Impeach Bush!

Yes, Iraq is clearly better off now than it was under Saddam at any time since the Iran-Iraq war began in 1980. I also think the U.S. will be better off when George W. Bush is no longer in office.

I don’t think the U.S. is better off now though. Saddam was no threat to the U.S. and now we’re trapped in Iraq and can’t withdraw because the currently better off Iraqis will probably quickly become much worse off when civil war breaks out and tens or hundreds of thousands of them are slaughtered. I don’t see any hope for independent stability in Iraq in the foreseeable future.

Now I have a question for you, Hobbes. Do you believe the Bush Administration sacrificed the lives of 1700+ (and counting) U.S. soldiers and spent over $200 billion dollars because it cared about the Iraqi people?

What follows are just the most outrageous and significant of the dozens of outright lies uttered by Bush and his top officials at the start of the War Party’s campaign.

Did you know…

LIE #1: “The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program … Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.” – President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: “You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that’s just a lie.”

LIE #2: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” – President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: “They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie,” he told the New Republic, anonymously. “They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly.”

LIE #3: “We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” – Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on “Meet the Press.”

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: “[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.” – CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening’s speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases … Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.” – President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq’s control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: “We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States.” – President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can’t fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq’s drone-building program wasn’t much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn’t a “manned aerial vehicle” just a scary way to say “plane”?

LIE #7: “We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they’re weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established.” – President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: “Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” – Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States’ own intelligence reports show that these stocks – if they existed – were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: “We know where [Iraq’s WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.” – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

LIE #10: “Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited.” – President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts – including the State Department’s intelligence wing in a report released this week – have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves. The Bush administration scrambled to place the blame for its lies on faulty intelligence, when in fact the intelligence was fine; it was their abuse of it that was “faulty.”

regarding this question and this war (a la Zinn):

the ends: unknown
the means: bloody, violent, deadly

So, in this case the debate would more appropriately be:
Do bloody, violent, and deadly means justify unknown ends?

Doesn’t exactly have the makings of a great philosophical enquiry…[/quote]

I believe it was Niechtze who brought that up … I’m not that philosophical. :smiley:

No. That’s for the people who don’t get it. Bush misled Congress. That is the undermining of the integrity of the system at the highest levels. It says we can do what we like as long as we can get away with it and there is nothing to stop us not even you guys there in congress because we’ve got your number too.

Bush claims to be a champion of democracy. We’ll I guess he is because if you can get away with taking a nation to war on such a fiction then you’re a champion of something.

[quote=“Shenme Niao”]What follows are just the most outrageous and significant of the dozens of outright lies uttered by Bush and his top officials at the start of the War Party’s campaign.

Did you know… [/quote]

The most glaring lie that President Bush told though isn’t on the list:

". . . did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations . . . "
[color=blue]July, 2003[/color]

[color=blue]And again in January, 2004:[/color]

". . . It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in."

"2002 November 8 - UN Security Council unanimously adopt Resolution 1441 outlining an enhanced inspection regime for Iraq’s disarmament to be conducted by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

2002 November 13 - Iraq accepts U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and informs the UN Secretary General that it will work with the resolution.

2003 February 14 - Chairmen of the U.N. inspections Blix and ElBaradei make their second report to the Security Council under Res. 1441, noting Iraq’s cooperation in the process of inspections but that Iraq had yet to account for many proscribed weapons."

U.S. State Department

Inspectors urged to leave Iraq, March 17, 2003

UN weapons inspectors say they have been warned by the United States to start leaving Iraq in what is seen as the clearest sign yet that war is imminent. . . .

“Late last night… I was advised by the US Government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad,” the UN’s chief nuclear weapons inspector Mohammed ElBaradei said on Monday."

yeah, i mean the us, britain, and the commonweath countries gave france their freedom and look how that turned out. we should’ve just let them “earn” their own freedom themselves. :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
Kindly tell exactly what freedoms you have had rescinded under the dread Patriot Act?[/quote]

Quite a few people, it seems, have lost the right to fly in an airplane, including Senator Edward Kennedy:

Sen. Kennedy Flagged by No-Fly List
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … Aug19.html

Others have gained the right to be kidnappd, flown to a Third World country, and tortured:

Torture Air, Incorporated
counterpunch.org/stclair04092005.html

All of us have lost the right to privacy:

Total Information Awareness
epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/

cheers,
DB

yeah, I mean the us, britain, and the commonweath countries gave France their freedom and look how that turned out. we should’ve just let them “earn” their own freedom themselves. :p[/quote]

Gave it back to France. As in, a freedom they’d ended up at just before the 18th century checked out, and in about as bloody and hard-fought fashion as mofangongren described.

Had Iraq ever earned its first?

I think you could argue they’re trying to earn it now, but I doubt it’s going in the direction Bush or you would prefer (much less recognize).

I think it’s fairly obvious Iraq is slowly descending into civil war. This civil war may be preventable; while it’s tautological, it’s also profoundly true that civil wars are fought to determine the direction of social order. If Bush were really interested in guaranteeing the outcome of that social order (democracy), he’d probably have to provide an additional 850,000 troops and commit to their presence for at least ten years. That ain’t going to happen.

The US will very likely abandon Iraq in a year and a half (when mid-term elections begin either to seat anti-war winners or to force incumbents to support withdrawal). Then Iraq’s experiment in earning its democratic chops can proceed apace and on a more natural path.

The problem has always been that Bush went into Iraq on a false timeline (one that prevented building a real coalition and real support) and with only neoconservative ideology as wisdom - if we truly wish to extend Iraqis an incubator for democratic reform that we Westerners might recognize as one useful to our national security. Oh yeah, almost forgot: and dollars to throw around like confetti.

And Hobbes, I disagree. Sure Saddam was a bad guy, but Iraq is not necessarily better off without him. Life’s a tough old bitch, some might say brutish and short (and I would have thought that would be you). Save your question for another ten years or so, and we’ll retally the body count then.

In other words, the means matter. In fact, in this case, the means will prove far more important than the ends.

$0.02

You most certainly can, provided that negligent manslaughter is a high crime or misdemeanor–I ain’t a lawyer.

[quote=“R. Nader (lawyer)”]…reports by US soldiers for two years of inadequate equipment, including body and vehicle armor… has exposed them to death and severe injury… (The) New York Times had a chilling page one story quoting Marines bitterly describing their serious casualties due to lack of simple vehicle armor.

There is enough documentation of such failures to support the troops to warrant negligent manslaughter charges against their superiors. And George W. Bush, repeatedly informed about this problem since April 2003, is the Commander in Chief. [/quote]

What gets me is this inevitability shit sandwich that you are suppose to eat with Bush.

If you take as your starting point the 911 attacks as a catalyst for war in Iraq and the whole mess then couldn’t there have been some more rational alternatives. The guy basically wasn’t a threat he was a hindrance but so was Gaddaffi and now he’s like some kind of ally against terrorism- and that’s just a pickle in the shit sandwich to distract you from the rest of the crap that your suppose to swallow.

This thread confuses me. Can someone please explain this to me - if Bush did in fact commit an impeachable offense by misleading Congress, why is the fact that Saddam being gone is a good thing supposed to mitigate that? And why is the fact that his predecessors may have got away with the same thing supposed to let him off?

To me, it seems like it would be the same as saying “Well, this guy stole a car and committed a drive-by, but he did so on the way to saving a houseful of orphans from a fire, so let’s just let him get away with that other stuff. Anyway, other people have stolen cars and not been arrested for it, so why should he?”

of course there’s no reason why that would be true tetsuo. doubly or more so if lying about a blowjob is impeachable.

Gotta hand it to Bush–he just keeps making life better and better for Americans. We can no longer own our own homes, we’re being told that we won’t be able to burn our flag (what if a skunk sprays it and that’s the only convenient way to get rid of it?) and oh, yes, no more “adult” photos on the Internet–that’ll sick it to those gosh-darned terrorists.

Now, I know that impeachment is as much a political act as a legal one, but I’m curious as to the legal status of this supplementary, never invoked rule: a provision from Jefferson’s Manual, a procedural handbook written by Thomas Jefferson as a supplement to U.S. House rules.

[quote=“truthout.org Impeachment push from the States”]
The Illinois General Assembly is about to rock the nation. Members of state legislatures are normally not considered as having the ability to decide issues with a massive impact to the nation as a whole. Representative Karen A. Yarbrough of Illinois’ 7th District is about to shatter that perception forever. Representative Yarbrough stumbled on a little known and never utlitized rule of the US House of Representatives, Section 603 of Jefferson’s Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature. From there, Illinois House Joint Resolution 125 (hereafter to be referred to as HJR0125) was born.

Detailing five specific charges against President Bush including one that is specified to be a felony, the complete text of HJR0125 is copied below at the end of this article. One of the interesting points is that one of the items, the one specified as a felony, that the NSA was directed by the President to spy on American citizens without warrant, is not in dispute. That fact should prove an interesting dilemma for a Republican controlled US House that clearly is not only loathe to initiate impeachment proceedings, but does not even want to thoroughly investigate any of the five items brought up by the Illinois Assembly as high crimes and/or misdemeanors. Should HJR0125 be passed by the Illinois General Assembly, the US House will be forced by House Rules to take up the issue of impeachment as a privileged bill, meaning it will take precedence over other House business.

[/quote]

I’m also curious as to the political ramifications of such an attempt at impeachment, if legal. At first blush, I’m not so hot on the idea. But I’ve just read this and wonder how much legal weight is behind it.

[quote] HJ0125 LRB094 20306 RLC 58347 r
1 HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION

2 WHEREAS, Section 603 of Jefferson’s Manual of the Rules of
3 the United States House of Representatives allows federal
4 impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of
5 a state legislature; and

6 WHEREAS, President Bush has publicly admitted to ordering
7 the National Security Agency to violate provisions of the 1978
8 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony, specifically
9 authorizing the Agency to spy on American citizens without
10 warrant; and

11 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that President Bush authorized
12 violation of the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions,
13 a treaty regarded a supreme law by the United States
14 Constitution; and

15 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration has held American
16 citizens and citizens of other nations as prisoners of war
17 without charge or trial; and

18 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that the Bush Administration
19 has manipulated intelligence for the purpose of initiating a
20 war against the sovereign nation of Iraq, resulting in the
21 deaths of large numbers of Iraqi civilians and causing the
22 United States to incur loss of life, diminished security and
23 billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses; and

24 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration leaked classified
25 national secrets to further a political agenda, exposing an
26 unknown number of covert U. S. intelligence agents to potential
27 harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to
28 investigate the matter; and

29 WHEREAS, The Republican-controlled Congress has declined

HJ0125 - 2 - LRB094 20306 RLC 58347 r
1 to fully investigate these charges to date; therefore, be it

2 RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
3 NINETY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE
4 SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that the General Assembly of the
5 State of Illinois has good cause to submit charges to the U. S.
6 House of Representatives under Section 603 that the President
7 of the United States has willfully violated his Oath of Office
8 to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
9 States; and be it further

10 RESOLVED, That George W. Bush, if found guilty of the
11 charges contained herein, should be removed from office and
12 disqualified to hold any other office in the United States.[/quote]

Edit: looks like some legislators in California and Vermont are playing the same game.

What I would like to know is if the whole administration can be impeached.

Bush, afterall, is not the one running things.

No, I don’t believe that they can all be impeached.

That said, there is a hunting weekend planned at Dick’s place, a major press conference scheduled for the following Monday, and sources say that several upper-end houses in the DC area should soon be on the market.

Well, I’m not totally clear on the whole process issue (Jefferson’s Manual?), but it looks like the founders’ genuis of federalism may be demonstrated once again. (Sorry the quoted material is so long, I thought readers would like to see the resolution text.)

[quote]April 22, 2006

Bush Impeachment - The Illinois State Legislature is Preparing to Drop a Bombshell
Utilizing a little known rule of the US House to bring Impeachment charges

by Steven Leser

http://www.opednews.com

The Illinois General Assembly is about to rock the nation. Members of state legislatures are normally not considered as having the ability to decide issues with a massive impact to the nation as a whole. Representative Karen A. Yarbrough of Illinois’ 7th District is about to shatter that perception forever. Representative Yarbrough stumbled on a little known and never utlitized rule of the US House of Representatives, Section 603 of Jefferson’s Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature. From there, Illinois House Joint Resolution 125 (hereafter to be referred to as HJR0125) was born.

Detailing five specific charges against President Bush including one that is specified to be a felony, the complete text of HJR0125 is copied below at the end of this article. One of the interesting points is that one of the items, the one specified as a felony, that the NSA was directed by the President to spy on American citizens without warrant, is not in dispute. That fact should prove an interesting dilemma for a Republican controlled US House that clearly is not only loathe to initiate impeachment proceedings, but does not even want to thoroughly investigate any of the five items brought up by the Illinois Assembly as high crimes and/or misdemeanors. Should HJR0125 be passed by the Illinois General Assembly, the US House will be forced by House Rules to take up the issue of impeachment as a privileged bill, meaning it will take precedence over other House business.

HJ0125 LRB094 20306 RLC 58347 r

1 HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION

2 WHEREAS, Section 603 of Jefferson’s Manual of the Rules of
3 the United States House of Representatives allows federal
4 impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of
5 a state legislature; and

6 WHEREAS, President Bush has publicly admitted to ordering
7 the National Security Agency to violate provisions of the 1978
8 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony, specifically
9 authorizing the Agency to spy on American citizens without
10 warrant; and

11 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that President Bush authorized
12 violation of the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions,
13 a treaty regarded a supreme law by the United States
14 Constitution; and

15 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration has held American
16 citizens and citizens of other nations as prisoners of war
17 without charge or trial; and

18 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that the Bush Administration
19 has manipulated intelligence for the purpose of initiating a
20 war against the sovereign nation of Iraq, resulting in the
21 deaths of large numbers of Iraqi civilians and causing the
22 United States to incur loss of life, diminished security and
23 billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses; and

24 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration leaked classified
25 national secrets to further a political agenda, exposing an
26 unknown number of covert U. S. intelligence agents to potential
27 harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to
28 investigate the matter; and

29 WHEREAS, The Republican-controlled Congress has declined

HJ0125 - 2 - LRB094 20306 RLC 58347 r

1 to fully investigate these charges to date; therefore, be it

2 RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
3 NINETY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE
4 SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that the General Assembly of the
5 State of Illinois has good cause to submit charges to the U. S.
6 House of Representatives under Section 603 that the President
7 of the United States has willfully violated his Oath of Office
8 to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
9 States; and be it further

10 RESOLVED, That George W. Bush, if found guilty of the
11 charges contained herein, should be removed from office and
12 disqualified to hold any other office in the United States.
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060425014419913[/quote]

More recently in Cali, a similar measure was proposed, and they are wisely including Cheney…

Where’s that fat lady?

Owning one’s own home is illegal?

Internet porn a thing of the past?

How did I miss these news stories?

Owning one’s own home is illegal?

Internet porn a thing of the past?

How did I miss these news stories?[/quote]

Well Flicka did write this about a year ago. Last time I checked, internet porn was alive and well in the US (and everywhere else). I still own a home in Michigan and I could burn my flag if I wanted to (kind of a silly thing to do if you ask me). :loco: