Why should Bush be impeached?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotWorthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NotWorthy

Guest
On the thread regarding Harry Belafonte and his fond words for our “Terrorist” president, some posters claimed that Bush
a) is a terrorist
b) should be impeached
c) deserves to be hated
d) or all of the above.

I didn’t want to hi-jack that thread, and I’m not sure if this is the correct forum, but I’d like to know what generated so much hate for Bush. I mean, from the word “Go!” there was so much anger. It seemed to increase when the democrats lost their majority in the Senate, then when we invaded Iraq. But what was the root? Or just why should he be impeached? Or what makes him a terrorist?

Notworthy
 
Basically, the Democratic Party has been hijacked by student radicals of the Communist stripe, in my humble opinion.

The student radicals are totally unrestrained in their political tactics. They have lost power as a result of their strident speech patterns, which are typical of student radicals.

Student radicals are always ENRAGED about something. Pure unadulterated RAGE. Once upon a time, they could blame air and water pollution for their rage. Or they could blame the draft.

Well, pollution is mostly under control - enormous strides have been made - and the draft went away decades ago. The Vietnam war was lost thanks to them and the Communists took over. But now that Vietnam is behind us, that issue no longer a factor. They won and Communism won and the people of Vietnam lost.

Cuban Communist dictator Fidel Castro is supported by the left. No interest in elections in Cuba with non-Communist candidates; instead the Cuban prisons are full of political dissenters.

So absent the screen of pollution or the draft, what remains is the undisguised hatred of democracy and capitalism and free market economics and religion.

But they are now naked. Their concealment has been stripped away. And they are seen for what they are. Militant Atheistic Communists.

Also somewhat superannuated.

Ted Kennedy in a thong.

And when people hear them, the people reject them. They try to masquerade as “middle-of-the-roaders”, but increasingly the voters are seeing through their attempts to hide their true nature.
 
The Vietnam war was lost thanks to them and the Communists took over
And they are seen for what they are. Militant Atheistic Communists.
Your bias is so thorough and unsupported that its very difficult to take you seriously. I somehow doubt that the Vietnam war was lost because of protests and lack of support back on the homefront. Have you possibly considered that the Vietnam war was not a just war? That it wasn’t the place of America to invade a foreign country because it felt threatened by its ideology? Or are you simply content to demonize communism as though it were still the 1950’s?

Firstly, the war in Iraq was not a war sanctioned by the world community, mainly, the United Nations. I don’t think anyone can deny that there was serious opposition to it. Secondly, the war was conducted on false premises, the intelligence that was used was not reliable. The result, we have the U.S subverting international law to remove dangerous weapons of mass destruction that are simply not there.
1. I think you can at least see that the opinion of this war being illegal is legitimate (in the sense that this opinion is not irrational) even if you disagree.
Look back to when Israel bombed Iraq in the eighties to remove nuclear facilities that it felt posed a national threat. The UN condemned this action as did the US. Consider that America condemned this action when there were actual facilities that could be bombed!!! Forward twenty years later and America justifies an ENTIRE WAR based on vague intelligence with no evidence that, even if there were weapons, they would pose a national threat. How can it condemn Israel, than conduct a war of its own?

Since no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor any direct link between 9/11 and Iraq, the Bush administration has largely defended this war on the premises of human rights. It is literally tearing this nation apart in the name of freedom, in the name of giving them democracy, an ideology. They have successively removed the tyrant Saddam, only to watch it be replaced by the tyranny of anarchy. 2. The United States has invaded a foreign nation in the name of its ideology
3. It is willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent civilians in the name of this ideology

The definition of terrorism is this: Terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The United States is using violence, in an unlawful manner, to place tremendous pressure upon an entire society so as to adopt American democratic values. It is an act of terrorism. In invading the nation is has turned many people, who would otherwise have been civilians, to take up arms to defend their nation against this invasion. As well, countless civilians have died. Furthermore, this is done in the name of freedom and human rights. Just because this does not involve suicide bombers, does not mean it is not terrorism. What if every nation was allowed to invade another country in the name of human rights and spreading democracy? What if we simply invaded every non-democratic nation in the name of our own values? Could nations not be invaded under the guise of bringing freedom, when in fact, they did so for alternative reasons? What if there was no international body that could determine which invasions were legitimate, and which were done for the benefit of the nation invading?
 
Gnosis, I think you’re a little off on the Vietnam War. After the Tet Offensive, North Vietnam was ready to end the war. The Americans had routed the North Vietnamese Army on every front.

What made them keep fighting? The knowledge that the Americans had lost the will to fight. When Walter Cronkite and other media newsmen jumped on the anti-military bandwagon, the enemy renewed their confidence.

I feel our media is in danger of doing the same thing in Iraq.

Whether or not we should have been there in the first place is another matter, altogether.

Take Care!

Notworthy
 
Al Masetti:
Basically, the Democratic Party has been hijacked by student radicals of the Communist stripe, in my humble opinion.

The student radicals are totally unrestrained in their political tactics. They have lost power as a result of their strident speech patterns, which are typical of student radicals.

Student radicals are always ENRAGED about something. Pure unadulterated RAGE. Once upon a time, they could blame air and water pollution for their rage. Or they could blame the draft.

Well, pollution is mostly under control - enormous strides have been made - and the draft went away decades ago. The Vietnam war was lost thanks to them and the Communists took over. But now that Vietnam is behind us, that issue no longer a factor. They won and Communism won and the people of Vietnam lost.

Cuban Communist dictator Fidel Castro is supported by the left. No interest in elections in Cuba with non-Communist candidates; instead the Cuban prisons are full of political dissenters.

So absent the screen of pollution or the draft, what remains is the undisguised hatred of democracy and capitalism and free market economics and religion.

But they are now naked. Their concealment has been stripped away. And they are seen for what they are. Militant Atheistic Communists.

Also somewhat superannuated.

Ted Kennedy in a thong.

And when people hear them, the people reject them. They try to masquerade as “middle-of-the-roaders”, but increasingly the voters are seeing through their attempts to hide their true nature.
AMEN!!!
 
40.png
Gnosis:
Your bias is so thorough and unsupported that its very difficult to take you seriously. I somehow doubt that the Vietnam war was lost because of protests and lack of support back on the homefront. Have you possibly considered that the Vietnam war was not a just war? That it wasn’t the place of America to invade a foreign country because it felt threatened by its ideology? Or are you simply content to demonize communism as though it were still the 1950’s?
And what part of communism shouldn’t we demonize? The leftists in this country have tried to run a parallel to Vietnam with Iraq and that’s just not possible. One big comparison regarding support on the homefront is VERY obvious when comparing/contrasting that very support during WWII versus Vietnam… People here at home supported the soldiers which meant they would do everything they could to support them… to include holding their tongue so as to not give the IMPRESSION that they don’t support the war regardless of political opinion out of respect for the soldier. Then comes Vietnam and you’ve got so many people (edited to keep it charitable) that were afraid to serve their country then telling the soldiers they’re baby murderers (ironically it’s the same people that VEHEMENTLY support abortion)… people that weren’t even CLOSE to anything remotely close to combat aside from a few toked up, drunken harsh words.
40.png
Gnosis:
Since no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor any direct link between 9/11 and Iraq, the Bush administration has largely defended this war on the premises of human rights.
I’m sure there are things the military has found that the general public doesn’t know and when some liberals in this country realize they don’t have a God given right to know all the details of military operations or the results thereof… they might realize that they were wrong in generalizing something they don’t know.
40.png
Gnosis:
It is literally tearing this nation apart in the name of freedom, in the name of giving them democracy, an ideology.
Only becuase we’ve got people in this country that don’t stand for anything but themselves. I’d like to see what they do when their way of life is directly threatened. When they have to wonder if they’re going to be blown up for their religious beliefs, it makes me wonder if they’ll stop their own selfish ideologies.
40.png
Gnosis:
The definition of terrorism is this: Terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
And when you start comparing our government to terrorists, you have to ask yourself where you want to live and then wonder why you’d still answer “USA”.
40.png
Gnosis:
The United States is using violence, in an unlawful manner, to place tremendous pressure upon an entire society so as to adopt American democratic values. It is an act of terrorism.
We are not forcing an ideology onto Iraqi’s… we took out a dictator and giving the power to the people to set up their own government. There are alot of countries that see our own form of government and can see the pros and cons about it and most want to emulate it. What other style of government do you think those Iraqi’s want? Try watching “Voices of Iraq” and you’ll see what the MSM doesn’t want you to see. You’ll see the REAL voices of the people of Iraq and see what they really think of America and what we’re doing. Again, where is the terrorism in that? And when was the last time we just blatantly, out of nothing but sheer hatred, attacked a country and celebrated at the high number of casualties?
40.png
Gnosis:
What if there was no international body that could determine which invasions were legitimate, and which were done for the benefit of the nation invading?
And if it was so wrong, why hasn’t the UN done anything further to strong arm the US into stopping or violently trying to stop us? It’s because they are relieved that we’re doing their job, willing to do it and the men and women of our armed forces are willing to do it.

As far as answering the question in the OP… all I can say is liberals hate Bush due to a mix of sheer ignorance and hatred. That’s the only explaination for ignoring logic and reason.
 
40.png
tamccrackine:
And if it was so wrong, why hasn’t the UN done anything further to strong arm the US into stopping or violently trying to stop us? It’s because they are relieved that we’re doing their job, willing to do it and the men and women of our armed forces are willing to do it.
Most of the members of the UN hierarchy were so deep in the Oil for Food Scam, I’m not sure if they are happy with the invasion. Maybe that is why there was so much international dissension?

Take Care!

Notworthy
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
No need to im-“peach” him. He’s alread im-"pear"ed.😃
Hmmmmmmm, what does it say about the Opposition Party that they have been out manipulated by an impaired President so many times?

Take Care!

Notworthy

P.S. That was a good one, though!🙂
 
40.png
tamccrackine:
And what part of communism shouldn’t we demonize? The leftists in this country have tried to run a parallel to Vietnam with Iraq and that’s just not possible.
And yet there are similarities. Vietnam was a civil war. Now that Saddam is out, we have a situation which some have called a civil war. Sunnis against the Shias against the Kurds. Interesting to note: the one valid reason for our military presence not pulling out is to avoid complete carnage when these 3 groups try to destroy each other.
40.png
tamccrackine:
One big comparison regarding support on the homefront is VERY obvious when comparing/contrasting that very support during WWII versus Vietnam… People here at home supported the soldiers which meant they would do everything they could to support them… to include holding their tongue so as to not give the IMPRESSION that they don’t support the war regardless of political opinion out of respect for the soldier. Then comes Vietnam and you’ve got so many people (edited to keep it charitable) that were afraid to serve their country then telling the soldiers they’re baby murderers (ironically it’s the same people that VEHEMENTLY support abortion)… people that weren’t even CLOSE to anything remotely close to combat aside from a few toked up, drunken harsh words.
Let’s keep in mind that the President is both the Commander and Chief as well as being the servant of the people. If civilians feel that the President has not acted on their behalf, then the President has failed by not being accountable to civilians. It is true that the troops are doing their job and their homecoming should be celebrated. However, it is necessary that the President be censored, or even punished, for this act of aggression in which war was never officially declared in the first place!
40.png
tamccrackine:
I’m sure there are things the military has found that the general public doesn’t know and when some liberals in this country realize they don’t have a God given right to know all the details of military operations or the results thereof… they might realize that they were wrong in generalizing something they don’t know.
The simple logic here is that the President made a public announcement that there were WMD’s in Iraq. The President has not subsequently made a public announcement that the WMD’s were found. If he can’t back up his public statements, then we have no reason to hold what he says in good faith.
 
40.png
st.jerome:
The simple logic here is that the President made a public announcement that there were WMD’s in Iraq. The President has not subsequently made a public announcement that the WMD’s were found.
In fact he has now said the opposite:
[Saddam] possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction. After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator; we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction, but we did not find those weapons.
whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051218-2.html

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Thanks for the webpage.

Bush says: “My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them.”

Which is true, you do not create terrorists by fighting them, you create terrorists through the violent suppression of ordinary people. Waging war, an intrinsically violent act, has a way of traumatizing large numbers of people. Some might even think that they are being violently repressed.
 
Yes, but you do create dead terrorists by fighting them!

Notworthy
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
Yes, but you do create dead terrorists by fighting them!

Notworthy
Of course. Just like we created more patriotic Germans joining the Nazi party to become Nazis. That happens in all wars and is to be expected.
 
40.png
gilliam:
Of course. Just like we created more patriotic Germans joining the Nazi party to become Nazis. That happens in all wars and is to be expected.
Yes, but most terrorists aren’t quite as brave when they’re facing the United States Military.

This is a FAR cry from the confidence the terrorists had when they could blow up US Destroyers, and US Embassy buildings without fear of retribution. Clearly, appeasement and empty threats didn’t work.

If are actions are so “Terroristic”, as Mr. Kerry clearly claimed, why do these terrorists have to be imported from other countries? Iraq should be able to provide all the Jihadists necessary.

Notworthy
 
40.png
Gnosis:
…the Vietnam war was not a just war? That it wasn’t the place of America to invade a foreign country because it felt threatened by its ideology? Or are you simply content to demonize communism as though it were still the 1950’s?
An eloquent and revealing comment, indeed.

"… demonizing communism… "

Well, there are quite a few quite authoritative authors who would consider communism well deserving of being demonized.

Try this one:

amazon.com/gp/product/0674076087/qid=1137006925/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-5898643-7001603?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

The Black Book of Communism.
 
I dont know if MikeWM or Thekla believe he should be impeached, but instead of me writing a litany that people will just ignore (just as they have these two posters great wisdoms) my contention is he should be impeached after reading everything these two posters have so elequently, and factually written. I also feel based on their writings that Bush should also be tried for treason along with Rumsfeld, Cheny and Wolfowitz. I would also like to see Powell and Rice brought up on charges of aiding and abetting. My country is being run into the ground by a rogue government being operated by “Broken Arrows” 😦
 
its never even been decided by law if what was going on is indeed illegal or not. just opinions all over the place. treason?? some of these darned liberals should be tried for treason in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top