Kucinich calls for Impeachment
Commy
Posts: 4,984
He's calling for impeachent of GWB on cspan right now.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hey you stole what I was going to say.
Impeachment will never happen though.
2010: Newark 5/18 MSG 5/20-21 2011: PJ20 9/3-4 2012: Made In America 9/2
2013: Brooklyn 10/18-19 Philly 10/21-22 Hartford 10/25 2014: ACL10/12
2015: NYC 9/23 2016: Tampa 4/11 Philly 4/28-29 MSG 5/1-2 Fenway 8/5+8/7
2017: RRHoF 4/7 2018: Fenway 9/2+9/4 2021: Sea Hear Now 9/18
2022: MSG 9/11 2024: MSG 9/3-4 Philly 9/7+9/9 Fenway 9/15+9/17
2025: Pittsburgh 5/16+5/18
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Only because we the people aren't demanding it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Isn't the general argument "Oh, he's out of office in a few months, what's the point?"
That's like a bank manager saying "That guy with the gun, and the bags full of money... he'll be outta here in a few minutes. We'll be alright then."
You have to prove they broke the law, and in the case of Iraq, that's extremely difficult do -- especially when most of the rest of the world's intelligence agencies were also on board.
for the least they could possibly do
treason, conspiracy to commit murder, murder.
those are all pretty bad crimes
Prove one.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5210838&postcount=15
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=274009
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Treason
The intelligence was vague, did not prove WMDs existed, and Bush took us to war under false premises. This action caused Al Qaeda to strengthen, it aided our true enemy beyond Bin Laden's wildest hopes and dreams. So yes, George W. is giving aid and comfort to our enemy.
Conspiracy to commit murder
A war fought under false pretense, solely George Bush's doing, that has killed over 4000 US troops, who knows how many hundreds of thousands of civilians. Any county in the US that has dead soldiers can file this lawsuit.
Murder: see conspiracy to commit murder
I'm no lawyer but I think it's all pretty simple to see.
I'm no lawyer, and certainly no fan of George Bush, but the war wasn't solely his doing. It passed Congress, and it washed with the vast majority of Americans. Not to mention the British and Australian governments, among others. So as much as I'd love to see Bush impeached, that's not something you're gonna pin on him.
It is, however, something to consider when you're voting in a few months - both major parties were, and are, complicit in this war.
President Bush, as the Commander in Chief, can wage an action based on intelligence. Much of this intelligence was backed by other countries as well, as has been stated previously in this thread. Going to war, however misguided, would not fit the narrow legal definition of treason.
Murder and conspiracy to commit murder are just preposterous. The action may have been misguided but he sent a volunteer military, rightly or wrongly, to combat which is within his power as the President.
Once again, although these actions may not have been morally justifiable to all citizens, none of them truly meet the narrow definitions of the law.
Bush used misinformation and blatant LIES to get support from Congress, US civilians, and Britain/Australia, so I would argue that it is solely his doing.
Isn't that the purpose of impeachment? It's a two step process, impeachment being like an indictment, bringing charges against a government official. The word itself does not imply that a person will be forcibly removed from office, but that they will face trial. If that trial results in conviction, the official is removed.
Actually other countries, such as France, said that their intelligence DID NOT support going to war. Remember "Freedom Fries?"
Once again, I do not agree that we had intelligence that supported the need for war to remove WMDs. Our intelligence was "vague at best" and Bush distorted facts to get approval.
Somebody needs to be held accountable. Why not start at the top?
You are correct but frivolous charges are a huge and expensive problem in the judicial system of our country. I would hate to see them become the norm in the legislative branch of our country.
I say we gather the truth of this administration and hold criminal trials if crimes against the American people... or crimes against humanity can be proven.
Hail, Hail!!!
France was one country. Britain was another.
You may not agree that the intelligence supported the need for a military action. You were not elected to make that decision though. George W. Bush was elected to make that decision and he saw it differently from you. He was carrying out the duties of his office, however misguided. He used what may have been faulty intelligence but that does not fit the definition of treason.
I'm all for it - but that'd mean going after Cheney, wouldn't it?
Frivolous charges like a blow job in the oval office? I tend to think the possibility that Bush could be guilty of aforementioned crimes is not exactly frivolous.
Its not that I don't agree. It is what the evidence shows. Conclusively.
"IRAQ WMD INTELLIGENCE SUMMARY
The following general points are key to understanding the Iraq WMD intelligence deception:
1. Public testimony by the U.N. weapons inspectors at the U.N. Security Council just 12 days BEFORE the Iraq invasion rebutted all U.S. and British weapons charges against Iraq, which is why most of the rest of the world opposed the U.S. and British led invasion;
2. U.S. intelligence conclusions prior to October 2002 about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were very consistent with the conclusions of the U.N. weapons inspectors, corroborating the fact that Iraq was not an imminent threat to U.S. security;
3. In October 2002, the CIA produced a declassified National Intelligence Estimate with false key judgments about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in spite of dissents from several other U.S. intelligence agencies;
4. No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq after the U.S. and British led invasion in March 2003 and the evidence also corroborated U.N. weapons inspectors conclusions that no such weapons or programs had existed in Iraq since 1998;
5. Many Bush administration officials made dozens of false statements to the U.N., Congress and the media about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction;
6. The rationale to invade Iraq under the premise of weapons of mass destruction originated in the Project for the New American Century whose advocates include key Bush administration personnel Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle and Richard Armitage"
that wasn't the charge in clinton's case. his was lying under oath.
this country sickens me sometimes. what's the deal with all this whiny "do over" bullshit. impeach bush, impeach clinton, run grey davis out of office so we can have another election because we don't like how things are going half way through his term.
~D.K.S.
True, he was impeached for lying about the blow job. The point being, that statement was made that the judicial system can't afford to pursue frivolous charges. My point is that lying to Congress and the American public in order to engage in a multi billion dollar war, is hardly frivolous. For me, thats kinda right up there on the scale of really shitty things to do. If there is any possibility at all that Bush deliberately and knowingly lied to achieve his objective, then I am willing to put my OWN money towards investigating it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/
i wasn't trying to argue with you, it just gets me going a bit whenever i see someone saying his impeachment was for a blowjob. that's all.
i have nothing else to offer in this thread, so everyone else...please continue.
~D.K.S.
I never once said that I thought that impeaching Clinton was a worthwhile use of funds.
Ignoring this testimony is not treasonous although it may be considered negligent.
See above.
Bush was never the head of the CIA. If you can prove that Bush intentionally ordered the falsification of documents you may have something but this, in itself, does nothing to prove a valid case for removal from office.
This is more proof of bad intelligence than treason.
They were basing these on faulty intelligence. Once again, choosing to follow faulty intelligence is not a valid case for removal from office.
This isn't even really saying anything to back up a valid argument for impeachment.