PDA

View Full Version : Impeach the President



thedrifter
01-30-04, 07:18 AM
Impeach the President

January 29, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Michael P. Tremoglie

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts has accused President Bush of lying about the possession by Iraq of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s). Specifically, Senator Kennedy has accused President Bush of manipulating the intelligence data so he can justify invading Iraq. Kennedy believes Bush intended to invade Iraq from the day he was inaugurated. Essentially he is claiming that the president lied to start a war.

These are serious allegations - worthy of impeachment, if proven.

In order to ascertain the extent to which the president lied about the Weapons of Mass Destruction, I have listed quotes by the president, by members of his administration, and by members of his political party stating that Iraq possessed WMD’s. These quotes constitute evidence for impeachment. As such they are listed using the term “exhibit.” All italics are mine. As you will note they are a damning indictment of the efforts by the president, his administration, and his party to lie to the American people.

Exhibit A- "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." [1]

Exhibit B -"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." [2]

Exhibit C- "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 “ [3]

Exhibit D - "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." [4]

Exhibit E - "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions … to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." [5]

Exhibit F - "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." [6]

Exhibit H -As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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. " [7]

Exhibit G - We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. " [8]

These statements clearly misled the American people. They imply that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and would use them. This is unquestionably an impeachable offense.

Unfortunately, impeachment of the president would be impossible in this instance. The president and the members of his administration who made these statements are no longer in office. The political party of the president who made these statements are no longer the majority party. The problem is that:

Exhibits A and B are statements made by President Clinton in February 1998.

Exhibit C is from a February 1998 statement by President Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeline Albright.

Exhibit D is from a February 1998 statement by Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.

Exhibit E is an excerpt of a letter written by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry dated October 1998.

Exhibits F and G are from a statement made by Nancy Pelosi in December 1998.

Exhibit H is from a statement made by the accuser himself Senator Kennedy.

What is the maxim about people in glass houses not throwing stones? The Democrats live in a glass house.

There are some Democrats who do not vehemently condemn President Bush. Democratic Senator and presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman said August 10, 2003, “The case was there back as far as '98, as far as I was concerned, to get rid of Saddam--all the stronger after September 11th, because we would naturally say to ourselves, 'We don't want to look back after Saddam sponsors some horrific action against us and say why didn't we stop him when we had the chance? " Former New York Mayor Democrat Ed Koch has also stated he would vote for Bush.

Proof of Bush’s honesty comes from other sources as well - sources who now condemn him. A March 8 2003, New York Times article quoted a 173-page dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, by chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix. It said Baghdad may possess about 10,000 liters of anthrax, Scud missile warheads filled with deadly biological and chemical weapons, and drones capable of flying far beyond a 93-mile limit.

Author and researcher, Joseph Cirincione, who now says the president lied about the Iraq WMD’s wrote in page 7 of his June 2002 book, Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction: “International inspectors destroyed most of Iraq’s nuclear program after the Gulf War, though it has most likely restarted since Iraq blocked inspections in 1998.” On page 8 he wrote, “there are approximately twelve nations suspected of having biological warfare programs… This includes... Iraq, Iran, Israel, Russia, North Korea, Syria.” Cirincione wrote in a page 10 paragraph titled, “BIOLOGICAL WEAPON PRODUCTION: “ Iraq remains the most serious proliferation threat.” In September 18, 2002 Ciricione wrote, “Iraq has chemical and biological weapons that would complicate any military actions.” [9]

The Democrats are doing their best to politicize this was and the security of the people of the United States of America. However, they will never attempt to impeach George Bush because they know that a trial will reveal their deceit. Instead the Democrats will imply and insinuate that Bush lied, thinking they can influence the presidential election and regain control of the White House, which is all they are truly concerned about doing.

It will not work. The American public is not as ignorant as they believe it is.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 fm snopes.com

[2] President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. fm snopes.com

[3] Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. fm snopes.com

[4] Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 snopes.com

[5] Letter to Clinton by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.snopes.com

[6] Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

[7] Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

[8] Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

[9] Ret fm w/s http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/Globalist.asp 1-9-04



http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/t/tremoglie/2004/tremoglie012904.htm


Sempers,

Roger
:marine:

namgrunt
01-30-04, 10:07 AM
Well said, drifter. In my opinion, when you add the fact that the last administration had THREE opportunities to collar Osama Bin Ladin back around the same 1998 time period, but let those chances slide away, that drives the last nail in their political coffin. It is a matter of politicians talking out of both ends of their alimentary canal in an effort to bamboozle their bosses (us), and regain power. Sad indeed.

GySgtRet
01-30-04, 02:55 PM
Back in the days of the CLINTON administration there was another chance but the Department of Defense was not allowed to finish the job, damn I hate it when things get twisted the incorrect way.

Semper Fidelis

Lock-n-Load
01-30-04, 03:38 PM
:marine: Impeach the President??...For What???...it's incredible that "Fat Boy" Kennedy is calling GW Bush ...a liar...Hey, Teddy Boy...didn't you lie [lie and lie] under oath...that you were a "hero" at ...the bridge at Chapaquidick??..Folks, could you or me get away with what Teddy Boy did at that bridge...I doubt it...all the Kennedys live...ABOVE...the law and these Democrat candidates and their fat/cheerleaders are the best comedy/show on TV...GW Bush in a mandate next November 2004:marine:

ivalis
01-30-04, 06:14 PM
One important distinction, Clinton didn't get 500+ killed because he was mislead.

TracGunny
01-30-04, 06:59 PM
...just 3000 + that we know of, and I wonder how many of the 500 + Slick Willey can claim credit for with his military cutbacks, larger dependency on Guard/Reserves, failure to take TOUGH action when he could after WTC 1, Embassy bombings, and after he had the intel warning of bigger things to come. Thank God GWB is there now and understands that the 500 +, and the many more to come, is the cost that must be paid to stop the terror and protect our shores, and that their sacrifices are not in vain. May God help us if another wuss like Willey takes office and dooms us to countless more generations of terror in our streets.

ivalis
01-30-04, 08:00 PM
Trac, even the prez said saddam had nothing to to w/ the twin towers. There was no terrorist issue in Iraq until we invaded. The guard & reserve would not be depended on without our misguided invasion of a country that posed no discernable threat to the US.

The intel warnings you speak of have very little credibilty, that's according to those in and out of the administration.

yellowwing
01-30-04, 08:06 PM
President Bush said Friday "I want to know the facts" about any intelligence failures concerning Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of forbidden weapons but he declined to endorse calls for an independent investigation.

He has also fought his way to the Supreme court to deny the American people the right to know what V.P. Dick Cheney, Enron, and Halliburton talked about behind the closed doors that we paid for!

Echo_Four_Bravo
01-30-04, 10:16 PM
There has to be executive privilege. This is a well known fact that the courts have, and will, uphold because the government cannot properly function without it. People brought in to advise the administration will not speak frankly if they are "on the record."
Further, why is it that the lack of found weapons is such an issue? One way or the other, Hussein did not live up to the demands placed on him in the Cease Fire Agreement to end Desert Storm. If he would have allowed full access to the inspectors, and worked with them, none of this would have happened. Look at the actions of Libya. They are now respected by many, because they are working within the framework of international law. The fact that Iraq did not comply with the UN is the issue. The UN's refusal to use force to back up their statements, and their inability to accomplish anything without the US isn't what this is about. The fact that the weapons haven't been found yet isn't the issue. The fact that Hussein didn't do as he was told, and as he agreed, to do is what lead to war.
Now, more importantly. How do we know if there are weapons or not? Let me go to the desert in Western America and hide a few jars of honey. Then you all go out and try to find them. Guess what.... it won't happen. It will take you years to find where I hid it. On top of that, if I know you are going to come look, I might send the jars to Oregon (Syria) and let people there hold on to them for me. Then there is no chance of you finding them. In either case, I clearly had the honey.... I just made it difficult or impossible for you to find it. The fact that I have a ton of bees (think gas masks etc.) is an indication that I had honey, and that I will likely have it again.... you just can't find the current batch.

namgrunt
01-30-04, 10:48 PM
The original posting spoke of Impeachment of the President. It seems too many people presumed it spoke of the current President. I read it, and came away with an understanding that it was an indictment of those persons who bellowed the loudest against President Bush's actions.

The former President, who made some of the listed comments, carries a higher culpability. He was not worthy of his office. The greatest movement he ever made, with U.S. Marines in attendance, was the Easter Egg hunt across the White House lawn. Had he acted in a timely manner, there would have been no Bin Ladin loose to finance the hijackers, who brougnt down the WTC towers. Had he acted correctly, there would have been no Somalia ambush, which ended with dead bodies of American GI's being dragged naked through the streets of Mogadishu. That vision gave our enemies the courage to follow through with bolder plans, which culminated in the first major devastation within the borders of our beloved nation since the Civil War.

President Bush didn't arrange for us to be attacked! He was cold-dropped into one of the hottest "LZ's" I've ever witnessed. How many of us recall jumping from a helicopter door into unknown territory, with incoming fire to greet us. I shall not second guess a tactical response which, so far, has worked. Ask Khadafy why he volunteered to give up his WMD programs.

Kick butt, take names, and let God sort it out. War is not a event to be run by political committees. We win or we lose! We are engaged right now! We must see it through!

To quote Sgt. Dan Daly, in the Belleau Woods, "C'mon, you sons of b******! Do you want to live forever?!"

Thats how I see it.
namgrunt (0311)

LONEEAGLE
01-31-04, 11:38 AM
That Fat Head no count Kennedy, and Hill-u-ry, did anyone see them during the Presidents' State of the Union address? I think what I've read here could, could not be believed, but if one uses common sense, you know darn good and well the Demo's will hit way below the belt, to win.....Look at who is squeakin' the loudest? These people did things that are despictable, and got away with it......I don't put much credit to their fat mouths, which includes Daschle.......Come up with a better plan, don't keep sayin' the same ol' crap, and show the world, not with words, but with proof, Kerry, all Dems, that you can do a better job....So far I've not heard anything that would solve problems, that our President isn't tryin' to fix now, better. Just politics, and it's sickening.....all of 'em are as crooked as a dog's leg. There's a book out, written by a former elected official....don't know the name, but, it talks about how the only important issue to these dimwits, dem's/rep's/indep's, is, "HOW DO I GET RE-ELECTED!!!" Not, one thing about, "HOW DO I HELP THOSE WHO ELECTED ME?" "OH THANK YOU, FOR THE TRIP AND FOR THE HOME, AND NICE CAR, AND GIVING ME GOOD INSIDE INFORMATION ON SOME STOCK, NOW WHAT CAN I DO FOR YOU?" PFIIIIIIIIF

LONEEAGLE
01-31-04, 11:45 AM
Let me ask ya'll something? Have you heard one word from the front runner's mouth about "VETERAN'S ISSUES?" Besides, "I helped with Agent Orange." "I helped with PTSD." "I HELPED WITH GETTIN' THE VVA STARTED." OooooH, thank you so much you worm bucket.....How about more money to get some decent Dr's? How about more money for better facilities? And what you have said, some where there's proof, you didn't do crap. Kerry.....You're as bad as Hanoi Hanna, Hanoi Jane, and a t-total liar, jerk, and until you and That Loud Mouth Kennedy, Daschle, Clinton, and all you other idiot liberal jackasses, can do better, by "PROVING" it.....as Yosemeti Sam Says......"SHADUP!!"