Should Bush be Impeached??
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
The Bush Administration, along with Tony Blair and a couple of Blair's sidekicks, lied to their populations and then defied the U.N security council and invaded Iraq illegally. It is estimated that over half a million Iraqis have since been killed and the country has been devasted.
They also bombed Afghanistan and killed countless thousands, in order to capture and arrest one man. Osama Bin Laden is still at large.
Question 1. Should Bush be impeached.
Question 2. Should Bush et al, and Blair, be tried in the Hague for crimes against humanity?
They also bombed Afghanistan and killed countless thousands, in order to capture and arrest one man. Osama Bin Laden is still at large.
Question 1. Should Bush be impeached.
Question 2. Should Bush et al, and Blair, be tried in the Hague for crimes against humanity?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
no
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
and difficult to 2)
BUT.... lots of questions asked and answers sought, scrutiny and transparency, heads rolling are in order. With both the House and the Senate under Dem control, hopefully this will happen.
1. So that justice can be done? And to give a warning to other heads of state who think about defying international law and who are responsble for the murder of half a million civilians of a sovereign nation. This isn't some petit tit-fot-tat situation. We are talking about the biggest crime of the 21st century to date.
2. Difficult isn't a satisfactory answer. Would you have been satisfied if the Nazis had been cleared at Nuremberg due to it being 'difficult'?
#2 - I don't know what will happen to Blair but I really doubt that will happen to Bush. We usually protect our own even someone like Bush. I'm not saying that is acceptable and the right thing to do but I'm just stating what I think is fact. This is where our arrogance will come into play. It must be totally frustrating to be a non-American in situations like this. However, Bush probably has committed crimes against humanity and should be tried. I think we'll have to see what happens with question #1.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Odds are he'll resign.
1. No chance Bush is impeached. Ever since the end of Gulf War 1, intelligence showed Iraq was capable of producing nuclear weapons. Obviously, intelligence was wrong. Remember, a bi-partisan Congress backed the invasion of Iraq, including traitor extrordinaire John "I'm a Robot" Kerry. An impeachment attempt would further divide the US. In my opinion, this would cause the average citizen to see the Democrats as petty, hypocritical, and bury them for any chance at the 2008 elections.
2. No chance Bush, Blair, or anyone else involved is tried for crimes against humanity. The US, UK, or anyone else for that matter cannot be held accountable for Iraqis killing Iraqis (i.e. suicide bomings). The citizens killed during air strikes are considered collateral damage.
Here's the kicker for some of you. The US will never leave Iraq. There will always be a military presence in the country. Every country we have ever been in conflict with has at least one US military base. Japan, Korea, Germany - all have US military presence.
Really? You often encounter children discussing the impeachment of a head of state for crimes against humanity? Interesting. You must live in a more highly evolved place than one I've ever visited - or even heard about.
Please elaborate, oh solemn, and mysterious one...
1. Iraq was capable of producing nuclear weapons. Yeah, so is Papua New Guinea, and tierra del fuego.
The intelligence was doctored and manipulated. This has already been proven, although two non-independent inquirys in the U.K - the Hutton report and the Butler inquiry were both complete white-washes.
2. Says who?
b) instead of impeachment maybe the dems can actualy try to do something..ya know for the people.
indeed, he is a wise old one with sage words and wisdom to share..."no one" knows better...;)
i would say a public hanging would be good send off for the brush cuttin' country boy...:D
I don't understand how impeaching Bush would tear the country apart. Nixon's impeachment didn't tear the country apart, did it?
Talkin' of redneck money-Nazis, I learn't a new term today: Goat-Roper.
'The term "goat roper" is sometimes used as a term of derision for unsophisticated rural people in the Southwestern United States, Arkansas Mississippi and Louisiana. It alludes to the belief that a person who raises or "ropes" goats is inferior to a cowboy or cattle rancher. This term may have roots in the range wars between ranchers and sheep or goat ranchers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck
Outstanding!
That's a fair point.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
Why do I have the feeling we'll say this about another Dick?
if that makes any sense....
i just want it to be known that rednecks have fuck all to do with scottish people... Wikipedia has been tainted by some english scotophobe... now if y'all excuse me i'm off to shag my sister!!!!
"McBrandeen were are ya... i dones need to get ma oats a spillin... now git here!!!"
Damn! He found me! :eek:
1. If the intelligence was doctored and manipulated, then it was done so during the Clinton era. It's been 15 years since Gulf War I. From the end of that war right up until the invasion of Iraq, we were led to believe that Iraq had the capabilities to, and may already have been in possion of nuclear weapons. I guess if you want to start impeachment processes You had just as well include the following:
"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
"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 |
"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 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 |
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 |
"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 |
"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
"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
2. Here's the definition of collateral damage for you:
Inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted on civilians in the course of military operations. Notice the keyword here? Inadvertant. You will never, ever find a court of law that will hold the President of the United States of America responsible for inadvertently killing civilians in the course of military action. If you do, then each and every Congressman and woman that voted to give authorization for the use of military force is also accountable.
No
No
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
interesting how you assume anybody who is against bush must be a democrat...
So then Hitler was innocent?
Impeachment is about punishment for the mistakes of the past. Perhaps we'd all be better served if we actually did something to avoid the mistakes of the future?