English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Dont say WMD's because its documented fact that Hussein had them moved into Syria after the U.N. found out about them, and before The U.S. investigated.

"They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special forces) units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence,"

2007-03-06 07:09:17 · 16 answers · asked by panthrchic 4 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

Transported to another country
Former senior Iraqi general, Georges Sada, has said that in late 2002, Saddam ordered that all the stockpiles of WMD were to be moved to Syria. On January 25, 2006 on Hannity & Colmes on Fox News, the former number 2 officer in the Iraqi Air Force made clear that he had used them against Kurds and Marsh Arabs. He also stated that up till the summer of 2002 they were in Iraq, and when Saddam realized the Americans were coming and the inspectors would arrive on November 1st, he took the occasion of Syria's broken dam and announced he would make an "air bridge".

They were moved by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft, they were moved to Syria.[4][5]-Wikipedia

2007-03-06 07:23:07 · update #1

16 answers

Actually I think people should remember this "Impeach Bush" movement started the day he was elected. They didn't care what he did, these people wanted him out of office right out of the gate.

Besides these people are too ignorant to figure out Impeachment is not removal from office, it is censure. So even if he was impeached he could still remain in office.

Don't you love seeing these people go in to a frothing frenzy of moral outrage that Bush has not done anything impeachable?

Could you provide a source for that info however. I never heard that and would appreciate more info if it is true.

2007-03-06 07:23:30 · answer #1 · answered by Stone K 6 · 3 2

First of all, any scholar knows that you cannot use Wikipedia as a reliable source. To prove this to our students, one of my colleagues at the University of London posted something about Churchill having experimented with homosexuality during his time in government (as far as we know, he didn't!). It was permitted to stay posted for over two weeks before anyone noticed. If there were any WMD, believe me, Tony Blair would love to know--he has to step down in May as he has become so unpopular in the UK that the public no longer trusts him to finish his term. Bush should indeed be impeached, and I suggest you look for more reliable evidence than Wikipedia! Going directly to the UN's website is a good start, but some easier ones are given below. Good luck!

2007-03-06 08:19:43 · answer #2 · answered by cheryl m 3 · 0 1

IF President Bush was accused, tried, and convicted of an
impeachable offense (he would of course, be sentenced to
impeachment by congress), then I would not argue with the
conviction. But by same due respects, question why after the impeachment conviction was levied on Clinton, nothing further occured in what should have been a sentencing phase.

2007-03-06 07:38:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

lying to start a war
invading a sovereign nation
kicking out weapons inspectors because they found no weapons
torturing innocent people to death
torturing people
eliminating habeus corpus
disappearing people off the streets of europe and sending them to syria to be tortured
stealing billions and billions from our treasury
giving halliburton no-bid contracts for inferior war equipment
ignoring global warming
ignoring new orleans
illegal wiretapping
illegal email surveillence
free speech zones
tampering with federal prosecutors
lying to the american people that anyone involved in outing Plame would be fired

2007-03-07 02:23:53 · answer #4 · answered by cassandra 6 · 0 1

If I remember correctly, Clinton's impeachment required no protest. So, by protesting, these people are actually saying they don't think the congress they elected is capable of doing its job.

2007-03-06 07:17:17 · answer #5 · answered by DOOM 7 · 1 1

For starters, invading another country on false pretenses is grounds for impeachment.

Also, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution essentially says that the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable government searches and seizures and that no search warrants shall be issued without probable cause that a crime has been committed.

And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that warrants for national security wiretaps be authorized by the secret FISA court. The law says that it is a crime for government officials to conduct electronic surveillance outside the exclusive purviews of that law or the criminal wiretap statute.

President Bush’s authorization of the monitoring of Americans’ e-mails and phone calls by the National Security Agency (NSA) without even the minimal protection of FISA court warrants is clearly unconstitutional and illegal.

The president’s policies on detainees in the “war on terror” probably qualify as impeachable offenses. The Bush administration decided that the “war on terror” exempted it from an unambiguous criminal law and international conventions (which are also the law of the land) preventing torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners.

2007-03-06 07:19:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 6

Um... You ever hear the parable about the horse that dies of starvation because he's equidistant between two bales of hay and can't decide which one to eat? That's where we are in regard to grounds for Bush's impeachment, except to make the parable fit exactly, it would have to be about six bales of hay.

As for the WMDs: they discovered superannuated caches of sarin gas and mustard gas that the Iraqis themselves had lost track of, dating back to the days when the Reagan admin. tacitly accepted Iraqi gas attacks on the Kurds because Saddam was with us against Iran. I don't think most Americans would have regarded that as a causus belli if they had been told...

2007-03-06 07:17:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4 5

You must be a washington insider, it's a good thing you didn't offer that up to Dick Cheney. I doubt your in the CIA so he would have probably just bombed your trailor park.
This president will go down as one of the worst in history and no impeachment is really necessary to make me happy. In 7 yrs. he has gotten himself involved in a CIA leak mess, gotten the military stuck as a 3rd party in a civil war, polarized right against left, and made most people outside of our country hate our country. It's a good thing there are term limits, thank you George Washington!

2007-03-06 07:18:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 5

Illegal torture.

Illegal wiretaps

He will not be impeached however, because the U.S. is tired of impeachment after the Clinton fiasco.

Just a start. By the way, Where did you get the info on the Spetsnaz. Can you cite a source?

2007-03-06 07:18:45 · answer #9 · answered by jcboyle 5 · 6 5

For the premeditated murder of over 3,000 people on 9-11-01.

2007-03-06 07:54:27 · answer #10 · answered by TexasRose 6 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers