Do You Support Impeaching President Bush?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I once read in the book, Psychology of Persuasion, about a technique asking someone to state an initially simple belief, then tying that simple belief to the belief you want them to have. If you believe A, and AB is somehow similar to A, then you must believe AB and subsequently B, right? It is amazing how far away B could be from someone’s belief system, if they previously stated they believed it (especially publicly), you can bet on human nature that person will stick to their original statements. The reason for this is a person’s need to appear consistent, whether to themselves or to others. Many people will go along with a poor course of action in order to avoid appearing inconsistent. It’s an effective sales trick.
It could also be why bad wars and bad politicians continue receiving core support. Some people may not be able to admit their original choice went wrong. Of course, I refer to the Iraq War and President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The tide is turning against our administration, with polls beginning to show overwhelming support for impeachments.
President Bush has proven numerous times that he is incompetent to lead our government. His approval rating is now at 25%. Injured Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, our nation’s heroes, have resorted to suing our government for not paying disability pay or providing adequate health treatments. Hurricane Katrina response, prescription drug package, No Child Left Behind, billions of dollars in oil company tax subsidies, heck the man cannot even spit a sentence out correctly.
However, his uncountable number of incompetencies do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. They merely embarrass Americans.
Previous U.S. Presidents have faced impeachment, but none until Bush involved actions that directly resulted in American deaths, and none until Bush were considered more than flimsy political attacks. Now we have a president who is alleged to have violated several parts of our constitution, reportedly calling our constitution “just a g-ddammed piece of paper” when questioned in a meeting with lawmakers.
This time it seems different. Many Americans are calling for the dual impeachment of both President George H.W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Many of the charges are clearly criminal, clearly violate the constitution which both Bush and Cheney swore to uphold, and many could rise to the threshold of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
Specifically, the most serious charges include
- Violating the National Security Act of 1947 by leaking classified information to reporters.
- Violating 18 USC 1001 by presenting false evidence to congress regarding Iraq WMD, conspiracy to present false evidence, and presenting false evidence about Iraq’s uranium fishing expedition in Niger.
- Violating 18 USC 1505 by concealing nature and existence of domestic spying programs.
- Violating our 4th Amendment by ordering domestic wiretaps without going through the established FISA procedure.
- Violating our 8th Amendment by ordering and/or clearing torture methods on suspects.
- Violating our 6th Amendment by detaining thousands of people at Guantanamo Bay without due process or effective representation.
- Violating the Geneva Convention with torture on captured prisoners and shipping prisoners to secret prisons.
- Violating the law hundreds of times with signing statements which appear to give the President authority to subjectively interpret and do the opposite of what the signed law intended.
There are probably others, these are just the ones that jumped out at me. In fact many people list many other problems with Bush, but I considered those to be more of Bush doing a poor job than being an impeachable offense.
If there were one or two, we would probably grumble and go on with our lives. Unfortunately there are several items here, and all of them pose very troubling questions about how our commander-in-chief has exerted his presidential power.
I resisted publishing this article for months now. I only publish now because there are two separate impeachment resolutions in congress, at last count 14 congressmen have signed onto the bills, and polls are showing 75% of Americans are dissatisfied with our president and over half of Americans favor impeachment.
It appears the impeachment movement is reaching a crescendo, and the topic is absolutely appropriate for serious discussion. Of course, this article is published near the area where Bush received the most votes in the United States (Madison County).
So what do you think?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 I’m all for impeaching Bush! I have been for the past 4 years now! He’s a menace to society and has completely ruined the trust and faith the rest of the world had in us. He’s got the mentality of a 6th grader and he can’t even speak to the American public without making himself look like a complete idiot! We impeach President Clinton for lying about having sex with a skank (I would have too if it was with Monica Lewinsky!), yet President Bush has totally abused his powers as president and has brought this country to the brink of disaster! Wake up people and wipe the oil out of your eyes! This president needs to be impeached NOW!
Vote:
0 0 I appreciate your comment, but I would hate to see this turn into a Bush-Bash-Fest. Personal feelings and politics aside, I really just want to see a discussion on the merits of impeachable offenses. I think that is the only way we can keep it civilized. Unless you think his personal failings merit impeachment, but I do not think they do.
What about the points of law that Bush is alleged to have violated?
There may be more. Yesterday Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez dug himself in deeper by A) revealing too much sensitive information in a hearing and B) revealing there were other secret programs that some key senators were supposed to be briefed on but were not.
Now Bush is in the awkward position of saying his AG lied to Congress or admitting there were other illegal operations conducted. One could cause the AG to get closer out the door, the other could be grounds for another impeachable offense.
