Rep. McKinney Introduces Bill to Impeach Bush

Arctyrael said:
Bush may be a dumbass, but he isn't a cold blooded killer.
Click to expand...
He is texan....but yeah lol9/11conspiracytheory.
 
Firestreak said:
I don't understand why Bustaballs bothers to post links or rant paragraphs. I don't read them. My mind was made up what happened on 9/11 when I watched it live on the news as it happened. Anything you say is pointless to me. I'm not saying to be mean, but so you don't waste your time putting in effort to try and convince me. if George Bush came out and said he planned the attacks, I still wouldn't believe it, because it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

That is the most narrow minded statement I have ever seen on the internet.

You made up your mind without knowing who did it.
You made up your mind without knowing why they did it.
You made up your mind without knowing if it was an accident or an assault.

Looks to me like you made up your mind and then only care to entertain ideas that supoprt your opinion which is based on absolutly no facts, but purely what you saw during a live broadcast.
 
personaly im just sick of democrats preaching their shit too other people...people will make up their mind and decide what they want without you craming your propaganda(sp maybe) down their throats. it bores me too see all this trash. goodnight

AND not on topic so much but all democrats do is bash and try to push their believes on other people. its quite annoying
 
Last edited:
Pesmerga said:
personaly im just sick of democrats preaching their shit too other people...people will make up their mind and decide what they want without you craming your propaganda(sp maybe) down their throats. it bores me too see all this trash. goodnight

AND not on topic so much but all democrats do is bash and try to push their believes on other people. its quite annoying
Click to expand...

BOTH sides do it. It's not a one party deal here, they all have agendas.
 
Elpon said:
BOTH sides do it. It's not a one party deal here, they all have agendas.
Click to expand...

Seriously. "I'm tired of Soandso preaching their shit" is pretty much the most redundant and retarded remark ever to be made about anything political.
 
Halifirien said:
Once you start giving up rights, it's very hard to get them back. That's why I don't think "safety" is a good reason to start tossing freedom over the side. It's very seldom a "short term" thing.
Click to expand...

Fortunatly higher-up politicians/executives do not care about just you, the individual, once elected as it's not their job. They have to look out for what is best for all of our safety. It's the reason we have government, saftey and order. Without saftey our rights are nothing and our rights do not mean anything to us if we are dead, over run, or being held captive to other countries. If you don't have saftey, you don't have anything else. It's easy to say things like what you did until YOU are in trouble. Also, I'd like to see where a necessary or popular right has been taken away and not given back. As per it being short-term... it needs to be inactive as long as it takes to get the job done. Short-term, long-term, it doesn't matter.

As per the post about Democratic preaching... I'll have to agree on that. I don't think I've ever read any spew started by a republican on a forum or on the T.V. It's usually the Democrats. Why? Most Democrats are so liberal and free spirited, it's just their nature. Conservatives are rather well grounded, usually (considering what the word means too), and just bite back after a extreme liberalist jaws out his two cents and wonders why nothing he wants ever happens. This time around with Bush it's just been terrible. I sometimes have no idea if the people are serious or joking when they blame him for some of the things they do. Like tonight on Last Laugh '06 they blamed Bush for letting child molester off... HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, IT'S NOT HIS JOB! I wasn't laughing because their jokes were funny, for the most part, but rather that they actually probably believed some of the shit that came out of their mouths.
 
Last edited:
Strid said:
As per the post about Democratic preaching... I'll have to agree on that. I don't think I've ever read any spew started by a republican on a forum or on the T.V.
Click to expand...

Just for starters: abortion, feminism, gay rights, and the "war on Christmas." If you think Republicans aren't preaching, you're obviously not paying attention. Hell, there's been enough bullshit spewed around about Mary Cheney's impending baby to make me sick.

Impeaching Bush is a political dead end, as much as I'd like to see it happen. In an ideal world, they'd up the ante and charge him and Rumsfeld with war crimes. I'll settle for watching his lame duck ass flapping around for the next two years.
 
Pesmerga said:
democrats do it a bit more id say
Click to expand...

I dissagree.

I'm neither democrat nor republican. I'm a libertarian. I against and for things on both sides.

Anyways, here's an interesting story:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Impeachment_rallies_held_coast_to_coast_1210.html

Impeachment rallies held coast to coast

Raw Story | December 11, 2006
Ron Brynaert

This Sunday's Human Rights Day has been renamed "Human Rights and Impeachment Day," as groups hold rallies across the United States calling for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to be impeached. This Sunday marks the 58th anniversary of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"The purpose of the events is to organize people to lobby their Congress Members for investigations and impeachment and to lobby their local and state governments for resolutions in support of impeachment," Democrats.com co-founder Bob Fertik writes.

The rallies were "kicked off" yesterday at a New York City forum which featured former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, who served on the Judiciary Committee during Nixon's impeachment hearings, and anti-war "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan, whose son, Casey, was killed while serving in Iraq over two-and-a-half years ago.

Fertik told RAW STORY that the two speakers were a "genuine inspiration to the enthusiastic crowd of progressive activists who believe we have more than enough evidence to begin the impeachment process."

A participant in the NYC event named Aaron offered the following rave review: "Excellent organizing, speakers great, good time had by all, the bush is quaking in his cowboy boots!"

"Sheehan reminded us that each day's statistics are real families' tragedies," Fertik added. "Holtzman reminded us that impeachment works -- and strengthens our great nation -- when it's done the right way, as it was in Watergate."

As her final legislative act on Friday, outgoing Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney introduced an impeachment bill, although it was just a "symbolic parting shot" by the controversial Democrat and has no chance of passing. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had promised before the midterm elections that impeachment would be "off the table," and after the Democrats regained control of Congress, Rep. John Conyers, the soon-to-be chairman for the Judiciary Committee agreed.

According to After Downing Street, one of the activist groups helping to organize this weekend's events, there "will now also be rallies to honor and thank Cynthia McKinney."

Events scheduled for today include rallies and parades held in such cities as Seattle, Madison, Chicago, Detroit and Tallahassee.

At a beach in San Francisco, plans were made to use a mass of human bodies to spell out the word "Impeach!" However, a blogger from the Beach Impeach Project announced late Saturday night that "dangerous surf conditions have forced postponement" until the first weekend in January.

Also in San Francisco, "under the spot where the UN signed its charter 60 years ago," activists will sing "carols" while clad in orange jump suits, similiar to the ones that detainees at Guantanamo Bay are forced to wear.

DEVELOPING...AS NEWS FROM EVENTS OF THE DAY TRICKLES IN...
Click to expand...
 
http://gnn.tv/articles/2791/Rep_McKinney_Files_Articles_of_Impeachment
Rep. McKinney Files Articles of Impeachment
Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:02:07 -0800 The Deceiver
Email Article
By Matt Pascarella
Outgoing lawmaker cites numerous abuses of the Constitution by President Bush
Editor’s note: GNN has been covering this story as it unfolds on Capitol Hill. We will have video of Rep. McKinney’s floor speech and an exclusive interview with the Congresswoman up shortly.

On Monday, gathering in a conference room in Washington D.C., Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and her advisors worked on a draft copy of the articles of impeachment against President Bush.

At the heart of the charges contained in McKinney’s articles of impeachment, is the allegation that President Bush has not upheld the oath of presidential office and is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I states that President Bush has failed to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. Specifically cited in this article is the charge that Bush has manipulated intelligence and lied to justify war: “George Walker Bush … in preparing the invasion of Iraq, did withhold intelligence from the Congress, by refusing to provide Congress with the full intelligence picture that he was being given, by redacting information … and actively manipulating the intelligence on Iraq’s alleged weapons programs by pressuring the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies.”

This manipulation of intelligence was done, the charge continues, “with the intent to misinform the people and their representatives in Congress in order to gain their support for invading Iraq, denying both the people and their representatives in Congress the right to make an informed choice.”

Article II, “Abuse of office and of executive privilege,” states that President Bush has disregarded his oath of office by “obstructing and hindering the work of Congressional investigative bodies and by seeking to expand the scope of the powers of his office.” The President has “failed to take responsibility for, investigate or discipline those responsible for an ongoing pattern of negligence, incompetence and malfeasance to the detriment of the American people.”

This article continues by indicting Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in their actions to manipulate or “fix” intelligence and mislead the public about Iraq’s weapons programs. Ultimately, this article calls not only for Bush’s impeachment and removal from office but also asks the same actions to be taken against Cheney and Rice.

Article III states that President Bush has failed to “ensure the laws are faithfully executed” and that he has “violated the letter and spirit of laws and rules of criminal procedure used by civilian and military courts, and has violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that carry out the law.”

Specifically, McKinney cites illegal domestic spying as a result of failing to obtain warrants thereby subverting congress and the judiciary in the process: “… by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act courts established by Congress, whose express purpose is to check such abuses of executive power, provoking the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to file a complaint and another judge to resign in protest, the said program having been subsequently ruled illegal; he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of spying on American citizens from the people and all but a few of their representatives in Congress, even resorting to outright public deceit.”

The article continues by citing public statements Bush has made that were blatantly contradictory to his policy and actions regarding domestic spying.

While the staff was editing the document, one advisor told me, “As we sat down and worked on this, a pattern became very clear … a pattern to specifically undermine the constitution and establish a unitary presidency.”

The charges addressed in McKinney’s resolution are nothing revelatory or new. Rather, they are issues which have been in the public eye for quite some time and have increasingly been covered in the media over the last year.

Despite winning the congressional majority, the Democrats have yet to put forth a plan to investigate what have become somewhat ubiquitous allegations.

Speaker-elect, Representative Pelosi, dismissed any possibility of impeachment, saying it is “off the table” and that it is “a waste of time … making them lameducks is good enough for me.” Although, in the November election, 60% of the voters in her own district cast ballots in favor of Proposition J, a measure calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

In 2005 Representative John Conyers sponsored a resolution, HR 365, to create a special committee to investigate allegations against the Bush Administration – a move that would likely lead to the discovery of impeachable offenses. This resolution was passed to the House Committee on Rules and was never brought up for a vote.

At that time it was widely believed that if the Democrats took control of congress, Conyers would reintroduce the resolution as would have subpoena power if selected as leader of the House Judiciary Committee.

A few days after the Democrats won control Conyers echoed Pelosi’s statement saying, “I am in total agreement with her on this issue … impeachment is off the table.” Last week a spokesperson from Conyers office said that the resolution would not be reintroduced and that the Representative had no intention to pursue the matter.

Will other members of congress support the action Congresswoman McKinney has brought forth?

At the table in what could be considered her impeachment “war room” the question is brought up a number of times.

Mike, an advisor to McKinney, mentions, “Conyers was supposed to have investigations. They were chomping at the bit 6 months ago to do subpoenas.”

McKinney quietly replies, “Now they say they aren’t even going to issue subpoenas.”

Looking up from her papers she takes a deep breath, “I’m going in alone on this one because now it is all about them playing majority politics.”

This is McKinney’s last week as a member of congress and this act, to impeach the president, is the final resolution she will enter into the Congressional record.

For those who know anything about Cynthia McKinney it may come as no surprise that she would file this resolution as her parting gift to Congress.

McKinney is no stranger to being attacked by the media and has been isolated from her own party.

From her inquiries into election fraud in 2000 to her calls for a transparent and thorough investigation into 9-11, not to mention the widely covered run-in she had with the Capitol Hill Police, the congresswoman is aware that this resolution will likely be ignored and that she will be ruthlessly attacked upon its filing.

“What do you think they are going to do to me this time?” she asks her staff. Everyone uncomfortably shifts in their seats and after no answer comes McKinney explains, “We have to do this because this is simply the right thing to do. The American people do want to hold this man and his office accountable for the crimes they have committed and if no member of congress is willing to do it, than I will.”

It is questionable as to how effective this move could be in gaining support because of her reputation as a firebrand congresswoman and because, ultimately, she is on her way out of office.

The Congresswoman and her staff realize this but hope that by filing the articles of impeachment it will, at the very least, open up a discussion on whether or not President Bush and key members of his administration have committed impeachable offenses and whether our officials should be held to account.

