Reasons Why George Bush should be Impeached

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bactrian, May 4, 2004.

  1. bactrian
    Online

    bactrian Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    A : Fraud in the Presidential election.

    "There is no proof that Gore would have won" you shout.

    No proof Gore would have won :: The Washington Post conducted an examination of the election results shortly after the election and made two findings

    a. If the votes cast ,but not allowed , had been admitted , Bush would probably have won

    b. If those voters ,who were improperly and deliberately deprived of their vote , had been allowed to vote , Gore would probably have won.


    Probably this , probably that . We will never know what the result might have been.


    What we do know however is that the electoral process was deliberately interfered with. The Bush camp set out to influence the result of the election by illegal means. Bush and his aides undermined the democratic process


    B : 9/11

    George W Bush pushed the issue of Al Qaeda on to the back burner prior to 9/11. This was done despite the urgent warnings given to him by Richard Clarke, former White House counter-intelligence chief . Indeed Mr Clarke was sidelined because he was delivering a message thet Bush did not want to hear.


    War on terrorism


    Afer 9/11 George W Bush declared war on terrorism and went to Afghanistan . He looked for Ossama Bin Laden , did not find him , and then abandoned the war on terrorism.

    He went to IRAQ . Unfinished FAMILY business. Daddy did not finish the job in Iraq 1, so honest George ,like the faithful Texan he is, finished Daddy's job and got rid of Saddan Hussein.


    He abandoned the war on terrorism !!!!!!!!.


    Saddam Hussein was ,is , and until he is dead will be, an evil presence on the earth. He had nothing to do with international terrorism, he had nothing to do with Ossama Bin Laden, he was ,is , and was never going to be relevant to the war on intenational terrorism.

    Over 700 (Seven Hundred) American soldiers have died to satisfy Bush "Family Business" . Over 700 (Seven Hundred) men and women are dead , lives wasted to complete "Family Business".

    America is not any safer because Saddam Hussein has been captured. America is less safe.
     
  2. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511

    All counts showed bush won. Maybe if gore had been allowed to conduct his bogus and unfair count, then he would have won. But that would have been bogus and unfair.
    No they didn't.
    Why didn't Clinton listen?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml
    _
    The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
    By Inigo Gilmore
    (Filed: 27/04/2003)

    Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.


    Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

    The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.

    The papers will be seized on by Washington as the first proof of what the United States has long alleged - that, despite denials by both sides, Saddam's regime had a close relationship with al-Qa'eda.

    The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia and lettering of the Mukhabarat.

    They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan, where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.

    Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents.

    One paper is marked "Top Secret and Urgent". It is signed "MDA", a codename believed to be the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat, and dated February 19, 1998. It refers to the planned trip from Sudan by bin Laden's unnamed envoy and refers to the arrangements for his visit.

    A letter with this document says the envoy is a trusted confidant of bin Laden. It adds: "According to the above, we suggest permission to call the Khartoum station [Iraq's intelligence office in Sudan] to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden."

    The letter refers to al-Qa'eda's leader as an opponent of the Saudi Arabian regime and says that the message to convey to him through the envoy "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him."

    According to handwritten notes at the bottom of the page, the letter was passed on through another director in the Mukhabarat and on to the deputy director general of the intelligence service.

    It recommends that "the deputy director general bring the envoy to Iraq because we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden". The deputy director general has signed the document. All of the signatories use codenames.

    The other documents then confirm that the envoy travelled from Khartoum to Baghdad in March 1998, staying at al-Mansour Melia, a first-class hotel. It mentions that his visit was extended by a week. In the notes in a margin, a name "Mohammed F. Mohammed Ahmed" is mentioned, but it is not clear whether this is the the envoy or an agent.

    Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted. However, the documents do not mention if any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials.

    The file contradicts the claims of Baghdad, bin Laden and many critics of the coalition that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda. One Western intelligence official contacted last night described the file as "sensational", adding: "Baghdad clearly sought out the meeting. The regime would have wanted it to happen in the capital as it's only there they would feel safe from surveillance by Western intelligence."

    Over the past three weeks, The Telegraph has discovered various other intelligence files in the wrecked Mukhabarat building, including documents revealing how Russia passed on to Iraq details of private conversations between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, and how Germany held clandestine meetings with the regime.

    A Downing Street spokesman said last night: "Since Saddam's fall a series of documents have come to light which will have to be fully assessed by the proper authorities over a period of time. We will certainly want to study these documents as part of that process to see if they shed new light on the relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qa'eda.

    Why shouldn't the many resolutions against saddam have been enforced? Because the europeans were corrupt? That's not a satifying reason.
     
  3. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    So do you have any original thought? You might as well have cut and pasted this from any left-wing liberal bash site out there.

    #1. Election in 2000 is over. You guys counted it, we counted it, and about 100 other independent sources counted it. Bush won every time. No probably about it.

    #2. Your calling the testimony of a disgruntled former employee credible evidence? He convientlly decide that it was unimportant to tell us this stuff during 2002 and 2003. He waited till 2004 during an election year to tell us this stuff? How convienant. Also the fact that its a book that he is making well over a $1 million on, i tend to think his priorities as well as his facts are skewed. Top that all off with the fact that Condileeza Rice has testified in a Congressional Hearing that what Clarke said is false and i think we can call it a day on this topic.

    #3. The goal was to attack states that sponsored terrorism. We did that. Afghanistan's taliban sponsored terrorism since we knew Al Queda had camps inside their borders. Afghanistan is no longer a safe place for terrorists. Iraq also sponsored terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbola and Al Queda. We then brought forth the case as to how Sadaam needed to go. The only reason we had faced so much opposition prior to the war is because France, Germany, Russia and the UN leaders all had a financial interest in the corrupt "food for Oil" program in Iraq. Had that not been in place, all 3 of those countries as well as the UN would have been gung ho just like in Afghanistan.

    Another reason to remove Sadaam was that he was a threat to us. When you have a leader who has sworn america is the enemy, you cant let him sit there till he is capable of building nukes and firing other WMD's. You have to take them out. When the whole world is telling you that "he has WMDs", "He is capable of building nukes in 5 years", or that "He has other bioweapons capable of mass murder" then you don't just say well we'll wait till he uses one to confirm that he has them. You go in and take them out. Thats what we did.

    Your "Family Business" conspiracy theories are completely bogus and you know it. You just like to throw shit out there and see if it sticks. Well the shit just landed squarely back in your face.
     
  4. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Do any left-wing liberal nutjobs stick around and fight on this board other then acludem and spillmind? Everytime some asshole makes a post about bush being impeached or vietnam vets being ALL for Kerry and ALL against Bush, they up and disappear. None of them have orginal thoughts and know they can't debate someone with facts, so they either cut and run or change the topic as a diversion and then cut and run.
     
  5. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Yep. that's pretty much it. They're actually the normal people who may get a clue. the one's that stay and fight reality itself are scary, but fun!
     
  6. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Let's analyze this terrorists name.


    One entry found for Balkh.


    Main Entry: Balkh
    Pronunciation: 'bäl[k]
    Usage: geographical name
    1 district N Afghanistan corresponding closely to ancient Bactria
    2 or ancient Bac·tra /'bak-tr&/ town N Afghanistan capital of ancient Bactria

    http://www.gengo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~hkum/bactrian.html

    Hence, this individual wants to be known as an Afghanistanian and one who opposes the Bush war on terror.

    Any questions?
     
  7. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Good work! You're gonna start getting the big assignments now, Timmy!:D
     
  8. UsaPride
    Offline

    UsaPride Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,939
    Thanks Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +198
    I will only reply on the two things that haven't been pointed out.

    Abandoned the war on terrorism? What the hell? Do you not realize we still have soldiers fighting in Afghanistan? If you got your head out your ass for 2 seconds, you'd realize we DO!!

    "Daddy" DID finish the job during Gulf War 1. The job was to get Saddam's men OUT of Kuwait, we did that, War over. I'm sick to death of hearing that shit!!
     
  9. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Even the NYT admits that Bush won every recount in Florida that was conducted. But I'm not going to rehash the election that you obviously aren't over.
    Regardless, Bush wasn't President at the time, and therefore can't be impeached for whatever bogus charges you would drum up against him.

    Bush's focus on terrorism, pre-9/11, was no different than Clinton's. Should Clinton, then, also be impeached for not doing enough to fight terrorism? Should FDR have been impeached for allowing Pearl Harbor? Should McKinley have been impeached for allowing the USS Maine to be attacked? Should Tyler have been impeached for allowing the Mexican-American War to start? What a ridiculous argument.

    First, the execution of a war authorized by Congress is not an impeachable offense. So again you are wrong.
    Second, we have NOT abandoned the GWOT. Iraq had ties to terrorism (see RWAs article, plus thousands of others on the web.
    Thrid, we are still fighting in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda - actively pursuing OBL. Heard of Pat Tillman? He died in Afghanistan, fighting against terrorist jerk-offs.

    Your entire argument is invalid. Nice try though.
     
  10. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Do you really have anything between your ears or are you going to be as useful as recycled toilet paper just like Big-D?
     

Share This Page