Is it time to consider "IMPEACHMENT"??
 

With the Halliburton ripoffs of millions in undelivered services to our GIs and reconstruction for Iraqii infrastructure, with secret torture prisons being alleged, with at least American denied access to the courts (Padilla), with secret wiretaps of American citizens inside the USA, with lies and deceit leading our troops into an "undeclared war", with this administration then saying "we are at war" as an excuse for every breach of faith with the American public, with declaring every critic as "unpatriotic", with this administration establishing a "gulag" at Gitmo where people check in and never leave, with two questionable elections that were probably not fairly won by Bush/Cheney, with the trashing of our economy, with the political appointees doing the dirty work at the DOJ in spite of staff recommendations, and who knows what else........

I think it is time for our Congress to consider :mad: IMPEACHMENT. :mad:

Bush lied and thousands dies, Clinton lied and we had one stained blue dress and they wanted to impeach Clinton.......maybe it time to impeach Bush.

What do you think?

Nope, he's just corrupt, incompetent and power-mad. It's not like he's getting blowjobs outside of wedlock or something.

GW is a douchebag

Interesting i was just saying this last night to a bunch of friends.....

Rule of Law

God forbid a BJ :) LOL

Clinton might have been a bit naughty in the personal section, but he was a damm fine president and leader.

One of the smartest presidents we have ever had...

consider it? i've been waiting for it since day 1.

The wiretaps are scary because it could have been anybody. It could have been John Kerry or moveon.org that they were listening to...that's fucking huge.

Impeachment?

Fuck that.

Execution after a war crimes Tribunal.

Nothing will happen to him. with the patriotact, they will not dare touch him.

nice idea, not that it will ever happen :2 cents:

politics sucks

Bush should be impeached...but he won't be. Politicians get away with everything these days for one reason or another.

OH it's not for one reason or another...it's because they are ALL fucking corrupt and underhanded. There isn't a person in congress, the senate, the white house, the pentagon, etc etc etc. that hasn't slimeballed their way to where they are.

Democrat or Republican...they'd eat their first born to guarantee their own survival. :2 cents:

Wow! I had lost count of all the Dubya BS. I thought it was time for impeachment after the WMD lies when he could have used legitimate excuses to accomplish his goals in Iraq. With a little bit of honesty, integrity, foresight and planning he could have been successful. But, I guess that should be expected from the retard.

If you impeach Bush you are left with Cheney...the guy who is running the show anyway. It would have to be a one two punch and then a decade to just begin to clean up the mess. Which mess you ask;pick one.

what a bunch of whiners.

Hope dies last.

It should be Bush on trial, not Saddam.
Saddams being tried for war crimes because about a hundred people died while he was in charge but not by his orders + several witnesses got the shit beat out of them by prison guards.

Let's take a look at Bush. International torture camps, shooting depleted uranium into the skulls of innocent children, bombing the homes of innocent families, sending thousands of people to their death over lies, illegal extradition for torture purposes, invading the privacy of his own country, blowing up the WTC and blaming Bin Laden who was seen on dyalises back in 98 and recycling old videos again lying to the american public, the list goes on...

and just think about the stuff we don't klnow about

Parts highlighted for a humerous read. Buy in to the hype much?

Hmm...not an impeachable offence...committed by the President.

Keyword being alleged...is not an impeachable offense.

Until the Supreme Court declares this to be illegal...it isn't...and even it were it falls under the pervue of the Justice Department and is not an impeachable offense committed by the President.

There will probably be Congressional hearings into this matter and if it is determined that the President blatantly broke the law and/or blatantly abused the power of his office...there is the possibility that the House may call for impeachment hearings.

What lies and deceit are you speaking of...thus far in all of the hearings there has not been any evidence to support this...thus not an impeachable offense committed by the President. As for an "undeclared war"...the Congress chose not to officially declare war...but with an overwhelming majority did vote to allow the President to use the military "as he sees fit". No impeachable offense committed by the President.

None of these things are an impeachable offense committed by the President...and until the "gulag at Gitmo" is declared to be illegal by the Supreme Court...there is not a violation of law...and even if there were the executive would simply be ordered to turn the inmates over to the civilian justice system for prosecution. No impeachable offense committed by the President.

The keywords here are questionable...probably..etc. No impeachable offense here committed by the President.

