Kucinich calls for Impeachment

Rhinocerous Surprise

Byrnzie wrote:

Somebody needs to be held accountable. Why not start at the top?

I'm all for it - but that'd mean going after Cheney, wouldn't it?

Medicated-Genius

floyd1975 wrote:

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.

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.

kenny olav

I've been watching it for the last 30 mins, and I suddenly thought "shit, i gotta tell AMT about this"... fortunately, Commy was already on duty.

he still stands

floyd1975 wrote:

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.

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"

BetterThanYou

Medicated-Genius wrote:

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.

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.

Medicated-Genius

BetterThanYou wrote:

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.

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.

Open

floyd1975 wrote:

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.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/

BetterThanYou

Medicated-Genius wrote:

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.

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.

floyd1975

Medicated-Genius wrote:

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.

I never once said that I thought that impeaching Clinton was a worthwhile use of funds.

floyd1975

he still stands wrote:

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;

Ignoring this testimony is not treasonous although it may be considered negligent.

he still stands wrote:

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;

See above.

he still stands wrote:

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;

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.

he still stands wrote:

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;

This is more proof of bad intelligence than treason.

he still stands wrote:

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;

They were basing these on faulty intelligence. Once again, choosing to follow faulty intelligence is not a valid case for removal from office.

he still stands wrote:

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"

This isn't even really saying anything to back up a valid argument for impeachment.

floyd1975

Open wrote:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/

A partisan report is never the best evidence.

Abookamongstthemany

floyd1975 wrote:

A partisan report is never the best evidence.

neither is the state house's official line.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

he still stands wrote:

treason, conspiracy to commit murder, murder.

those are all pretty bad crimes

Naw....It's just Bush doing the right thing.

He gave up golf...what more can people demand?

kenny olav

i started watching Kucinich today when he was reading the 2nd or 3rd article of impeachment. when he got to article 7, i was like 'alright, i get it dude, bush & cheney fucked us over and they need to get the fuck out. word.' and then i channel surfed over to FOXCNNladyland to see what wares they were a' peddlin for at least an hour, and then i flip back to C-Span and Kucizzle still be up in the Hizzouse o' Representin' mackin dem Articles fo' Impeachn' the prez and i'm like DAYM cuz! shiiiit.

he still stands

Kenny Olav wrote:

i started watching Kucinich today when he was reading the 2nd or 3rd article of impeachment. when he got to article 7, i was like 'alright, i get it dude, bush & cheney fucked us over and they need to get the fuck out. word.' and then i channel surfed over to FOXCNNladyland to see what wares they were a' peddlin for at least an hour, and then i flip back to C-Span and Kucizzle still be up in the Hizzouse o' Representin' mackin dem Articles fo' Impeachn' the prez and i'm like DAYM cuz! shiiiit.

wow. I don't even know what to say.

that made me chuckle.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I didn't read the whole thread..

here's vids of Kucinich if interested...

scroll down

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Kucinich_presents_Bush_impeachment_articles_0609.html

Quak

I have an idea that you have stolen my car. The police agree because they can see that the car has been driving past your house. I take your car. The police finds out that you dident steal the car. Well police made a mistake, case closed??

El_Kabong

floyd1975 wrote:

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.

a few years ago there was an article, i think from the washington post, about all these cia analysts quitting b/c they said cheney's office pressured them to give them intel they agreed w/

polaris

didn't mcclellan's new book pretty much admit this admin like to take america to war!?? ... besides - there are loads of reasons to impeach ...

i would say the failure to make this administration accountable is what makes the people pathetic ... the fact that these crooks are still in office and not behind jail is pathetic ...

josevolution

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Only because we the people aren't demanding it.

no because americans have become sheeppppps bahhhhhhhhhhh bahhhhhhhh bahhhhhhh ....