Thread: Note: Should George Bush be impeached?

Originally Posted by returning_resident

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.

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.

Originally Posted by butterbean

Originally Posted by returning_resident

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.

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.

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=returning_resident]

Originally Posted by butterbean

Originally Posted by "returning_resident":266szn3v

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.

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by returning_resident

Originally Posted by butterbean

Originally Posted by "returning_resident":1k9qwis9

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.

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.

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 ?

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]

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]

Originally Posted by "returning_resident":2wqxokae

Originally Posted by butterbean

Originally Posted by "returning_resident":2wqxokae

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.

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.

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 ?

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]

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!

Originally Posted by Bootsie

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.

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.