No impeachable offense committed by the President. FYI...they did not want to "impeach Clinton"...President Clinton was in fact impeached.

Three years before 9/11, in 1998, Nawaz Sharif, the then prime minister of Pakistan, told Bill Clinton that Bin Laden was on dialysis, and it was only a matter of time before he went the way of all flesh. It?s been a long time, particularly for one with such weakened flesh. Dialysis can keep you going for decades, but what it does do is make you very vulnerable as well. I am not talking only about physical vulnerability. It is very difficult to be on dialysis and hide, when the world?s eyes are trained on you. Dialysis reduces mobility. It demands constant attention to medical apparatus, and presumably competent doctors.

BUSH controls the media.

You can't do anything to him.

Teflon man!

Well you didn't tell me before that you had concrete evidence in the form of somebody "telling Bill Clinton". I guess it must be true. Sorry for daring to question.

I'd watch what I say about this dude...

the majority of this country is conservative, religious, etc. that is why an extra-marital affair is grounds for impeachment. it may sound stupid, but at least they are consistent.

I guess because Bush hasn't addressed to the American public that he blew up the towers that his innocence must be true! LOL. There is no concrete evidence that he did, but if you think about it -- he wouldn't have been able to falsely declare war on iraq if 9/11 never happened.

Also, why did he focus all the military power on finding weapons of mass destruction that everybody already knew Saddam didn't have when he should have been focusing all those resources on the real threat -- the one that hurt so many people on 9/11?

Maybe it wasn't a threat in the first place?

Good point.

Bush has ruled the 1st amendment is invalid.

My point is that there is plenty of items of concern to take the President to task over without adding in conpsirancy nonsense. It really brings down the level of your point when you taint a list of actual failures by including wild theories. :2 cents:

Well, I think it's fishy that he thinks destroying a third-world country in order to steal oil is more important than finding the person responsible for the greatest terrorist attack in US history.

You are not correct. The President via the War Powers Act (granted to the office of the President many years ago) upon his order and his order alone can engage our military anywhere at any time without anyones approval. In the case of Iraq...the Congress during Bill Clintons term of office not only called for but approved the overthrow of Saddam and the Baath party...so President Bush without ever requesting the approval of Congress in session during his term could have ordered the invasion of Iraq via the powers granted to him by the War Powers Act and or the resoution passed by Congress during the Clinton years which called for the overthrow of the Iraqi government.

President Bush chose not to excercise his power but chose instead to request new Congressional approval which was overwhelmingly granted to him providing him with new power to use the military "as he sees fit".

"Everybody already knew" except for every major intelligence agency on the Earth which all agreed that Iraq possessed...and/or were attempting to reconstitute their production of...or were trying to acquire WMD's/WMD materials.

Are you kidding?

Love him or hate him, GWB is trying to keep our country safe and promote freedom around the globe.

When Clinton abused his authority, he did so to try to save his own ass.

There's a BIG difference!!

fuck bush

Fuckin emo fag

yes its ridiculous... very very sad. He shouldve been impeached a few years ago already..

are you on crack?

The only WMD's were the ones sold to him by the US. However, during the first gulf war -- the US took all those weapons back.

The one thing that I can say and not a fan of the current administration, is that both Clinton and Carter and others have used warrentless wiretaps on citizens.

I think... "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it's the only thing that ever has".

Margaret Mead.

that's kinda fucked, eh? Dear God, don't tell me you think this is ok?

I hate Bush and yes, i beleive he should go on trial for what he has done (Never happen btw) But to say Saddam should not be on trail for what has done is just ingnorant.

Throw down, webmasters....let's organize a march on Washington. All 27 of us. The rest can hide behind their fucking keyboards as usual.

No matter if we like this shit or not, all Presidents have used this power and then some, it is sad but true. :(

Wrong again...the US never sold Iraq WMD's. Private enterprise did sell materials which could be used for dual use...but all of these materials had to be processed and weaponized...which Iraq did.

Wrong again...the US never took any weapons back...but after the 1st Gulf war was over UN inspectors from '91 to '98 (they left Iraq in '98) proclaimed to have destroyed up to 95% of WMD's/WMD materials.

I didn't say Saddam was innocent. However, you need to understand that his entire world and country had a very unstable foundation of violence and poor economics. Comparing the whole situation with everything Bush has done really doesn't look good on Bush's behalf.