Impeaching Bush

I can't understand how this is even a debate. The guy lied about Iraq. He failed to prevent the disaster of Katrina. He failed to do anything after Katrina. He lied about September 11. Best case Bush is incompetent. Worst case he's a lunatic running the asylum. Surely there must be a clause for removing presidents from power with so much failure on their resume.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I wasn't intending to be funny. Maybe I just have it all wrong and the things I mentioned in my previous post were just dreams I had. On a Side note I'm not very fond of honey myself. But hopefully those bees can sort themselves out.

I applaud your clever wit. Placing the emphasis on "Katrina" in that sentence was ingenious. The headline would have been worth buying a newspaper. "BUSH SAVES NEW ORLEANS STOPS A FUCKING HURRICANE WITH HIS BARE HANDS!" You have to admit it's much more interesting than, "Bush spends a few bucks to repair the damaged levies."

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Let me know when you find it.

Well as a Canadian I don't think it's my task to find such a way. It's why I was asking, there must be (is there?) a way to impeach a president with the way he has handled the above mentioned events? I have a difficult time reconcilling that a president can be impeached for lying about his sex life while this guy can get away with such a level of incompetence.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

1. Which always begs the question: What statement did George W. Bush make that he knew was untrue about Iraq before he made it? Furthermore, when did he say this statement when it was a criminal act to do so?
2. Last time I checked, the power to manipulate the weather belongs to the X-Man Storm, not George W. Bush.
3. This statement suggests that there was no federal involvement on the Gulf Coast at all, which is at very best you simply not knowing what you're talking about.
4. What is this alleged lie? Keep in mind that a lie is a statment that is known to be untrue at the time it is given, so you must also show that Bush knew whatever he said was untrue.

1. Where are they the weapons of mass destruction?

2. Jokes just aren’t funny the second time around.

3. If my statement did suggest there was no Federal involvement then I think that's an accurate statement to make especially when you have a Mrs. Bush going on television to tell the nation something to the affect it was the best thing that could have happened to those poor stupid niggers anyway. She couldn't even pronounce "Katrina". Inaction is the crime here and there's no dispute that inaction took place.

4. On 11 September 2001, every level of government failed. The intelligence agencies failed. NORAD failed. The FAA failed. If we are to believe Bush’s Commission Report, Newton’s established laws of physics failed. It’s the most incompetent day in American history. What part of 9/11 wasn't a lie?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I'm not going to read the entire Constitution to make my point stick. My argument is that as a Canadian I can only criticize American policies, like you can ours. But Americans have the power to change your laws. I'm not asking a difficult question here. It could have be answered with yes or no. The answer is apparently no. If nothing else, I can at the very least criticize that. The only shred of evidence Bush has ever provided as I see, with the events I mentioned, is his incompetence and inability to act. I have an opinion that something is fundamentally wrong with the way Bush has handled these things and he should be made to seriously answer these issues instead of brushing them aside and quoting the Bible.

Do you truly believe in your heart of heart that the failures of 9/11 are acceptable? Do you truly believe nothing could have been done to help prevent the Katrina disaster? Do you truly believe Bush did everything possible to provide the necessary relief as quickly as possible in the aftermath? I don't believe these things and I don't see much evidence to sway me otherwise. In my dissatisfaction I was merely posing a question for which the answer has now evidently been established. Which is more criminal? Clinton lying about that handjob from his personal secretary or Bush proving his unfitness to run the damn country. [/rhetorical]

Originally Posted by Gechmir

... I'm not even going to TRY to follow what the fuck you're talking about.

Well that is hardly my fault. I think I am articulating myself well enough that my opinions should be clear. Something so trivial is obviously implied when I simply say "Clinton lied". Yes I realize he lied under oath. We needn't waste our time with such well established facts. Suppose I agree that a country as advanced as the U.S. can't possibly thwart every terrorist attack. This does nothing to explain the "failures" which occurred on 9/11.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

You're forgetting about things like Pearl Harbor, the Bay of Pigs, the assassination of JFK etc...

I was tempted to add, “…next to Pearl Harbor” on that sentence but it would have taken some of the impact away.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

It's a fact that President Bush was given several documents from both the CIA and foreign intelligences many months beforehand that terrorists were planning to attack the U.S. which Bush ignored. If Bush knew of a threat and failed to act (which there is plenty of evidence to suggest and this is part of what I speak of when I mention the many "failures" of 9/11), then he should be brought down on treason. Nevermind a "lie" as I described in previous posts.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

As someone who does private contract work for the CIA from time to time, CIA analysts always write up reports warning of some terrorist who wants to or plans to attack the United States. You know how many of these the President sees on a daily basis - dozens.
Of the hundreds he sees a month, one happened to come to fruition. Hindsight is 20/20, but given the sheer volume of these 'serious threats' that come across his desk, it isn't a reach to see how one slipped by.

This to me is a wholly unsatisfactory answer. Not a single American would have humbly accepted Bush if he addressed the nation saying he had received documents indicating a threat of attack but decided to ignore it because gosh darn his desk just gets filled with so many bogus reports.

The U.S. has the most sophisticated intelligence and defense on the globe. Terrorist attacks on the magnitude of 9/11 do not "slip by". That's like the idiots referring to Pearl Harbor as a "surprise attack". How the fuck can you not see a 1,000 bombers flying towards you. A radar made from a coat hanger and tin foil would have seen that shit coming. Historians often tell us a document titled: “The God Damn Japs Are Coming” was never able to reach some General guy’s desk and therefore nothing could be done to prepare for the attack. But with all the other bogus WWII reports falling on his desk why should he look at it? What ever else they have in common, Pearl Habor and 9/11 are certainly laden with failures of communication.

The damning thing is how easily avoided the attacks were. If a passenger airliner deviates 6 miles from its original flight plan, red lights start flashing and fighter jets are scrambled to intercept and escort it to a new flight path. If the pilot fails to make contact or communicate in anyway the fighters are ordered to destroy the aircraft. This isn’t from the scenes of a James Bond flick. These are standard procedures that were in place for many years before 9/11. On 9/11 there is evidence that someone ordered to “ground” these fighters. If that is the case who has that authority when it was known at this point you have aircraft under the control of hijackers.

The hijackers must have watched the film Con Air the previous night and made sure to roll down a window so they could toss out the transponder. The FAA on 9/11 essentially claimed they were “blind” and just had no idea what was going on and where these 4 hijacked aircraft were or where they were headed. No problems with the hundreds of other aircraft flying in U.S. air space at the time however. All those were grounded with meticulous precision all in a very short amount of time. Something you would expect from the FAA after all. But 4 aircraft dodged the radar so to speak. Inconveniently, that being the 4 hijacked aircraft.

This is the very first time in aviation history that 4 passenger airliners more or less de-atomized if that’s even a word. There was essentially not a single recognizeable piece of debris recovered. The only piece I recall is a single small turbine recovered from the Pentagon which is dubious at best not to mention suspicious. No wings. No fuselage. No engines. Nothing.

You’re the President of the United States. You just learn your country is under attack. What do you do? Something? Or do you continue reading “My Little Pony” with a classroom of children? This is not appropriate behaviour from a Commander in Chief. You cannot form tactical strategies inside a classroom when seemingly you do not even know if you yourself are a target.

On 9/11, 3 buildings collapse due to fire. A first in structural engineering. 2 of these buildings collapse, in what was called the “pancake theory”, at same speed as free fall while no explanation was given to account for #7. Educated people refer to this as the post 9/11 laws of physics. Before 9/11 the universe operated under “Newtonian” physics. 9/11 introduced a new law, “Bushism”.

9/11 was a day of misinformation, disinformation, deception, secrets, and lies. Why were so many officials from all these organizations afraid? Suddenly everyone was “mum” on the issue. When Boeing was asked about the turbine recovered from the Pentagon they said nothing, that it was classified. What? Everything which could have provided answers and clues were shrouded as “national security” “classified information”. Someone was afraid. And someone did their best to cover the truth.

If one of these failed it could be counted as incompetence. That all of these failed in tandem suggests not incompetence but implicit and indirect involvement.

How ya doing, buddy?