Note: Should George Bush be impeached?
http://americanpatrol.com/06-FEATURES/0 ... 60113.html
Current Results for Boot Bush
Should Bush be impeached?
Answer
Graph % Votes
Yes Yes : 97.14% 97.14% 34
No No : 2.86% 2.86% 1
Total 100% 35
Printable View
Note: Should George Bush be impeached?
http://americanpatrol.com/06-FEATURES/0 ... 60113.html
Current Results for Boot Bush
Should Bush be impeached?
Answer
Graph % Votes
Yes Yes : 97.14% 97.14% 34
No No : 2.86% 2.86% 1
Total 100% 35
Not only him, but a bunch of Congressmen and Senators need to get the boot!
Current Results for Boot Bush
Should Bush be impeached?
Answer Graph % Votes
Yes 93.02% 333
No 6.98% 25
Total 100% 358
Return to: American Patrol Report
We're getting there!
Wouldn't let me vote or show results. :(
I tried it again and it wouldn't let me either. It came up and said, "This page cannot be displayed".
:evil: IMPEACH!!!
Current Results for Boot Bush
Should Bush be impeached?
Answer Graph % Votes
Yes 92.46% 368
No 7.54% 30
Total 100% 398
Return to: American Patrol Report
Odd that no more than that have voted. I wonder why some of us couldn't access the results this morning OR vote??? Oh well.....
8O Maybe you are on Bush's Watch List. Bwaaaaa!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsie
That's IT!! Why didn't that occur to me??? I am BLOCKED from any polls that MENTION Bush! BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING ME NOW. I think I'm gonna buy me a few pigs and move FARTHER out in the country!
although I'm not happy with Bush as our president, I don't see the need to impeach him. On what grounds ? And do we have anyone to replace him then ?
I mean, it will be under his presidency that a part of a fence is going to be built - no previous administration did that.
8O You ARE kidding, right?! Deceiving congress into a war that had no justification is impeachable. And overstepping legal methods to spy is also an impeachable offense. Turning his head the other way while our country is being invaded is impeachable. These are just a few.Quote:
Originally Posted by returning_resident
Have I ever been kidding or not telling what I honestly think on this forum ? Let's be honest. Most of us Americans also suspected Sadam to have biological and chemical weapons and he's used them before. He deceived the UN many times over and over again, so it's not that strange that Bush and our intelligence agencies thought he'd still be in possession of such weapons. I was and I'm still against the war in Iraq, but I don't have the feeling that Bush lied to Congress deliberately as most of us thought the same aobut Sadam. Spying is only happening on a small scale to protect America, do you really think he cares of what my mom and I talk about on the phone ? We invaded Iraq, but we're not invaded by illegal aliens as the definition of an invasion is that one country attacks another country with an armed army. I don't see Mexican tanks and soldiers entering the US. Yes, maybe on a small scale accidently. what rest is my question- who should replace Bush ?Quote:
Originally Posted by butterbean
[quote=returning_resident]Have I ever been kidding or not telling what I honestly think on this forum ? Let's be honest. Most of us Americans also suspected Sadam to have biological and chemical weapons and he's used them before. He deceived the UN many times over and over again, so it's not that strange that Bush and our intelligence agencies thought he'd still be in possession of such weapons. I was and I'm still against the war in Iraq, but I don't have the feeling that Bush lied to Congress deliberately as most of us thought the same aobut Sadam. Spying is only happening on a small scale to protect America, do you really think he cares of what my mom and I talk about on the phone ? We invaded Iraq, but we're not invaded by illegal aliens as the definition of an invasion is that one country attacks another country with an armed army. I don't see Mexican tanks and soldiers entering the US. Yes, maybe on a small scale accidently. what rest is my question- who should replace Bush ?[/quote:266szn3v]Quote:
Originally Posted by butterbean
:( Who should replace Bush? God only knows. I have lost trust in most of our representatives. Anyone in the Bush administration sucks. Who would you want to have in his place, not including Hillary or Kerry?
We've already been through this, Butterbean, and discussed our PLAN for who would become President so I wouldn't bother again. We would get rid of Bush and Cheney at the same time and Dennis Hastert, as Speaker of the House, would succeed them.
