Nadler Is Blocking Impeachment

[RonPaulFTFW]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_080123_nadler_is_blocking_i.htm

[fmontez]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_080123_nadler_is_blocking_i.htm

Considering that there were no lies about Iraq, and the fact that U.S. Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President... gee I wonder why they wouldn't bring up Impeachment charges??? To be honest President Bush appears to have one of the most honest White Houses (if controversial.) Disagreeing with the President or VP is not grounds for Impeachment.

Heck, we couldn't impeach President Clinton and he stood up and bold face lied to the entire Nation (a very impeachable offense, who gives a crap about the BJ. He could have just not answered the question, which was his right, instead the President of the USA lied.)

A President lying to the Nation is a serious offense, thats why I for one get a angry when people call President Bush a liar without proof! Diagree all you want, but show respect and speak the truth.

The authors idea that impeachment charges against Reagan or Clinton affected the following years election makes no sense whatsoever. Thanks for sharing.. not sure how it is connected to Dr. Ron Paul. Seems like left wing dripple piece.

[Ryphal]

Good article. Thanks for sharing.. not sure how it is connected to Dr. Ron Paul. Seems like left wing dripple piece.

Just a quick note at the top of the forum sub-section "General Politics & Other." Soooo, it doesn't have to relate to RP.

[fmontez]

Just a quick note at the top of the forum sub-section "General Politics & Other." Soooo, it doesn't have to relate to RP.

I don't actually think it does relate to Dr. Paul, but I wanted to see if I was missing some connection.

[ryanmkeisling]

Considering that there were no lies about Iraq, and the fact that U.S. Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President... gee I wonder why they wouldn't bring up Impeachment charges??? To be honest President Bush appears to have one of the most honest White Houses (if controversial.) Disagreeing with the President or VP is not grounds for Impeachment.

Heck, we couldn't impeach President Clinton and he stood up and bold face lied to the entire Nation (a very impeachable offense, who gives a crap about the BJ. He could have just not answered the question, which was his right, instead the President of the USA lied.)

A President lying to the Nation is a serious offense, thats why I for one get a angry when people call President Bush a liar without proof! Diagree all you want, but show respect and speak the truth.

The authors idea that impeachment charges against Reagan or Clinton affected the following years election makes no sense whatsoever. Thanks for sharing.. not sure how it is connected to Dr. Ron Paul. Seems like left wing dripple piece.

You must be kidding? How about WMD's in Iraq? How about no prior knowledge that a plot for 9/11 was possible when even slick willy had been warned? Condy sat in front of congress and said she had seen the memo's regarding Bin Ladens plot. I agree that Clinton should have been impeached, but to sit hear and say that there is no proof that George Bush is a liar or at least should not be investigated is crazy. There is plenty of PROOF out there, no one is looking for it; at least no one in a position to do anything about it, that has not been marginalized by the realm of discussion, while the Proof is buried or legalized. The hearings legally should be brought, for Bush and Cheney. Pre-emptive war is what they hung the Nazi war criminals for and these men are not far off. Lets not forget, or be misled, Bush and Clinton are the same man with a different hat. Have you read through Dr. Pauls writings for the past 10 or even 20 years? I assure you he is very aware of these facts, but only refrains from making public statements about them for the simple fact that he to would be marginalized even further. Do your homework....

[fmontez]

You must be kidding? How about WMD's in Iraq? How about no prior knowledge that a plot for 9/11 was possible when even slick willy had been warned? Condy sat in front of congress and said she had seen the memo's regarding Bin Ladens plot. I agree that Clinton should have been impeached, but to sit hear and say that there is no proof that George Bush is a liar or at least should not be investigated is crazy. There is plenty of PROOF out there, no one is looking for it; at least no one in a position to do anything about it, that has not been marginalized by the realm of discussion, while the Proof is buried or legalized. The hearings legally should be brought, for Bush and Cheney. Pre-emptive war is what they hung the Nazi war criminals for and these men are not far off. Lets not forget, or be misled, Bush and Clinton are the same man with a different hat. Have you read through Dr. Pauls writings for the past 10 or even 20 years? I assure you he is very aware of these facts, but only refrains from making public statements about them for the simple fact that he to would be marginalized even further. Do your homework....

There is a difference between being wrong and lying. Cheney (& President Bush) appear to be on the level, anyone can investigate all they want, but you don't just pull impeachment charges out of the thin air.

I also dare say you [and me, and most others on here] do not know what Dr. Paul knows or doesn't know, and why or why not he isn't making statements.

