Let’s Impeach Bush—Liberal Anti-American Election Strategy
Daniel Downs
August 17, 2007
Will a liberal dominated Congress cave in to public pressure also led by liberal democrats to impeachment of President Bush and his administration? Democrats have already proposed two bills of impeachment. They want the heads on both Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Vice President Dick Cheney on the golden party plate. Washington State Democrat Jay Inslee
leads the effort to impeach Gonzales while Ohio Representative Dennis Kunich leads the charge to impeach Cheney. Democrats and other liberal haters of President Bush are dedicated to winning their war against the Whitehouse. By trumping up charges against Gonzales, they may be able to eliminate one particularly disliked conservative from sitting on the Supreme Court. By removing Cheney from office, power-mongering Pelosi would move into Cheney’s spot. Democrats would then be in a position to impeach Bush and replace him with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
That has to be a better strategy than the failed attempt of liberal-led rigging of the 2000 chadadelic elections. If power-drugged Democrats succeed, the 2008 presidential election might include a reelection campaign of President Pelosi. After all, Americans do tend to vote for an incumbent. By employing such a strategy, Democrats just might win the 2008 Presidential election.
Democrats have reason to doubt certain victory. Their front-runner is a die-hard liberal parading as a conservative with an illegal campaign fund raising lawsuit hanging over her head. She is married to a debarred lawyer, which retribution came after a conservative House attempted to impeach him. They tried to impeach Clinton because he lied under oath. Their failure to try him for usurping Congressional powers through executive order and for attempting to place America under the UN Criminal Court without Congressional approval is still unconscionable. Hopefully, President Bush has terminated Clinton’s past acts of lawmaking by fiat. Besides her political baggage, using the same strategy as her husband and making impeachable centrist speeches does not mean Hillary is actually anything other than an unscrupulous liberal democrat. That leaves voters with the contender Senator Barak Obama, who is still seen by some as an inexperienced freshman.
By trumping up dubious charges against Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales, a desperate bunch of liberal Democrats may intend a coup d'état of the Whitehouse, which just might give them considerable advantage in the 2008 elections.
If the above seems like conspiracy paranoia, then consider the rancorous impeachment movement. One of the leading activists of Impeach Bush campaign is Impeach Bush campaign is Ramsey Clark. During the presidency of John F. Kennedy, Clark was employed as Deputy Attorney General, and he was later appointed Attorney General by Lyndon Johnson. Clark is a member of the global elite with membership in the socialist organization Workers’ World Party. In 1992, he brought charges against George H.W. Bush for alleged war crimes against Iraq. He defended Saddam Hussein before the World Tribunal against charges of crimes against the Iraqi people as well as support of terrorism against the US, Israel, and other nations. He brought charges against Israeli officials alleging they perpetrated various crimes against the Palestinians. He even defended Nazi war criminals. His latest prosecutorial activism is the pursuit of war crime charges against our current president. It appears that Clark aspires to the position of global attorney general by self-appointment.
Then there is the Impeach Bush Pac. This Pac is composed of Democrat members of Congress seeking to raise money to inspire candidates to follow Ramsey’s lead. Like Ramsey’s movement, they claim to represent the sentiments of the American people. Along with Ramsey’s Impeach Bush campaign, they are primary sources of information about Bush’s alleged lies. However, they do not represent the people; the people who support their campaign actually represent their views and propaganda.
What then is President Bush’s impeachable crime? According to the impeachment-crazed bunch, Bush lied to the American people about Iraq’s threat to America and the world. They allege Bush’s illegal war makes him culpable for crimes of aggression and other war crimes against the Iraqi people. Bill Moyer’s documentary “Buying the War” attempts to offer support for those accusations, which he has been trying to sell again on PBS.
One of the problems with Bush’s accusers is their selective use of the facts. For example, they ignore the fact that Hussein perpetually lied about his weapons program. According to a report by Ibrahim al-Marashi, Saddam Hussein invested much time and resources to lie about and conceal the most important components of his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program. Because of that fact, Bush had no reason to believe Hussein did not have weapons hidden somewhere. Before the commencement of the Gulf War in 1991, Yossef Bodansky reported to Congress that Hussein shipped out weapons and equipment to Libya and Sudan. After Hussein was captured, Qadhafi turned over his WMD program. Why didn’t other terrorist states turn theirs over as well? Could it be because Qadhafi possessed part of Hussein’s WMD—the evidence? Another transfer of Iraq’s weapons materials occurred shortly before the war began in 2003. Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay acknowledged intelligence of military convoys transporting barrels and equipment out of Iraq and into Syria. Later some or all of the suspected weapons material was sent to Lebanon and possibly to Sudan. The Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD by Charles Duelfer proved that Hussein continued plans to rebuild his WMD program. These are only a few of the facts ignored by Bush’s accusers. (See my previous article on Bush’s War.)
It is true no stockpiles of WMD were found in Iraq by weapons inspectors. That is prior to 2005. During that year, coalition forces discovered 500 bombs filled with chemical agents. In
leads the effort to impeach Gonzales while Ohio Representative Dennis Kunich leads the charge to impeach Cheney. Democrats and other liberal haters of President Bush are dedicated to winning their war against the Whitehouse. By trumping up charges against Gonzales, they may be able to eliminate one particularly disliked conservative from sitting on the Supreme Court. By removing Cheney from office, power-mongering Pelosi would move into Cheney’s spot. Democrats would then be in a position to impeach Bush and replace him with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
That has to be a better strategy than the failed attempt of liberal-led rigging of the 2000 chadadelic elections. If power-drugged Democrats succeed, the 2008 presidential election might include a reelection campaign of President Pelosi. After all, Americans do tend to vote for an incumbent. By employing such a strategy, Democrats just might win the 2008 Presidential election.
Democrats have reason to doubt certain victory. Their front-runner is a die-hard liberal parading as a conservative with an illegal campaign fund raising lawsuit hanging over her head. She is married to a debarred lawyer, which retribution came after a conservative House attempted to impeach him. They tried to impeach Clinton because he lied under oath. Their failure to try him for usurping Congressional powers through executive order and for attempting to place America under the UN Criminal Court without Congressional approval is still unconscionable. Hopefully, President Bush has terminated Clinton’s past acts of lawmaking by fiat. Besides her political baggage, using the same strategy as her husband and making impeachable centrist speeches does not mean Hillary is actually anything other than an unscrupulous liberal democrat. That leaves voters with the contender Senator Barak Obama, who is still seen by some as an inexperienced freshman.
By trumping up dubious charges against Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales, a desperate bunch of liberal Democrats may intend a coup d'état of the Whitehouse, which just might give them considerable advantage in the 2008 elections.
If the above seems like conspiracy paranoia, then consider the rancorous impeachment movement. One of the leading activists of Impeach Bush campaign is Impeach Bush campaign is Ramsey Clark. During the presidency of John F. Kennedy, Clark was employed as Deputy Attorney General, and he was later appointed Attorney General by Lyndon Johnson. Clark is a member of the global elite with membership in the socialist organization Workers’ World Party. In 1992, he brought charges against George H.W. Bush for alleged war crimes against Iraq. He defended Saddam Hussein before the World Tribunal against charges of crimes against the Iraqi people as well as support of terrorism against the US, Israel, and other nations. He brought charges against Israeli officials alleging they perpetrated various crimes against the Palestinians. He even defended Nazi war criminals. His latest prosecutorial activism is the pursuit of war crime charges against our current president. It appears that Clark aspires to the position of global attorney general by self-appointment.
Then there is the Impeach Bush Pac. This Pac is composed of Democrat members of Congress seeking to raise money to inspire candidates to follow Ramsey’s lead. Like Ramsey’s movement, they claim to represent the sentiments of the American people. Along with Ramsey’s Impeach Bush campaign, they are primary sources of information about Bush’s alleged lies. However, they do not represent the people; the people who support their campaign actually represent their views and propaganda.
What then is President Bush’s impeachable crime? According to the impeachment-crazed bunch, Bush lied to the American people about Iraq’s threat to America and the world. They allege Bush’s illegal war makes him culpable for crimes of aggression and other war crimes against the Iraqi people. Bill Moyer’s documentary “Buying the War” attempts to offer support for those accusations, which he has been trying to sell again on PBS.
One of the problems with Bush’s accusers is their selective use of the facts. For example, they ignore the fact that Hussein perpetually lied about his weapons program. According to a report by Ibrahim al-Marashi, Saddam Hussein invested much time and resources to lie about and conceal the most important components of his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program. Because of that fact, Bush had no reason to believe Hussein did not have weapons hidden somewhere. Before the commencement of the Gulf War in 1991, Yossef Bodansky reported to Congress that Hussein shipped out weapons and equipment to Libya and Sudan. After Hussein was captured, Qadhafi turned over his WMD program. Why didn’t other terrorist states turn theirs over as well? Could it be because Qadhafi possessed part of Hussein’s WMD—the evidence? Another transfer of Iraq’s weapons materials occurred shortly before the war began in 2003. Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay acknowledged intelligence of military convoys transporting barrels and equipment out of Iraq and into Syria. Later some or all of the suspected weapons material was sent to Lebanon and possibly to Sudan. The Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD by Charles Duelfer proved that Hussein continued plans to rebuild his WMD program. These are only a few of the facts ignored by Bush’s accusers. (See my previous article on Bush’s War.)
It is true no stockpiles of WMD were found in Iraq by weapons inspectors. That is prior to 2005. During that year, coalition forces discovered 500 bombs filled with chemical agents. In
Print
Email