As for WMD's in Iraq--I PERSONALLY NEVER BELIEVED that Iraq was in any way, shape or FORM a threat to US. Maybe to Israel but NOT THE US. The INSPECTORS were being allowed access to everything they requested in Iraq and THEY weren't finding anything. The INSPECTORS had DESTROYED MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF their WMD'S after the first Gulf War--they felt they had destroyed 97 %, I think it was. AND, Iraq had been operating under UN SANCTIONS for 10 years after the first Gulf War so it seemed unlikely to ME that he could have acquired anything to speak of. AND, the other countrie who thought that were getting their intelligence from the SAME PEOPLE WE WERE--MAINLY Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress and ISRAEL--both of which had a vested interest in getting us to go in and depose Saddam. I think they took SKETCHY intelligence and cherry picked it and presented it to Congress and the UN. OBVIOUSLY they blew it WAY out of proportion but I, an average American CITIZEN, said the whole time that they were feeding us a bunch of BS in order to justify a war that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other NEO-CONS wanted long before 9/11. They had every opportunity to allow the inspection teams to stay there. Saddam wasn't threatening to throw them out. El Baradei of the IAEA had already said there was NO NUCLEAR PROGRAM LEFT. He did use the WMD's against his own people--no question about that. HOWEVER, that was BEFORE the first Gulf War and BEFORE UN Inspection teams went in and destroyed what they felt was the vast majority of WMD's.
SO, that is ONE of my cases for impeachment. He has not upheld his oath of office to protect America's borders and he is SPYING on American citizens. He MIGHT NOT be interested in what you are saying to your mother. He might, however, be interested in what we are saying at ALIPAC since we disagree with his policy. And, WHY would you even BELIEVE him when he SAYS this is ONLY done to KNOWN AL QAEDA operatives?? Do you actually BELIEVE ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF HIS MOUTH?? If you do, you need to open your eyes.
You must have posted that one, Bbean, while I was typing my LONG ONE. I gave you the answer!!!
[quote=butterbean]:( Who should replace Bush? God only knows. I have lost trust in most of our representatives. Anyone in the Bush administration sucks. Who would you want to have in his place, not including Hillary or Kerry?[/quote:1k9qwis9]Quote:
Originally Posted by returning_resident
If I can't include Hillary or Kerry, then I'd go for Tancredo ( he seems to be an honest man ) , McCain ( he served this country in vietnam, although that war was wrong ) or Nader ( he's against the death penalty and he'll be good for the environment. The last one is my favorite.
Bootsie,
It's true that the inspectors destroyed many of their WMD's. But on a given time, sadam kicked them out of the country and we bombed some sites of them under Clinton. there was no inspector there for 4 years before Bush invaded, so it can be assumed that they could have restarted building WMD's when there were no inspectors during that 4 year period. But overall, the whole war is wrong as I also believe that Sadam was not a threat to us. It was to Israel, but Isreal is very well able to protect itself.
Spying - Echelon is not able to check the 1 billion e - mails, phone conversation that's transferred every single day, for the simple reason that we as humans are not able to read that much and check it. What that system does, is filtering some keywords out. bush is a liar, but I don't think he lies about everything.
First--I'm talking about the inspectors who were IN IRAQ IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to the war. Saddam had NOT kicked THOSE out and was even allowing them access to his palaces. They should have been allowed to stay and finish the job they had been charged with. Bush was too trigger-happy to allow them to finish.
Eschelon is NOT the program they are using in this NSA spying operation. THAT was an older one. I don't know WHAT this one is but, whatever it is, if it can't be done WITH A WARRANT, it doesn't NEED to be done.
[quote=returning_resident][quote=butterbean]:( Who should replace Bush? God only knows. I have lost trust in most of our representatives. Anyone in the Bush administration sucks. Who would you want to have in his place, not including Hillary or Kerry?[/quote:2wqxokae]Quote:
Originally Posted by "returning_resident":2wqxokae
If I can't include Hillary or Kerry, then I'd go for Tancredo ( he seems to be an honest man ) , McCain ( he served this country in vietnam, although that war was wrong ) or Nader ( he's against the death penalty and he'll be good for the environment. The last one is my favorite.[/quote:2wqxokae]
:) TANCREDO IS AN EXCELLENT CHOICE!
