Should Bush and Cheney be Impeached?

by frankiespeakin 45 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  frankiespeakin

  Jef,

  If the Democrats want to take their hard won majority and demonstrate that they're small minded vindicative fanatics, be my guest. They've said they want to move the country in a new direction, let's see them do it.

  While it may be true that some democrats may take this as a oportunity to get a revenge, I don't think we should conclude that it is a sole motivation. It is good that the president should not be untouchable,and that any criminal behaviour while in office should subject him to impeachment.

  Since the US has the most armaments and the greatest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, it is important that any president use of armed forces be subject to scrutiny. And if a president like Bush should lie to the american public and members of congress and senate in oder to agressively invade another country, which results in great loss of life he rightly should be prosecuted for his crimes, he should not be untouchable nor should he feel untouchable.

  Impeachment of Bush should act as a strong deterent to any future president to use armed force except only when absolutely necassarry.
• 

  Tuesday

  I don't know if I'd be the best person for this because I'm a bit biased, I've been clamoring for Impeachment since the start of the Iraq war. But given with more and more evidence coming forth everyday I'd say impeachment is a viable option. I don't think we'll see it until the vetoes start coming from the President. Though I have read that Bush is the only president that will pass part of a legislation and just ignore the parts he doesn't agree with, which may be his way out of Impeachment. Either way, I think he certainly has more that given enough crimes to Impeach upon, whether he will or not is up to the Democratic Senate. It should be an interesting couple of years starting in January.
• 

  roybatty

  Though I have read that Bush is the only president that will pass part of a legislation and just ignore the parts he doesn't agree with, which may be his way out of Impeachment.

  Wrong. The president, unlike most state govenors, does not have line item veto power.

  Either way, I think he certainly has more that given enough crimes to Impeach upon, whether he will or not is up to the Democratic Senate. It should be an interesting couple of years starting in January.

  Can you list these impeachable crimes? I mean, c'mon, do you REALLY believe that Bush knew full well that Iraq DIDN'T have WMD yet went in front of the world and claimed that they did? He knew that troops would soon be all over Iraq looking for these WMD. Why make such an easy to prove false claim?

  What instead happened was that Bush allowed faulty intel to guide his policy. Clinton & Company did the same thing. Stupid.

  Trial for impeachment won't happen. Instead the court of world history will judge Bush as making one of the worst military decision in modern history. The U.S. came out the big looser while Iran is the big winner.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Roy,

  Can you list these impeachable crimes?

  Let me refer bact to the begin post:

  http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/the_i_word?mode=PF

  RALPH NADER AND KEVIN ZEESE

  The 'I' word

  By Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese | May 31, 2005

  THE IMPEACHMENT of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, should be part of mainstream political discourse.

  Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ''fixing" the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. US intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes -- evidence was thin and needed fixing.

  President Clinton was impeached for perjury about his sexual relationships. Comparing Clinton's misbehavior to a destructive and costly war occupation launched in March 2003 under false pretenses in violation of domestic and international law certainly merits introduction of an impeachment resolution.

  Eighty-nine members of Congress have asked the president whether intelligence was manipulated to lead the United States to war. The letter points to British meeting minutes that raise ''troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war." Those minutes describe the case for war as ''thin" and Saddam as ''nonthreatening to his neighbors," and ''Britain and America had to create conditions to justify a war." Finally, military action was ''seen as inevitable . . . But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

  Indeed, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nor any imminent threat to the United States:

  The International Atomic Energy Agency Iraq inspection team reported in 1998, ''there were no indications of Iraq having achieved its program goals of producing a nuclear weapon; nor were there any indications that there remained in Iraq any physical capability for production of amounts of weapon-usable material." A 2003 update by the IAEA reached the same conclusions.

  The CIA told the White House in February 2001: ''We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has . . . reconstitute[d] its weapons of mass destruction programs."

  Colin Powell said in February 2001 that Saddam Hussein ''has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

  The CIA told the White House in two Fall 2002 memos not to make claims of Iraq uranium purchases. CIA Director George Tenet personally called top national security officials imploring them not to use that claim as proof of an Iraq nuclear threat.

  Regarding unmanned bombers highlighted by Bush, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center concluded they could not carry weapons spray devices. The Defense Intelligence Agency told the president in June 2002 that the unmanned aerial bombers were unproven. Further, there was no reliable information showing Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons or whether it had established chemical agent production facilities.

  When discussing WMD the CIA used words like ''might" and ''could." The case was always circumstantial with equivocations, unlike the president and vice president, e.g., Cheney said on Aug. 26, 2002: ''Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

  The State Department in 2003 said: ''The activities we have detected do not . . . add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing . . . an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons."

  The National Intelligence Estimate issued in October 2002 said ''We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory."

  The UN, IAEA, the State and Energy departments, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center, US inspectors, and even the CIA concluded there was no basis for the Bush-Cheney public assertions. Yet, President Bush told the public in September 2002 that Iraq ''could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." And, just before the invasion, President Bush said: ''Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

  The president and vice president have artfully dodged the central question: ''Did the administration mislead us into war by manipulating and misstating intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to Al Qaeda, suppressing contrary intelligence, and deliberately exaggerating the danger a contained, weakened Iraq posed to the United States and its neighbors?"

  If this is answered affirmatively Bush and Cheney have committed ''high crimes and misdemeanors." It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists. A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step. Based on the mountains of fabrications, deceptions, and lies, it is time to debate the ''I" word.

  Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate. Kevin Zeese is director of DemocracyRising.US.
• 

  Tuesday

  Roy,

  Frankiesspeakin already beat me to the Impeachable Offense with the original article we're posting about, however if you need more proof check out www.impeachbush.org for more, or www.notinourname.org

  As for the President not doing a "line item veto" like a Govenor does, because I'm so wrong I just thought I'd post a quick rebuttal from the New York Times....

  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/washington/24prexy.html?ex=1311393600&en=b748a5b2247ab591&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

  Legal Group Says Bush Undermines Law by Ignoring Select Parts of Bills

  By ROBERT PEAR
  Published: July 24, 2006
  WASHINGTON, July 23 — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed.

  Also in the Guide The Race for the U.S. House Governors' Races In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such “signing statements” far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.

  These broad assertions of presidential power amount to a “line-item veto” and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto, the panel said.

  In signing a statutory ban on torture and other national security laws, Mr. Bush reserved the right to disregard them.

  The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in this way was “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.” From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a president “must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto.”

  If the president deems a bill unconstitutional, he can veto it, the panel said, but “signing statements should not be a substitute for a presidential veto.”

  The panel’s report adds momentum to a campaign by scholars and members of Congress who want to curtail the use of signing statements as a device to augment presidential power.

  At a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the chairman, Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Bush seemed to think he could “cherry-pick the provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn’t like.” Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, said the signing statements were “a diabolical device” to rewrite laws enacted by Congress.

  Justice Department officials dismiss such criticism as unjustified. “President Bush’s signing statements are indistinguishable from those issued by past presidents,” said Michelle E. Boardman, a deputy assistant attorney general. “He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate way.”

  Michael S. Greco, the president of the bar association, who created the study panel, said its report highlighted a “threat to the Constitution and to the rule of law.”

  At its annual meeting next month, in Hawaii, the association will consider several policy recommendations, including a proposal for judicial review of signing statements.

  The panel said, “Our recommendations are not intended to be, and should not be viewed as, an attack on President Bush.” The panel said it was equally concerned about the precedents being set for future chief executives.

  The panel acknowledged that earlier presidents, including Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, had occasionally asserted the right to disregard provisions of a law to which they objected. Under Bill Clinton, the Justice Department told the White House that the president could “decline to execute unconstitutional statutes.”

  But the panel said that Mr. Bush had expressed his objections more forcefully, more often and more systematically, “as a strategic weapon” to influence federal agencies and judges.

  In his first term, the panel said, Mr. Bush raised 505 constitutional objections to new laws. On 82 occasions, he asserted that he alone could supervise, direct and control the operations of the executive branch, under a doctrine known as the “unitary executive.”

  Whenever Congress directs the president to furnish information, Mr. Bush reserves the right to withhold it. When Congress imposes mandates and requirements on the executive branch, the president often says he will read them as advisory or “precatory.”

  When Congress tries to define foreign policy — for example, on Russia, Syria, North Korea or Sudan — Mr. Bush objects. Even if he agrees with the policy, he asserts that the Congressional directives “impermissibly interfere with the president’s constitutional authority” to conduct foreign affairs.

  Whenever Congress prescribes qualifications for presidential appointees, Mr. Bush complains that this is an intrusion on his power, even if Congress merely requires that the appointee know about the field for which he will be responsible.

  When Congress requires outreach or affirmative action for women or members of certain racial or ethnic groups, the president demurs, saying such provisions must be carried out “in a manner consistent with the requirements of equal protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.”

  The panel said Mr. Bush’s signing statements often used the same formulaic language, with “no citation of authority or detailed explanation.” It urged Congress to pass a law requiring the president to “set forth in full the reasons and legal basis” for any signing statement in which he says he can disregard or decline to enforce a statute.

  In another recommendation, the panel suggested legislation to provide for judicial review of signing statements. It acknowledged that the Supreme Court had been reluctant to hear cases filed by members of Congress because lawmakers generally did not suffer the type of concrete personal injury needed to create a “case or controversy.” But the panel said that “Congress as an institution or its agents” should have standing to sue when the president announces he will not enforce parts of a law.

  The issue has deep historical roots, the panel said, noting that Parliament had condemned King James II for nonenforcement of certain laws in the 17th century. The panel quoted the English Bill of Rights: “The pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of Parliament, is illegal.”

  The panel was headed by Neal R. Sonnett, a criminal defense lawyer in Miami. Members include former Representative Mickey Edwards, Republican of Oklahoma; Bruce E. Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration; Harold Hongju Koh, the dean of Yale Law School; William S. Sessions, a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Kathleen M. Sullivan, a former dean of Stanford Law School; and Patricia M. Wald, former chief judge of a federal appeals court.
• 

  XJW4EVR

  Yes, go ahead and impeach them now. You will ensure a minimum of another four years of Republican control of the White House.

  Sure. Whatever.

  Seriously, most people, lost faith in the President and the Congress, and voted Democrat, not because they had a message, but because a change was needed. They do not want this country taken back down the impeachment road. The easiest way for the Dems to lose the majority is to impeach the President. This could be especially true if the Republicans run a strong Presidential candidate that can galvanize the middle against the Dems.
• 

  jt stumbler

  Why add insult to injury?
• 

  JeffT

  The trouble is that PROVING that he lied with sufficient evidence to convince sixteen or so Republcian Senators to convict him is going to be impossible. If this is tried what you're going to end up with is a pile of evidence that the intel wasn't perfect (hindsight is the only thing that is always 20/20). So we'll spend a couple of years watching another useless circle jerk in DC with no real result at the end. Meanwhile, the Amercian people will continue to loose faith in all branches of the government, and all parties.

  Hell, if the democrats leave it alone and actually DO something in the next two years, I might be inclined to vote for them again.
• 

  XJW4EVR

  Hell, if the democrats leave it alone and actually DO something in the next two years, I might be inclined to vote for them again.

  BINGO!
• 

  Jourles

  Can you list these impeachable crimes? I mean, c'mon, do you REALLY believe that Bush knew full well that Iraq DIDN'T have WMD yet went in front of the world and claimed that they did?

  Let's look at just a couple of items.

  • Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]."
  • Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD." He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated."

  Firstly, what is the legality surrounding the issue of painting US military planes with UN colors to provoke an attack? And is it ethical, or even legal for that matter, for a head of state(such as Bush) to suggest or even order the assassination of another person?

  The Downing Street memo lists plenty of "fixes." For instance:

  Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

  "...justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD." ??? Again, where is this supposed link between terrorists attacking the USA and Iraq? If the link is not there, the only way for it to appear is to fabricate one. It then only makes sense that the "facts were being fixed around the policy."

  It may take yet another several years or decades before we truly know why GWB wanted to invade Iraq. Was it to spread democracy? No. To liberate the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime? No. These two explanations were given to the world after the fact when the idea of finding WMD's didn't work out the way they wanted it to. GWB says that God is using him. Fine. Whatever floats your boat. "Far-leftists" claim two possible reasons for the invasion. One, to establish a stong foothold militarily within the region. And two, to control the natural resources(oil). We shall see several years from now how Iraq will become beneficial to the USA. Will Iraq become the next launching site for yet another military campaign against a predominantly Muslim country? Will Iraq's oil flow more cheaply into our reserves and refineries?

  I just still find it hypocritical of Bush to target a country based on spreading democracy and establishing human rights all the while he lets Saudi Arabia continue on without any repurcussions. I just don't get it.