Vote:
0 0 It’s not about personal feelings, although I do feel strongly about this. But you just put a huge laundry list of offenses up there. How many more reasons do we need?
One word…. Patriot Act!
(ok 2)
Vote:
0 0 I think he deserves impeachment but I also think that this close to an election it would just be pointless because by the time Congress, who moves slower than a snail, got it done he’d be nearly out of office. The impeachment should have come two years ago when it became painfully obvious that Iraq was a boondoggle and that there never were any WMD’s.
The democrats are better off at this point just taking the high road rather than drag the country through a lengthy impeachment that would probably fail anyway.
Vote:
0 0 Past impeachments have only taken a few months. I have heard this impeachment could take weeks or even days due to existing video evidence. Do we give him a free pass for his remaining 18 months because we cannot be troubled to do something quickly enough?
I think we can all agree that Bush has kept many things shrouded in secrecy, whether you agree or not with the reasons for the secrecy. Half of these charges were things that came out of that secrecy.
The question is also how many other potentially illegal activities has Bush and team done that we do not know about yet?
I think not impeaching Bush and Cheney sends the signal that we do not value our own constitution and freedom. I think not impeaching implies to Bush and the next president that it is okay to do these things and more.
The bar has been lowered by Bush, how much lower will the next president feel they can take it because of our apathy?
Why bother with any elections or government at all if we will not enforce the laws in place?
Vote:
0 0 I am not much of an expert on politcal issues, and frankly, I am abiout ready to move to the Alaskan bush because I am sick of it all — but seriously, how many items on that list really SOUND bad, but are actually legal in emeregcny situations when we are involved in a war? I am not excusing any of it. I am just saying that if all these “crimes” were comitted — and they were actually crimes — then charge the man. Don’t call something a crime if its not. The terror attacks of Sept 11 2001were really now, quite some time ago. Since then we have had many years — the Olympics, Superbowls, Parades, Holidays, and many, many large events at which Americans gathered and could have been wiped out in mass. It hasn’t happend. AMAZINGLY it hasn’t happend. If you had tole me on Sept. 12 2001 that by July 2007 we would not have had a single new sucessful attack perpetrated by these animals on American soil I would have laughed in your face. How many of the “crimes” on that list helped keep the country safer and allowed us to get to July 2007 without a serious situation? How many things on that list are actually legitimate CRIMES not covered by some other law related to executive power during war or any other time for that matter? I don’t know. And if you don’t, then you should not comment.
Vote:
0 0 Machiavellianism: the end justifies the means.
The end result justifies evil methods.
Evil is okay if there is a good outcome.
The way you play is not as important as winning.
“Si guarde el fena” We must look to the future.
But another part of looking to the future, to the end result, is how we got there. What values have we lost along the way? What values have we taught future generations are acceptable?
If we are the greatest nation on Earth, why can we not do it the right way? Why must we sink to the levels of those we oppose?
Vote:
0 0 After 9-11, we had most of the world’s support behind us. Each day/week/month/year, we lose more support from the world’s community. I am very much in favor of impeaching the Bush/Cheney team. During the debates prior to Bush being elected, I felt they were both war mongers and they have proven me right. To me, the reasons for going into Iraq didn’t make a lot of sense. Invade a country where the majority of the population was under 18? Yes, Hussein needed to be taken out, but what about the others who were committing atrocities against their people? John Taylor for one. But wait — there wasn’t oil involved. Silly me. The way our returning disabled vets are being treated is an embarrasment and a disgrace.
When you put the infractions of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in a list as you did, it does not speak well for our judicial system or our country. But I guess having sex in the oval office is worse than violating our constitution and sending our young people to their death.
Vote:
0 0 Joe, I am sorry but you have been hanging out on Daily Kos site too much again.
By your own reasoning, we should have impeached FDR as well for creating war time boards to censor information on the war effort, interning Japanese Americans, for allowing Pearl Harbor to occur with fore knowledge, etc. (BTW FDR’s actions also had the consequence of American deaths)Add Lincoln to the list for suspending Habeus Corpus and spying on the South.
Americans are truly ungrateful for all the abundance we have and for the men and women fighting a war to keep us safe here. You say, well let’s just do it the right way…we are the greatest country in the world. Sure, that is well and good on paper. But stop to look at the position the President has been in: Thousands of Americans murdered, others threatened, Al-Qaeda cells in the US, i.e. remember Buffalo, New York, and a growing Islamic Fascist presence around the globe.
