Kucinich Motions to Impeach Bush Again...This Time Pelosi Is Listening

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
4 months until Bush is out of office anyways. I think this is to little to late. But I still give Kucinich kudos for standing up for the true meaning of a democracy.

How long did the Clinton impeachment trials last? Even if it does pass he will be out of office before they reach a verdict.

Yes, but impeachment and conviction are important for two reasons.

First, a warning to future presidents not to act as George W. Bush did.

Second, to be sure that in the USA George W. Bush cannot hold any position of public trust or serve as an officer of a corporation. This limits to some extent the amount of money he could make through positions of public trust in the future ... bottom line.

Just a thumbnail sketch of why it is important to impeach and convict him.

Originally posted by RRconservative
Technically the United Nations didn't "approve" of the Iraq War...why would they? They had a nice racket going on with the "Oil for Food" program. But...in each of the 18 UN resolutions condemning Sadamm Hussein there were consequences, and one of the consequences was use of force. So the attack on Iraq was supported by the UN.

No, the United Nations did not support the Iraqi War.

If you did some research into the subject, hell it was only five years ago I'm sure you can remember back then, you'd know that one of the major issues back in 2003 over the Iraqi War was that Bush was invading without United Nations support. That was one of the major arguments for not invading, LONG before it was proven they didn't have WMD's.

Please answer me this...you said that one of the consequences against Saddam Hussein in those 18 resolutions was the use of force. Could you please tell me what the United Nations would warrant the use of force against Iraq, in those resolutions? And, no matter what you say as a response, if those resolutions warranted the use of force, then why didn't the Security Council approve of the invasion of Iraq? But this argument has waged for the last five years and will probably wage for five more, so there's no sense arguing any further about it.

Originally posted by RRconservative
You can't impeach someone just because you don't like them.

I'm also sorry, but that statement alone shows your total lack of knowledge on the subject; or your refusal to accept the facts on the subject. You don't impeach someone just because you don't like them, no...but George W. Bush is responsible, thanks to blatantly lying about the facts on Iraq to cause a war to help his buddies in the private sector, for over 4000 deaths of YOUR OWN citizens. That's more people than the death toll from September 11th. THAT'S why the impeachment should happen.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by matth]

Originally posted by RRconservative

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990



Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."


Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

[edit on 11-7-2008 by RRconservative]

You just proved my point. That resolution was surrounding the Gulf War, 12 years before the Iraqi War. Different war, different circumstances. If Iraq had of invaded Kuwait back in 2003 and the United States decided to respond, then I could see your argument...but the War had nothing to do with Kuwait, it had to do with make believe WMD's.

Originally posted by matth
.but George W. Bush is responsible, thanks to blatantly lying about the facts on Iraq to cause a war to help his buddies in the private sector, for over 4000 deaths of YOUR OWN citizens. That's more people than the death toll from September 11th. THAT'S why the impeachment should happen.

You probably didn't hear about the massive removal of TONS of yellowcake from Iraq last week.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

Your still not talking about Bush lying about Sadamm's nuclear threat are you?

Can you imagine how much icing you would need to spread over a 550 ton Yellowcake?

Originally posted by bringthelight
what if getting him out of office or at least starting the hearings meant he doesn't get to carry out his plan to bomb Iran, and we dont start WW3. Might be worth it.

It would definitely be worth it but they need to tell Bush that during these hearings, he can not bomb Iran.
They need to say they are going to take back their Constitutional Authority to declare war.

What is the debate here? That the president "deserves" to be impeached? Or that he "will be impeached"? I think we all know that he deserves to be impeached on multiple levels. I also think we all know that it will never happen. IMO I don't think it would happen even if 90% of American's stood on the lawn of the white house and demanded it.

Come on people, what have the polls showed for the last several years? I don't know the exact numbers, but it seems that the majority of Americans want him and Cheney out of office.

reply to post by RRconservative


I have read that report (I'm Canadian so it in particular peaked my interest, haha), but I don't really think that anyone (I'm not, at least) is debating whether or not Iraq had a nuclear program. They did in the early 1990's, that's a fact. However, it's also been proven that Iraq did not have WMD's in 2003, when Bush was swearing up and down that they did have them. That's the lying part.

The yellowcake alone cannot be used to make a bomb by itself...however added to a bomb can make it even worse. They even said that in the article you provided. And it still doesn't change the fact that they lied to people about the WMD's.

There's a difference between saying that there is yellowcake stored in Iraq; and saying that Iraq has, without a shadow of a doubt, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons stored in Iraq.

Remember Rumsfield? How they knew, without question, that Iraq had WMD's just "north, south, east and west of Tikrit and Baghdad"? They lied my friend...flat out lied.

reply to post by RRconservative


Great find. Unfortunately, yellowcake is till not a WMD. The fact is that we knew that yellowcake was in Iraq since the 80's. According to your own article.

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

So you are using this as justifiaction for Bush Jr.'s invasion, when we had already had the UN safeguarding it. If it was such a problem, why didn't Bush Sr. take care of it in the Gulf war. You also see that it says there was no yellowcake aquired after 91. That means (drumroll).... there is no evidence Saddam was trying to further devlope WMD's!

Rather it be intentional or not, your snippet of this article is misleading. In fact, later in the same article it says that this find is problematic, because it furthers the belief that Saddam didn't try to get yellowcake from Niger, one of Bush's claims that got us into war.

The yellowcake issue also is one of the many troubling footnotes of the war for Washington.

A CIA officer, Valerie Plame, claimed her identity was leaked to journalists to retaliate against her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote that he had found no evidence to support assertions that Iraq tried to buy additional yellowcake from Niger.

Next time, read the whole article before you post.

reply to post by RRconservative

Wait what are the reasons they want to impeach him for? The "illegal war" that was approved by Congress and the United Nations? Is that really an impeachable offense?

I love how you forgot the "under false pretense" part.

reply to post by Grambler


Dude, are you stalking me?

I think the problem is that there have been motions to impeach since the first day the schmo became President. The Democrats have had Congress for two years and haven't done squat (remember, they got elected partly on the promise of reducing the cost of gas!!). I think most people are just tired of it and are thinking, "S**t or get off the pot" when it comes to impeaching the Prez/Vice Prez/Dog catcher/Ice cream man, or whoever is in their cross-hairs at the time.

reply to post by Pellevoisin

Yes, but impeachment and conviction are important for two reasons.

First, a warning to future presidents not to act as George W. Bush did.

Second, to be sure that in the USA George W. Bush cannot hold any position of public trust or serve as an officer of a corporation. This limits to some extent the amount of money he could make through positions of public trust in the future ... bottom line.

And also.......so his croonies can stop claiming executive privilege every time the people try to hold them accountable for what this administration has been up to.
Rove is driving me nuts!!!

Originally posted by jerico65
reply to post by Grambler

 

I think the problem is that there have been motions to impeach since the first day the schmo became President. The Democrats have had Congress for two years and haven't done squat (remember, they got elected partly on the promise of reducing the cost of gas!!). I think most people are just tired of it and are thinking, "S**t or get off the pot" when it comes to impeaching the Prez/Vice Prez/Dog catcher/Ice cream man, or whoever is in their cross-hairs at the time.

I understand what you're saying, it does make sense. But couldn't you argue the fact that you should always speak up for things that are right, especially when so many people have died thanks to that lie? Don't you think that they should be held accountable?

Giving up because of a very uphill battle to accomplish the goal just doesn't seem like the right thing for me, that's why Kucinich should be commended; and he should keep up what he's doing, because eventually (hopefully) people are going to start to listen...point in fact, they ignored the impeachment being floored last month, but this month they're starting to listen.

If Kucinich did what I'm sure a lot of his co-workers wanted him to do, and give up last month, then the notion wouldn't of even been tabled this month...if that makes sense, hahaha.

A question and I'm coming from Devil's Advocate here. If proceedings go against Bush can they be transfered from impeachment to WHAT other jurisdiction?

Just a question from a layman in political discussions...Would or would not impeachment proceedings make it so that Dubya would not be able to hold a position of head, or executive officer of any of the oil companies he so diligently entered Iraq to fatten up? Also, would it make two sheets if the proceedings were not completed by the end of term of presidency?

Again, I am not a scholar in such matters of political blather...please, enlighten the.

reply to post by jerico65


I totally agree with you. The Democrats lied to everyone about what they would do when they got into congress, I think that they are just as bad as the Republicans, and I think that they are all basically one party anyways.

But I still think that the impeachment of Bush, no matter who it comes from, would be a good step in changing the face of American politics (for all of the reasons people have been mentioning). I would also hope that members of congress, no matter what party they are from, would be held accountable for selling out the American people.

Having said that, will Bush be impeached? No. Why? Because the majority of all of the politicians are crooked and have the same agenda (just my opinion). The only positive note to me is that there are congressmen like Kucinich and Ron Paul who will stand up to the corruption.

It definitely does matter if an impeached president can't pardon anyone...can they? I wager no, but who knows these days....

reply to post by matth


I am glad to see this but I actually hope it doesnt happen. I will explain.
Lets just say that Bush is impeached, they rush the proceedings, he doesnt resign and is found guilty. Cheney becomes president and pardons bush from any wrong doings while president and he gets off scott free.

Or, they threaten impeachment, Bush resigns, again Cheney becomes president and pardons Bush for any wrong doing while president and again he gets off, not to be held accountable for anything

The only hope would be to impeach Bush and Cheney and then Nancy Pelosi becomes president and who know she might pardon both but less likely than Cheney.

At this point in his presidency, they are better off waiting until he is out and then pursue criminal charges against him. We can give any more of these crooks a free pass. Look what happened to Libby, brought him up on charges, he gets sentenced, Bush commutes his sentence and he will most likely get a pardon at the end of bushes term.

If Bush was lying about WMD's what were these people doing? Bush took office in January 2001, where did all these people get their intelligence prior to Bush taking office? Could Bush have used the same intelligence that these people used. BTW George "Slam Dunk" Tenet was a Clinton appointee that Bush held over.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

reply to post by RRconservative

It doesn't really matter if Jesus himself came back to life in January 2003 and said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The fact of the matter is that now, in 2008, we know he didn't have WMD's, we were all misled about the Iraqi War, including politicians; and if you were to ask any of those people who you are quoting from years ago what they thought of the WMD situation now, they would tell you a complete different story.

Use current quotes from these people instead of quotes from ten years ago, and once again your argument is shot down

reply to post by iamcamouflage


That's a really good point...and the way Pelosi has been since being elected, I'm not sure if she would be much better. She wouldn't be worse, obviously (haha), but her two years of inaction is also inexcusable.

I'm not sure, I think that for the matter of what is morally and legally right, they should attempt the impeachment...however, I understand that it's true he'll be out of office long before anything concrete happens. But, if it opens the doors to taking away executive rights (like pardons), then I'd think it would be worth the effort and energy.

I suppose too, the way I'm talking is assuming there's a two party system in the United States, and all too often we've seen that it's just a choice of the same pile of horsecrap divided into two groups (with the exception of guys like Kucinich and Paul).