DID GEORGE W. BUSH COMMIT IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES?

[Jcrowley]

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." 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."

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.

http://www.witnessforpeace.org/midatlantic/Articles/Impeachment.html

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. If B.C. did then this baboon has comitted the same only

100x over.

[originalpckelly]

32. You and I both know Bill Clinton shouldn't have been impeached.

We must learn to forgive the other side, because revenge is not our way, and it will not fix the problems this nation has.

[Jcrowley]

33. It's not revenge

It has nothing to do with Clinton. Bush has committed numerous crimes. He must be held accountable. Members of Congress swore to uphold the Constitution. They are derelict in their duty if they do not do so. Some of these same members admit Bush "may have" committed impeachable offenses. It is their sworn oath to pursue this if they believe the Constitution has been violated by the Commander in Chief.

[acmavm]

2. Crazy question. blivet's committed offenses that he could be prosecuted

for committing.

He's basically a traitor. He swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. What's that tell ya?

[Jcrowley]

7. Seems redundant

doesn't it? Now is it not the sworn duty for those who can to begin inquiry to determine if impeachment proceedings should go forth. Now I'm not saying it would go anywhere I'm thinking in strictly legal, constitutional terms.

[icymist]

3. Will the Dems impeach Bush if in power?

This is the big difference between the Dems and Repubs: The Dems will not impeach for the sake of the country while the Repubs will impeach in spite of the country.

on edit, this dosen't mean that Bush couldn't be tried after he leaves office, like for war crimes.

[Guaranteed]

4. It's not in our country's long-term interest

to impeach Bush.

[babylonsister]

5. I don't know about that. You lance a boil, doncha? nt

[Jcrowley]

8. Do you think GW violated the Constitution?

If not please explain.

[Guaranteed]

11. I know he did, for sure.

But are we going to be able to keep the Constitution from falling apart entirely if we throw him out and the Repuke machine stays in place?

[Jcrowley]

13. Don't understand

Impeachment proceedings offer much more grist than that which falls on it's primary focal point. In this case there would be the possibility, high likelihood, of a tremendous unravelling which would stretch across many parts of the Republican party. That's one part.

Now the more important part is that it is actually a violation of one's sworn duty for one who swears to defend the Constitution, as does all of Congress, to ignore these (gross) violations.

What can be more damaging to the Constitution than violating the spirit and the letter of the Constitution on such a grave matter as this?

[Guaranteed]

15. What could be more damaging is violating it for another

10 years into the future.

If we impeach, we're throwing away our best 2008 chance, which is running against the Chimp. The Repukes get to start fresh, and we never get the chance to actually fix what is wrong with the country.

[Jcrowley]

16. What you're saying essentially

by your own admission that you know Bush committed impeachable offenses is that we have to let these slide for some unknowable future possibility. Perhaps before delineating this further let me point out:

- The now famous Downing Street Memo, along with the testimony of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil constitute direct evidence of a decision by Bush to invade a sovereign foreign nation on entirely specious grounds.

- The decision to deploy chemical weapons in Fallujah came from Rumsfeld who no doubt covered his ass by receiving assent from Bush to use these banned weapons

- The decision by Bush to dig up dirt on UN diplomats when the General Assembly was considering his ill-fated war resolution

- Authorizing torture of POW's - a direct violation of the protocols of the Geneva Convention

- Holding so called "non-combatant civilians" for an indefinite period of time ,depriving them of their day in court ,acess to counsel, and acess to family members who could plead their cause to the public.

- Kidnapping so called "terror suspects" , placing them on Rendition Airways, and sending them to countries like Uzbekistan who boil these ,untried,unconvicted people alive.

- Engaging in a massive voter suppression campaign in the state of Ohio to secure a second term by fraudulent means. Such activities carry criminal sanctions as outlined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

- Illegally transferring $700 million from the budget for the war in Afghanistan for war preparations in Iraq in July 2002, without Congressional Approval. This is a Constitutional violation.

- The "outing" of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

- Illegally spying on US citizens

This info is what I can recover off the top of my head. Clearly an impeachment inquiry by the US House Judiciary Committeee is an action clearly overdue. Some of the allegations are violations of international law. They fall under the impeachment clause as well . An additional action of filing criminal referral to the UN War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague is also an absolute must if the United States wants to gain the esteem of the citizens of the entire world.

[Guaranteed]

18. Yes- until 2009, when we take the federal government back.

At which point, he should be arrested.

Did you read my posts in the other thread, or just the ones that reinforced your point of view?

Let me put it another way: It is the American *people* who need to rebuke the Republicans in order to actually STOP what is happening to our country. Otherwise, it looks like mere political opportunism, and even desperation. We get a wee bit of power back, and the first thing we do is try to impeach Bush?

We're building up momentum, here, and, if we wait, we can do this right and get everything back in 2008- including a legitimately elected, Democratic President (probably Al Gore). Impeaching Bush will just ruin everything. Even impeaching Bush AND Cheney, and putting Pelosi in the White House, would be a bad move. She'd just lose it back to the Repukes in 2008. Eight more years of signing statements and bullying other countries and tax cuts for the rich and our civil liberties being disrespected.

Do you see the problem? It's like premature ejaculation.

I have to wonder if the people who are pushing this really want to rebuild our country, or if they're just so angry that they are acting out of their emotional need to see Bush get nailed as soon as possible. They're so hungry for change that they're not thinking long-term. They're sacrificing what's best for the country for short-term satisfaction.

[Jcrowley]

24. I read yours

as well as all of the others and all of those in this thread.

As a parent I couldn't allow an obvious and violent transgression to go unchecked for some undefinable future transgression. Illogic.

I see the situation with the utmost clarity.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. It's Absolutely Necessary

Civil Rights are use 'em or lose 'em. If the Congress does not enforce its rights, and we don't enforce ours, the courts may rule that we've given up those rights. We absolutely must censure and/or impeach Bush. Absolutely.

[davekriss]

14. I disagree

If there ever was a President deserving of impeachment, it is George W Bush. I think it is emphatically in our long-term interest to impeach Bush and Cheney, as it would serve as clear symbolic repudiation of their high crimes and misdemeanors. Otherwise, what do we tell our children?

[Cleita]

20. Yes, it is. If you don't impeach him and throw his ass in jail

along with his whole evil cabal, they will just keep resurfacing again and again. This is what happened with Watergate and with Iran Contra. They learned they could get away with treason and they are all back in various influential positions in our government and media.

We have to teach any new wannabe fascist party, ambitious pols and dictators that the consequences of treason are harsh. They have to see what happened to the Bushistas to determine it's not worth it.

I say bring them down and bring them down hard. They need to be stripped of their fortunes, assets and spend the rest of their lives in prison, if not here then in the Hague. I think Cheney and Rumsfeld should be turned over to the Iraqis for trial and sentencing.

[Guaranteed]

23. That's why you arrest them in 2009.

And throw them in jail.

[Cleita]

25. Too late. This should have been done when the recounts

of the Florida 2000 votes proved that Gore won Florida. Then they should have been impeached along with the Supreme Court Justices who interfered with the Florida election, both offences against the U. S. Constitution. We can't allow anymore waffling. Things have gone too far and the abuses are so extreme that this government is doing that we can't allow it to go on anymore.

[Scout1071]

6. Does a bear shit in the woods? nt

[Vidar]

9. Almost every signing statement constitues an impeachable offense--

declaration of intent to break the law. There are around 800 of those.

[Jcrowley]

12. How come it seems so obvious

to the likes of you and I yet certain folks with more info and power than we seem to think it a wrongheaded notion?

I'm going to channel Paul Wellstone for a moment and ask his opinion.

[oldboy101]

17. Nancy Pelosi says she will not seek to impeach Bush.

Of course that might change once we Democrats take back the House, especially if we also gain control of the Senate. (Smile)

We would have to be careful about impeachment proceedings. If Bush is removed from office first, then Cheney becomes our President. (Shudder) No doubt his first act as President would be to grant a full pardon to Bush for any crimes he might have committed, just as Ford did for Nixon.

