Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

...but he didnt get a blowjob from his intern, so there is no case i'm afraid.

The congress does not need any reason to impeach a president; all they need is a vote. It is a political thing, not having anything to do with justice.

Err, I pretty much agree with NONE of them.

Calls for things like Impeachment proceedings show a total lack of common sense. The point at which you take disagreement with a regime anbd then turn it into a reason to distort truth into a total fabrication of anything that would even, a tiny tiny bit, move towards Impeachment proceedings is the point where you have left reason behind.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, I pretty much agree with NONE of them.

Calls for things like Impeachment proceedings show a total lack of common sense. The point at which you take disagreement with a regime anbd then turn it into a reason to distort truth into a total fabrication of anything that would even, a tiny tiny bit, move towards Impeachment proceedings is the point where you have left reason behind.

so its all a fabrication because you said so?

No, they are fabrications because they are bollocks and/or unprovable.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, they are fabrications because they are bollocks and/or unprovable.

technically not provable.
scooter libby testified under oath that his 'superiors' authorised him to
leak the identity of an undercover and embedded c.i.a. agent to discredit their finding that there was no attempt by huissein to aquire enriched uranium from africa. but he never actually said "cheney" did he? until the administration runs out of the white house with their hands in the air and says "WE GIVE UP!!! WE DID IT!!!!!!" there will be no absolute proof.

same goes for the fixed intelligence for which the leak was approved.

and what of illegal wiretapping? that never happened either?

Originally posted by PVS
technically not provable.
scooter libby testified under oath that his 'superiors' authorised him to
leak the identity of an undercover and embedded c.i.a. agent to discredit their finding that there was no attempt by huissein to aquire enriched uranium from africa. but he never actually said "cheney" did he? until the administration runs out of the white house with their hands in the air and says "WE GIVE UP!!! WE DID IT!!!!!!" there will be no absolute proof.

same goes for the fixed intelligence for which the leak was approved.

and what of illegal wiretapping? that never happened either?

Try and convince me that you could make even the slightest criminal case for any of this to be connected directly to the President. That's what you would need for any such attempt to be anything but a wild fantasy.

For the love of God, that list is saying that the abuse of the Koran at Guantanamo is somehow grounds for impeaching the damn President. It's such total nonsense, it does not deserve any form of genuine consideration. It's just pissing in the wind because the poster dislikes Bush.

A process like impeachment should not be treated so frivolously.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Try and convince me that you could make even the slightest criminal case for any of this to be connected directly to the President. That's what you would need for any such attempt to be anything but a wild fantasy.

convince you that i can somehow indict a higher up in the administration and then scare the shit out them to the point where they would defy their superiors? thats a tall order. and have you asked the question begged? WHO are the superiors libby referred to if not cheney and/or bush? is

Originally posted by Ushgarak
For the love of God, that list is saying that the abuse of the Koran at Guantanamo is somehow grounds for impeaching the damn President.

this i agree with. however a lack of leadership should be addressed, perhaps not on an impeachment level....

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's such total nonsense, it does not deserve any form of genuine consideration. It's just pissing in the wind because the poster dislikes Bush.

...but you just ran with that one point and called it all a "pissing in the wind." well i beg to differ, as i stated.

yes, i dislike bush a great deal. but why does that eliminate me from having an opinion based on what i've seen/read/listened to. well, i can just turn around and say you're calling it all rubish because you're irrationally bias for the president. isnt very productive though, is it?

Originally posted by jaden101
unfortunately impeachment would require evidence as opposed to accusation...please enlighten us...i'm genuinly interested

I agree with him... I'm a bit lost on that list... Could you expland on how bush was in the wrong???

I.E.
"*Conspiracy to violate the fourth ammendment through TIA (which still exists within the NSA)"

When are where?

*Using banned chemical weapons in warfare

Which one and on who???

So screwin your interns not okay, yet screwin the nation is

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The congress does not need any reason to impeach a president; all they need is a vote. It is a political thing, not having anything to do with justice.

Actually, that's not true. Impeaching the president means that he is formally charged with a crime by Congress.

I think calling for the impeachment of a sitting president that has control of the house, the judicial branch AND the white house would be a pretty big waste of time.

that will change come november

THERE'S ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO FILL FORT KNOX!!!! that's where the whole "obstruction of justice" thing comes in.

Originally posted by PVS
...but he didnt get a blowjob from his intern, so there is no case i'm afraid.

If Clinton had shared, there wouldn't have been impeachment there, either.

Either that, or just make sure one political party is pretty much the sole power.

I just wish we were in the year 2008 so that we can finally have some peace...not from Bush but from his haters.

If there's even a world at that point.

There will always be a world in the future...along with people that complain about it.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I just wish we were in the year 2008 so that we can finally have some peace...not from Bush but from his haters.

the worst i could do is annoy you.
the worst he could do is be reckless and incompitent...then many people die. oh wait thats been done, as im sure of the first part.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
A process like impeachment should not be treated so frivolously.

How do you judge what is frivolous and what is not in light of the previous grounds used for a proposed impeachment? Law cases are defined by previous judgements, so impeachment cases should not?

YEAH!!!! STICK IT!!!! USA!!!!! USA!!!!!! USA!!!!!!!! *masturbates*

as an alternative, i would be open to no impeachmet and just setting them all free...in siberia

Originally posted by PVS
YEAH!!!! STICK IT!!!! USA!!!!! USA!!!!!! USA!!!!!!!! *masturbates*

Someone's masturbating? *joins in, furiously*

the problem is that impeachment in a US court would involve US law

so anything pertaining to events actually an iraq and guantanamo surely wouldn't be prosecutable and something other than impeachment would be neccessary

as for things such as "Willful failure to prevent an attack on the United States"

this is just plain idiocy...no matter how much Deano would say other wise

impeachment is the tip of the iceburg. after their removal office, the president and the cabinet can still face charges from any court.

Originally posted by jaden101
the problem is that impeachment in a US court would involve US law


Damn! I thought someone starting a KMC thread would be enough reason to do it.

Originally posted by botankus
Damn! I thought someone starting a KMC thread would be enough reason to do it.

thats the power we have...

The problem I see with impeachment is that then we get Dick Chaney as President.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The problem I see with impeachment is that then we get Dick Chaney as President.

um...NO

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I just wish we were in the year 2008 so that we can finally have some peace...not from Bush but from his haters.

by haters do you mean people who like democracy and don't want to be ruled by a dumb little mussollini with an abraham lincoln complex?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
by haters do you mean people who like democracy and don't want to be ruled by a dumb little mussollini with an abraham lincoln complex?

I don't think that's what WD meant.

I think what he meant was exactly what you said word for word, with the words, "but feel the obligation to scream bloody murder about it 24/7 to people who could give two shits about what you're trying to say in the first place" added to it.

ignorance is complacency, if you get screwed, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
by haters do you mean people who like democracy and don't want to be ruled by a dumb little mussollini with an abraham lincoln complex?

Abraham Lincoln complex? Sorry for my ignorance, but I've never heard that before.

bush and his cronies have constantly compared him, his presidencey and his circumventing of civil liberties to abraham lincoln.

Abraham was a better President, I'd bet.

yeah, He was fighting a CIVIL WAR and REGRETED using his power. Not to mention that he was the only sitting president ever to voluntarily enter a battlefield. Compare that to bush...

Bush is a war monger. His daddy couldn't defeat Saddam, so Bush was trying to complete the job his precious daddy failed in.

Originally posted by Makedde
I agree. Bush said Iraq had them, and they didn't. I think Bush knew this all along.



I agree again. Abuse was going on right in front of him but he turned a blind eye.



If these chemicals are banned, and allowed them to be used, he broke the law.



I believe an attack on the WTC could have been prevented.

I am of the opinion that Bush knew there would be terror attack, and he knew it would involved the WTC, and he let it happen, to gain leverage needed to go to war with Iraq.