Well, even the inspectors that were in Iraq prior the second gulf war didn't get acces to all the sites like palaces and that kinda staff. they didn't get access right away, they had to notice Sadam first. What you should understand is that a beer bottle of VX gas can be hidden anywhere. Still agree with your point that Sadam should have given more time, but the discussion was about that you think that Bush should be impeahced for lying about Iraq, but he didn't actually lie as most intellengence agancies, not only american, also thought he was hiding something. And about the spying - well I don't worry to much about that. We'll have Hillary soon as president and she'll get rid of spying. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsie
[quote=butterbean][quote=returning_resident]If I can't include Hillary or Kerry, then I'd go for Tancredo ( he seems to be an honest man ) , McCain ( he served this country in vietnam, although that war was wrong ) or Nader ( he's against the death penalty and he'll be good for the environment. The last one is my favorite.[/quote:2tyqvs6y]Quote:
Originally Posted by butterbean
:) TANCREDO IS AN EXCELLENT CHOICE![/quote:2tyqvs6y]
Well it's not a choice, I meant that I would nominate Tancredo as a person I might vote for. I want a president who's honest to the American people and I think that Tancredo is an honest man. But I would only vote for him if Kerry or Hillary wouldn't take part in the next election, but Hillary will.
Hillary will be right in there spying too! Like I said--they ALL GOT THEIR INTELLIGENCE from the SAME SOURCES. Germany even SAID that some of the intelligence they got was QUESTIONABLE. I think he cherry picked intelligence and what the presented at the UN was SO FLIMSY that anybody who BELIEVED it just WANTED to believe it.
I don't think hillary will spy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsie
Germany and France had their own agenda, germany was afraid that we would find out that they supplied Sadam for most of the raw material to make chamical weapons in the past. And the french had the benefit from the embargo and didn't care that many children died because of that embargo. I look at the overall picture and that's that more people in Iraq voted than in our last presidential election. And if you would ask people in the streets of US and EU you'd find out that most people also thought that Sadam was lying again. I'm and was against the war, but the Iraqi's are happy that Sadam is gone, 70% voted in their elections so why do you want to impeach Bush then ?
Just because I SAID SO.
Current Results for Boot Bush
Should Bush be impeached?
Answer Graph % Votes
Yes 70.01% 523
No 29.99% 224
Total 100% 747
That is still such a LOW number of participants. This must not be a well-known site, huh???
That's what I thought. I liked the MSNBC poll better where 86% of 210,000 voted to impeach. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bootsie
OH DEFINITELY, had_enuf!! Now, THAT is MY KIND OF POLL!!!
and I say we shouldn't impeach Bush, although I don't like him, he was still elected by us and defeated Kerry by 3 million + votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsie
[quote=returning_resident][quote=butterbean]:( Who should replace Bush? God only knows. I have lost trust in most of our representatives. Anyone in the Bush administration sucks. Who would you want to have in his place, not including Hillary or Kerry?[/quote:3t5yhlyg]Quote:
Originally Posted by "returning_resident":3t5yhlyg
If I can't include Hillary or Kerry, then I'd go for Tancredo ( he seems to be an honest man ) , McCain ( he served this country in vietnam, although that war was wrong ) or Nader ( he's against the death penalty and he'll be good for the environment. The last one is my favorite.[/quote:3t5yhlyg]
Other than Tancredo, your other choices are the worst ever. I honestly think you put far too much trust in the ruling elite. If you don't think Bush should be impeached and you actually put trust in him then I think you are just an extremely naive person who needs a serious wake up call.
