Why hasn't George Bush Been Impeached?

[Kuahji 1]

you should think about it? why do you keep saying the war was illegal? congress empowered the president...you should take that howard dean sticker off your bumper and grow up .what war was ever " Legal"...

Congress only approved force if Bush could prove Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Bush clearly did not prove that Saddam had those weapons... I've already laid of the evidence. How can you prove someone has weapons of mass destruction then come out a few months later & state Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction? Something isn't adding up here & oh btw I don't even like Dean... But yeah Bush's story is still the world is a better place without Saddam... Maybe it is, but it doesn't make the war legal nor does it make the holding of prisoners at Guantanamo legal... Anyway if Bush had proof Saddam had the weapons then why did he come out later & state he didn't have the weapons?

[Kuahji 1]

Innocent until proven guilty is a doctrine of the American criminal justice system. That does not apply to foreign combatants, and especially not toward those combatants who are terrorists, belonging to no organized army, and committing heinous acts against the defenseless. They have no rights to trials under the American justice system. Nor do they even have the right to protections under the Geneva Conventions, which apply to legitimate members of combatant armies associated with other governments.

We've put these people in prison camp, where they are being cared for humanely...which is alot more than they're entitled to, and alot more than they would do if they captured some of our soldiers!

Just what do you think would happen then? Yea, you guessed it: they'd parade them on TV, and then brutally murder them on film.

You need to understand the realities of this situation. There is no innocent until proven anything. These people have no rights. We simply elect to treat them, humanely, because that's what America does.

lol yeah the US just made up a new term for these people called "unlawful combatants." This is so the US didn't have to abide by the Geneva Conventions or have the prisoners tried as a criminals. I guess you can keep twisting linguists around to prove a point... Again I don't condone terrorism, but it's also not right to just pull people & put them in a camp. Like I've already pointed out there have been people released & sent back to their countries like nothing happened. It was a "oops my bad you're not really a terrorist we just thought you were..." The only reason these people don't have rights is because the US twisted some words around so there is no law for them. It's funny the UN now says the camp needs to be closed down & clearly showed that the US did commit acts of torture...

Edited February 15, 2006 by Kuahji

[Lilly 34,336]

Congress only approved force if Bush could prove Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Bush clearly did not prove that Saddam had those weapons... I've already laid of the evidence. How can you prove someone has weapons of mass destruction then come out a few months later & state Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction?

Did you read the Wikipedia link I provided regarding what happened to the Kurdish people? Clearly Saddam had such weapons at one time. Also, it is highly likely that the weapons were simply moved (the leading possibility being Syria). Also, Congress approving force had no such stipulations attached, as all intelligence at the time indicated that the weapons were still in Iraq. Now, I'm not saying that I think the invasion of Iraq was the best way to go. But, I am saying that this was not *illegal* or unconstitutional as you seem to be implying.

Also, I think you need to re-read what MID is saying, especially this:

We've put these people in prison camp, where they are being cared for humanely...which is alot more than they're entitled to, and alot more than they would do if they captured some of our soldiers!

Just what do you think would happen then? Yea, you guessed it: they'd parade them on TV, and then brutally murder them on film.

Think about the nature of these terrorists, about their vision for the future of the world. Where would you fit in with their plans? Keep in mind that even if you are of the Muslim faith they have no respect for those they call 'lowly Muslims' (ie. anyone who doesn't agree/follow what they dictate). They kill these 'lowly Muslims' with as much relish as they do infidels (perhaps more). These terrorist are fascists...pure and simple.

[Bella-Angelique 216]

Anyway if Bush had proof Saddam had the weapons then why did he come out later & state he didn't have the weapons?

Aluminum rods were the proof.

That is the lie you are looking for, the one the democrats could use for impeachment but won't. If they did the process would reveal how useless and incompetent congress is on both sides of the aisle.

[Kuahji 1]

Did you read the Wikipedia link I provided regarding what happened to the Kurdish people? Clearly Saddam had such weapons at one time. Also, it is highly likely that the weapons were simply moved (the leading possibility being Syria). Also, Congress approving force had no such stipulations attached, as all intelligence at the time indicated that the weapons were still in Iraq. Now, I'm not saying that I think the invasion of Iraq was the best way to go. But, I am saying that this was not *illegal* or unconstitutional as you seem to be implying.

I read your link but guess you didn't read my reply...

Also, I think you need to re-read what MID is saying, especially this:

Think about the nature of these terrorists, about their vision for the future of the world. Where would you fit in with their plans? Keep in mind that even if you are of the Muslim faith they have no respect for those they call 'lowly Muslims' (ie. anyone who doesn't agree/follow what they dictate). They kill these 'lowly Muslims' with as much relish as they do infidels (perhaps more). These terrorist are fascists...pure and simple.