Charge the Prez with war crimes, I say!



1.) Clinton was prez. for eight years before Bush and he has said that Saddam was believed to have them. He even ordered surgical missle strikes from our jets to take out certain factories believed to have been involved with WMD in 1998. Many other world leaders believed that he still had, or had the plans to make WMD's.

Besides the fact that he killed several hundred thousand peole in Kuwait with them in the 1980's.... and while we found none now, we did find that he had the capability to make them.

Having already demonstrated on a mudreous level his willingness to use them, and given the info. the previous administration gave him, .... I can see the reasons. It was a guess, to accomplish something that needed to be done..... but not a flat out lie.


2.) Bush (or any President) is not personally responsible for the actions of a few disgruntled/idiot soldiers flushing a Quaran or beating people. He does have a responsibility to deal with it if it is presented, and has said that he has done so. Without any type of proof that he was given specific evidence of specific abuses and failed to act, ..... this point of view holds no water.


3.) Which chemical weapons that were banned did Bush authorize for use, and could you prove it?

4.) The last part is ludicrous. The intelligence prior to 9/11 was that Al-Quida was planning an attack, and they may be training people to use planes. Wether or not the WTC was a high possiblity or not, ...probably it was. So is the Statue of Liberty, the White House, etc.......

Even if he had SPECIFIC knowlege of their EXACT plan of attack (doubtfull) he had no way of knowing who the actual attackers would be, and which airports they would come from, and when they would leave, etc......

He would have had to have closed down all the airports in the whole country, closed the WTC, ... and it wouldn't have mattered, because they would just wait until it was open again. (He could not indefinately close them for long periods of time).


Not to mention the fact that we get info about attacks and specific threats made to us about different attacks in different places EVERY SINGLE DAY.

What's he supposed to do? Close everthing everwhere?

Close down Wall street every time we get a bomb threat?



Also, you forget that the WTC wasn't the only target that day. The Pentagon, out military/defense headquarters was also hit, killing more than 100 government workers. And the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania was for the f*cking White House.

He was gonna kill (or allow to be killed) more than half of his staff, the building he lives in, his wife or daughters (I admit to not knowing if they were home or not), and his little doggie?




I doubt it. He wouldn't have needed to do all that to get a guy who mass-murdered his own people, tried to kill one of our Presidents (George Sr.), and was someone who the whole world wanted gone.

Apparently most Democratic senators and congressmen agree with me, as an overwhelming majority of them supported the war in the vote for it. (Including John Kerry)

Well, I still believe that he knew, and let it happen in order to gain leverage for the war in Iraq.

Originally posted by Makedde
Well, I still believe that he knew, and let it happen in order to gain leverage for the war in Iraq.

IF he did, then he wasn't the first president to do that (FDR), and its what you got to do if most of the people aren't behind you. Catastrophic events like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 tend to get people all riled up and ready to shoot the bad guy.

"All is fair in love and war."

Originally posted by Makedde
Well, I still believe that he knew, and let it happen in order to gain leverage for the war in Iraq.

He knew what?

Everything?

Who the guys were (their names) and when and where they would leave?

How the planes would hit? Where they would hit?

What time?


He knew that his own HQ of defense and military strategy would be hit, and he couldn't possibly determine how, so he might lose some/all of his generals and commanders who would be responsible for leading the war in Iraq?


He knew that the plane would hit the White House? (no way he could have known that the passengers of that plane would revolt, and crash it.)

He would kill hundreds, if not thousands of people who work for him?


To go catch a guy that we all gave him the permission to go get?


(see my above post)



C'mon Mak... you don't have to like him or vote for him or anyone who looks like him....

But you can't really believe those things.... can you?

I do believe that. and you'd be surprised at how many people who feel the same.

Can it be proven beyond a doubt that Bush DIDN'T know about the attacks? No, so there is room for doubt here.

Originally posted by Makedde
I do believe that. and you'd be surprised at how many people who feel the same.

Can it be proven beyond a doubt that Bush DIDN'T know about the attacks? No, so there is room for doubt here.

But he didnt know the precise date and time, or the manner at which they would be carried out.

Originally posted by Makedde
I do believe that. and you'd be surprised at how many people who feel the same.

Can it be proven beyond a doubt that Bush DIDN'T know about the attacks? No, so there is room for doubt here.


Why the need to let them happen?


He got the support to invade Iraq because of the things that I posted.

(the murder of hundreds of thousands people, the Clinton administrations info./ attacks of his factories, and him trying to have one of our Presidents assasinated.)

Him letting people be attacked would just be evil, and I would support a lynch mob if it was ever proved true.


But it won't be. His own personal motives aside, lets say that he did know about it. Specifically, down to the last details (absurd, I know).

How was he supposed to stop it?

Close down everything as I posted earlier?

The terrorists would just come back and do it another day.

Fact: We get threats from lots of terroist groups (not to mention individual nut jobs ) EVERY SINGLE DAY.

What the hell is he supposed to do?

Close down everything, everywhere, everyday?

So many of those threats, with more specific info. than what we had about 9/11, never come to pass.

How is he to know what will or won't happen?

And again, even if he did, what steps could he have taken to stop it from happening?



(Side note: I will agree that he took advantage of the situation after the attacks to use sympathy in the "War on Terror" campaign. I just can't see how you would say that he "planned" the attacks, or "knew about them and did nothing" out of anything other than the fact that you don't like him.)

Saddam would have gone, one way or another.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
He would kill hundreds, if not thousands of people who work for him?
He did send us to war didn't he?

Originally posted by sithsaber408

To go catch a guy that we all gave him the permission to go get?
?
A guy who, incidently, had no connection with the attacks of 9/11.

Originally posted by sithsaber408

But you can't really believe those things.... can you?
Please don't tell me you think he is completely innocent.

To say something like requesting the impeachment of Bush is to show total ignorace at the system of impeachment.
To be impeached is to be brought to trial for high crimes, with the Supreme Court as sitting justice and Congress as Jury.
You have had to commit a serious felony for this to occur.
In the previous two cases of Impeachment, both trials revolved around attempting to falsify a trial.
Clintion was charged wiht Lying under oath, and Nixion was charged with conceling evedence from a jury. Both were impeached,
Being impeached also simply means being brought to trial., you do not need to be found guilty to be impeached.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
1.) Clinton was prez. for eight years before Bush and he has said that Saddam was believed to have them. He even ordered surgical missle strikes from our jets to take out certain factories believed to have been involved with WMD in 1998. Many other world leaders believed that he still had, or had the plans to make WMD's.

Besides the fact that he killed several hundred thousand peole in Kuwait with them in the 1980's.... and while we found none now, we did find that he had the capability to make them.

Having already demonstrated on a mudreous level his willingness to use them, and given the info. the previous administration gave him, .... I can see the reasons. It was a guess, to accomplish something that needed to be done..... but not a flat out lie.


2.) Bush (or any President) is not personally responsible for the actions of a few disgruntled/idiot soldiers flushing a Quaran or beating people. He does have a responsibility to deal with it if it is presented, and has said that he has done so. Without any type of proof that he was given specific evidence of specific abuses and failed to act, ..... this point of view holds no water.


3.) Which chemical weapons that were banned did Bush authorize for use, and could you prove it?

4.) The last part is ludicrous. The intelligence prior to 9/11 was that Al-Quida was planning an attack, and they may be training people to use planes. Wether or not the WTC was a high possiblity or not, ...probably it was. So is the Statue of Liberty, the White House, etc.......

Even if he had SPECIFIC knowlege of their EXACT plan of attack (doubtfull) he had no way of knowing who the actual attackers would be, and which airports they would come from, and when they would leave, etc......

He would have had to have closed down all the airports in the whole country, closed the WTC, ... and it wouldn't have mattered, because they would just wait until it was open again. (He could not indefinately close them for long periods of time).


Not to mention the fact that we get info about attacks and specific threats made to us about different attacks in different places EVERY SINGLE DAY.

What's he supposed to do? Close everthing everwhere?

Close down Wall street every time we get a bomb threat?



Also, you forget that the WTC wasn't the only target that day. The Pentagon, out military/defense headquarters was also hit, killing more than 100 government workers. And the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania was for the f*cking White House.

He was gonna kill (or allow to be killed) more than half of his staff, the building he lives in, his wife or daughters (I admit to not knowing if they were home or not), and his little doggie?




I doubt it. He wouldn't have needed to do all that to get a guy who mass-murdered his own people, tried to kill one of our Presidents (George Sr.), and was someone who the whole world wanted gone.

Apparently most Democratic senators and congressmen agree with me, as an overwhelming majority of them supported the war in the vote for it. (Including John Kerry)



1.They both recieved their info from the same sources-Chalabi and Richard Perle-both criminals
2.The soldiers were acting on orders from higher ups that may go as high up as donald Rumsfeld. The US military has never respected the Geneva Conventions
3. White Phosphorous, a chemical weapon made infamous in World War I and used sparingly due to its horrifying effects was used in the initial bombing of several iraqi neighborhoods
4. The administration DID have specific intelligence as to the terrorist attacks and allowed them to happen as per the "new pearl harbor" mission statement of PNAC. Furthermore, the administration has done everything possible to shield Osama bin laden and the financial backers of Al Qaida by refusing to investigate any leads involving Saudis and not providing adequete troops to comb the Hindu Kush for Osama himself. Instead he has used every opportunity to exploit sadness and fear, creating an atmosphere of moronic jingoistic nationalism, lately even saying that he doesn't know where Bin Laden is and that "he doesn't even think about it". Instead we're experminting in Iraq and letting Al Qaida thrive on the backlash. Bravo

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

page 51 (63 out of 90 in the pdf)

if you don't know who they are PNAC are a radical straussian neoconservative group who's members include virtually the entire bush administration, including Michael Ledeen, the prime suspect in the yellowcake forgery case. They advocate de facto global dominance of the united states through military and economic coersion and virtual autocracy at home.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
1.They both recieved their info from the same sources-Chalabi and Richard Perle-both criminals
2.The soldiers were acting on orders from higher ups that may go as high up as donald Rumsfeld. The US military has never respected the Geneva Conventions
3. White Phosphorous, a chemical weapon made infamous in World War I and used sparingly due to its horrifying effects was used in the initial bombing of several iraqi neighborhoods
4. The administration DID have specific intelligence as to the terrorist attacks and allowed them to happen as per the "new pearl harbor" mission statement of PNAC. Furthermore, the administration has done everything possible to shield Osama bin laden and the financial backers of Al Qaida by refusing to investigate any leads involving Saudis and not providing adequete troops to comb the Hindu Kush for Osama himself. Instead he has used every opportunity to exploit sadness and fear, creating an atmosphere of moronic jingoistic nationalism, lately even saying that he doesn't know where Bin Laden is and that "he doesn't even think about it". Instead we're experminting in Iraq and letting Al Qaida thrive on the backlash. Bravo

Even if I agreed, (which I don't)...


These things are linked to Bush directly/grounds for impeachment....

how?

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
To say something like requesting the impeachment of Bush is to show total ignorace at the system of impeachment.
To be impeached is to be brought to trial for high crimes, with the Supreme Court as sitting justice and Congress as Jury.
You have had to commit a serious felony for this to occur.
In the previous two cases of Impeachment, both trials revolved around attempting to falsify a trial.
Clintion was charged wiht Lying under oath, and Nixion was charged with conceling evedence from a jury. Both were impeached,
Being impeached also simply means being brought to trial., you do not need to be found guilty to be impeached.

Nixon was never impeached....He resigned before that could happen.

Andrew Johnson was impeached but was acquitted by a single vote.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Nixon was never impeached....He resigned before that could happen.

Andrew Johnson was impeached but was acquitted by a single vote.
Good call, my bad.