About the Mexican invasion. You claim that Mexican incursions are only happening accidently? Are you kidding me? 216 incursion since 1998 is an accident? I don't think so. It's been well documented that the Mexican military has been instrumental in assisting drug/human smugglers, illegals and gangsters into the country and have taken shots at our border patrol. It's no accident what they are doing. 3 million illegal aliens per year flooding across our borders to bring about their poverty, crime and diseases to our country. If that isn't an invasion then you tell me what is? Just because they all aren't wearing military garb and coming through with all sorts of weaponry doesn't mean it's not an invasion. There's two types of invasion. Military and migatory. Over 85 percent of our illegal immigration problem is coming from one country. Mexico. They are trying to take back the southwest by flooding the terroritory with their citizens. They are trying to flood the area with their people so they can create a majority so they can start influencing the outcome of the elections and put their own people in place so that their own people in power who will only support things that will only benefit their own people. It's already happened in California and it's starting to happen in Arizona, Texas and New Mexico. It's only a matter of time before it starts happening nationwide. Bush has sworn an oath to protect this country from an invasion (whatever kind of invasion that is) and he's failed to do so. He shirks his constitutional duties each and every day. That alone should be grounds for impeachment. If you don't believe me about the invasion, go research Conquest of Aztlan.
As far as Iraq goes. Where are the WMD's that Bush claimed he had? Nowhere that's where. Each and every day this guy lies and finds new reasons for justifying this war. First it was WMD's. When that was debunked, it was to get rid of Saddam. After that was accomplished, it was because Iraq was connected with 9-11. When that was debunked it was to win the war on terror. After that it was for freedom and democracy. Which one is it? If Iraq was such a threat then why doesn't he go after Iran or N Korea. Why? I think the reason why Bush was so interested in Iraq was to control the oil and to avenge Saddam for going after his father. That's why I think Bush was so trigger happy to invade Iraq. Bush Sr didn't even want to do this. It was Bush W listening to his neocon buddies on Wall St instead of listening to the American people. Iraq was not a threat to us. Maybe to Israel, but not to us. It's clear to me that Bush lied and hyped up intelligence to lead us into a war that's unneccessary. Now thousands of lives have been sacrificied for this abomination. Not only that, but thousands more lives have been ruined due to deabilitating injuries that they will never be able to fully recover from. Not to mention billions of dollars have been wasted that would have gone along way to securing our nations borders.
This spying thing Bush is doing is wrong. If you don't have a search warrant, it's illegal and unconstitutional. No warrant, no search. You say you don't care if Bush spies on you because you have nothing to hide. You better care. What if they didn't like you and perceived you as a threat for whatever reason, hacked your computer and started surfing some nasty sites so they can pin some BS on you? That's not too far fetched. Plus they can always label you an enemy combatant and hold you at some undisclosed location indefinitely without probable cause. If I were you I would care.
Add onto the list of impeachable offenses what Bush has done to our deficit and our economy. Bush also refuses to address the growing threat that is China.
No don't give me this we don't have probable cause to impeach Bush. Bush's list of impeachable offenses is a country mile long and congress could do it tomorrow if they had the guts.
If I were you I'd do some research into the politicos you claim to support. If Bush doesn't end our sovereignty, Hillary, McCain or Nader most certainly will. If you think they are to be trusted, please get your head examined.
And that's a good reason not to impeach? Maybe we shouldn't arrest MS-13 gangsters either. After all they are very popular in Central America. Sheesh!Quote:
Originally Posted by returning_resident
We are back on this again, huh. Yes, he should. But only if they take Cheney out, too. Do you notice who the mouthpiece is lately? It makes me believe that they are trying to hide something. Cheney talks calmly, rationally--even when he lies through his teeth. Bush doesn't possess the skill to do that any more--if he ever had it.
I don't know what they will do if we have no people governing this country. Who will be in charge, Frist? Is he house majority leader? Is he the next puppet or does he have his own backbone? I just don't trust any of them anymore.
No, HASTERT would succede Cheney. Speaker of the House.
EXACTLY, dman, EXACTLY. TO THE LETTER.
And, I have noticed the SAME THING, JJ. They are sticking Cheney out there more and more. It's because he is such a GOOD LIAR. Bush just stumbles and mumbles all over himself and you can TELL HE'S LYING.
CHENEY MUST GO. He is, if POSSIBLE, more dangerous than Bush ever was. If you had to pin Iraq on ONE PERSON, it would be Cheney. Then you could throw in Rumsfeld, Feith, Cambone, Wolfowitz. The PRESIDUNCE was just accidental. He just HAPPENED to be their TOOL.