[RonPaulFTFW]

Considering that there were no lies about Iraq, and the fact that U.S. Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President... gee I wonder why they wouldn't bring up Impeachment charges??? To be honest President Bush appears to have one of the most honest White Houses (if controversial.) Disagreeing with the President or VP is not grounds for Impeachment.

Heck, we couldn't impeach President Clinton and he stood up and bold face lied to the entire Nation (a very impeachable offense, who gives a crap about the BJ. He could have just not answered the question, which was his right, instead the President of the USA lied.)

A President lying to the Nation is a serious offense, thats why I for one get a angry when people call President Bush a liar without proof! Diagree all you want, but show respect and speak the truth.

The authors idea that impeachment charges against Reagan or Clinton affected the following years election makes no sense whatsoever. Thanks for sharing.. not sure how it is connected to Dr. Ron Paul. Seems like left wing dripple piece.

wow are you crazy?

honest white houses?

http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/release.aspx?aid=120

There is massive proof that he lied about Iraq, and has lied about torture.

You really should spend more time keeping up with the real news and stop watching fox news because you seem brainwashed.

[RonPaulFTFW]

I don't actually think it does relate to Dr. Paul, but I wanted to see if I was missing some connection.

Yeah you're missing a connection..... That George W. Bush is a war criminal.

Why else would he try to protect himself from it?

[asgardshill]

If they try to impeach the President and Vice-President for lying about WMDs, they're going to need to bring in the carpenters to expand the defendant's box in the Senate chamber for the proceedings.

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry (The Nostril) Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

[jstmike]

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&news_iv_ctrl=1061



Articles of Impeachment

of

President George W. Bush

and

Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.

5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.

18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.


Well he has been found guilty of war crimes:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tribunal10mar04.htm


17.Verdict :

I find the Defendant , George Walker Bush , President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces guilty –



18. Direction :

1.The Defendant is a convicted war criminal consequently unfit to hold public office ; citizens ,soldiers and all civil personnel of the United States would be constitutionally and otherwise , justified in withdrawing all co-operation from the Defendant and his government ; and in declining to obey illegal orders of the Defendant and his administration ;including military orders threatening other nations or the people of the United States on the basis of the Nuremberg Principle, that illegal orders of Superior must not be obeyed.

[LibertyEagle]

Considering that there were no lies about Iraq, and the fact that U.S. Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President... gee I wonder why they wouldn't bring up Impeachment charges??? To be honest President Bush appears to have one of the most honest White Houses (if controversial.) Disagreeing with the President or VP is not grounds for Impeachment.


Now, I know you've GOT to be kidding.

How about we start we the unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens and move on from there.

[affa]

To be honest President Bush appears to have one of the most honest White Houses (if controversial.)

To be honest, I question your definition of honest.

[ryanmkeisling]

There is a difference between being wrong and lying. Cheney (& President Bush) appear to be on the level, anyone can investigate all they want, but you don't just pull impeachment charges out of the thin air.

I also dare say you [and me, and most others on here] do not know what Dr. Paul knows or doesn't know, and why or why not he isn't making statements.

Agreed, however many in this government, including most of Congress are fully aware of what is going on and refrain from doing "something" about it because there is so much at stake, including their comfortable way of life. It would be hard if not impossible to prove but I firmly believe that with some of the best intelligence agencies in the modern world, as well as the top department of defense, which created the internet, there is not much they did or do not know and have lied about. The technologies that they have and use only make their way to the consumer market long after they have something better. My grandfather worked for the CIA for 35 years and the things I have heard him say scare the shit out of me. Dr. Paul has implied, several times, that the current administration is wholly responsible for many atrocities including criminal acts. He is, however, seeking the GOP nomination...

[freelance]

Considering that there were no lies about Iraq, and the fact that U.S. Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President... gee I wonder why they wouldn't bring up Impeachment charges??? To be honest President Bush appears to have one of the most honest White Houses (if controversial.) Disagreeing with the President or VP is not grounds for Impeachment.

Heck, we couldn't impeach President Clinton and he stood up and bold face lied to the entire Nation (a very impeachable offense, who gives a crap about the BJ. He could have just not answered the question, which was his right, instead the President of the USA lied.)

A President lying to the Nation is a serious offense, thats why I for one get a angry when people call President Bush a liar without proof! Diagree all you want, but show respect and speak the truth.

The authors idea that impeachment charges against Reagan or Clinton affected the following years election makes no sense whatsoever. Thanks for sharing.. not sure how it is connected to Dr. Ron Paul. Seems like left wing dripple piece.

My head is spinning to the point that I am speechless. Not a common occurence.

[timosman]

https://media.makeameme.org/created/this-is-jerry-5ccf56.png

[timosman]

bump ;)