Rep. Kucinich introduces Bush impeachment resolution – washingtonpost.com
WASHINGTON — Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a former Democratic presidential contender, said Monday he wants the House to consider a resolution to impeach President Bush. Speaker Nancy Pelosi consistently has said impeachment was “off the table.”
Kucinich, D-Ohio, read his proposed impeachment language in a floor speech. He contended Bush deceived the nation and violated his oath of office in leading the country into the Iraq war. Kucinich introduced a resolution last year to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. That resolution was killed, but only after Republicans initially voted in favor of taking up the measure to force a debate. Kucinich won 50 percent of the vote in a five-way House Democratic primary in March, beating back critics who said he ignored business at home to travel the country in his quest to be president.
Our tolerance for corruption has certainly changed since Nixon’s, and then Clinton’s Presidency. Or, do you think back room deals were made?
I believe: http://tinyurl.com/2p7doo
#120 – Mister Mustard,
Every culture has its black sheep.
Nothing wrong with black sheep. Lots wrong with humans though. Every group has it’s idiots, racists, xenophobes, etc. I agree in concept. Just don’t insult sheep. Sheep wouldn’t treat each other or other species as badly as humans do.
#117
> Yes, I also remember how the
> neo-cons suggested Russia and
> France especially were just
> trying to cultivate commercial relations with Iraq.
Actually, they were right. We discovered the Oil-for-Food scam which included numerous French and Russian companies.
> Russia does not have in its
> possession any trustworthy data that
> supports the existence of nuclear weapons
> or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
Except that we *did* find WMDs in Iraq in the form of chemical weapons which were akin to the ones used by Hussein to gas the Kurds.
RE: Britain, France, Germany
First, there is something fishy about an article that concludes that Rumsfeld was directed to fabricate evidence to invade Iraq without providing a shred of evidence to back that accusation. That is an incredibly damning claim that is made in passing with nothing to support it, so I find that source to suspect. Secondly, what about the dozens of other countries involved in the invasion? Further, don’t forget that *our* intelligence agencies had skepticism as well. Ok. Our intelligence agencies also had skepticism about a Japanese invasion prior to WWII. Intelligence is far from an exact science and given the uncooperative behavior towards the inspectors and the technical intelligence,they concluded that Iraq did have WMDs. Yes, we lacked sufficient human intelligence (thanks Bill and Bush Sr.) and that is a huge failure of the military and intelligence communities and, yes, the Bush Administration. However, that is a far, far, far cry from saying they *knew* that Saddam did not have WMDs and went in anyway. Nothing you have presented shows any concrete evidence that Bush knew for a fact that Saddam had no WMDs of any kind and forced us into Iraq anyway.
By the way, in your wiki link about the UN, did you note the numerous times that Hussein used chemical weapons?
#90 What or which nation are you speaking of? The UN inspectors said no WMDs and most of the 1st world – England, Germany, Italy, France…stated that they would abide by what the inspectors found, which was nothing. Now, years later, it turns out that the inspectors were correct. No, my friend… the prez had his Picard -Make It So – moment and his crew obliged. That priceless smirk on his, chainey’s, and rove’s face pretty much summed up how they view their fellow Americans; suckers! Congress? Bought and paid for by the greatest lobby in the world. Have you ever seen chickens in a yard with their heads cut off? My friend, it is time to clean house. We have got to give these maniacs their marching orders, stop this lunacy toward world war. I for one don’t want to wake up duckin and runnin. Arthritis
> The UN inspectors said
> no WMDs and most of
> the 1st world
That is not what the UN inspectors said. They said they had not as yet found any WMDs or programs however it was clear that the Iraqis were being uncooperative and deceptive and could very well be hiding WMDs and their development programs which turned out to be partially true. They *were* hiding WMDs just not in the quantities we expected.
Thomas,
Quote:- “By the way, in your wiki link about the UN, did you note the numerous times that Hussein used chemical weapons?”
Do mean the chemical weapons GIVEN to SADDAM by USA, in better, friendlier 1980′s, for use against Iran … to fight an 8 year US organized proxy war against Iran, for kicking out their friendly SHAH? The war that was lost regardless?
Does USA hold chemical weapons? Does US hold WMDs? Has USA used depleted Uranium weapons in Iraq during two wars? Afghanistan? Balkans? How does this stack up against your arguments. The current war with Iraq was contrived. It was required and had been planned for years. Hence 9/11. MOLTEN STEEL and all.
Do you have any idea what US use of “depleted” Uranium has done in the Middle East and will continue to do as the dust is spread by winds unrecallably around the world? Read about it. Ask returned service personnel still alive. Ask those who are dying from inhaling DU dust. Ask th e unfortunate people of Iraq.
Then think again about what you are saying regarding Saddam and chemical weapons.
> Does USA hold chemical weapons?
> Does US hold WMDs? Has USA used
> depleted Uranium weapons in Iraq
> during two wars? Afghanistan?
> Balkans? How does this stack up
> against your arguments.
Yep we have WMDs. The difference is that we are trusted to be responsible with them whereas Hussein clearly was not; we have never used WMDs against our own people to “send a message.” Depleted uranium is not considered a weapon mass destruction since it can only take out a single target whereas a WMD can take thousands or more at once.
Yes, we gave Saddam chemical weapons because at the time Iran and the Soviet Union were a bigger threat. Times changed. You don’t see a difference between the US and Hussein who used the chemical weapons on his own people?
Why don’t we ask the fortunate people of Iraq whether having a tyrant who tortured his own people worth the cost of getting rid of him?
#127, Thomas,
Yep we have WMDs. The difference is that we are trusted to be responsible with them whereas Hussein clearly was not
Several times over the past couple of decades the US has invaded some very small countries for nefarious reasons. So what happens when we get bogged down and another powerful country opposes us. Do you think Bush or McCain would leave our WMDs on the shelf while they play war? They could do like Reagan did in Lebanon and pack up everything and leave.
When you are the civilians and some airplane drops a cluster bomb that wipes out your neighborhood, that is a WMD. When a soldier fires a machine gun at your car killing your entire family, that is a WMD. When a helicopter gunship fires a missile into home, that is a WMD.
Yes, we gave Saddam chemical weapons because at the time Iran and the Soviet Union were a bigger threat.
No. We gave Saddam chemical weapons so he could use them against Iraq. No threat. Just vindictiveness.
RE #123,
First, there is something fishy about an article that concludes that Rumsfeld was directed to fabricate evidence to invade Iraq without providing a shred of evidence to back that accusation.
Ok, you don’t like my link. Let see how valid your link is. Ooopps, there ain’t one. I provided five cites from four different locations. And you criticize one because you don’t like what it says? And I did that just to satisfy your request for information about others KNOWING Bush lied.
Thomas, I really want to believe you are more intelligent than Lyin’ Mike.
Impeachment is the right way to go.
> When you are the civilians
> and some airplane drops a
> cluster bomb that wipes out
> your neighborhood, that is a WMD.
> When a soldier fires a machine
> gun at your car killing your
> entire family, that is a WMD.
> When a helicopter gunship
> fires a missile into home, that is a WMD.
What sophist nonsense. So if a machine gun qualifies as a WMD, then Hussein *definitely* had *plenty* of WMDs.
> No. We gave Saddam
> chemical weapons so
> he could use them
> against Iraq. No threat.
> Just vindictiveness.
Check. And Kennedy invaded Vietnam cause he didn’t like the way they smelt.
> I provided five cites from
> four different locations.
No. You provided one cite that said anything about Bush “knowing” that Hussein did not have WMDs (which given the above, we know he definitely did) which simply threw out an accusation that Rumsfeld orchestrated evidence with absolutely nothing to substantiate it. Everything else simply backed the idea that French and Germans wanted the inspectors to *continue*. If they thought that Hussein did not have WMDs, they would have *also* felt the inspections were pointless. Let’s not forgot that the French had another motive to continue the weapons inspections as an invasion would (and did) uncover their complicity in the Oil-for-Food scam.
CIA Report 2002
IAEA chief: no evidence so far of revived Iraqi nuclear arms programme
Thomas,
If Depleted Uranium is not considered a weapon of MASS destruction, how do you react to the possibility of greater quantities wind blown DU dust from Middle East entering US via North Africa, then across the Atlantic Ocean. How “MASS” is that? Just hold your breath, particularly if you live in Florida or Texas, where it has already been detected. I understand it is regularly found in monitoring air samples above London, GB.
Check web for pix of horribly distorted babies born to Iraqi mothers and also to US babies fathered by returned servicemen, obviously contaminated by their own DU weapons. Chickens coming home to roost?
It is still up for debate as to whether DU weapons are WMDs. The big difference is that WMDs are *designed* to kill indiscriminately whereas DU weapons are not. That there are side affects from the use of DU weapons has come to light in the past couple of decades and they may eventually end up on the WMD list in which case we’ll stop using them. Regardless, Hussein never had DU weapons so it is irrelevant to the discussion about whether Bush “knew” Hussein possessed actual WMDs.
Thomas …
The debate IS over the truth of Intelligence used to start a long-desired war with Iraq. No WMDs WERE EVER FOUND either before or after that war began. The reason was therefore changed, dramatically, to be Saddam and his treatment of the Kurds, using chemical weapons, (given him by an earlier US administration to fight a proxy war with Iran.) You know that to be so.
Strangely, Israeli intelligence greatly exceeded US intelligence, leading up to 9/11. Refer ‘The 5 dancing Israeli spies, 9/11.’
How do cluster bombs fit in with your measure of what are or not considered WDMs? Do children count in your judgement?
Why was testing of DU weapons, on US soil, ceased some years ago? Was it because they were too heavy? No? Was it because in use they burned and vaporized into extremely fine radio active particles, which DO MAIM AND KILL INDISCRIMINATELY. It took a while, as such things usually do. Regardless, they are still in use today in Iraq and Afghanistan. But of course these people are not considered human, as were not the Vietnamese in an earlier war, also resulting from a pack of lies.
In essence, Saddam killed far fewer human beings, of whatever nationality, than has the current US administration. I’m sure you know that. What should you do?
#132
> No WMDs WERE EVER FOUND
> either before or after
> that war began.
That statement is patently false.
Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered
That we gave Hussein the chemical weapons is completely irrelevant. We have given the British and Israeli’s nuclear weapons and yet they did not use them on their own people.
Whether DU are WMDs is completely irrelevant to the discussion about Hussein’s WMDs. He never had DU weapons. The debate over whether DU weapons qualify as a WMD is still raging (read: undecided). Clearly at the time, the matter had not been decided and given their efficacy, we used them. Move on.
Maiming weapons are core part of any military arsenal. In fact, to the military, it is more effective to maim (but incapacitate) than to kill because of the additional resources required by the enemy to treat the injured. That a weapon maims does not make it a WMD. A land mine for example is not considered a WMD because the damage is confined to a relatively small area. How big that area must be to qualify as a WMD is part of the debate. If cluster bombs, land mines and other types of bombs are considered WMDs in your book, then there is absolutely no question that Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMDs.
Airmen clean up Iraqi weapon stockpile
> In essence, Saddam killed far
> fewer human beings, of whatever
> nationality, than has the
> current US administration.
We could say the same about the British at the time of the Revolution. I’m sure far more British and Americans were killed as a result of the policy of a bunch of radicals than were ever killed under British rule.
#133
Thomas
Your President does not agree with you. He admits that no WMDs were found, this is why he changed the rules, making Saddam the only reason for the invasion. OOPS.
Your Administration is responsible for the huge death roll, of both US servicemen and those murdered in the current wars of Mass Oil Robbery. Interestingly, we are today informed that the major oil companies are queuing up vying for ownership of Iraqi oil. Truth is out at last. It wasn’t the non-existent WMDs, it was the OIL, buddy, the OIL. What now for you? Are you an OIL man?
Are you bipolar? On the one hand you are claiming that bombs and machine guns are WMDs and on the other you are claiming we did not find WMDs. You cannot have it both ways.
> He admits that no WMDs were found,
You have proof of this of course. Given that we *did* find chemical weapons I am suspicious of any such official claim coming from Bush.
By the way, if you are American, it is *also* your President whether you voted for Bush or not.
Thomas …
You clearly know I am talking about Cluster Bombs, you know … the ones designed to continue killing children, long after the initiating bombs have exploded and completed their intended damage to property and life… I stand by my description as WMDs.
What do you know about DU weapons, so heavily used by US for last 19 years of seemingly endless wars in remote, invaded countries? At least 20,000 tons in Iraq alone, all reduced to microscopic radio active dust. The results of this use will be around for the rest of time, wind blown fully world wide. As I say maybe you or your family will breathe in just one micro particle, so producing the effects visited by US on the civilians of these countries. Try to read something of them to understand what I am trying to tell you. These weapons are of course WMDs, considering the world population as a mass of human beings. How MASS can you get? The whole of Earth.
As for Bush, simply Google the obvious search words. You will actually see his lips moving while he is telling you about lack of WMDs in Iraq, if you are clever enough.
#136
As of right now, the international community has not declared DU weapons to be WMDs although it has been brought up on occasion. If they do ban them, the US (and Britain and France…) will adjust its arsenal. Until that time, they are fair game. If you are a general about to send thousands of men and women into harms way, you want them to have the most effective weapons they can. I believe Tungsten weapons have the same effect. The problem is that the majority of the world’s supply of Tungsten is in China.
Far more people have been killed by land mines left on the battlefield than all of the DU deaths combined. No question that DU weapons are messy, but they were not designed to intentionally poison an opponent. They were designed to blow through tank armor like a hot knife through butter and destroy the damn thing along with all of its occupants.
No weapon is “designed to continue killing children.” All weapons are designed to kill or maim human beings.
#136 “You clearly know I am talking about Cluster Bombs, you know … the ones designed to continue killing children, long after the initiating bombs have exploded and completed their intended damage to property and life…”
Umm, wrong. They are designed to detonate immediately. They aren’t land mines. There is no “initiating bomb”. There is a shell that opens thus dropping many smaller bombs onto the target.
Please engage brain before posting.
DV hasnt been around or in wars long enough to Prove its lethality…
or long term effects..
Pat,
I think he is discussin the laying of Clusters of land mines..along borders..
the ones that have been there for 40-50 years..
#139 – “Pat,
I think he is discussin the laying of Clusters of land mines..along borders..
the ones that have been there for 40-50 years..”
You’re kidding? That has nothing to do with cluster bombs. He should really go see the wizard before posting again.