Why hasn’t there been any talk about impeachment of George W Bush and Dick Cheney for war crimes yet?

People are to lazy and congess members are too scared for their own reputation to do anything.

This entry was posted on Friday, September 18th, 2009 at 12:36 pm and is filed under Dick Cheney. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

19 comments so far

rainbowmatrixs
 1 

There has check out youtube.
References :

September 18th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
bikerchick1578
 2 

i’d like to know that myself…
References :

September 18th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
charlie in mex
 3 

Because the winners of the war are never tried for warcrimes. that and it would be next to impossible to prove that he willingly lied tothe public. For every paper that says there are no wmd in iraq you could find 10 that say there are.
References :

September 18th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Mr. E
 4 

"Impeachment is off the table."
References :
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJYbgouqlMw

September 18th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
jiraniha
 5 

People are to lazy and congess members are too scared for their own reputation to do anything.
References :

September 18th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
LokoLobo
 6 

What war crimes? Do you even know what your talking about? Maybe you should open up a history book and look up what a real war crime is.. Go back to school dude…
References :

September 18th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
kttphoenix
 7 

Because our duly elected representatives in the House and Senate have neither voted on or brought up impeachment charges. Only a few fringe elements have even mentioned this. The thing about that is if your going to hit the Bush administration for Iraq, you have to retoractively hit the Clinton administration for Bosnia. Choose your battles.
References :

September 18th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
RICK J
 8 

Because, technically , they haven’t got any evidence that they’ve done something wrong! Immoral for sure, but illegal? You can’t hammer bush without having a REAL GOOD CASE! And unfortunately, stupidity isn’t an impeachable!!!! Sorry! Maybe Dick can take W bird hunting?
References :

September 18th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
rhio9
 9 

Kucinich Writes to Conyers
Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2007-11-10 00:53. Congress | Impeachment
November 9, 2007
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Conyers

I am writing in support of H. Res. 799, the Articles of Impeachment which were referred to the committee relative to the Impeachment of the Vice President of the United States of America.

Recent reports indicate that the Vice President is attempting to shape the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran to conform to his misperceptions about the threat Iran actually poses. Much like his deceptive efforts in the lead up to the Iraq war, the Vice President appears to be manipulating intelligence to conform to his beliefs.

If the reports are true, they add additional weight to the case for impeachment. I believe impeachment remains the only tool Congress has to prevent a war in Iran. This information relates directly to the Article III charges in the resolution. I urge your timely consideration.

From the earliest days, as documented below and in subsequent posts, the largest media outlets were almost universally acquiescent in, or oblivious to, administration policy. Dec 21, 2000 through Dec 31, 2000:

Dec. 21, 2000 – A report appears that Adel Jubeir, longtime first secretary at the Saudi Embassy to Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan in Washington, D.C., will return to Saudi Arabia after many years in Washington, to take a senior position in the court advising Crown Prince Abdullah ibn Abdulaziz. The move reflects accurately that Jubeir’s lengthy service on behalf of the Saudi ruling family in the U.S. capital is now superfluous.

Dec. 28, 2000 — Bush nominates Donald H. Rumsfeld to be Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld had been Secretary of Defense under President Ford, with Cheney as White House Chief of Staff (1975-77); Cheney had been Secretary of Defense under President George H. W. Bush (1989-93). Rumsfeld, a co-founder of PNAC with Cheney, is another signer of the 1998 PNAC letter to Clinton demanding regime change in Iraq. Reportedly a top priority for Bush and Rumsfeld at the outset of the administration is “restructuring the Pentagon,” which in practice entails keeping the U.S. Army off balance.

Dec. 28, 2000 – ExxonMobile agrees to buy a cargo of Iraqi oil through secondary lifters, a move soon followed by all other major oil companies. This little-reported move signals that the market for Iraqi oil is wide open again; Iraqi oil exports, which were down in Dec. 2000, will rebound by spring. The Bush administration does nothing to discourage buying from Iraq: the main market for Iraqi crude oil is the U.S., which buys over 90% of exports between Dec. 2000 and Feb. 2001. (Middle East Economic Survey, Apr. 9, 2001)

Dec. 29, 2000 – The Washington Post runs an editorial, “A Second Tour,” setting the tone for the lenient scrutiny the administration will receive from the Post:

“In the Gerald Ford administration a quarter-century ago, a young former congressman named Donald Rumsfeld was chief of staff, then secretary of defense. His deputy and successor as chief of staff was also a former congressman, Dick Cheney. The deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget was a young budget analyst who had distinguished himself, Paul O’Neill.

