WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines Bush faces impeachable charges

Status
Not open for further replies.
3,559
2
0
#1
The Raw Story said:
THE MEMORANDUM
The memo: Boston constitutional lawyer seeks Resolution of Inquiry on Iraq

RAW STORY

MEMORANDUM
To: Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
From: John C. Bonifaz
Date: May 22, 2005
RE: The President’s Impeachable Offenses


The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

In light of the emergence of the Downing Street Memo, Members of Congress should introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States.

The Downing Street Memo

On May 1, 2005, The Sunday Times of London published the Downing Street Memo. The document, marked “Secret and strictly personal – UK eyes only,” consists of the official minutes of a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then-director of Britain’s CIA equivalent, MI-6, to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials. Dearlove, having just returned from meetings with high U.S. Government officials in Washington, reported to Blair and members of his Cabinet on the Bush administration’s plans to start a preemptive war against Iraq.

The briefing occurred on July 23, 2002, months before President Bush submitted his resolution on Iraq to the United States Congress and months before Bush and Blair asked the United Nations to resume its inspections for alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The document reveals that, by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by launching a war which, Dearlove reports, would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction].” Dearlove continues: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Dearlove also states that “[t]here was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw states that “t seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.” “But,” he continues, “the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, and Iran.”

British officials do not dispute the document’s authenticity, and, on May 6, 2005, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported that “[a] former senior U.S. official called [the document] ‘an absolutely accurate description of what transpired’ during the senior British intelligence officer’s visit to Washington.” “Memo: Bush made intel fit Iraq policy,” The State, Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 6, 2005.

Why a Resolution of Inquiry is Justified

On May 5, 2005, you and 88 other Members of Congress submitted a letter to President Bush, asking the President to answer several questions arising from the Downing Street Memo. On May 17, 2005, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that the White House saw “no need” to respond to the letter. “British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics,” The New York Times, May 20, 2005, A8.

The Framers of the United States Constitution drafted Article II, Section 4 to ensure that the people of the United States, through their representatives in the United States Congress, could hold a President accountable for an abuse of power and an abuse of the public trust. James Madison, speaking at Virginia’s ratification convention stated: “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.” James Iredell, who later became a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, stated at North Carolina’s ratification convention:

The President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them, - in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him.

On July 25, 1974, then-Representative Barbara Jordan spoke to her colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee of the constitutional basis for impeachment. “The powers relating to impeachment,” Jordan said, “are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the Executive.”

Impeachment, she added, is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to ‘bridle’ the Executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. The framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the Executive.

The question must now be asked, with the release of the Downing Street Memo, whether the President has committed impeachable offenses. Is it a High Crime to engage in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for taking the nation into war? Is it a High Crime to manipulate intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States as a means of trying to justify a war against another nation based on “preemptive” purposes? Is it a High Crime to commit a felony via the submission of an official report to the United States Congress falsifying the reasons for launching military action?

In his book Worse Than Watergate (Little, Brown and Company-NY, 2004), John W. Dean writes that “the evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense.” Id. at 155. Dean focuses, in particular, on a formal letter and report which the President submitted to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to “protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq...” Dean states that the report accompanying the letter “is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law.” Worse Than Watergate at 148.

If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo is true, then the President’s submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which makes it a felony “to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose...”; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.

The United States House of Representatives has a constitutional duty to investigate fully and comprehensively the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo and other related evidence and to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States. A Resolution of Inquiry is the appropriate first step in launching this investigation.

The following is suggested language for this resolution:


Directing the Committee on the Judiciary to undertake an inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States.

Whereas considerable evidence has emerged that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people as to the basis for taking the nation into war against Iraq, that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has manipulated intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States by Iraq, and that George W. Bush, President of the United States, has committed a felony by submitting a false report to the United States Congress on the reasons for launching a first-strike invasion of Iraq: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is directed to investigate and report to the House of Representatives whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States. Upon completion of such investigation, that Committee shall report thereto, including, if the Committee so determines, articles of impeachment.

Conclusion

The Iraq war has led to the deaths of more than 1,600 United States soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Thousands more have been permanently and severely injured on both sides. More than two years after the invasion, Iraq remains unstable and its future unclear. The war has already cost the American people tens of billions of taxpayer dollars at the expense of basic human needs here at home. More than 135,000 U.S. soldiers remain in Iraq without any stated exit plan.

If the President has committed High Crimes in connection with this war, he must be held accountable. The United States Constitution demands no less.

###

The writer is an attorney in Boston specializing in constitutional litigation. In February and March 2003, John C. Bonifaz served as lead counsel for a coalition of United States soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers, and Members of Congress (led by Representatives John Conyers, Jr. and Dennis Kucinich) in a federal lawsuit challenging President George W. Bush’s authority to wage war against Iraq absent a congressional declaration of war or equivalent action. Bonifaz is the author of Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush (NationBooks-NY, 2004, foreword by Rep. John Conyers, Jr.), which chronicles that case and its meaning for the United States Constitution.

The full text of the Downing Street Memo can be found at www.downingstreetmemo.com.

J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions on Adoption of the Constitution, As Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787 (Washington: 1836), vol. 3 at 500.
Id., vol. 4 at 127.

The full text of Representative Jordan’s opening statement to the House Judiciary Committee on July 25, 1974, can be found here:

The full text of the President’s March 18, 2003 letter can be found here:
As Dean writes:

With one pathetic (yet false) exception, this report explains that the president made his determination by inexplicably relying on alleged congressional findings of fact, which did not exist. Congress made no such findings, and if it had done so, it surely would not have required the president make his determinations. Bush, like a dog chasing his tail who gets ahold of it, relied on information the White House provided Congress for its draft resolution; then he turned around and claimed that this information (his information) came from Congress. From this bit of sophistry, he next stated that these congressional findings were the basis of his “determination.”
Worse Than Watergate at 148-149.
The Raw Story I would like to see Bush impeached, but it is unlikely that he would be due to his unfortunate popularity. If a neo-con gehts into office he'll be pardoned, just like Nixon was. :thumbsdn: Hopefully that doesn't happen. One may never know how these things will turn out. :happysad:
 
4,149
1
0
#2
About time somebody mentioned impeachment for Bush's lies. Down with Bush!
 

breakology

Kiss my Converse
1,890
4
102
#3
In the end it won't really matter ... in the highly unlikely event that Bush is impeached, he would not suffer any punishment. Whoever takes office or heads the investigation will have money. In this country money always takes care of money, despite what you see on TV.
 

quix0te

Clitpickle
64
0
0
#4
Total bullshit.

So he thought they had WMD's, and was completely wrong. That was a stupid mistake, but lies? Sounds like liberal bullshit to me to up and accuse him of lying.

Plus.. there's no way they're going to be able to impeach him, no less censure him for something as circumstancial as that.


All that really acheives is to give him bad press.
 
2,489
332
327
#5
quix0te said:
Total bullshit.

So he thought they had WMD's, and was completely wrong. That was a stupid mistake, but lies? Sounds like liberal bullshit to me to up and accuse him of lying.

Plus.. there's no way they're going to be able to impeach him, no less censure him for something as circumstancial as that.


All that really acheives is to give him bad press.
Yeah, a mistake that costed many many innocent lives, and the american economy.

I hope he gets exiled to some remote island off the coast of antarctica where it's -60 farenheit year round. :mfinger:

EDIT: Funny i didn't hear about this in a texas news paper... :rolleyes:
 
3,559
2
0
#6
quix0te said:
Total bullshit.

So he thought they had WMD's, and was completely wrong. That was a stupid mistake, but lies? Sounds like liberal bullshit to me to up and accuse him of lying.

Plus.. there's no way they're going to be able to impeach him, no less censure him for something as circumstancial as that.


All that really acheives is to give him bad press.
you used censor completely incorrectly. He said he had proof that Saddam had WMD. Is that not lying? He lied to us. He started a war based on lies. Clearly you are a teenager that blindly listens to his parents's commands without thinking about things. Like the Hitler Youth Program is it not?
 

quix0te

Clitpickle
64
0
0
#7
dull_bullet said:
Yeah, a mistake that costed many many innocent lives, and the american economy.

I hope he gets exiled to some remote island off the coast of antarctica where it's -60 farenheit year round. :mfinger:

EDIT: Funny i didn't hear about this in a texas news paper... :rolleyes:
A mistake that also saved thousands of lives from genocide, so IMHO it balances out somewhat.

And the antartica thing.. probably wishful thinking.



I Hate The FCC said:
you used censor completely incorrectly. He said he had proof that Saddam had WMD. Is that not lying? He lied to us. He started a war based on lies. Clearly you are a teenager that blindly listens to his parents's commands without thinking about things. Like the Hitler Youth Program is it not?
No, it's definitely censure. Also, my parents are split on the issue. I personally am an independant.

He thought he had proof, his subordinates assured him of it. And while it's his fault that he surrounded himself by shitty cabinet members, it doesn't exactly constitute lying.
 
2,489
332
327
#8
I think that more people were killed in bombings and raids by the US than Saddam and his so called "Genocide"
 

quix0te

Clitpickle
64
0
0
#9
so called "Genocide" == gassing entire villiages of Kurds.

But I respect disagreeing that that constitutes waging war, it's a matter of personal opinion. With that said, it also makes sense that you'd dislike Bush and his methods. I don't necessarily think we had the right reasons of going either.

I just think it's a little extreme/stupid to call him an evil liar because of that.
 
3,559
2
0
#10
quix0te said:
so called "Genocide" == gassing entire villiages of Kurds.

But I respect disagreeing that that constitutes waging war, it's a matter of personal opinion. With that said, it also makes sense that you'd dislike Bush and his methods. I don't necessarily think we had the right reasons of going either.

I just think it's a little extreme/stupid to call him an evil liar because of that.
It's bad to call him an evil liar because he caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people because of his lies?
 
4,149
1
0
#11
quix0te said:
Total bullshit.

So he thought they had WMD's, and was completely wrong. That was a stupid mistake, but lies? Sounds like liberal bullshit to me to up and accuse him of lying.

Plus.. there's no way they're going to be able to impeach him, no less censure him for something as circumstancial as that.


All that really acheives is to give him bad press.
He told the American public based on faulty intelligence that HE KNEW was faulty that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were threatening to use it on us. The CIA, or whoever told him this information, told him they were not positive about it and there was a good chance they were wrong. Then when the story of the faulty intelligence hit the American public instead of just apologizing for the mistake and explaining that we would have to stay in Iraq and why HE CHANGED HIS STORY. He gave another reason why we "really" went in. Now, even if the second reason was the real reason, that means that Bush LIED to us about the first reason.
 

quix0te

Clitpickle
64
0
0
#12
I Hate The FCC said:
It's bad to call him an evil liar because he caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people because of his lies?
Keep in mind these are soldiers that knew what they signed up for. They signed up expecting war and they got it. My dad is a Ranger in the army, just as much of a soldier as anyone. Ask him what he thinks of our soldiers going over there. (Don't go and say I'm just listening to my parents, I equally respect my mother who is against this).

It's funny, because I know alot of soldiers, and none of them seem to hold your view.

So yea, I'd say it is.
 

RetArt

A Rampant Vagitarian
1,025
0
0
#13
quix0te said:
so called "Genocide" == gassing entire villiages of Kurds.

But I respect disagreeing that that constitutes waging war, it's a matter of personal opinion. With that said, it also makes sense that you'd dislike Bush and his methods. I don't necessarily think we had the right reasons of going either.

I just think it's a little extreme/stupid to call him an evil liar because of that.
You.. Saddam was an ally of the US when this happened. You gave him the toxics, you gave him the weapons, you teached their armies. CIA to be exact.

He just did it so that he wont be lost in the history. Only presidents that are remembered are the ones that go to war.

I personally would like to see Cheney shoved up Bush´s ass and then fored in to the next galaxy.
wisful
thinkin
 
4,149
1
0
#15
quix0te said:
Keep in mind these are soldiers that knew what they signed up for. They signed up expecting war and they got it. My dad is a Ranger in the army, just as much of a soldier as anyone. Ask him what he thinks of our soldiers going over there. (Don't go and say I'm just listening to my parents, I equally respect my mother who is against this).

It's funny, because I know alot of soldiers, and none of them seem to hold your view.

So yea, I'd say it is.
The soldiers going into war are trained to do as told no questions asked no going against authority. I admire the soldiers and hope as many of them that can come back safely do so. This is not about the soldiers so much as it is about the force that sent them to Iraq.
 

quix0te

Clitpickle
64
0
0
#16
tiger_86 said:
The soldiers going into war are trained to do as told no questions asked no going against authority. I admire the soldiers and hope as many of them that can come back safely do so. This is not about the soldiers so much as it is about the force that sent them to Iraq.
You are right about that, although most of them don't just follow blindly. Soldiers talk politics, too.
 

_Kitana_

Angel of Death
4,674
16
0
#17
RetArt said:
You.. Saddam was an ally of the US when this happened. You gave him the toxics, you gave him the weapons, you teached their armies. CIA to be exact.

He just did it so that he wont be lost in the history. Only presidents that are remembered are the ones that go to war.

I personally would like to see Cheney shoved up Bush´s ass and then fored in to the next galaxy.
wisful
thinkin

Also that was a diffrent presdent.

Russia was an Ally to Nazi Germany at the start of WWII! I mean damn people think outside your little box
 

RetArt

A Rampant Vagitarian
1,025
0
0
#18
_Kitana_ said:
Also that was a diffrent presdent.

Russia was an Ally to Nazi Germany at the start of WWII! I mean damn people think outside your little box
No shit Sherlock. But that wasn´t my point now was it?

It´s just said that even impeachment wouldn´t help.
Your country is twisted.

propaganda (media) is to democracy, what violence is to dictatorship.

republicans control the media, they control you
 
4,149
1
0
#19
RetArt said:
No shit Sherlock. But that wasn´t my point now was it?

It´s just said that even impeachment wouldn´t help.
Your country is twisted.

propaganda (media) is to democracy, what violence is to dictatorship.

republicans control the media, they control you
Propaganda is used in every government, not just democracy.
 

Slacker

Postaholic
3,735
139
127
#20
tiger_86 said:
About time somebody mentioned impeachment for Bush's lies. Down with Bush!
who ever voted for bush again should die for their sins
 
Status
Not open for further replies.