Take Action: Censure Bush

Censure Bush
Urge your representatives to censure the President for betraying the nation's trust
As the public increasingly questions the rationales for invading Iraq and the cost of the occupation, the Bush Administration has sought to evade responsibility for the misleading statements that pushed the nation into war. The President has announced plans to form an independent inquiry to look into what went wrong. But rather than get at the heart of the matter: the single minded drive of the President and key advisors to declare war on a country that posed no threat to us, the purpose of the inquiry is to envelop the issue in a fog of uncertainty, deflect blame onto the intelligence services, and delay any political damage until 2005, after the upcoming election.

But the facts need no clarification. Despite repeated warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, President Bush and his administration hyped and distorted the threat that Iraq posed. And now that reality is setting in, the President wants to pin the blame on someone else. We can't let him.

Congress has the power to censure the President--to formally reprimand him for betraying the nation's trust. If ever there was a time for this, it's now. For more info, go to www.moveon.org.

You can urge your Senators and Representatives to cesure the president by visiting www.thenation.com.
Just scroll down about halfway and click "Censure Bush" in the right hand column under "Take Action Now." After more than a year of misleading information and the presidental election right around the corner it's the right time to say something if you've got anything to say.

Have any other disgressions about the current administration concerning foreign and domestic issues?
feel free to blow of some steam here. Thanks. Peace

 

I guess there arent many people that want to censure Bush. bummer

 

America is about freedom of speech, as are these forums.

I find it odd that someone would want to impose a limitation on someone else's right to express him or herself, especially here.

If you find that you disagree with somebody, then perhaps you should encourage them to speak even more. By asking intelligent, fair questions (Not biased trick questions) and receiving answers, you gain more information which allows you to make better decisions. With this extra information, you may find that you are wrong. You may also find concrete evidence (Not speculation) that the other person is wrong.

Of course, ego often gets in the way of that. It's a very sad thing.

Regardless, with an open dialogue and with people talking more instead of less, others will become involved. They will be able to make better decisions and hence will be able to more responsibly participate in a democracy.

More communication is a Good Thing. You can never have enough of it.

Aside from that, I personally would not put much trust into moveon.org; It is an extremely biased organization run by the Democratic party. Like any organization that is dominated by extremists (of ANY political party, mind you), it's difficult if not impossible to get truthful information. If you want to go there and listen to what they have to say, then great! Just don't take the word there as gospel.

As my statistics professor taught me:
In Statistics I, you will learn everything you need to know about Statistics. In Statistics II, you will learn how to lie with it. This is why you cannot rely on one study alone, or, if you must, you need to have as much information about the study as possible.

The same goes for news. Watch CNN; Watch ABC; Watch Fox News; Read the newspaper; Listen to talk radio instead of brain-dead Britney. You cannot rely on one single source or one genre of sources. The more sources you use, the easier it will be to find the truth - or at least have an intelligent discussion about the truth.

 

But the question is- shouldn't the current presidental administration be held responsible for rushing us to war? explain it to me like I'm a four your old please. It's crystal clear. The isnspectors were there. They were inspecting. The Bush team became impatient. The Bush team bombed the hell out of Iraq.

 

I dont care how biased you are. Facts are facts and thats it.

 

The entire Bush administration should be censored come to think about it. They should all be fed "muting" drugs and locked up inside the White House so that they cant cause anymore damage. nyuk nyuk

 

TAKE ACTIONON'T MAKE STUPID POSTS.

And how could i not trust MoveOn as my news source, they are so fair and balanced!

 

hey I was just joking. I know Moveon is way to the left. but the left is good. good. Anyways what about www.thenation.com . It's not that bad is it. They do use solid facts. check it out. You can censure the president there.

 

Left is bad, high taxes are bad, welfare is bad.

 

Democrats raise taxes but also spend more money on finance reform programs. During the Clinton Administration almost everyone in the country was employed and making much more money than they are now. The country was prospering. The current administration did lower taxes but they didnt cut spending. Now we're in the hole again. During the Clinton years we had a pretty good surplus. And welfare bad!?!? wow grievousAngel. you sure are thoughtful. without welfare programs the poverty rate in America would grow. people need a chance to get back on their feet. for some it takes longer.

Back to the main point. Clinton never led any preemtive, premeditated, strikes against any country yet he was impeached.

So should or shouldn't Bush be censured? shouldn't he be impeached?

 

You know, Jezmund, I think we should all be able to agree that all in all, Clinton was a better president than Bush is. I mean, all he did was have sex. Why was that SUCH a big deal? Did he kill thousands of people out of 'false intelligence'? No. Did he go to war for oil? No. Did he look like Bush? No. lol (Anyone reading this, please don't think I am basing my whole opinion on Bush just because he looks a bit funny. lol)

Impeach Bush!

 

you are absolutely right Nathan. I think the right is naive. I can't believe that they cant see how wrong the actions of the Bush administration have been for the last year and a half. Bush isn't a "moral president". The Bush administration has too many hawks and too many corporate ties. Its just full of corruption. Hopefully people realize before it's too late.

I know theyre probably watching me now. ah who cares.

 

It isnt so much naivete as it is woeful repeated right wing polemic and misinformation via the mainstream media joined with utter intellectual dishonesty.

It's clear that if it had been Clinton committing such acts of flagrant duplicity, routinely using executive orders to seal records and prohibiting the testimony of administration and cabinet officials, repeatedly claiming not to have made statements and assertions (subsquently exposed as false) when the original statements or assertions are a matter of easily verifiable record, obstructing the investigation of known corrupt corporate heads (Ken Lay) and even inviting such criminals to help write the national energy policy, etc... He would have been not only impeached but undoubtedly convicted.

And these supposed reinstators of "integrity" are the ones calling all their political opponents "traitors"??? Yes indeed, those that can continue to support such transparent abuse of power certainly see the world with blinders on.

 

Unemployment was about 5% in the clinton years, and it's about the same now. The economy has also grown 4% last year and is projected to do the same this year.

 

The rate of employment was higher when Clinton was in office. And the economy isn't growing as fast as we think it is. The media has just been hyping it up alot in favor of the Bush administration. None the less whats Bush going to do about the HUGE deficit he created. We had a nice surplus before 2000.

I can't believe you are actually supporting Bush. Even people way to the right should realize that he is not only not a good president, but a bad president, and probably the worst ever.

Censure him!

 

I challenege you to support that patently false claim with hard evidence.

Under Clinton unemployment fell to a 30 year low of 4% (well below the levels of the Reagan era (doubly so when rates are adjusted for overall population increases).

I truly suggest you take your ideological blinders off and examine concrete fact.

Clintononmics

 

Well DUH, if unemployment was at a 30 year low then employment is obviously going to be higher, isn't it?

Genius.

 

now I'm confused. So the question is- who was doing a better job with our economy George W. or Slick Willy?

anyways this is really about the deciet that got us into Iraq. Censure Bush!

 

Oh yeah. Vote John Kerry 2004