With yesterday’s announcement by President-elect George W. Bush that Mr. Rumsfeld will return to the Pentagon job, the three men whose careers have so strikingly paralleled one another’s–each has since been the CEO of a major private corporation–will again be in tandem in government. It is an uncanny reversion to an earlier era. Mr. Cheney, who himself was secretary of defense in the previous Bush administration, was the first to be chosen. Having been entrusted with the process of helping George W. Bush choose a vice president, he became the choice himself. As vice president-elect, he was then instrumental in the naming of Mr. O’Neill to be Treasury secretary, and now Mr. Rumsfeld to serve once again at defense. It is hard to remember a vice president-elect who has been similarly influential.

All three of these men are in many ways comforting choices. They come from the pragmatic rather than ideological wing of their party, are plainly capable and have among them extensive experience both within government and without. They well know the past. The question may be how keen an eye they have for the future. In defense particularly, that is the overarching, daunting issue.”

This generic line that Cheney and Rumsfeld belong to the ‘pragmatic’ rather than to the ‘ideological’ wing of the GOP provides successful cover for administration designs on Iraq. No major media outlets delve thoroughly into Cheney’s background in the petroleum industry, including Cheney’s ‘Borat’ connection, that Cheney served on the Oil Advisory Board for Kazakhstan after being U.S. Secretary of Defense for the Gulf War. Distributing Middle East oil via the Caspian region was a longtime aim of American companies including those with links to the administration.

Dec. 31, 2000 – Another typical benefit of the doubt extended by the Washington Post toward appointees from the Reagan and previous Bush administrations:

“Despite Democratic complaints about Ashcroft and Norton, some critics have been mollified by his Cabinet’s gravitas. Many of Bush’s other nominees, including Donald H. Rumsfeld for secretary of defense, held lofty positions in earlier Republican administrations and seem certain to be treated with deference because of their stature and their deep personal relationships on Capitol Hill.”

(“Bush’s Choices Defy Talk of Conciliation; Cabinet Is Diverse but Not Politically,” front page)
References :
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28592

http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2007/11/12/3348599.html

September 18th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Chrishawn T
 10 

Because rich assholes that run this country, are getting even richer, by taking, and killing for what does not belong to them. It’s no sweat off of thier backs, bacause we as American are paying for the damages, and repairs.
References :
Common Sense.

September 18th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
hellsbells
 11 

THAT’S THE BEST EVER QUESTION put on Y/A!!!!!!!
References :

September 18th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
OstTimber
 12 

Current administrations had always tried to cover all of their war crimes. Look at Vietnam war, only 15 years after it was over. It was relieved to a public as a false war, and only 15 years later the official death toll was released. So I figured 4000 American deaths is not really a case, it is probably at least twice as much
References :

September 18th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Mariner
 13 

It won’t happen because George Bush and Dick Cheney are protecting our country from the terrorists who want to kill you.
References :

September 18th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
eelfins
 14 

If you’re serious about that, then you need to come up with some evidence that some law has been broken. So far everyone screaming for impeachment think they can impeach a president just because they don’t like him. That is what voting is for, not impeachment. Come up with a law that has been broken and some evidence or you’re just blowing smoke.
References :

September 19th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Maxx P
 15 

Even Nancy Pelosi has a disdain for political suicide.

Why don’t you sit back and wait on the election and try to win that instead of trying to manufacture another pseudo scandal
References :

September 19th, 2009 at 12:48 am
trenchcoat_mafia2005
 16 

Because there are alot of ignorant people who believe anything the government says. Soon people will turn in their mothers and dad for being terrorists! America is in a terminal crisis!
References :

September 19th, 2009 at 1:20 am
kill_yr_television
 17 

The initiative to do so (presuming that there is a good case to be made) must come from the Democratic members of Congress. The media circuses of Watergate and OMG the Pres got a BJ did little good (and perhaps even bad) for the party who initiated procedure. Perhaps the Democratic Party is more concerned about the 2008 election and doesn’t want to open themselves to the GOP snarking that would be inevitable in any election year impeachment process.
References :

September 19th, 2009 at 1:40 am
blaxland_john
 18 

It should happen. America treats a country like and investment. Look at Pol Pot , America never got involved.
Bush and Cheyney will be judged if not in court but by history. I would not like to be a decendant with their name.
The old story of History as taught in school was Gold ( Black gold oil ) gospel so called Bush Christianity and lastly Glory ( I did it dad - for bush senior )

John

John
References :

September 19th, 2009 at 2:07 am
koalatcomics
 19 

you must not read any of the postings her. theres been plenty of pap and spam from the pelosi/reid regime supporters.

the catch is
NO IMPEACHABLE BEHAVIORS EXIST
grow up
get a life
get over it
References :

September 19th, 2009 at 2:55 am

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment