America needs you to impeach the President

Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution reads:

�the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.�

Since the Constitution is purposely vague about �other high crimes and misdemeanors,� (the framers originally had �maladministration� as one offense but scrapped it for fear of political instability) our country has historically relied on congress to determine what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor. This has met with mixed results, as both Johnson and Clinton�s presidential impeachments have been highly politically motivated.

Nevertheless, the framers� intent when granting congress the power to impeach was clear: to hold in check the corrupt abuse of power over the American people, and to ensure that this great democracy could never become a theocratic dictatorship.

In 1999, Bill Clinton was unsuccessfully impeached on two grounds: Perjury and Abuse of Power. Few people doubt that this impeachment was a political head hunt directed at an enormously popular (his ratings kept going up during the trial) democratic president by a group of conservative congressmen over an illicit extramarital relationship that Clinton lied about. Most of the impeachment hype came out of an extensive investigation by Kenneth Starr, who published his findings in a steamy, salacious report.

We now live beneath the rule of arguably the worst president this country has ever had. He hasn�t accomplished a single thing he has promised the American people except cut taxes in a time of war, and his numerous military blunders have left both Iraq and Afghanistan in tatters and Osama bin Laden at large. Misjudgments and embarrassing foreign policy mistakes have been the hallmark of the George W. Bush administration. Are these impeachable offenses? No.

But now, as more and more becomes public about what the Bush Administration did and did not know following September 11th and before the war in Iraq, it is becoming clear that if the president did not lie to the American people (and congress) outright about our reasons for going to war, he was at the very least misleading us to gain approval for it.

Consider that Bill Clinton was impeached 5 years ago for �Abuse of Power.� It took only a suggestion at the possibility of an extramarital affair to get a republican-dominated congress to appoint an independent counsel to investigate possible high crimes and misdemeanors. It takes very little to imagine what an independent investigator might find out about prewar intelligence and what the president was actually told before the war. If W did, in fact, lie to us, is that not an �abuse of power?�

Actually, if the president has lied about anything at all in regards to prewar intelligence, then a great number of lies have been told since by both him and Dick Cheney. The metal tubes presented as nuclear evidence were actually highly suspect evidence at the outset, yet the Bush administration never made this clear to congress or the American people. If you like to read and need some evidence that the Bush administration deliberately mislead us, make sure you read the 10 page New York Times article, written from exhaustive investigative reporting, that came out this week. If you can�t refute what they say, then the conclusion is clear� The president did not present us (or congress) with all the facts:

www.nytimes.com...

This is why I get so pissed when the president says of John Kerry �He looked at the same intelligence I did.� Actually, he and the rest of congress only looked at what Bush wanted him to see. He didn�t get to look at all the reports that the evidence presented was suspect. So that, in itself, is a lie.

Now, with the brand-new WMD report, which states unequivocally that not only did Saddam possess no WMDs or the capability to produce them, but also that Saddam had his eyes on Iran rather than the U.S., then our reasons for invading a sovereign nation preemptively become a complete wash:

seattlepi.nwsource.com...

wid.ap.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> wid.ap.org...

This report was filed by the top U.S. inspector in Iraq, a man appointed under the Bush administration and hardly an independent source. Consider the political consequences of the report and the pressure on this man to sugar coat the facts. Then realize that even with its subtle attempts to uphold the Bush case for war, it is still a damning indictment of what us crazy liberals already knew: The truth is the exact opposite of what Bush told us. It�s pretty clear that Saddam had no intent to attack the U.S. at all.

It is amazing that the Bush administration still has the stones to point to congress and say: �They supported the war, too!� Of COURSE they did! Bush conjured images of mushroom clouds in New York if we didn�t invade right away. This was an incredible distortion and obviously, now, we know it wasn�t true.

I feel that, at the very least, there is enough fact available to us to at the very least appoint an independent investigator and find out the truth. Give him or her unfettered access to all documentation and intelligence given before 9/11 and the Iraq war. Why not? As you anti-ACLU neocons always say, �If he doesn�t have anything to hide, then he doesn�t have anything to be afraid of.� Perhaps the investigator will uncover a couple smoking guns or blue dresses that indicate Bush�s abuse of power.

Even so, the rock solid ground for impeachment that I see is treason. There is ample reason to believe that this president condoned an act of treason while in office, and we won�t ever know the facts until we get an impartial investigation. Perhaps you have forgotten, but a CIA operative�s name was mentioned in the press, specifically by conservative columnist Bob Novak, thus compromising her ability to work as an intelligence agent abroad.

www.washingtonpost.com...

In fact, many believe that had she been in a hostile country at the time, such a disclosure could have led to her being killed.

Novak was given the operatives name, Valerie Plame, after it was leaked by someone inside the Bush administration. Revealing such an identity is felony treason, and yet nobody has been held accountable for it. The John Ashcroft-led Justice Department is conducting an investigation, and we all know how impartial to Bush HE is.

The real kicker here is that the motive for leaking Plame�s identity is very clear: Her husband, Joe Wilson, was very vocal about the yellow cake from Niger story that Bush used in his State of the Union speech to justify the Iraq invasion.

www.time.com...

In fact, he wrote an Op-Ed piece detailing how the administration had twisted and manipulated faulty intelligence in that particular report to strengthen its case for the Iraq war. Valerie Plame�s name was leaked shortly thereafter, and it seems clear that this was the retaliation of an administration angered by Wilson�s actions.

An independent investigator might be able to determine not only the perpetrator of this felonious leak, but also determine who knew about it and condoned it. All would be culpable under the law as regards to treason.

I think that any of these actions is grounds for impeachment if they hold any merit. I suppose we would need a full investigation of the facts by an independent source (as mentioned) to truly determine that. Unfortunately, with a republican-controlled congress it is unlikely such action will be taken. Let�s take a look at what a few republicans had to say about impeachment during the Clinton years:

"The president engaged in a conspiracy of crimes to prevent justice from being served. These are impeachable offenses for which the president should be convicted." - Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin)

�The very nature of the Presidency guarantees that its occupant will face daily temptations to twist the laws for personal gain, for party benefit or for the advantage of friends.� - Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Michigan)

�The foundations of this country were not laid by politicians running for something--but by statesmen standing for something.� - Sen. Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina)

It is uncanny how apt these statements would be today. They would be great points of reference for the democrats and moderates who might initiate impeachment proceedings.

There are many other transgressions which after close scrutiny might constitute high crimes and misdemeanors by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Defense, and so forth. They range from the gouging of taxpayers by Halliburton under the watch of the Pentagon and Dick Cheney to the controversy and secrecy of Cheney�s Energy Policy Task Force. None of these even touches on the suspicious circumstances surrounding 9/11 and the special connections our president has with the Saudi Royal Family. Who knows what a democrat-controlled congress might turn up with their own Kenneth star?

As one republican senator in 1999 put it: �Not all High Crimes and Misdemeanors are created equal.� This is true. Clinton lied under oath about banging an ugly intern. Any lie or misleading statement made by George W. Bush not only hampered justice but led to congressional authorization for a war that has killed and injured 10,000 American soldiers and between 15,000-25,000 Iraqis. Is this not a high crime or misdemeanor? We will, perhaps, never know.


[edit on 8-10-2004 by John bull 1]

There were talks of impeachment when Bill Clinton got knob from an intern, but there is absolutely no talk of impeachment for a president invading a country for no reason?


People pay attention

sorry.... I won't help you...


I don't think he has done anything wrong... and besides, show me proof.

Your points are well made and may be valid. But, take your eye away from the microscope and view the the totality of the global conflict we are in. Previous Democratic administrations ignored this crisis, the Republicans have not. I don't care if there were no WMD in Iraq prior to our invasion. We invaded this nation to protect our selves from the Islomofacist. Do you want to live like the Isralies, I don't.

Fly....

no I don't want to live the way that the people in the middle east do... and I don't think that Americans ever will, my main point is that you can't blame on man for all of this.. ( no you personally )

I just hate all of the bashing of our President.

�He looked at the same intelligence I did.� Actually, he and the rest of congress only looked at what Bush wanted him to see. He didn�t get to look at all the reports that the evidence presented was suspect. So that, in itself, is a lie.