Do you also notice that they are trotting out Karl Rove to stump for Jorge spying on Americans too? This just gets better and better. He claims that spying on Americans is essential to stopping Al Qaeda. What a moron. Get these wackos out of our government NOW! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
Like anyone will ever again believe anything Rove says. Not this old gal!Quote:
Do you also notice that they are trotting out Karl Rove to stump
Now I'm off to see Tom Tancredo!
PLEASE UPDATE US about Tancredo!
I voted ...66.62% vote YES...
Very good.
RR
Yes, that's indeed a good reason not to impeach. We all knew that bush was wrong about Iraq and the so called WMS, but we still re-elected him. A country gets with it deserves. I didn't vote bush, I voted Kerry. but i know so manyBush voters that are now not happy with him and blame him for everything, those people can better look in the mirror and be ashamed for themselves as they elected Bush again. so i say to bush voters and who're not happy with him because of illegal immigration or sometihng else : "you get what you deserve "Quote:
Originally Posted by dman1200
I'm not saying that I trust him at all, but a country gets with it deserves. you elected a bad leader like bush, than stick with it.Quote:
Other than Tancredo, your other choices are the worst ever. I honestly think you put far too much trust in the ruling elite. If you don't think Bush should be impeached and you actually put trust in him then I think you are just an extremely naive person who needs a serious wake up call.
so ? that's indeed accidently. We all know that it's very hard to determine what is Mexico and what the US is as their is no clear fence. so it might happen that the Mexican soldiers cross into our country. but I don't think they do that deliberately all the time. somethimes they might do that to support smugglers, but most of the time it's accidently, I think.Quote:
About the Mexican invasion. You claim that Mexican incursions are only happening accidently? Are you kidding me? 216 incursion since 1998 is an accident? I don't think so.
Well, i don't know if 3 million illegal aliens cross every year, Census thinks about 400,000, so about 1/8th of what you claim. I know that some Mexicans want to re take the SW, but not all of them. why would legal Mexican americans take back the SW as they had to wait long to get legal status in the US and they fled the misery in Mexico. I don't believe that Mexican americans believe in an aztlan. Yes maybe some radicals among them, but most mexican americans are loyal and nice people.Quote:
3 million illegal aliens per year flooding across our borders to bring about their poverty, crime and diseases to our country. If that isn't an invasion then you tell me what is? Just because they all aren't wearing military garb and coming through with all sorts of weaponry doesn't mean it's not an invasion.
Well did any previous president address illegal immigration over the last 20 years ? I don't think so and none of them was impeached either, so no reason to impeach bush too. just let him serve his term and vote Hillary in 2008 and all will go fine.Quote:
Bush has sworn an oath to protect this country from an invasion (whatever kind of invasion that is) and he's failed to do so. He shirks his constitutional duties each and every day. That alone should be grounds for impeachment.
i agree with you on Iraq, but what only matters to me is that the Iraqi people feel liberated and were happy that they could vote. so Bush saved a nation, so why impeach him for that ?
what threat from China ? Military ? Well, we and China are likely not fight a war as both countries will be destroyed when China has it's new ICBM by 2010. there will be just a balance of poewer. we're seen as the most powerful country in the world, but we can't defeat Russia as they can stillnuke us many times over. Economically ??? Well, maybe China will be richer than us in one day ? So what ?Quote:
Add onto the list of impeachable offenses what Bush has done to our deficit and our economy. Bush also refuses to address the growing threat that is China.
and yes, I trust Hillary. Prove me wrong then. You just say that they can't be trusted but don't back up your statement.[/quote]
Yes Dennis Hastert would become President if we impeach both Bush and Cheney.
Dennis will enforce US immigration law because as a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, he will honor our laws as President. Why would he not?
Dennis is a teacher from Illinois with no visions of being Grand Ruler of the Universe.
Dennis will support HB 4437 and tell the Senate if you don't comply with the Will of the American People, I'll veto your budget and shut the US Government down. (I can hope he'd do this) What American wouldn't do this to save our nation? Those piggy senators will come around when their checks marked United States of America stop showing up in their bank accounts especially after Lobby Reform when no one can even buy them FOOD.
And this doesn't mean he'll become President in 2009. It just means he'll finish the term of the Wackident. He might run, he might not, he might win, he might not...but we'll be alot safer in every respect with a Hastert in the White House instead of a Bush or Cheney.