We would have to take them both out simultaneously IMO.

[Cleita]

21. Maybe Nancy doesn't want to but you can be sure Conyers

will do everything in his power to change her mind.

[Jcrowley]

27. Wish it were so

Don't Worry, Democrats Won't Impeach Bush, Democrat Says
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
September 21, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Democrats and liberal advocacy groups have been talking about impeaching President George W. Bush for months. But when Republicans say the president indeed may be impeached if Democrats regain control of Congress, they're just trying to scare people, a Democratic operative says.

In an op-ed column in Thursday's Detroit Free Press, Robert Weiner, a former press secretary to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), accused Republicans of "trying to create hysteria about the likelihood of impeaching President Bush."

According to Weiner, "Impeachment is not on Conyers' current agenda. It is only a red herring on the Republican agenda."

(In a Democratic House, Conyers would be chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and thus a key player in deciding to impeach, or bring charges against, the president.)

Weiner (who also worked for the Clinton White House) says Conyers "has told me directly: 'I'm not going to conduct an impeachment. That would take all of our time. I would not want to bring an impeachment investigation because that would drain time and energy from the work that needs to be done, and it would take away the country's attention from issues that need to be addressed.'"

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200609/POL20060921a.html

[Cleita]

28. I'll believe it when Conyers says it himself.

I don't know why he has already drawn up a list of impeachable offenses if he doesn't intend on using them down the line. I understand downplaying the possibility now before the election, but if the Democrats win the house things might be different.

[Vidar]

34. All she has to do is stay out of John Conyers' way.

[Marrak]

19. He had assistance...

<>

[LynnTheDem]

22. As the chief prosecutor of the Nurenberg Tribunals says YES,

as do most international and US legal experts, I'd go along with the experts.


IMPEACH.

INDICT.

IMPRISON.

No torture.
Full due process of the law.
('Coz I would never stoop to george w. bush's level)

[Starlight]

26. ITA. How could anyone even consider letting these criminals go free?

[badgerpup]

29. logistical question...

Is it possible to undo the damage that this mis-administration has done re Iraq, Iran and a lot of the BIG infrastructure stuff such as FEMA and the EPA...and still impeach Bush, Cheney, et al?
Because we're going to need to get them ALL at the same time.

If we can do either/or, but not both, our best course (IMVHO) is hamstring* (politically) them while we do damage control, then cheer the Perp Walk Revue in 2009.
Personally, I'd LOVE to see these guys go down the drain.
Might even cure my chronic depression. :sarcasm:
But we must look at what we can logistically accomplish and go from there.
I don't want to look back on 2006-2008 and all we accomplished was to have blown shit up politically rather than with bombs in another country...
and still have nothing to show for it.

* ...or do I mean "immobilize"?

edit: spellcheck is my friend.

[Jcrowley]

30. Important question

Impeaching Bush is not only obligatory but a catalyst for further inquiry as well as a repudiation of all the damage done during the Bush-Wolfowitz-Cheney-Rumsfeld reign of terror. The unravelling that would occur during such proceedings would be epic. Bush is nothing but the mountain of lies and corruption that would be exposed during evidentiary would lead to a hornet's nest. Maybe...

[porphyrian]

31. Without question, yes.

Anyone who doesn't think so is either unaware of bush's actions or doesn't understand the meaning of impeachment.

[90-percent]

36. For the love of our country

For the love of our country this unamerican bastard president has to go down harder than Nixon could have imagined on a bad acid trip.

We must return to being a nation of laws and the constitution!

Every Unconstitutional power grab action this traitor has ever done needs to be put under the spotlight and accounted for.

This man needs to go to prison before serving out his term!

-85% jimmy

[porphyrian]

37. Amen, and I'm not religious. - n/t

[Toots]

35. The United States House of Representatives has a constitutional duty to in

:rofl: :rofl: Name one investigation the US House of Representatives has launched since the 2000 coup.