How many threads do we need to make this point? I'm pretty sure you have never worked in Intelligence if you believe this, so I will try to make it simple for you. Are you really trying to convince us that Bill Clinton appointee George Tenet, director of the CIA, conspired with Bush to decieve Hillary Clinton and the other Senators by only giving them a small part of the information? That just doesn't make sense. Besides the fact that Hillary had already spent 8 years in the White House, she probably had an idea about the real story on Saddam...

Originally posted by elevatedone
... and besides, show me proof.

That's the point. While I consider most of what I've read in the NYT proof that he deliberately mislead us, we need an independent investigation, don't you think? Bush doesn't. Can you tell me why he doesn't want an investigation done independently? Why did he oppose the 9/11 commission? Maybe you can back your president up on these points. If not, then why don't you respond to some of the points I've made above rather than your meaningless partisan one-line posts?

If we do impeach this President, can we drag him through the streets of our capitol and let the families of our service personnal have their way with him?

I would sign up for that program!

Originally posted by vatar

Are you really trying to convince us that Bill Clinton appointee George Tenet, director of the CIA, conspired with Bush to decieve Hillary Clinton and the other Senators by only giving them a small part of the information?

Nope. I don't have to convince anyone of anything. Here's what the New York Times says:

The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.

One result was a largely one-sided presentation to the public that did not convey the depth of evidence and argument against the administration's most tangible proof of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq.

It's a long article. That's only the first page so I made it simple for you. You'll have to read the whole thing before you dismiss things, or just ignore it. You've been doing that for awhile, I assume.

The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.

One result was a largely one-sided presentation to the public that did not convey the depth of evidence and argument against the administration's most tangible proof of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq.

I'm sorry, I don't see anything in there about what the Senators were briefed or not briefed on.

Originally posted by vatar
I'm sorry, I don't see anything in there about what the Senators were briefed or not briefed on.

I wish you would just read the article. But if you won't, I'll clip some stuff for you. The senate got the CIA intelligence briefing. LATER, Tenet HIMSELF told the administration that there was evidence undermining the briefing that CONGRESS HAD. All this was in 2002. Read:

Mr. Tenet declined to be interviewed. But in a statement, he said he "made it clear" to the White House "that the case for a possible nuclear program in Iraq was weaker than that for chemical and biological weapons." Regarding the tubes, Mr. Tenet said "alternative views were shared" with the administration.

But check THIS out. Here the article describes very plainly that the Senate was not given the same information included in the classified briefings to the White House:

The C.I.A. has a distinct edge: "unique access to policy makers and unique control of intelligence reporting," the report found. The Presidential Daily Briefs, for example, are prepared and presented by agency analysts; the agency's director is the president's principal intelligence adviser. This allows agency analysts to control the presentation of information to policy makers "without having to explain dissenting views or defend their analysis from potential challenges," the committee's report said.

This problem, the report said, was "particularly evident" with the C.I.A.'s analysis of the tubes, when agency analysts "lost objectivity and in several cases took action that improperly excluded useful expertise from the intelligence debate." In interviews, Senate investigators said the agency's written assessments did a poor job of describing the debate over the intelligence.

So you see, unless the New York Times and their sources are all lying, It becomes evident that only the White House was truly aware how flimsy the argument for Saddam's Nuclear capability was. We are learning now that the argument was flimsy because it was basically MADE UP.

I ask you again to READ THE ARTICLE. Here it is, once again:

www.nytimes.com...

So if the NY Times says that all people in the world who make less than 50,000 dollars a year are now "RICH" are you going to believe that as well.
Try not to believe everything you read, without finding out the facts first.

Try seraching out public records from congress and such to actually provide us with proof not propaganda from a newspaper.

I agree with this post 100%. Poor Bill got some oral, and was ashamed, so he lied. Who did that hurt besides his wife? Everyone was ready to get rid of him, He did million times more for this country.

Lets say Bush was just going on what HIS people told him. He is still wrong.
He was told no by the UN, there are other counrtys that for sure have the WMD, and nothing. Both reasons for the war in Iraq, have been said there was nothing there. BY HIS OWN PEOPLE. Saddam wanted to be our FRIEND, Its in the 1000 page report. As far as I am conserned, he has atleast 1000 americans heads on his sholders.

And I can care Less about Kerry, He is no diffrent, they are the same.


The report also said Saddam's own people didnt know they didnt have WMD.

[edit on 7-10-2004 by SpittinCobra]

Originally posted by Justmytype
So if the NY Times says that all people in the world who make less than 50,000 dollars a year are now "RICH" are you going to believe that as well.
Try not to believe everything you read, without finding out the facts first.

Try seraching out public records from congress and such to actually provide us with proof not propaganda from a newspaper.

Oh this is so good. Don't believe a reputable news source, go to source that you're concerned about and LET them to you what they want you to hear. The blind leading the blind., no the Evil leading the blind.

Originally posted by vatar
I'm sorry, I don't see anything in there about what the Senators were briefed or not briefed on.

WAIT! There's more...

The Senate report provides only a partial picture of the agency's communications with the White House. In an arrangement endorsed by both parties, the Intelligence Committee agreed to delay an examination of whether White House descriptions of Iraq's military capabilities were "substantiated by intelligence information." As a result, Senate investigators were not permitted to interview White House officials about what they knew of the tubes debate and when they knew it.

Seems pretty clear, doesn't it? I guess you should pay attention to JustMyType and totally ignore this newspaper report. It's propaganda. Otherwise, I'd like you to present me with something to backup the Bush assertion that "They had the same intelligence I did."

Or you could realize the error of your ways and vote for Kerry. Or at least write a letter to your congressman urging an independent investigation...

Originally posted by intrepid
Oh this is so good. Don't believe a reputable news source, go to source that you're concerned about and LET them to you what they want you to hear. The blind leading the blind., no the Evil leading the blind.

The first thing I asked my wife, Do YOU think the NYtimes would print something like this if it wasnt true?, I understand that everyone can be duped."

I couldnt believe what I was reading, I also couldnt believe people were not up in arms.

Answer this, How can Kerry tell Bush he is a Liar, if it was not true. If it wasnt true it would be slander. Bush Is the Highest man in the US, you just cant do that.

[edit on 7-10-2004 by SpittinCobra]

Wouldn't the process be more rapid if they just voted him out of office? Impeachment, that could take quite a while. Besides, I haven't seen anything worth impeaching him for yet. Presidents rarely make a decision that can impeach them. They usually have something that they can justify their decions with, an impeachment alibi of sorts.

Originally posted by infinite8
Wouldn't the process be more rapid if they just voted him out of office? Impeachment, that could take quite a while.

That was kind of my point. I guess it wasn't that clear. Congress impeaches, the PEOPLE vote. Voting is the only way out of this mess for the common man.

Besides, I haven't seen anything worth impeaching him for yet. Presidents rarely make a decision that can impeach them. They usually have something that they can justify their decions with, an impeachment alibi of sorts.

Also my point. Independent investigation. Get the true skinny on what I'm talking about. Then, impeach the sh*t out of him.

�the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.�

I want you to name one infraction from the above quote that the president has been charged with.

This president has the courage to stand up to the world and all his critics to do what is right to protect the lives of Americans at home.

You can't find any dirt on him. He is definitely what the country needs to lead us, and he will continue to do so for another four years.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
You can't find any dirt on him. He is definitely what the country needs to lead us, and he will continue to do so for another four years.

Intelearthling,

I have grown weary of your endless, mindless, truthless, fascist posts that have absolutely no value on either side of any debate. I will ask you - nicely this time - to please back up your assertions with links or facts that you have. If you had read anything I actually wrote instead of (and this is apparent) just the title of the thread I believe that you might see that I and many others have already found significant "dirt" on him. The bloody kind.

Also, I never said Bush had been charged with anything, and that and independent investigation is needed to get to the bottom of the questions regarding his administration's gaffes. Please read what I wrote.

I can't remember a single thing you've ever posted that had anything except "Yay America! Vote Bush!" in it. If you have nothing else to add to the discussion, then can it. We all know how you're going to vote.