Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ralph Nader Calls For Bush's Impeachment  
User currently offlineN670UW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1602 posts, RR: 8
Posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1721 times:

From: Yahoo! News
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=2&u=/ap/nader

Nader Calls for Bush to Be Impeached
Wed Apr 7,10:19 AM ET

By MAURA KELLY, Associated Press Writer

CHICAGO - Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader (news - web sites) called Tuesday for President Bush (news - web sites) to be impeached for "deceiving the American people night after night after night" about U.S. involvement in Iraq (news - web sites).

"When you plunge our country into war on a platform of fabrications and deceptions, and you bring back thousands of American soldiers who are sick, injured or dead, and that war is unconstitutionally authorized to begin with, Mr. Bush's behavior qualifies for the high crimes and misdemeanor impeachment clause of the Constitution," the 2000 Green Party presidential nominee said to applause from about 200 students at Columbia College Chicago.


Nader said President Clinton (news - web sites) was impeached for "far less of an offense."


"Lying under oath is not a trivial offense, but it cannot compare with deceiving the American people night after night after night on national television, staging untruths and rejecting the advice of his advisers," he said.


Merrill Smith, a spokeswoman for Bush's re-election campaign, declined to comment.


Nader previously called for Bush's impeachment during an anti-war rally March 20 in the president's hometown of Crawford, Texas, to mark the first anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.


Nader, a longtime consumer advocate, was in Illinois to gather the 25,000 signatures he needs before June 21 to qualify for the state ballot. He failed Monday to qualify for Oregon's ballot, but said he would try again under another option there.


Many Democrats blame Nader for Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites)'s loss to Republican George W. Bush in 2000, and have urged him not to run this time. They cite the vote Nader captured in close contests in New Hampshire and Florida and argue that Gore would have won if either state had gone to the then-vice president.


But Nader says Gore is to blame for his misfortune, and he rejected the idea that he could draw support away from Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.


In Portland, Ore., on Monday, former Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean (news - web sites) warned that "a vote for Ralph Nader is the same as a vote for George Bush."


An audience member in Chicago was booed for suggesting something similar.


Nader responded: "What we have to tell the two parties in unmistakable terms is that this country does not belong to two parties."


50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1710 times:

There's a lot of irony here, I guess the man responsible for Bush's election should have the right to call for his impeachment.

User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

Nader said President Clinton (news - web sites) was impeached for "far less of an offense."


"Lying under oath is not a trivial offense, but it cannot compare with deceiving the American people night after night after night on national television, staging untruths and rejecting the advice of his advisers," he said.



This part hit home for me, it cannot be more true.

[Edited 2004-04-09 16:36:57]


NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1693 times:

"There's a lot of irony here, I guess the man responsible for Bush's election should have the right to call for his impeachment."

Its Ralph's moment in the sun. He can afford to be a self-righteous prick right now.


User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1684 times:

On the technical side, someone has to come up with a high crime or misdemeanor to charge GWB with in order to reach the Constitutional standard of impeachment.

I'm not aware that "lying to the American people" is either. I'm not saying it's right but not everything that's wrong is a crime.


User currently offlineN901frwolf From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1683 times:

-quote-
"Lying under oath is not a trivial offense, but it cannot compare with deceiving the American people night after night after night on national television, staging untruths and rejecting the advice of his advisers," he said.
-quote-

True, and that is why I was for the Clinton impeachment, not because he had sex in the Oval office (big hairy deal), it is the fact he lied under oath about it. That rankled me to no end, because to me it meant that he had no respect or integrity.

Bush's doings? Don't get me started. I voted for the man in 2000, and if we were to go back in time to 2000, knowing what was going to happen, i still would have voted for him, but I sure as heck am not going to vote for him this year. In the battle of the lesser of 2 evils (Kerry vs. Bush) IMHO Kerry is the lesser of 2 evils.

my $.02



Frontier - A Whole Different Animal (Beach ball - check, Suntan lotion - Check, thong - check)
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1677 times:

Listen to the message and ignore the messenger. I'm not a Ralph Nader fan, but he is spot on here in my opinion...

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1613 times:

Just more noise from the man that killed the Corvair.

Has he actually managed to actually make the ballot in any state yet?



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1606 times:

True, and that is why I was for the Clinton impeachment, not because he had sex in the Oval office (big hairy deal),

Boy, could I have fun with that line, and what's in parenthesis.  Big grin But I shall desist.

As for Nadar, he needs to just retire somewhere.


User currently offlineIllini_152 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1596 times:

Can anyone point me to an instance where Bush actually LIED as people keep claiming? It seems to be the case that "if you tell a story enough times, and stick to it long enough, it doesn't matter if it's true or not"

The fact is, there is no evidence that Bush lied to the American people about Iraq. If so, then wouldn't the Democrats on the Senate intelligence and Armed Services committees already be coming forward with this? They recieved the SAME inteligence info as the President, and it all pointed to the same thing.

If Bush knew before hand there weren't any WMD's in Iraq, but pushed as hard as he did before hand to make that case, he'd have to be dumber than a box of rocks, as he'd have to know that when none turned up, it would make things VERY difficult for him in an election year. Politically, invading Iraq was not the wisest thing to do; very big risk, with little reward, except for making America safer in an indirect way. Then why do it? Unless all your intelligence showed that it WAS the right thing to do.

OK- so the intel was wrong, but this orgy of Bush bashing gets old after a while. Criticize the decision to go in all you want. But I would like to hear an intelligent arguement for once other than "he lied" and "for the oil"

Last I checked though, making a mistake is NOT the same as lying. Call him an idiot if you want for believing his intelligence officers. Or for taking a large political risk. But to call him a liar is just uninformed and ignorant.




Happy contrails - I support B747Skipper and Jetguy
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1590 times:

Nader is trying (and loosing, MO) the big-boys game. He won't get his wish if he stays, even those that vote for him have got to know that now is not the time for those folks to vote for what they believe in, if they want Bush out they need to use their head and NOT 4 FOR NADER.

I'm not a Nader-hater, I'd vote other than the standard if there been more chunks on his side, 5% doesn't cut it, unless we're talking about the recent California elections... What was it? A hundred cadidates?  Laugh out loud



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1587 times:

Can anyone point me to an instance where Bush actually LIED as people keep claiming?

It could be something along the lines of GWB telling the ENTIRE NATION that Iraq posesses WMDs and that they are a direct and growing threat to the prosperity of this nation.

The fact is, there is no evidence that Bush lied to the American people about Iraq.

Where are the weapons? Check out the testimony that Clarke and Rice did. Both had BS in it, but the fact that Condi never DIRECTLY answered the question made me even more suspicious. She kept going around it and blaming things on the Clinton Administration (which BTW wasn't perfect either)

How was Iraq a direct threat? If we have WMDs in a lot of countries (North Korea?) why haven't we attacked, eventhough they are the so called *enemy*?

The war may have been justified if they actually took the time to investigate, and not go from British intelligence. Someone said something along the lines of "We don't need British intelligence, we can damn well get our own intelligence".

Sorry, blaming it on other nations or the opposite political spectrum just doesn't cut it in this case.



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1586 times:

Can anyone point me to an instance where Bush actually LIED as people keep claiming?

Exactly.

I have seen quite a bit of evidence that decisions where made on faulty information but outright lies.........that is something different, and I don't think the information and evidence to date supports that claim.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1578 times:

L-188, care to read my post?

Not bashing, just check it out.



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1577 times:

Vafi88, can you provide any proof that those claim wheren't based on the information provided by the intel agenices of various and multiple national intel agencies.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1573 times:

L-188 (don't you just love the stylin' "88" in your sn?)

I'm saying that we shouldn't just jump to conclusions just because some phone company or some phony dude from Britain said it. We should have investigated it from OUR OWN agencies. CIA, NSC, NDD??? What if I said that you were a terrorist? That's a false allegation, and it's JUST AN ALLEGATION - people say sh!t all the time, it's HAVING PROOF what makes it count. Also - Remember innocent until proven guilty?



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineIllini_152 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1573 times:

It could be something along the lines of GWB telling the ENTIRE NATION that Iraq posesses WMDs and that they are a direct and growing threat to the prosperity of this nation.

OK- that would be a mistake. IF we never find any weapons. If, however, you can show me that he KNEW that Iraq didn't have the WMD's and that they'd never pose a threat to this country, THEN that would be a LIE.

The fact is, there is no evidence that Bush lied to the American people about Iraq.

Where are the weapons?


Where is the proof that he KNEW they didn't have them. The fact is almost all the intel we had said that they still did have them. And don't forget- Iraq is a big country, and it's not hard to bury something in the desert; when you're done, it's gone. Unless you know right were it is or are very lucky.

Except, NOBDOY thought that Iraq didn't have the WMDs in the first place. They used them, we knew they had them, and they didn't show what happened to the stockpiles. That right there was material breack of UN resolution 1441.

As to why we don't invade other countries that posses WMDs? Foriegn policy is not a cookie cutter; just because something works in one situation doesn't mean it will work in others. North Korea has nukes, and they have missles that can reach key allies, and some intel says parts of the US. Maybe it would be a good idea to demonstrate our resolve on a softer target first.

Don't forget, Lybia has recently come clean about their weapons programs. Do you thing this was out of the goodness of their heart? Or could it be that Quadaffi saw that the US and her allies mean business.

The Bush Docterine is that when dealing with a terrorist threat, we cannot wait for direct action to be taken against us; the cost is just too much. Premtive action must be taken to ensure our protection. Think big picture. If we can get a stable, democratic Iraq it will be a foothold of democracy in a region where that is unherad of. Democracy is like wildfire; wherever it starts, it tends to spread.

This directly attacks the root cause of terrorism. Why do people hate us so?Could it be, that the rich and powerful few in power use that hatred to distract the masses in their country from overthrowing them, and to attacking something else? "Ignore me while I oppress you- in the name of Allah, attack the great Satan, and you will be rewarded! Now I'll go drive one of my 100 Rolls Royces..."

If we can gain a foothold of democracy in the middle east, an Arab democracy, it will be a great step forward in improving the lives of everyone in the middle east, and maybe THEN the can be brought out of the middle ages, and they won't HAVE a need to hate us.



Happy contrails - I support B747Skipper and Jetguy
User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1569 times:

If we can gain a foothold of democracy in the middle east, an Arab democracy, it will be a great step forward in improving the lives of everyone in the middle east, and maybe THEN the can be brought out of the middle ages, and they won't HAVE a need to hate us.

I completely agree, BUT (I hate the buts) The fact of the matter is, is that these people don't want us there, and they won't be able to hold democracy. As soon as we leave, there will be a revolution and it's going to be another guy named Saddam or Akim. Even IF we try to put some sort of a democracy in place, they will have a hard time, and soon enogh, it will fail. I agree on democracy, but I don't think a SINGLE palestine nation can handle that, they're just way too backward.



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineIllini_152 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1564 times:

I completely agree, BUT (I hate the buts) The fact of the matter is, is that these people don't want us there, and they won't be able to hold democracy. As soon as we leave, there will be a revolution and it's going to be another guy named Saddam or Akim. Even IF we try to put some sort of a democracy in place, they will have a hard time, and soon enogh, it will fail. I agree on democracy, but I don't think a SINGLE palestine nation can handle that, they're just way too backward

Could this be? Some kind of consensus in a non-av threat regarding the middle east?  Smile

I have to ask then, is there a better idea? Listening to reports regarding Iraq, if taken to heart, the recent uprising could very well be a small minority of the country, mixed in with foriegn fighters. This was predicted- remember the memo we captured a few weeks ago from the Al-Quida operative, urging an uprising and civil war in Iraq before the handover? Henry Kissinger made a very good poing last night in an interview, comparing this to the Tet offensive; while in the short term they may win a PR victory what these rebels are now doing, is abandoning their subvursive, guerilla tactics for open warfare. This can be seen as a last-ditch effort to forstall a handover.

We'll see how this experement with Iraqi democracy works after the handover of power.

Though, I must take exception to your last sentence. Looking back a history, the Middle East is very similar to Europe 600 years ago. A feudal system, where the vast majority live in abject poverty, while the privilaged few rule over them with absolute authority, using religion to keep the masses submissive.

All it takes is time; Iraq before Saddam, and even during his reign was a very secular society. This makes it a good canidate to see if a democracy CAN flourish and get a foothold in the middle east.



Happy contrails - I support B747Skipper and Jetguy
User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1556 times:

152 - I mean, How could a civilization that's 100 years behind not only America, but countries on a lower scale, maybe parts of Eastren Europe, catch on with something that has just been introduced and hasn't been profected yet.

It'd almost like building an A380 and just making it enter service AND THEN do the tests and such.



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineL.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1536 times:

Wow. We have finally found something Americans can unite on. Republicans, Democrats, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Christians, Jews, Muslims,

OUR HATRED OF RALPH NADER! The guy is an idiot but I hope he takes votes from Kerry.


User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1526 times:

L1011 - At least Nader knows that America is more than just the house of reps, and congress. Bush seems to be focused on politics right now, and NOT the actualy PEOPLE of the United states.

I dislike both.



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineIllini_152 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1526 times:

I mean, How could a civilization that's 100 years behind not only America, but countries on a lower scale, maybe parts of Eastren Europe, catch on with something that has just been introduced and hasn't been profected yet

Sorry, had to go to bed sometime...

Well, I would say they're closer to 400 years behind, but don't forget-

It took us close to a dozen years to get a stable government here. The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. Our Constitution wasn't ratified until 1787. Inbetween we still had to finish kicking the English out (no hard feelings) and then went through the Articles of the Confederation and years of endless debate.

So when people complained that it's taking TOO long for us to handover power in Iraq, I wish they'd just sit back and realize that these things take time. And, if you remember, these same arguments were raised right after the Berlin Wall fell; "how will these Eastern European countries deal with Democracy when all they've known is tyranny?" Looking back at history, I'd say they've faired quite well.

Only history will prove out how the Bush Docterine works in the Middle East and against the War on Terror. It is worth noting though, that at least it seems that these terror groups have concentrated on Iraq themselves; there hasn't been a major terrorist attack here in the states since 9/11 (knocks on wood). The key was to bring the fight to them. They know that if we succeed in bringing democracy to Iraq, there will be a foothold in the middle east, and their influence will begin to diminish.

Just a thought,
Mike



Happy contrails - I support B747Skipper and Jetguy
User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1522 times:

Vaf, it took 12 years to attack iraq so i guess it will take that long before we wake up and realise north korea is developing nuclear weapons and musted be stopped. problem is though north korea is a bigger enemy with a bigger army and can invade south korea or hit japan, seems like saddam couldnt hit a barn door with a football let alone another state.


It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1514 times:

I love Ralph. Every vote for Ralph is one step closer for Bush's re-election.

Run Ralph Run!!!!


25 Post contains images LH423 : Illini_152: Bush has a 'doctrine'? Who knew?! LH423
26 Aloha717200 : I'll lay odds that Nader will endorse Kerry in the summer and ask his supporters to vote for Kerry, though he won't drop out entirely. Nader thinks he
27 BN747 : Aloha , the running thread among the hardcore Bush supporters seems to be they are afraid of something. I'm not sure of what exactly..but something ha
28 Tbar220 : When you try and make a logical argument, you need to simply look at the argument and make your points based on that. The fact that Ralph Nader makes
29 L-188 : Tbar220, call me cold hearted but I really don't give a rats ass how many Iraqi's have died. Clinton clearly broke the law in office and committed a f
30 Zak : "Again I have to repeat again, there is no information that GW did the same." i honestly can not understand how someone can not understand that EVERYT
31 L-188 : EVERYTHING the bush administration does is a felony I am forced to just shake my head.
32 B747forlife : "i honestly can not understand how someone can not understand that EVERYTHING the bush administration does is a felony. they ignore the bill of rights
33 Airplay : If the information was bad, Bush is not at fault. If he made a mistake, he should appologize, but if all the information given to him and his advisors
34 BR715-A1-30 : I agree 100%, George W. Bush should be impeached from office. Dick Cheney is no better though. Mr. Heart Attack Jones needs to go with him and we need
35 Tbar220 : If the information was bad, Bush is not at fault. If he made a mistake, he should appologize, but if all the information given to him and his advisors
36 Ushermittwoch : I was wondering if it is a worthy ground to impeach a President for violating human rights and breaking the Geneva Conventions. Probalby not, since ly
37 Galaxy5 : Yeah lets release those terroists to do their bidding like they do in Germany, right.
38 Ushermittwoch : Right Galaxy, they were all caught red handed with box cutters in their shoes...not. But I guess human rights only apply to US citizens, right?
39 MD11Engineer : Had the US government permitted the German court to interrogated Binshallib, the supect would probably be behind bars, but without EVIDENCE no guilt.
40 Galaxy5 : And everyone in gitmo is an innocent victim deprived of their human rights by the Evil empire of America. Right?
41 MD11Engineer : Well, in modern, normal, free democratic countries there is the principle of innocent until proven guilty by a court of justice. Your government just
42 Galaxy5 : Sorry that only holds true for American citizens, not terrorists of foreign nations taken into custody during combat, dont confuse our constitution an
43 B747forlife : I believe an appology is necessary. However, I really cannot see how Bush can ultimately be to blame for bad intelligence. I don't agree that an intel
44 Ushermittwoch : Galaxy5 is the prototype of the "good" American citizen. can see no wrong doing of HIS government, everybody else wants to harm the US and rules only
45 B747forlife : Actually, Ushermittwoch, the US Constitution applies to US citizens, and those detained from US soil. As I said before, "enemy combatants" (aka, those
46 Airplay : "enemy combatants" (aka, those being held at Gitmo) do not qualify as either. Of course not. That's why they are being held there. GWB can treat them
47 JAL777 : not be accountable... accountable to whom?
48 BN747 : Galaxy5 is the prototype of the "good" American citizen. can see no wrong doing of HIS government, everybody else wants to harm the US and rules only
49 Airplay : accountable to whom? To the people who placed him in power. Don't you expect that from your president?
50 Ushermittwoch : Applicable to world wide standards that the US agreed to obey. But I guess it's the American way. Do whatever you want, since the US is the law. Anywa
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Kerry To Push For Bush Impeachment? posted Mon Jun 6 2005 20:36:22 by TedTAce
Guardian Calls For Bush Assasination... posted Sun Oct 24 2004 02:04:15 by N771AN
Ralph Nader, The Man For The Job posted Thu Nov 2 2000 03:05:20 by Co LITE
Where Are The Calls For Recounts? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 22:06:56 by RJdxer
Military Times Calls For Rumsfeld's Resignation posted Sat Nov 4 2006 02:21:01 by Rsmith6621a
Major Nagin Calls For National Guard posted Tue Jun 20 2006 16:01:27 by Cptkrell
Hugo Chavez Calls For Independence Of Puerto Rico posted Tue Jan 31 2006 00:22:55 by Luisde8cd
Stakes On Alito Raised:Kerry Calls For Fillabuster posted Thu Jan 26 2006 22:07:05 by Falcon84
"Curveball": More Damning News For Bush/CIA posted Sun Nov 20 2005 17:07:49 by Falcon84
Pat Robertson Calls For Chavez Assassination posted Tue Aug 23 2005 06:12:02 by OPNLguy