even to this day, it was a fact he had chemical weapons and used them on multiple occasions....absolutely no dispute about this.

His expelling of investigators and the subsequent disappearance of nuclear material was at best suspicious. Where did his program go?

Did it move underground? We didn't know.....it was assumed that he didn't completely end it and why would anyone think he would?

It was assumed that he simply hid what he was doing. That is where the faulty evidence came in.....they were assuming and making educated guesses.

Yes he did have a nuclear program but it was pretty much destroyed during the first Iraq war and the subsequent years of the no fly zone where Clinton specifically had targeted nuclear sites.

We did not know this at the time and I will agree that we should not have gone to war over it but it doesn't change the fact that the world did decide there was a credible threat. It was not false information and wasn't based on lies.

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Rocker2013

 

It was not false, it was inaccurate and inconclusive and we know this now but we didn't back then.

It was verified that Saddam had a nuclear program....absolutely no dispute about this even to this day, it was a fact he had chemical weapons and used them on multiple occasions....absolutely no dispute about this.

His expelling of investigators and the subsequent disappearance of nuclear material was at best suspicious. Where did his program go?

Did it move underground? We didn't know.....it was assumed that he didn't completely end it and why would anyone think he would?

It was assumed that he simply hid what he was doing. That is where the faulty evidence came in.....they were assuming and making educated guesses.

Yes he did have a nuclear program but it was pretty much destroyed during the first Iraq war and the subsequent years of the no fly zone where Clinton specifically had targeted nuclear sites.

We did not know this at the time and I will agree that we should not have gone to war over it but it doesn't change the fact that the world did decide there was a credible threat. It was not false information and wasn't based on lies.

Yes, it was...the real story.....Curveball:

wiki

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi (Arabic: رافد أحمد علوان‎, Rāfid Aḥmad Alwān; born 1968), known by the Defense Intelligence Agency cryptonym "Curveball",[1] is an Iraqi citizen who defected from Iraq in 1999, claiming that he had worked as a chemical engineer at a plant that manufactured mobile biological weapon laboratories as part of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program.[2] Alwan's allegations were subsequently shown to be false by the Iraq Survey Group's final report published in 2004.[3][4]

Despite warnings from the German Federal Intelligence Service and the British Secret Intelligence Service questioning the authenticity of the claims, the US Government and British government utilized them to build a rationale for military action in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, including in the 2003 State of the Union address, where President Bush said "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs", and Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council, which contained a computer generated image of a mobile biological weapons laboratory.[2][5] On 24 September 2002, the British government published its dossier on the former Iraqi leader's WMD with a personal foreword by Mr Blair, who assured readers Saddam Hussein had continued to produce WMD "beyond doubt

On November 4, 2007, 60 Minutes revealed Curveball's real identity.[7] Former CIA official Tyler Drumheller summed up Curveball as "a guy trying to get his green card essentially, in Germany, and playing the system for what it was worth."[2]

In a February 2011 interview with the Guardian he "admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war.

reply to post by Connector


Okay...


Let's just pretend that 34 other nation's Intel agencies didn't have the same information about Iraq's weapon programs.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The left has Nancy Pelosi .... The right has Michelle Bachmann. They both get to about the same place in the end with all the depth to their logic of a rain puddle.

I don't like Obama. I never really have...and it's about his mind set and world view. It's so far from mine in ideology, never the two shall meet. However, Impeachment is WAY ahead of things here. These stories have been breaking for about a WEEK.... A week for goodness sakes. This isn't a Western town in a Hollywood movie. Justice doesn't come in '24'. These things take a wee bit of time ...and NO one really knows WHAT all happened ...in ANY one of the different scandals.

Impeachment is the end point of months of process to get there. If ever. If called for. Frankly. the world is an unstable and dangerous place right now. Underlings up and down the food chain and probably to Cabinet level people NEED to go and after the record shows who did what. Obama though? There is a bad trade off here between a politically unstable and ineffective United States in this world, for time period and events ....to get one man.

If impeachment must happen, then so be it... I just say, it's the last step and choice...as it should be. It needs to be 100% CERTAIN too. Clinton was impeached. Impeachment is JUST the "indictment" side of the process. It goes to trial in the Senate after that. Harry Reid's Senate. The case has to be certain and rock solid. This isn't even half baked yet.

Wow - a welcomed, even-keeled assessment of the current situation. I agree 90% (I don't dislike Obama, and I don't know about the cabinet-level folk, but possible). Well said.

Where do these people who try to create a new reality come from? They know if enough predominant people say something that it will steer reality many times. The ones that are behind the politicians are excellent at steering perception of people, this tactic is a very old tactic actually. It has been used for thousands of years.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Connector

 

Okay...


Let's just pretend that 34 other nation's Intel agencies didn't have the same information about Iraq's weapon programs.

Do you have a link? And why didn't these countries go to war? The US and UK were the only "major" countries to do so. Canada and Germany had the same intel provided by the US itself and didn't go to war. Why didn't the UN give approval?

reply to post by Connector


Nothing in your post goes against what I wrote.

It was all part of it.

And you really shouldn't source Wiki as they are oftentimes incomplete in their information.

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Connector

 

Nothing in your post goes against what I wrote.

It was all part of it.

And you really shouldn't source Wiki as they are oftentimes incomplete in their information.

You wrote:

the fact that the world did decide there was a credible threat. It was not false information and wasn't based on lies.

The world didn't decide it was a credible threat, the UN would have approved the US's petition if that was the case. It was based on lies as admitted by curveball himself.

Going after my source? lol.....do a quick google and you'll find much more of the same, here's one for ya...

washingtonpost

Anyways...this is way OT

Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Connector

 

Nothing in your post goes against what I wrote.

It was all part of it.

And you really shouldn't source Wiki as they are oftentimes incomplete in their information.

You wrote:

the fact that the world did decide there was a credible threat. It was not false information and wasn't based on lies.

The world didn't decide it was a credible threat, the UN would have approved the US's petition if that was the case. It was based on lies as admitted by curveball himself.

Going after my source? lol.....do a quick google and you'll find much more of the same, here's one for ya...

washingtonpost

Anyways...this is way OT

edit on 17-5-2013 by Connector because: (no reason given)

Sorry if I wasn't clear but the world did decide overall that it was legitimate. This is obvious from the alliances Bush put together and the amount of nations that contributed to the war.

Certainly it wasn't unilateral but the overall opinion was agreeing there was enough just cause to take action. Perhaps not exactly as the US wanted but America was able to sell its case to the opinion of the world. There was very little obstruction to it and that may be attributed to any number of reasons but even our own political system agreed, both politicians and the populace, that it was a good cause.

Bush didn't hoodwink anyone into something. His reasons and those of his advisors such as Cheney and Rumsfeld are certainly suspect but it wouldn't have happened had there not been a solid basis for the cause. Did they take advantage of it and push it for personal or political reasons?

Certainly possible.

I am speaking just in broad terms so keep that in mind.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by cconn487

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by Hopechest

 

See I feel if a president is impeached, the people under him should go also. If the president is part of a large scandal (or multiples like now) then the people under him knew about it and authorized this garbage also....Anyone involved in any way at all should all be gone if this happens, to me of course!

The people under him will go if he is impeached.

We know this because when JFK died and Johnson took over, he fired all of JFK's appointments, well most of them, and put his own people in charge.

The day Kennedy died, so did America.

Sorry, been listening to Bill Hicks these past few days at work. It seems to me that event was a big turning point in this country.

Sadly Obama's children are set for life, so whatever he does, he doesn't have to take his children's future into account. Which, I hope, would influence some of his actions if he was thinking long term, like a decent President, and also a father should be doing.

It was definitely a turning point but Kennedy was an idiot...plain and simple. Also one of the biggest racists to ever hold office.

I actually think he was shot to save us from going to a nuclear war.

The boy was as dumb as fruitcake.

Hope, I can't help but applaud you for the sandwiched deliberate historical inaccuracy
between a couple of ad homs, and even the first a double. You've outdone yourself.

The main two reasons Jack died were because he wanted to hobble the most dangerous
secret societies taking the government over--- and get rid of the funny money that's been
literally killing us for a hundred years plus.

You are not an idiot or a fruitcake, nor do you appear in any way ignorant. But whatever
compound is making your wings glisten like that while they're stationary could be affecting
your perception.
If it's some dried on hydrocabon based resin, try rinsing with Acetone. If that doesn't get it
C6H6 Benzene'll get 'er dun fer sure. The latter will also be beneficial in lightening your pistons.

