10 Reasons to Impeach Bush
Posted in H.L. News, Main Blog (All Posts), Videos on December 6th, 2006 12:09 pm by HL
Ten Reasons To Impeach The President
Infowars
Excerpt:
“The act of writing up Articles of Impeachment is not difficult. You just write them on a piece of paper,”
-US Rep. McKinney (D-GA)
Remember what Bill Clinton was impeached for when reading the following ten reasons why George W Bush should be impeached:
The Downing Street Memo and other documents prove that Bush knew there were no WMD before the invasion of Iraq. Bush’s WMD statements, in chronological order, were:
“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”
— United Nations Address, September 12, 2002
“Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.”
“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”
— Radio Address, October 5, 2002
December 7th, 2006 at 1:59 am
Good God! Bill or Outlaw, you must suffer from brain tumors or dementia. Every claim you made has been discredited. You still believe those crap stories? I’m sure you believe that “Saddam was found in a spider hole.” Hahahahaha…..to much! Oh yeah, and the earth is flat, isn’t it?
December 7th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Here are eleven reasons why its unlikely impeachment will go down!!
The Pan American Union is not a desireable thing, but it is nothing like the EU. Unpopular though it is, it is not an impeachable offense!
They will not impeach Bush for wiretapping legislation when Kennedy wiretapped WITHOUT legislation! And he was the grandaddy of ALL wiretappers!
Rejoing the (UNESCO) is not an impeachable offense! Where do yall get this crap!!
Bush will not be impeached over the suggestive words of Nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz!
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
How is reforming the mental heath care system an impeachable offense?? huhhhh?????
The new ID card was similar to the motor voter bill under Clinton! Hell, impeach him as well!! Wait a minuet, he already was… ha ha ha ha ha
400 shells, 400 shells, 400 shells?????????
Ever president that ever lived engaged in domestic propaganda!! The reaching continues ha ha ha ha
Natural Disasters and the horrid aftermath are not impeachable issues against presidents! It has never happend and still wont! ha ha ha ha ha
Clinton personally waited for four years while Al Qaida trained to fly planes without landing them on HIS WATCH! I doubt seriously that will give Bush any hell!
And last but not least, It would look as though the dems are trying to divide the country in WAR time. That would be to their own 08 political peril!! Yep!! Buck out
December 7th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
H.L., what needs moderation about that??????
December 8th, 2006 at 5:41 am
Impeach for Peace has created holiday impeachment cards that allow your friends and family to initiate the impeachment process. Deck the halls of congress with colorful impeachment petitions! They created the image, and researched a company that will allow you to send jumbo sized postcards along with a personalized message using your web browser. To learn more about this method of inititiating impeachment, go to: http://ImpeachForPeace.org/HolidayImpeachNow.html
Soon, Santa will be delivering sacks and sacks of mail to Nancy Pelosi initiating impeachment via the House of Representative’s own rules. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635). What better gift to give this holiday season than the restoration of our democracy? Truly the gift that keeps on giving. Over this past year, Bush has become an even greater threat to our Constitution. Lucky for us, the rules of the US House of Representatives allow for individual citizens like you and I to initiate the impeachment process directly! This process was successfully used to impeach in the past.
Be a part of history and have a merry impeachment this season!
December 8th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Miniter: “In fact, the bin Laden threat was recognized at the highest levels of the Clinton administration as early as 1993.”
H.L. What do you think of John Miniter?????
December 9th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Buck, FISA came in after Nixon, so Kennedy couldn’t have violated it.
December 9th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Right on time imz90028 ! it nice 2 meet u . tell me what is going through your DIM-LIB mind right now .
December 9th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Hey IMZ, are you saying what Kennedy did with wire tapping was legal????
December 10th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
CANADA: June 11, 2003
VANCOUVER, British Columbia – General Motors Corp. (GM.N) expects to sign new agreements for testing stationary fuel cells similar to a pact unveiled recently with Dow Chemical Co., a company official said.
The automaker, which is testing the units in its broader effort to build fuel cells for cars, is in talks with other hydrogen producers, said Timothy Vail, a director of market development in GM’s fuel cell development operation.
Vail did not name the potential partners but said he expected an announcement to be made “soon.”
