Soon to come: The impeachment of Bush Jr.???

[sina3001]

I heard on the radio and I've seen some very recent websites (example: Link) hinting at the possibility of Bush being impeached for his alleged lies about WMD's in Iraq.

[sina3001]

Soon to come: The impeachment of Bush Jr.

[Cash]

Not likely.  There should have been a big shakedown with lots of heads rolling, but for the most part it never happened.

[meepa]

Exactly what law did he break?

[lightprocess]

he won't get impeached because somehow lying does not equal lying under oath.

[Lord Raiden]

If a politician could get impeached for lying, there wouldn't be a single politician in all of Washington.  Not one.  I think the ones who are saying he will get impeached are the ones who want him out of office.  Then comes the scary fact that if he *IS* impeached, Cheny takes over and NOBODY wants that.  If you're going to get rid of Bush you first gotta get rid of Cheney, THEN get rid of bush.  hehe.  Problem is, it'll never happen.  They couldn't impeach Clinton, and Bush sure ain't going either.

[powder]

The only place Bush is going is down in history as the Monkey President who recommenced war in the Middle East.

[Mefistofeles]

Lol I doubt he'll probably just amend the Patriot Act to suspend impeachment proceedings.

[meepa]

Amend the Patriot Act? Nah, that's silly--just tack on a rider to any emergency funding for Iraq. That'll do it.

[Texmaster]

quote:
Originally posted by: powder
The only place Bush is going is down in history as the Monkey President who recommenced war in the Middle East.

Right powder.   And the war wasn't raging before even Afganistan right?   *GROAN*

[ScutMonkey]

There is no possible way for Congress to impeach Bush for Iraq because all Bush has to do is stand Tenet up before Congress saying he told Bush WMDs in Iraq were a "slam dunk."  Then they can show the documents from France, Germany, and Russia showing their intelligence services believed there were WMDs in Iraq.  Even the Downing Stree Memo, which I've read, is pure conjecture on the part of the British about Bush and Company's motives.  There needs to be a smoking gun somewhere out there that says plainly Bush and his Cabinet knew for a fact there were no WMDs in Iraq.  Something along the lines of a memo from Bush saying, "I know they don't have WMDs, but the US needs to steal Iraq's oil."  That doesn't exist so there will be no impeachment.

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: powder
The only place Bush is going is down in history as the Monkey President who recommenced war in the Middle East.

Depends on who rights the book.  "History is written by the victors."

[Intuit]

quote:
Originally posted by: Mefistofeles
Lol I doubt he'll probably just amend the Patriot Act to suspend impeachment proceedings.

Actually, he's just making sure that ALL the Supreme Court judges have been replaced prior to he leaving office.  (...and some people call him stupid...)  Think they'll bite the hand that appointed/feeds them ?  It'll be ten years before we can even think of touching him... and by then, few will care.

[Intuit]

quote:
Originally posted by: ScutMonkey
There is no possible way for Congress to impeach Bush for Iraq because all Bush has to do is stand Tenet up before Congress saying he told Bush WMDs in Iraq were a "slam dunk."  Then they can show the documents from France, Germany, and Russia showing their intelligence services believed there were WMDs in Iraq.  Even the Downing Stree Memo, which I've read, is pure conjecture on the part of the British about Bush and Company's motives.  There needs to be a smoking gun somewhere out there that says plainly Bush and his Cabinet knew for a fact there were no WMDs in Iraq.  Something along the lines of a memo from Bush saying, "I know they don't have WMDs, but the US needs to steal Iraq's oil."  That doesn't exist so there will be no impeachment.

A case of INCOMPETENCE can certainly be proven for even though he found a questionable source or two that indicated what he wanted, there are countless sources including the Pentagon's DIA that indicated otherwise.  Sure, let's ignore 355 pages out of a book just so we can post 1 on a stick; simply because it says what we want.  Let's also completely ignore the reality of the situation for IRaq altogether.

[fall-apart]

quote:
Originally posted by: Intuit

quote:
Originally posted by: Mefistofeles
Lol I doubt he'll probably just amend the Patriot Act to suspend impeachment proceedings.

Actually, he's just making sure that ALL the Supreme Court judges have been replaced prior to he leaving office.  (...and some people call him stupid...)  Think they'll bite the hand that appointed/feeds them ?  It'll be ten years before we can even think of touching him... and by then, few will care.

Sorry, you're mixing me up again - are we talking about "Evil Genius Bush" who is bent on world domination and has his finger in every pie, or are we talking about "Chimpy McBush", who was holding the book upside down and couldn't figure out that Iraq didn't have WMD, despite his head of intelligence telling him otherwise... I always get mixed up which one you're bashing today, Intuit...

[Intuit]

quote:
Originally posted by: fall-apart
............ I always get mixed up which one you're bashing today, Intuit...

That's because you don't pay attention Fall-Apart.

[Rocky]

quote:
There needs to be a smoking gun somewhere out there that says plainly Bush and his Cabinet knew for a fact there were no WMDs in Iraq.

The problem isnt that Scut, its that there was no smoking gun that showed Iraq had WMDs.  Yet Bush went to war primarily on those reasons.  And now we've proven Bush's primary reason for war was wrong.

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Rocky

The problem isnt that Scut, its that there was no smoking gun that showed Iraq had WMDs.  Yet Bush went to war primarily on those reasons.  And now we've proven Bush's primary reason for war was wrong.

And explain to me exactly how that's an impeachable offense?  Relying on the data your national security agencies give you and making a decision based off of those things just isn't impeachable.  I understand why you believe it's a problem, but that's not the topic.  The topic is whether or not that's impeachable.

[Intuit]

Since Junior is in the habit of making new laws... or rather circumventing them.  Perhaps we should just go ahead and make blatant and overt incompetence a crime.  Junior's not an idiot... he knew what he was doing.

http://forums.sudhian.com/mess...67&highlight_key=y

quote:
Originally posted by: Intuit
TIME TO PUT THIS TOPIC TO REST...

quote:
Originally posted by: ScutMonkey

quote:
Originally posted by: Rocky
Thanks wunder, and while I do agree with you on your point.  I think it boils down to its someones fault, if its not Bush's then who'sis it?  And who got fired?  Tenet?  Do you really beleive it was all his fault?  And after how many failed things does it get up higher? How many things have to happen before its rummies fault or condis fault or powells fault, or Bush's fault?  It cant keep being these low level officials, you know what I mean?

1.  Tenet isn't a low level official.  He's the head of the freakin' CIA.  He's the person who's supposed to supply all of the intelligence info which Bush is supposed to be basing his decisions.  How is it not his fault for the faulty WMD decision.  

Simple. Junior wanted to build a case to invade Iraq.  However, the facts of the situation did not fit the bill.  The fact of the situation was that Iraq had been spied, blockaded and bombed for 10+ years.  The United States Government knew just about everything that shipped in/out of that country.  The United States over the past ten years, had managed to map every inch of that country by satellite, and ran regular bombing runs on targets of suspicion, as well as confirmed military targets.  Make no mistake... we left no stone unturned and took other avenues, having to put out a call for more translators to help pour through all the informatoin that our infiltrating spies were putting through.  Again, this information did not fit the bill... less Junior would not have had such a difficult time coming with HARD evidence to prove his case.  
Note... this is *NOT* hard evidence...  



The fact that you won't hear, is that there was ZERO hard evidence to say that Iraq had WMD in 2001.  Like any modernized country, there were many reports that there were chemicals being used in production factories that could've been put to use as weaponry.  But let's be realistic, how many dangerous chemicals do you drive past on the way to work downtown ?  If you knew, you might just opt to fly downtown.  The fact that you won't hear, is that there was FAR MORE hard evidence that said, look, we search here, we searched there... nothing was found.  He doesn't have them, so as we know.  But this didn't fit with Junior's agenda and so... you didn't hear what was... MOST of the evidence.  Who's info should you trust more... the DIA (top-notch military intel for Pentagon) or CIA (mostly Civilian intel). Let me say it... I N C O M P E T E N C E . . . .

Now I'm going to make it known, that with the blockades we had installed, I believe we intended to invade all along.  Forcing them to allow the inspectors back in or face imminent attacks, was just a ploy to gain more intelligence re sites we didn't have access to before 2002.

The fact that we invaded is not Junior's fault.  The fault with Junior lies with his poor quality of leadership.  We invaded with a poor following, and under very poor national perception.  We insulted and pushed away potential allies and even those that wished to simply remain neutral.  We outright slandered those countries that disagreed... putting out all kinds of propaganda to deface the legitemacy of that country's leadership & word.  With time and after-the-fact, the Administration slowly bought and bartered for the "support" of many countries; until the local criticisms of his "go it alone policies" could be quelled.

Junior did *NOT* want any information to the contrary.  The majority of intelligence reports indicated that Iraq was *NOT* a threat.  
Iraq's WMD: Not Failed Intelligence, but Deception
Stephen J. Sniegoski -- THE WMD LIES

quote:
2.  Firing the wrong person isn't going to fix the damn problem.  The CIA was wrong about Pakistan and India having nukes and caught totally off guard.  They were wrong about the Aspirin factory they told Clinton to bomb in Sudan.  They were wrong about Iraq and their WMDs.  Do you see how two of those three failures had nothing to do with Bush and coincidentally enough were under Tenet's directorship?