Again, I guess you can call the people terrorists... It's funny how some of the people were sent home from Guantanamo like nothing happened. The US realized not every one they took to Guantanano was guilty. You can call the prisoners there scum, but I'll hold off on the opinion until the people are have a trial. I certainly don't condone terrorists, but at the same time I don't believe it's right to keep people prisoners esp. when we have released innocent people from the camp before... Either give them a trial for free them...

[Lilly 34,336]

Here's something to think about. Many people hate Bush. If there was proof that Bush knowingly lied about the situation in Iraq, that he knew Saddam no longer had the WMDs in his possession, but asked Congress for the option to use force anyway, then, one might have a chance at impeachment. So, if this is the case and proof exists for this outright lie (rather than that all the intelligence at the time indicated that Saddam still possessed the WMDs), why hasn't President Bush been impeached already? It is my position that this proof simply does not exist.

Once again, the title of this thread is about impeachment. Once again, the Constitution is very specific regarding what is and is not an impeachable offense. So, all the talk about who and how we hold prisoner, where the WMDs went, if the war in Iraq was necessary or correct, can be debated at length...ad infinitum really. However, the case for impeachment does not seem viable.

[et's daddy 2]

Again, I guess you can call the people terrorists... It's funny how some of the people were sent home from Guantanamo like nothing happened. The US realized not every one they took to Guantanano was guilty. ... Either give them a trial for free them...

maybe this will help, im not sure if it is a good analogy or not, please let me know what you think

the FBI has a wire tap on a mob 'social club'

they get info that there is planned mob war

they storm the social club and take in everyone

it takes them a month or so to sort out who is mob and who isnt before they release anyone

the mob war is averted, or atleast delayed

[KingTomis 22]

You have a right to voice your opinion. I have a right to voice mine. My opinion is that your hatred of Bush is being fueled by the equaled hatred of the main-stream media. My opinion is that you are short-sighted, not that smart, and being pulled around by your nose by the Democrat talking points of the day.

After reading through this cesspool of idiocracy spewed by Kuahji, I'm going to have to agree with you 100%.

It's sad that we have the freedom of speech, the freedom to speak out against our leaders, yet he and many others like him dont think for them selves. The claim the right of free speech, then just regurgitate the same nonsense that they were told by the liberal news media and pretty much all of pop culture.

Kuahji, think for yourself. Go back and read all of your posts. If you know anything anything about politics, anything about what the war in Iraq is about, anything about WMD's and how it's pretty much a fact they were transported into Syria, you will see what a mindless drone you have been.

GW did nothing to even warrant a whisper of impeachment, you should never try to defend yourself with a wikipedia quote seeing as any nut can write what they want there, and in an intellectual debate, you need to come up with a better response than "There are no WMD's".

[baastetnoir 0]

Bush was not impeached for the same political "ball room" rules that didnt allow Clinton's impeachement... and Clinton DID DESERVE to be impeached.

[Kuahji 1]

After reading through this cesspool of idiocracy spewed by Kuahji, I'm going to have to agree with you 100%.

It's sad that we have the freedom of speech, the freedom to speak out against our leaders, yet he and many others like him dont think for them selves. The claim the right of free speech, then just regurgitate the same nonsense that they were told by the liberal news media and pretty much all of pop culture.

Kuahji, think for yourself. Go back and read all of your posts. If you know anything anything about politics, anything about what the war in Iraq is about, anything about WMD's and how it's pretty much a fact they were transported into Syria, you will see what a mindless drone you have been.

GW did nothing to even warrant a whisper of impeachment, you should never try to defend yourself with a wikipedia quote seeing as any nut can write what they want there, and in an intellectual debate, you need to come up with a better response than "There are no WMD's".

Clearly almost everyone is against me... But yet my I'm still not thinking for myself? Hmm... Also again I'll state it wasn't the point on whether Saddam had the weapons or not. Clearly we did not have proof on whether he had the weapons or not. I've already posted the approval of congress to use force, but it clearly outlined force was only suppose to be used upon proof of weapons of mass destruction. The UN also did not approve of the use of force again because we did not have proof of weapons of mass destruction. Anyway, I'm not sure what news you listen to, but I really don't see what I'm saying in the news... Which is the reason I made the thread. Btw... the wikipedia was only quoting from UN officals...

[bboy 0]

They have NOTHING to impeach him on, that's why. If there was something, you better be sure the looney far left would have done it already. Do you think there aren't people out there salivating at the thought of impeaching Bush? Hating a guy doesn't constitute a reason for impeachment.

[joc 19,242]

Congress only approved force if Bush could prove Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

So, please show us the articles that specify this.

Clearly almost everyone is against me... But yet my I'm still not thinking for myself?

If you are thinking for yourself and not regurgitating the media talking points, then please show us the articles of which you speak concerning Congress authorizing war based soley on proof of WMD.

Clearly we did not have proof on whether he had the weapons or not.

We did not have 'proof' because Sadaam was playing a game with the Inspectors...clearly everyone knows that except you.

I've already posted the approval of congress to use force, but it clearly outlined force was only suppose to be used upon proof of weapons of mass destruction.

Please let me be equally redundant by asking you one more time to show us the articles signed by Congress authorizing war soley based on proof of WMD. I know you have them because you wouldn't just be making that up...nor would you be just spouting liberal drivel...or would you?

[baastetnoir 0]

They have NOTHING to impeach him on, that's why. If there was something, you better be sure the looney far left would have done it already. Do you think there aren't people out there salivating at the thought of impeaching Bush? Hating a guy doesn't constitute a reason for impeachment.

Point taken... they just scream IMPEACHEMENT because it sticks to their brain washed followers....

[Kuahji 1]

So, please show us the articles that specify this.

I've already posted this in page 2 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html

It's pretty clear Bush was required to show Iraq was in violation of the UN resolutions & Bush also had to prove Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Clearly Bush did neither... Again as I've already pointed out with another article Bush also stated there were no weapons of mass destruction...

[Bobzilla 0]

I thought I heard something on the radio tonight on the way from work about a tape made by Hussein about 10 years ago stating that there was in fact WMD and there was a plan to use them on the US. Maybe not by him but other countries. I just caught a blip of it. It may not be totally correct.

Oh yeah, is it possible to quit using the term impeachment without substantial reasoning for doing so?

[Celumnaz 6]

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigat...tory?id=1616996

EXCLUSIVE: The Secret Tapes -- Inside Saddam's Palace

Feb. 15, 2006 — ABC News has obtained 12 hours of tape recordings of Saddam Hussein meeting with top aides during the 1990s, tapes apparently recorded in Baghdad's version of the Oval Office.

[KingTomis 22]

I thought I heard something on the radio tonight on the way from work about a tape made by Hussein about 10 years ago stating that there was in fact WMD and there was a plan to use them on the US. Maybe not by him but other countries. I just caught a blip of it. It may not be totally correct.

Oh yeah, is it possible to quit using the term impeachment without substantial reasoning for doing so?

The great thing about Saddam and his Generals is that they tape recorded all phone conversations, and when US forces swept through, hundreds if not thousands of tapes full of conversations were taken. The only problem is that it's going to be a while before they can all be translated and evaluated.

When that happens there will be ample proof that Saddam had them. More proof that one of Saddam's Generals admitting to moving them to Syria, more proof than a certain group of trucks that drove over the Iraqi desert into Syria just hours before the invasion of Iraq.

Kuahji, all you ever say is that Bush had to prove Saddam had them. You say he lied and should be impeached for this war. Only problem is that pretty much everyone in the political world of both the United states and European countries agreed that Saddam had them. This was based on reports by secret services of several countries. We know he had them. Fact. Only problem is locating them. If entire MIG's were found buried in the sand, do you think it would be that hard to bury ANYTHING out there? Would it be that hard to simply transport them into Syria?

Stop acting like a retard, open your eyes, and accept the truth. Or not.

I kind of enjoy giggling at your attempts to debate this point.

[Bobzilla 0]

Stop acting like a retard, open your eyes, and accept the truth. Or not.

I kind of enjoy giggling at your attempts to debate this point.

LMFAO I thought it and you said it

[et's daddy 2]

If entire MIG's were found buried in the sand, do you think it would be that hard to bury ANYTHING out there? Would it be that hard to simply transport them into Syria?

thank you so damn much

its nice to see someone finally agree with my point that WMD's could still be in the country somewhere

[joc 19,242]

I've already posted this in page 2 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html

It's pretty clear Bush was required to show Iraq was in violation of the UN resolutions & Bush also had to prove Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Clearly Bush did neither... Again as I've already pointed out with another article Bush also stated there were no weapons of mass destruction...

I am really getting quite tired of doing everyone else's homework for them ; nonetheless:

Here is what the 'claim' by the website mentioned says:

However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11

And here in its entirety is Section 3, Paragraph B:

b.) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B.) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Kuahji,

What I want for you to do is break down for me exactly where you read into a perfectly understandable paragraph the idiocy to which you are adhering. It says no such thing.

[pbarosso 490]

I've already posted this in page 2 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html

It's pretty clear Bush was required to show Iraq was in violation of the UN resolutions & Bush also had to prove Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Clearly Bush did neither... Again as I've already pointed out with another article Bush also stated there were no weapons of mass destruction...

well i think that stalling and kicking weapons inspectors out is a pretty good reason to make us think he has something to hide.

its like being on a jury or being the defense. they have to prove reasonable doubt or something like that. there was no reasonable doubt that he didnt have them, so it looked like he did.

also if he harbors terrorists then he is responsible