It's my fifteenth sobriety anniversary today-- and let it be to your credit that for the first time
since 1998 I feel an almost metaphysical gravitation to a sports pub six blocks away to
order and guzzle in one breath a perfectly iced 55 gallon drum of Bailey's Milk of Amnesia
to futilely attempt a mental erasure of that post. Don't get me started, I can write even
better than Hitch could when I'm lubed...

Back to the subject matter: if anyone thinks everything is fine in the US right now, or that
this administration doesn't need a blanket Fleetie, I would instead recommend a single malt.
A lot of 'em. For Michele, I think a good extra SCOTUS citation at the interview might have
been Marbury v. Madison. Probably a good time to whip that sucker out too, come to think...

reply to post by derfreebie


Haha that made me laugh....

I am a conspiracy person which is why I am on this site so yes, that is my take on the Kennedy issue. I belive that Allen Dulles put together an operation after being approached by someone in the administration about the dangers of Kennedy's foreign policy.

The issues you mentioned may have played a minor role but it was the nuclear issue that was the most dangerous. Remember that Kennedy was arming up Turkey with nukes and Kruschev was adament that it wouldn't happen, then the whole Cuba mess and I believe someone, close to Kennedy, said....whoa...we gotta stop this.

Dulles was a lifer in the CIA and recently fired by Kennedy so he would have the connections and motivation to make this happen.

It all makes sense. The framing of Oswald was pure CIA from beginning to end...

Michelle Bachman?

...she says Americans want Mr. Obama impeached? How many? Most? A few? Just a few in Congress?

I'm no fan of Pres. Obama, nor of his cabinet... But for Congress to start proceedings against him would be the height of hypocrisy.

He's not doing a good job...that seems evident. But incompetence isn't impeachable. Sorry. If it were, Congress should be removed from office, too.

So...

Is it time for Americans to finally realize that in order for things to change we need to be the change needed? Or is it still time to watch reruns instead? Just askin'...

reply to post by jimmyx

hey, hey, hey....just because ol' ronny had over 60 people in his administration get convicted for the Iran-contra scandal, doesn't mean he should have been impeached....now....if he lied about having a sexual affair in the white house, then impeachment is a must.

Reagan owned up to it unlike the current Potus who owns up to nothing.

Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Connector

 

Okay...


Let's just pretend that 34 other nation's Intel agencies didn't have the same information about Iraq's weapon programs.

Do you have a link? And why didn't these countries go to war? The US and UK were the only "major" countries to do so. Canada and Germany had the same intel provided by the US itself and didn't go to war. Why didn't the UN give approval?

edit on 17-5-2013 by Connector because: (no reason given)

Oh I have a link that some people don't like

reply to post by neo96


Yes people forget just how much the democrats also wanted this war with Iraq as well as many of the nations in the world.

They seem to remember only the trio of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld pushing for it and that simply wasn't the case. It wouldn't have happened if the world wasn't behind it.

reply to post by grimghost


This stupid B. How dare this crazy presume to know anything about what the American people want or don't want.

Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Connector

 

Okay...


Let's just pretend that 34 other nation's Intel agencies didn't have the same information about Iraq's weapon programs.

Do you have a link? And why didn't these countries go to war? The US and UK were the only "major" countries to do so. Canada and Germany had the same intel provided by the US itself and didn't go to war. Why didn't the UN give approval?

edit on 17-5-2013 by Connector because: (no reason given)

Because the UN didn't need to give any form of approval, nor were we required to get one for this simple fact. The first gulf war was not ended on a peace treaty, it was ended with a ceasefire armistice. Meaning at any time if either party acts contrary to the terms agreed upon by both parties that signed the armistice then resumption of military action is legal under international law. The United States and/or coalition allies were well within the law to resume military conflict at the first violation of the CF armistice.

reply to post by grimghost

Americans Now Want Obama Impeached Says Republican Michele Bachmann

Which Americans, the ones that voted him in office for a second term, or those, who were on the losing side, lol?

‘It’s funny how people use ‘Americans’, as if every American thinks this, or wants this to happen ,and if bush hasn’t been impeached ,for his presidential, failed, republican atrocity’s ,then I doubt if any body will take any republicans serious ,or any body who thinks Obama should be impeached seriously.

In the real world, republicans are a joke, and that’s why republicans will never get back in office for at least the next 40 years. It’s sad that people in the United states still have this 1920ish mentality…in the year 2013...kind of embarring to witness people that actually think he should be impeached...lame to be honest !