Yes I do... so despite the fact that there was more intelligence to state opposite what Tenet was saying... and despite the fact that he had a track-record of being wrong... the Administration went whole-heartedly with it, even though there was nothing concrete... even though the MAJORITY of other reports indicated that Iraq was not a threat... even though Iraq had been blockaded, infiltrated and bombed for over ten years.  Do you know what they call that  INCOMPETENCE... not on the part of the subordinate... but on the part of the Commander.  It is the COMMANDER'S job to look at all evidence, from multiple mediums and sources, OBJECTIVELY (rather than subjectively).  Fire them both.

quote:
What's even more troubling is that the intelligence communities in France, England, Germany, and Russia were all wrong about WMDs as well.  Their intelligence services were saying roughly the same thing.  What those countries differed on was not the threat - they believed in WMDs as much as we did and so did the UN - but the action to face the threat.

If the UN believed they were such were such a massive threat in 2002, then why did we have to coerce or practically beg them to reinsert their inspectors ?  Oh yeah, Blix's quote that our evidence on Iraq was "shaky" and "not very impressive" should be ignored because he's actually an American in disguise.  Rocky made a great point.  Why is it that we constantly badger them until we want to act like they said something that agreed with us ? ROCKY: "We keep trying to show our independence from the rest of the world so lets try to be independently responsible for our own decisions as well."  Is it obvious that I'm not buying it.  With reports of both the United States and Brittain having forged intel to fit the bill after the fact, will you still not believe that this President is INCOMPETENT?  The Man's whole essence just wreaks of amateurisms.  He blows at most he takes part in and his whole front, is as translucent as his attempts to cover that which he's blown.

I am one who comes to my own conclusions based on the events, as I've witnessed them... but I am actually surprised at just how many people there are documenting this in detail; and how little... make that ZERO air-play this has gotten in the media and amongst Americans in general.

Time and again, I am amazed at the roads we take and the decisions we make; as they don't agree with the image we portray and the prescedence for moral decadence that we have apparently set for ourselves.  This is what Colin Powell wanted to resign over back when the case for conquering Iraq first started to jump-off.  Unfortunately he decided to stick with it, and has now paid with his before-hand impeccable reputation and career.  He knew that if he didn't resign, he was to be made the next scape-goat a.k.a. fall-guy... even though he like many others that used to be in and around the Administration, had disagreed from the get-go.

quote:
Vincent Cannistaro, the former CIA head of counterterrorism: "…When we're talking about acquiring information on Iraq. It isn't that anyone had a good source on Iraq - there weren't any good sources. The Italian intelligence service, the military intelligence service, was acquiring information that was really being hand-fed to them by very dubious sources. The Niger documents, for example, which apparently were produced in the United States, yet were funneled through the Italians."  

[Rocky]

"And explain to me exactly how that's an impeachable offense? Relying on the data your national security agencies give you and making a decision based off of those things just isn't impeachable. I understand why you believe it's a problem, but that's not the topic. The topic is whether or not that's impeachable."


I think lying to the american public about Sadams connection wtih 9/11 to gain support for the war is impeachable.

[Rocky]

" I seem to remember them being very very careful about Saddam and 9/11. "


Are you kidding me here?  Even after the 9/11 commission said that Saddam had no relationship with the terrorists of 9/11.  Cheney would not refute their relationship in direct one on one interviews up to 6 months after the commisions results.   You couldnt find a speech about Saddam where 9/11 wasnt mentioned hand in hand.  Its how they gained support for the war, they were careful about it, they were deliberate about it.  When we declared war on Iraq 70% of the people thought that Saddam was behind 9/11.  Now while you may think thats just politicians,  I think those are the family and friends of the soldiers that are going to Iraq and dying for our country.  They shouldnt be lied to about whyand who they are fighting

[ScutMonkey]

RC,

This is a particular point which really sticks in Rocky's craw and I believe he may have links for speeches about it.  Rocky, would you mind posting that stuff again?  It's either Cheney or Rumsfield who's the main culprit in this line of questions.  They skirt dangerously close to the line of actually saying 9/11 was caused by Saddam.  However, I think there was an incident during the speculation about that meeting between Al Queda and one of Saddam's ambassadors in Europe where either Rumsfeld or Cheney jumped the gun and said they were involved before all the facts of that meeting were in.

[Rocky]

I can dig them up again when I have more time.  Cheney was the main culprit here, but rummy and Bush do it as well, it just wasnt as direct.  And while Cheney's evidence is more damning.  I still think saying Iraq and 9/11 or Sadam and Al Queda repeatedly in speeches after 9/11 is worthy enough reason for someone not to be President.  To mislead the people by using their emotions from 9/11 to help fuel the fire to go into another pretty much unrelated war is the greatest atrocity of this administration.  

Obviously its near impossible to impeach a President for a number of obvious reasons.  Its usually much easier to vote them out than impeach them.

[Rocky]

Unfortunately under no circumstances should omissions be reason enough to die for, or to let your friends and family die for, which in lies the responsibility of the Commander and Chief to make us aware of why we are sacrificing, not ommitting the reasons for US troops dying.

[fall-apart]

Hitchens fisks the Downing Street Memo