“It difficult for me to say (exactly when). It took a little bit longer than I thought to get the Dow agreement closed,” Vail told reporters in Vancouver where he was speaking at a fuel cell industry conference.
GM and Dow Chemical (DOW.N) announced in May that the automaker would supply and test a fuel cell system to help power a Dow plant in Freeport, Texas. The plant will supply fuel for the cells, which produce electricity via a chemical reaction rather than through combustion.
If the initial testing is successful, the cells could eventually produce up to 35 megawatts of electricity per year for the plant, enough for 25,000 homes.
Testing is expected to begin in the fourth quarter of 2003, and the companies will decide in 2005 whether to extend and expand the agreement.
Vail said GM still views its testing of stationary fuel cells as part of a broader effort to develop cells for cars that will be cost competitive with gasoline-powered engines.
Fuel cells are seen as an environmentally friendly alternative to standard gasoline engines because – depending on the source of the hydrogen – they generate electricity with little or no toxic emissions.
Vail and other speakers warned the conference this week that while fuel cells may be promoted as green power they will not win the hearts of consumers unless they can also be bought and used economically.
“The consumers is not going to take anything less than than they have today,” he said.
Nearly all the major automakers are looking at developing fuel cell-powered vehicles, with GM looking at having them on the road by 2010.
Canadian officials used the conference on Sunday to announce plans for Ford Motor Co. (F.N) to begin testing its fuel cell-powered cars in Vancouver next year. Ford’s cars use cells designed by the city’s Ballard Power Systems (BLD.TO).
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
December 10th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Divide and conquer
Posted on 12/04/2006 at 12:46 PM — By TurnTheEmittersOff
While reading these posts – and others like it on similar pages, this theme comes to mind. I think many of us are spending considerable time and effort arguing with each other, when in fact we are really on the same side of a debate on the future of energy consumption and production. Whether the motivation is limited recoverable resources or climate change – I see value in looking for points on which all/most agree. It seems to me, one BIG point is that within the next few decades; there will be some real problems unless some existing technologies are deployed ASAP. No time for further R&D on solar, etc. We need some serious action now to avoid some significant trouble in the near future.
Many people have recently dismissed nuclear, by aggressively analyzing it in a vacuum. Alone, it can not ‘solve’ either the supply issue or climate change. The required deployment (1000’s of plants) is inconceivable whether speaking of the front end (plant construction, fuel supplies, etc.) or backend (waste disposal) demands and their related issues. However all other solutions on the table fail the same litmus test. It is equally inconceivable that conservation, the relatively minor potential contribution of renewables, etc. could alone address either issue.
Therefore an integrated approach seems the only way to achieve any real solution. It appears that a well thought out blend of different options (mixes will vary for any given country and/or region – many, if not most, including nuclear) is the way to go – and based on what I am seeing, this is precisely what is going on around the world. We don’t seem to have much choice. And time, regardless of your specific concern, is running out.
Last comment: 12/10/2006 at 12:56 AM Respond to this Comment
December 11th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
whats wrong with that comment H.L.???????
December 11th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Key to winning support in the Senate was a provision that gives four Gulf Coast states — Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama — 37.5 percent of the royalties collected from oil and gas production on federal leases off their shores.
Bush got some offshore drilling threw. Thats my man!!
December 11th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Let’s start with an airplane flight.
A flight from Washington DC to L.A. (2700 miles one way, or roundtrip for 5400 miles) in a 737 airplane will burn about 800 gallons of jet fuel per hour. Traveling at an average airspeed of 400 mph, it would take almost 7 hours to fly from D.C. to L.A, California. In 7 hours the plane would have burned about 5600 gallons of jet fuel in a one way trip.
Remember that. Airplane. 5600 gallons used. Flight from D.C. to L.A. One way.
Now, let’s take a look at fuels burned during a single NASCAR racing event.
According to figures obtained in my research on the consumption rate during a single NASCAR racing event, the average consumption of a race car is about 2 miles per gallon in a 250 mile race. 125 gallons of fuel would be required per car in a NASCAR race. Usually there would be up to 40 cars in one race (even though many cars do drop out because of wrecks or auto malfunctions). That would be an equivalent of 5,000 gallons of fuel consumed per race! That’s the nearly the same amount of fuel consumed for a 737 airplane in a one way trip from D.C. to L.A.