“My duty as a member of Congress is merely to uphold and preserve the constitution and to represent the will of my constituency. Ultimately, it isn’t up to me or any other member of congress – it is up to the American people to decide.”

GNN contributor Matt Pascarella is a freelance journalist & producer who was present during the drafting of the Articles of Impeachment that Congresswoman McKinney filed today.
Click to expand...

http://gnn.tv/articles/2792/_No_American_is_above_the_law
"No American is above the law"
Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:03:07 -0800 Standing up for what's right Print Version
Email Article
By Cynthia McKinney
Rep. McKinney's floor statement on the impeachment of George W. Bush
Download a PDF of the Articles of Impeachment (H.R. 1106) here.

December 8, 2006

Mr. Speaker:

I come before this body today as a proud American and as a servant of the American people, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Throughout my tenure, I’ve always tried to speak the truth. It’s that commitment that brings me here today.

We have a President who has misgoverned and a Congress that has refused to hold him accountable. It is a grave situation and I believe the stakes for our country are high.

No American is above the law, and if we allow a President to violate, at the most basic and fundamental level, the trust of the people and then continue to govern, without a process for holding him accountable—what does that say about our commitment to the truth? To the Constitution? To our democracy?

The trust of the American people has been broken. And a process must be undertaken to repair this trust. This process must begin with honesty and accountability.

Leading up to our invasion of Iraq, the American people supported this Administration’s actions because they believed in our President. They believed he was acting in good faith. They believed that American laws and American values would be respected. That in the weightiness of everything being considered, two values were rock solid—trust and truth.

From mushroom clouds to African yellow cake to aluminum tubes, the American people and this Congress were not presented the facts, but rather were presented a string of untruths, to justify the invasion of Iraq.
President Bush, along with Vice President Cheney and then-National Security Advisor Rice, portrayed to the Congress and to the American people that Iraq represented an imminent threat, culminating with President Bush’s claim that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon. Having used false fear to buy consent—the President then took our country to war.

This has grave consequences for the health of our democracy, for our standing with our allies, and most of all, for the lives of our men and women in the military and their families—who have been asked to make sacrifices—including the ultimate sacrifice—to keep us safe.

Just as we expect our leaders to be truthful, we expect them to abide by the law and respect our courts and judges. Here again, the President failed the American people.

When President Bush signed an executive order authorizing unlawful spying on American citizens, he circumvented the courts, the law, and he violated the separation of powers provided by the Constitution. Once the program was revealed, he then tried to hide the scope of his offense from the American people by making contradictory, untrue statements.

President George W. Bush has failed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States; he has failed to ensure that senior members of his administration do the same; and he has betrayed the trust of the American people.

With a heavy heart and in the deepest spirit of patriotism, I exercise my duty and responsibility to speak truthfully about what is before us. To shy away from this responsibility would be easier. But I have not been one to travel the easy road. I believe in this country, and in the power of our democracy. I feel the steely conviction of one who will not let the country I love descend into shame; for the fabric of our democracy is at stake.

Some will call this a partisan vendetta, others will say this is an unimportant distraction to the plans of the incoming Congress. But this is not about political gamesmanship.

I am not willing to put any political party before my principles.

This, instead, is about beginning the long road back to regaining the high standards of truth and democracy upon which our great country was founded.

Mr. Speaker:

Under the standards set by the United States Constitution, President Bush—along with Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice—should be subject to the process of impeachment, and I have filed H. Res. _ in the House of Representatives.

To my fellow Americans, as I leave this Congress, it is in your hands—to hold your representatives accountable, and to show those with the courage to stand for what is right, that they do not stand alone.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
 
Skaw said:
Seriously. "I'm tired of Soandso preaching their shit" is pretty much the most redundant and retarded remark ever to be made about anything political.
Click to expand...


accually i was talking about the people that follow the political leaders..and preach about how bad the other party is and how great they are..id prefer people to figure out who they want to follow and not have their opinion effected by a one sided person.

so try to be an asshole somewhere else.
 
Leave political discussions to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
Everyone else FAILs at it
 
Halifirien said:
Just for starters: abortion, feminism, gay rights, and the "war on Christmas." If you think Republicans aren't preaching, you're obviously not paying attention. Hell, there's been enough bullshit spewed around about Mary Cheney's impending baby to make me sick.
Click to expand...

Going to assume you didn't know what I meant by "spew" and load up some Pangya.
 
Trippyhippy said:
That is the most narrow minded statement I have ever seen on the internet.

You made up your mind without knowing who did it.
You made up your mind without knowing why they did it.
You made up your mind without knowing if it was an accident or an assault.

Looks to me like you made up your mind and then only care to entertain ideas that supoprt your opinion which is based on absolutly no facts, but purely what you saw during a live broadcast.
Click to expand...


Before even considering all the potential holes in the official story, you just have to ask yourself if anything else even makes enough sense to consider. It's possible that the government keeps clones of naked celebrities in a giant bunker in Idaho. I'm sure if you spent enough time combing facts and quote-mining, you could find things out of context to support that and come up with coincidences that lean in that way. It's a big fucking country, there's a lot of shit going on. It doesn't mean I have to seriously entertain the theory that there are naked celebrity clones. I think the government planning 9/11 is around those lines.

If that makes me narrowminded, then I'd rather be narrowminded than retarded.
 
Let's put politics aside for one second and focus on something much more important.


Firestreak said:
It's possible that the government keeps clones of naked celebrities in a giant bunker in Idaho.
Click to expand...


WTB naked Scarlett Johansson clone, PST!
 
Pesmerga said:
accually i was talking about the people that follow the political leaders..and preach about how bad the other party is and how great they are..id prefer people to figure out who they want to follow and not have their opinion effected by a one sided person.

so try to be an asshole somewhere else.
Click to expand...

No where in that post do you even mention anything resembling that train of thought. Perhaps figuring out how to put your ideas in to sentence format correctly would be a better benefit than posting your ideas about which side of the political grid preaches more than the other.
 
Normally, I'm not so hostile about what the Democrats and liberals with what they have to say. I enjoy listening to opposing view points but Bush's terms have been more about finger pointing and name calling than good, quality, useful information and chat (in the manner topics are often presented) about what he has done/will do. This really ticks me off. It sets a deep anger off inside me much like people who fight "big tobacco". "Big tobacco" isn't making people use their products but they are the ones who are called killers and being threatened. Why should they have to suffer name calling and what-not because a person chose to use their products and suffer knowing the risk? I will admit Bush has done some things a bit ridiculous, same with any president, and focused more on unimportant items than important items, medicare/aid, social security, etc. at times but he's no clown or devil by no means. I never regret voting for Bush to this day because if it wasn't him, it would have been Kerry. Kerry was looking to take away part of our finest, I guess you could call them attributes, of our capitalist system. To me, that's almost as bad as taking away a right, for good. Either way we would have went to war and been in the same situation we are now with either man fronting our country. Those who call themselves Libertarians, or whatever, would still be shooting off the same stuff because they just hate war in general and we're exactly where we are today no matter the front man. I dislike war myself but it is one of those inevitable actions that has and will always be needed for our future to be safe. In times of war many men and women sacrifice their lives to keep us safe and all that is asked of us is to support them and sacrifice some rights from time to time, but that's too much it seems these days.

((Little random but it ties in to everything that has been said throughout this topics lifespan))
 
Firestreak said:
It's possible that the government keeps clones of naked celebrities in a giant bunker in Idaho. I'm sure if you spent enough time combing facts and quote-mining, you could find things out of context to support that and come up with coincidences that lean in that way. It's a big fucking country, there's a lot of shit going on.
Click to expand...

as you set up a straw man...

It doesn't mean I have to seriously entertain the theory that there are naked celebrity clones. I think the government planning 9/11 is around those lines.
Click to expand...

then expertly knock him down! good job.

If that makes me narrowminded, then I'd rather be narrowminded than retarded.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that you have to entertain the idea that the government planned 9/11 in order to keep from being narrow minded. I'm saying you have to look at information instead of just going with the first thing that pops in your head, and then "staying the course" no matter what facts are introduced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top