Do you just sit on your haunches and hide your head in the sand? This is like saying we should have taken the time to be nice to criminals and maybe they wouldn’t have broken into our homes or raped our women and children. We can’t even build a border fence due to environmental concerns about upsetting a species of frogs. It amazes me that the President was able to move the bureaucracy and agencies like the CIA, FBI, NSA to cooperate more than they did before.
You can criticize Bush for being a fascist or criminal but stop and think about the overall picture: you are safe and sound, the country has not been attacked in 6 years, and America is not in decline as the media would have you believe. These stories about the Geneva Convention are baloney. How can you be subject to Geneva Convention if you don’t wear a uniform? GUESS WHAT-YOU CAN’T. But the media won’t tell you that! It is an inconvenient truth. The also don’t get it…the Constitution does not apply to enemy combatants overseas. You wanna play nice with the terrorists and not interrogate them? Would you feel the same way if they had information that could stop an attack? Or is that just another inconvienient matter at hand. Joe, you spent time in the military. Using force is all these guys understand. You can’t talk to these people. They intend on desecrating and destroying our way of life. If you spend all your time on Daily Kos and lap up the garbage they spew out then I can see why you would write such a spoiled and distasteful story.
My challenge to you is to write a story from a different point of view that includes how the country has reacted in times of war–and how the country has prospered because it’s leaders made decisions that were in keeping with preserving this Republic. Wanting to impeach Bush would be laughable if not so serious. But then again, isn’t that what this country does best…it turns on those that defend it (Vietnam ring a bell with anyone). You know, all those soldiers were just baby killers back then. John Kerry says our modern day soldiers are just out breaking in and terrorizing women and children. And of course, Bush is the biggest terrorizer of all!
The real question being missed here is whether Americans want liberty or security? It is a legitimate question to ask. However, in a time of war and IT IS WAR…naturally security wins out. Do you honestly belief that Bush is not looking out for the best interests of the United States? What possible political motive could he earn personally or for his party with all this mess of invading Iraq. Think about it? What does he have to gain?
The answer is absolutely nothing. However, the country stands to gain by standing strong and resolute against those persons that would shut down this web site and probably torture and/or kill all of those that participate here. It is too easy to clamor for impeachment. The harder path is to decide how we continue to fight against radical islam–and win the fight on many fronts. We are not sinking to the levels of those we oppose. We are fighting to win. However, some of us are fighting to lose this war and have it brought home to our streets. Spend more time talking about things that matter. Impeachment is just a code word that was used by the left and right for political gain. This is should not be about politics. It is about our survival.
Vote:
0 0 Mike, well said…
I like the challenge to Joe to come up with an article that has real meaning.
Vote:
0 0 In your whole diatribe, I see only one objective response to the question posed. The point about Geneva Conventions only applying to soldiers of a national army. Has the Supreme Court taken that up yet, or is it still working it’s way through? Has the U.N. or another international judicial body reviewed that legal question yet?
Beyond that, you’ve completely missed the point. I am not surprised, either. It only took a few comments to illustrate what Bush defenders tend to do, evade the question and challenge the integrity of anyone who questions Bush.
I have written hundreds of articles here on topics I have been interested in. I have encouraged others to submit articles they want published. I have only blocked 3 articles: 2 from people that got banned site-wide, and 1 which was actually good but on religion and it was at the time we were talking about not doing that anymore.
I will write what I want to. I challenge you back to submit your own article on the topic you are interested in seeing. community resident, meaning is in the eye of the beholder, where is your submitted article?
So again, what about the points made? If I went to court on several legal charges, what would be thought if I tried distracting arguments? The judge would order me to address the charges at hand and not go off track.
Believe it or not, I cut back a lot of what I was going to publish. I read through it, thinking what some of my critics would say, and tried to keep the topic just on the impeachable offenses. I did that for you. The least you can do is respond directly without evasion and trying to impugn my integrity.
Vote:
0 0 It’s about time the people of this country wake up & see what Bush/Cheney have done to the “rule of law.” In the name of the War on Terror, they have tried to do away with some of the core principals of our republic. I see that some people are still willing to let them rule by fear instead of law, but at least people are talking impeachment now more than ever.
And it’s not the politicians talking about it this time-Pelosi & Conyers have been dragging their feet over the issue since the election easily showed them that this is what the majority wants. Americans are sick & tired of the “honorability & respectability” Bush has brought to the White House. Give me a real man who wants a BJ every now and then, rather than the warmonger we have now!
Make no mistake, as long as the Republicans are in power we will always be in a War on Terror. It will never stop, & our civil liberties will never be restored. Remember the premise of “1984″ was that the nation must always be at war, in order to control the people. The War on Terror is perfect for that job, don’tcha think?
Vote:
0 0 Excellent rebuttal on post 12 Joe.
I appreciate the posts you write and if I enjoy or am interested in the topic I post my thoughts and/or feelings. If not I move on and don’t let it bother me. I think that’s what others should do if their not interested in a certain topic. But it seems they’d rather moan and complain about it instead.
Oh well.
Thanks anyways!
Vote:
0 0 Joe, can I ask you this, what is the good that will come of an impeachment at this time?
How is it going to help the American people at this time and is that the only answer with all that has been going on in our country and the world?
The reason I ask is because a proposal such as this warrants an understandable outcome or replacement plan, don’t you think?
Vote:
0 0 Excellent question community resident.
Nixon’s impeachment was before my time, but I hope some of the folks who remember can describe some of those discussions. I heard that was a big discussion at the time, many people were worried about greater damage to our country from the impeachment than from upholding the law.
Of course, historically, upholding the law and our democratic principles won out.
Anyone from that time recall those discussions?
Vote:
0 0 You make a good point community resident, but I think Joe already answered that by stating…..what does it say to the rest of the world when we let Bush/Cheney get away with these atrocities? Wouldn’t it be better to impeach them and show the world that the American public is still in charge of it’s government. Or do we continue to sit idley by and not do anything about it. Just because elections are next year?
Vote:
0 0 One of the reasons I ask is because I doubt many citizens think beyond the initial impeachment and that if it happens right away they believe it would solve all the current governmental problems.
And how do you explain the fact that congress has less support and is less popular, according to the polls, than the President?
By impeaching one man out of office, what happens to the rest of the government officials who may be breaking laws as well?
Vote:
0 0 I see, and that’s a good point that life is not perfect after an impeachment. I heard the whole country was in a kind of funk during the 70’s after Nixon.
One reason Congress could have even less approval is because voters gave the Democrats a majority to get us out of Iraq and they have failed to do so. Many people wanted Bush impeachment hearings to have started already, and Pelosi lost her will.
What happened after Nixon and Clinton? The appropriate people who were doing wrong were investigated individually to whatever ends they met. The same would happen after a Bush or Bush/Cheney impeachment.
In fact we would probably see more justice done after an impeachment. Bush would not be able to commute his buddys’ prison sentences, and the rule of law would be shown that it can be enforced. Maybe.
So what about the allegation of “Violating our 4th Amendment by ordering domestic wiretaps without going through the established FISA procedure.”
The president had the method to do these wiretaps, and he chose to ignore them. Impeachable offense?
Vote:
0 0 So, if we impeach the dummy and the ventriloquist, who do we get as president…Pelosi?
I can’t help but think that if we throw the bastards out the world will think we have regained some semblance of sanity and that cooler minds have at last prevailed in this country.
Mike, I have to disagree with you on this one. I agree with Congressman (R-Tex) Ron Paul’s assessment that 9/11 may not have happened if we had not had troops on Saudi soil. Bin Laden’s followers martyred themselves by fanatical suicide attacks in an effort to punish us infidels for our Judeo/Christian presence in their holy land.
Yes, Mike, we are the greatest country in the world but we are too fat and lazy to develope the necessary technologies that would free us from the addiction to Middle-East oil. It is easier to just send our young men and women to war to protect those strategic oil supplies. Gunboat diplomacy will always be our calling card when the only thing we have for export is our military might and our ability to wage war. What happened to the days when we brought our best minds together to solve problems similar to those we are now facing?
Perhaps we first need someone in government who will admit that our troops are dying to protect our oil supply. If the Australian Defense Minister can admit that they are in Iraq to guarantee access to oil…then why can’t someone of equal status in our own country admit the same?
The best way to bring our kids home from that war is to replace the architects of that conflict and show the world that we aren’t the warmongoring lunatics that we now appear to be.
Vote:
0 0 …just be clear, by “impeachment” are you referring to articles of impeachment, like Clinton (for perjuring himself) or actual removal from office? Even Nixon wasn’t removed from office, remember, he resigned…
I am no Bush fan, believe me, but what about Congress’ actions or lack thereof??? the President cannot declare war; only Congress can and they did; why aren’t our other elected representatives bearing some of the blame for Iraq?????
Vote:
0 0 One word. YES.
He has so many things to hide, he doesn’t want anyone to say anything.
I personally don’t like the government listening to my phone conversations.
I don’t want to upset anyone, but…it’s about time people in Eastern Idaho realize how horrible he is.
I didn’t vote for him the first time, or the second time.
Vote:
0 0 If anyone stands up for Bush, I want to know WHAT he has done for this country making him so special?
I feel better about the war when he sends his little alcoholic brats to Iraq.
I feel better when the rest of the world doesn’t hate us.
Let’s get rid of the greater evil first, Karl Rove.
Vote:
0 0 Something I’d like some Bush supporters like Mike to answer:
1) How many WMD’s have we found?
2) How many ties to 9/11 did Saddam Hussein have?
3) How many 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq?
I’ll save the trouble and answer all of them with one word - ZERO.
You see, people like Mike can talk in vague generalities and distractions like security. But people like Mike ignore the truth and the truth is the reason for impeachment is not security, rather the issue is Iraq and the fact that Bush had us invade a country for BS reasons. Bush used 9/11 and WMD’s as justifications yet those are clearly false.
I don’t support impeachment simply because it would fail.
And if I had my way Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, and other key figures in his administration would be on trial for war crimes in the world court for attacking a sovereign nation without justified cause.
P.S. I fully supported Bush in attacking Afghanistan. You see there was this thing called the Taliban there that was funding some guy Bush calls “irrelevant” and the rest of call Osama Bin Laden. A Taliban that was funding Al Quaeda unlike Saddam Hussein who told them to get the hell out of his country (because he had his own pet terrorists groups - I’ve never said Saddam is a good person - he just hadn’t attacked the US and wasn’t about to). So its not about sitting with heads in the sand. Its about actually fighting the war on terror instead of fighting a war for oil, daddy’s honor, and distracting the public from Mr Irrelevant Bin Laden.
P.P.S. I await the “But Hilary voted to attack Iraq” type of argument. Yes she did because she got suckered along with everyone with Bush’s doctored evidenced. Shame on all of us for believing Bush’s lies.
Vote:
0 0 If anyone reads Confessions of an Economic Hitman you will understand the awkward situation with the Saudi terrorists and why we will not attack Saudi Arabia.
no one really: yes, I mean articles of impeachment like Clinton. I realize Nixon was not actually impeached by the House or tried by the Sentate, but because the articles passed the House Judiciary committee and the it was certain he would be impeached, Nixon effectively had the same experience as an impeachment. I think what the country went through with Nixon was about the same as if he had been fully impeached.
I’ve heard the point about “Congress voted for the war” and that is addressed by the charge “Violating 18 USC 1001 by presenting false evidence to congress regarding Iraq WMD, conspiracy to present false evidence, and presenting false evidence about Iraq’s uranium fishing expedition in Niger.”
I too was dumbfounded when Colin Powell made his presentation to the U.N. I figured I had it wrong and the Bush team must have had it right.
It was only after no WMD’s were found, and Colin Powell and several others revealed the intelligence and evidence had been cooked that we realize we have been had by Bush/Cheney.
BTW, the conspiracy charge relates to the Downing Street Memo, as I understand it, perhaps there is more to it.
Vote:
0 0 ..so, you are saying that Congress is so easily led and so dumb, so lacking in their own convictions, that the evil “genius” George Bush led them to declare war????
I don’t buy that…I don’t like Bush but I think Congress bears an equal or greater responsibility for the war……….so shouldn’t we impeach all the members of Congress who resolved to go to war with Iraq???
Moreover, re: the charges about firing the US attorneys that someone mentioned: how many U.S. Attorneys did Janet Reno fire on order of Bill Clinton??? Oh, that’s right: 93!!!!!!!!!!!
I dislike Bush; but, folks, let’s spread the blame around and be fair, shall we???
Vote:
0 0 I don’t know that they are so dumb, but correct me if I am wrong in thinking the FBI and CIA fall under executive branch jurisdiction / management?
I think only the President can see the raw intelligence, I do not think that congress can see the raw intelligence. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Congress essentially has to trust what the President presents, right? I suppose they can call in the intelligence officers to ask if everything is true, but that takes even more time and hearings.
I do not think the attorney firings are impeachable offenses.
Vote:
0 0 It would be refreshing if that when something was said about Bush that Clinton wasn’t brought up. Do you suppose that this is because people can’t find anything positive to say about Bush? Clinton’s deeds or misdeeds have nothing to do with our present situation. Congress isn’t entirely blameless in our current situation.
The fact that there was such an “upheaval” in the last election showed that the majority of the population also felt this way. However I’m disappointed at their lack of action. I do what I can at the polls, but being from Idaho it is sometimes a losing battle, but I will keep trying. Many of us grew up with a popular saying from our parents and grandparents: A New Broom Sweeps Clean.
Vote:
0 0 Its called the playing the Clinton Card. When you can’t defend Bush you just sling the mud by bringing up something Clinton did as if two wrongs somehow make a right.
Vote:
0 0 I agree that bringing up Clinton is really getting old. It just deflects attention from the issue. Just like saying that Congress is to blame for authorizing Bush to go to war. They trusted him. Could you imagine how hard it would be to ever get anything done if the legislative and executive branches didn’t trust each other to a degree? Granted, the trust is probably less now than ever, and that is a tragedy. But blaming Congress when Bush deliberately misled them is only blaming the victim. Blaming the victim is a pathetic excuse for a discussion.
Vote:
0 0 I think the Clinton impeachment can be relevant to this discussion insofar as the procedures and methods. I think it’s distracting to whine about Clinton beating the charges or other “wish this had happened”s. It is as distracting as bashing Bush or trying to shift blame to other people.
The CIA website confirms they “exist principally to serve the needs of the executive authority” though they claim they “also make… a large part of its output available to the legislative branch.”
However, scope and depth of intelligence shared with Congress has never been defined or specified, so it is difficult if not impossible to know how much of our total intelligence picture that Congress had. Wasn’t it CIA Director George Tenet who called Iraq WMD’s a “slam dunk case”? Since then we have learned there was much disagreement over the intelligence estimate, and that the “right” intelligence was cherry picked by Bush and/or Cheney.
Again, this is not to slam their methods, it is to point to objectively impeachable offenses that Bush/Cheney have committed.
Another clue that Congress probably did not have the full Iraq picture was the six years of majority Republican rule in Congress. I do not think anyone can deny that the Republican majority and the Bush White House scratched each other’s backs a lot over those six years. Newt Gingrich complained that Bush did not have to sign everything the Congress gave him. Many think that Bush did this so Congress would rubber stamp everything Bush was doing and not dig too deeply into his claims.
Vote:
0 0 Wait a minute: I am only bringing up Clinton because he, too, was impeached yet not removed from office: what is the plan for Bush??? If you will recall that was my question; no Clinton “bashing”, just discussing impeachment of presidents…. I also mentioned Nixon and will throw in Andrew Johnson, our only kicked-ou-of-office President as a bonus ha ha…
Second, the “last election”…umm, Kerry lost, decidedly. No real “upheaval” that I recall.
Third, I think maybe I am not making my point clear. I dislike Bush as well as the next person (apparently everyone on this site ha ha)…but, my point is and remains: was Congress, with all the resources, aides, access to information at their disposal, so easily led that Bush, who everyone says is an idiot, was able to lead them down the primrose path???
All I am saying is that maybe the real story is more complicated; maybe everyone, including Congress was justifiably enraged by 9/11 and also looking for somewhere to place blame when they declared war …..it is too easy for everyone to keep saying “Bush lied and poor, easily decieved Congress bought it”.
Vote:
0 0 Regarding Doug’s post in #24:
People think of WMD’s in terms of only nuclear weapons. How many mass graves did they find of Kurds who were killed with chemical weapons? Too many. Hundreds of thousands of Kurdish people were exterminated by Saddam. Sadaam was attacking Iran with WMD Chemical Stockpiles too. Any doubt he would use them against the United States in a prolonged conflict? This is an often missed point by the media…there were caches of WMD’s just not nuclear that were found. A chemical weapon can kill you just as much as a nuke.
As for your second point, it is clear from CIA estimates that Iraqi Intelligence was collaborating with Al Qaeda interests in sharing and gleaning intelligence from each other. I will grant that on it’s face Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. However, much like present day Syria which also has a Bathist type government-and is now supporting Al Qaeda-Iraq was prepared to do the same. Think about it: Iraq and Syria are primarily over 80% Sunni. Al Qaeda is not Sunni or Shiite. They are primarily Islamic Wahhabists.
A little history lesson about past intentions of Wahhabists (Al Qaeda types) to gain power in Iraq is useful here:
The Saudi Arabian kingdom’s founder, King Abdel-Aziz bin Abdel-Rehman, successfully quashed the Ikhwan movement (not to be confused with the Muslim Brotherhood) when it began to threaten the interests of the state. The militant Wahhabi movement played a major role in King Abdel-Aziz’s attempts to conquer most of modern-day Saudi Arabia in the early 1900s. But when the group wanted to expand its operations into Iraq (then under British control)-a move that threatened the interest of the king’s British allies-and when it wanted to impose its own brand of Islamic law in the kingdom, King Abdel-Aziz had its members annihilated. Many decades later, in 1979, when the Kaba in Mecca was taken over by a militant Wahhabi group led by Juhayman al-Utaibi, the Saudis were again able to act against the group, even storming the Kaba to flush out the militants. Many of the hijackers from 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia–granted they were not Iraqi’s but putting political boundaries aside, whether the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia or Iraq makes no difference from the stand point whether to invade or not. What is clear is that Sadaam’s government was in bed with the Wahhabists as is the present government of Syria because they align more closely in belief than they do with Shiite dominated governments, i.e. Iran.
To leave Sadaam’s Bathist party in place was aiken to leaving the fox in the chicken coop hoping the fox wouldn’t do any damage. Doug, this soverign nation that you talk about was a state sponsor of terror against it’s people and the region in general–and yes, against Saudi Arabia…and they were concerned that Sadaam would threaten their oil through both direct and indirect means of the Wahhabi movement.
I think it is interesting that so many people look at this issue in terms of Bush not telling the truth when the truth is out there for everyone to see. I will state that the White House has done a terrible job communicating this to the American people. So many folks don’t wish to understand the true history of the region and the alliances in place. It is complex. I suppose that most Americans prefer to watch American Idol and forget about the rest. The old addage: throw the bums out takes center stage.
Everybody here wants to impeach…well, that is your perogative. However, I guarantee you that the next President will be up wringing their hands trying to figure out how to fight these groups as much as George Bush has had to. The real debate should be to discuss and learn from both the success and mistakes this president has made and not repeat the same the next 4 years. I want the next president, Democrat or Republican, to succeed and defeat the Islamic fascists. People make fun of George Bush when he says if we don’t defeat the Fascists over there they will follow us home. Recognize from history that this is indeed the case. Their desire to form a one-world califate is their stated and intended path. It does not stop at the borders of the Middle East. So, while ya’ll are arguing about impeachment take a moment and reflect on the stakes here. It doesn’t get anymore serious than it is right now. The political landscape will change again when another attack happens in this country. So, when the next President does what Bush has done to protect the United States I wonder if there will be all the same cries of impeachment? Strangely, I think not. This has been a ‘hate bush’ thread. Google the term ECHELON and read up on it. This system of spying has been in place since after WWII. Democratic and Republican Presidents have presided over it’s growth for decades. So, blame Bush all you want but he is using established resources to protect this country from people who want to kill us. I don’t have a problem with that. Apparently guys like John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton didn’t either. But hey, just blame Bush it will help you sleep better at night.
Vote:
0 0 “This is an often missed point by the media … there were caches of WMD’s just not nuclear that were found. A chemical weapon can kill you just as much as a nuke.”
This is an often mistaken point! There were no chemical weapons found in Iraq. The lady in charge admitted about a year after our invasion that she did not record destroying them because she had dumped them outside the gates of one of Saddam’s palaces, and she did not want to admit it to him. Believe her story or not, but there were no chemical weapons found. If you dispute this fact, please provide evidence when and where they were found.
Yes Saddam had WMD’s that Rumsfeld arranged for him in the 80’s, but he did not have any when we invaded.
The intelligence community was in strong disagreement over this point, but Bush presented it as though they all agreed. That is why the charge of manipulating intelligence to get us into a war is one article of impeachment. Essentially the charge is that Bush lied, Americans died, and now he must pay for his crime.
The terrorists have not restricted our freedoms or violated our rights. Bush has.
I’ve read a couple comments that really do discuss the articles of impeachment, but mostly I am reading comments that try to distract by pointing to historical viewpoints (which are not complete) and past presidents and unknown dangers.
These are not reasons to impeach or not. They are merely distractions from the impeachment discussion.
Bush admitted flat out that he violated the 4th amendment by circumventing the FISA court.
That is a blatant violation of the constitution he swore to uphold. Now are you going to equivocate his crime by saying the end justified the means, or are you going to support upholding our laws?
If he gets away with violating our laws in these manners, what is to prevent him or the next president from violating other laws, say our freedom of religion, speech, or right to bear arms?
How many laws must the president break before his core supporters admit cannot support him anymore?
Vote:
0 0 To be a weapon of mass destruction the weapon must be capable of causing mass destruction. Its kind of obvious isn’t it. Yet neocon apologists can’t seem to understand that.
They dredge up remanants of stuff from the 80’s that we gave to them as proof. We all know Iraq HAD chemical weapons at one time. But after the first war all that stuff went bye bye. Oh sure, here and there you fight find rotted remains of a shell (like the ones found a year or so ago that neocons briefly trumpeted as proof while neglecting the fact they weren’t useable).
And Congress does not have access to the same information the president does. Important information goes to the president first and is then disseminated. Bush and his masters chose what to forward on and what to hide. The forwarded anything that might give some credence to their wild hopes of WMD’s so they’d have an excuse to invade and ignored the majority of the evidence pointing out that there were none. Oh sure Saddam wanted WMD’s. I want a million dollars. Doesn’t mean either of us actually have what we wanted.
Vote:
0 0 I agree with Joe but just impeach Bush and let Dick take over, the stress will over work his defibrilator battery and he’ll go in often for a re-charge unless they hook him up to a nuclear reactor then he’ll be “Super Dick”. Forget the WMD’s, War on Terrorism, the reason Frip and Frap invaded Iraq in the first place is OIL!, Larry Craig pretty much admitted that point the other day. Congress, both houses, Republican and Democrat, know thats why we went into Iraq but none of them have the integrity to say it much less do anything about it. Cheney, the Real Decider, met with the House of Faud too many times before and continued to do so. Both Bush and Cheney are made of oil, Daddy Bush did it in the first Gulf War then when things went bad for Junior he sent in the Baker/Hamilton bunch to help Junior but Junior couldn’t see the gift he was handed. Something of concern, theres still another Bush out there that could become President.
Vote:
0 0 Joe, I would like to have some more substance to these allegations. Is there a site you took these from that gives more details:
Violating the National Security Act of 1947 by leaking classified information to reporters.
Violating 18 USC 1001 by presenting false evidence to congress regarding Iraq WMD, conspiracy to present false evidence, and presenting false evidence about Iraq’s uranium fishing expedition in Niger.
Check out this link from the United Nations UNMOVIC group. It addresses Iraq’s WMD’s-chemical (CW)and biological (BW)and missle technology. BTW we forget some history here (which Joe indicated was not appropriate to cite because it is incomplete). It is a historical fact that UN inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in late 1998 to late 2002. This was yet another reason Iraq was invaded and this “minor” point is forgotten.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/unmovic-udi-working-doc_6%20march03.pdf
Page 3 addresses statements from Iraqi military leaders justifying the need for WMDs due to Israeli and Iranian threats. Check out page 8 for BW, bottom page 11 for CW agents produced, bottom page 14 for concurrent civilian technological and scientific abilities to produce CW and BW. Page 15 addresses expanded surges in missile technology. Page 41 addresses scud missile warheads fitted for WMD-50 CW and 25 BW warheads. Page 47 addresses R-400 bombs fitted with BW gasses like Sarin. The overarching theme in this report is Iraqi declarations after late 2002 that they were not involved in and proscribed manufacture of WMD from 1998 to 2002. Numerous findings did not back up Iraqi claims. This UN report is the declassified version. They state they left out sensitive information. What is in the report is a collection of intelligence relied upon by the United States, in part to justify invasion. So, should we nail the UN now too. They are not exactly a toaty for Bush are they?
I would like some more substance to this allegation:
Violating 18 USC 1505 by concealing nature and existence of domestic spying programs.
Violating our 4th Amendment by ordering domestic wiretaps without going through the established FISA procedure.
Joe, you stated, “Bush admitted flat out that he violated the 4th amendment by circumventing the FISA court.” When and where did this occur. THe government recently prevailed in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on this very issue. There was no admission of violation of the 4th Amendment. In fact, the 4th Amendment did not apply because the Echelon program I referenced earlier was used to intercept calls coming into the United States from overseas by persons on known terrorist watch lists. The calls were monitored overseas by Echelon and other foreign governments. There is no 4th Amendment violation by this use of this technology. Numerous Court rulings have affirmed this. So, if you don’t like it-change the law. Otherwise, like liberals are so fond of saying “The Court has spoken”. The FISA provisions only come into play in domestic situations monitoring calls that originate within the United States.
Another “minor” point not spelled out or understoof by the media.
Violating our 8th Amendment by ordering and/or clearing torture methods on suspects. Are you referring to Abu Grahib? Or just the CIA methods of interrogation. Problem here: captured terrorist says he was tortured. Gonna believe him? Waterboarding a problem? I don’t think so. The 8th Amendment is the last refuge of desperate folks that can’t argue the merits. We want protection. We demand protection. We want our officials to get info. out of terrorists and prevent innocent deaths both civilian and military…yet we are shocked to learn how they do it? Come on, get real and understand that no one is dying in custody. If you want to play nice with terrorists then you will get nothing out of them. Captured Al Qaeda training handbooks have sections on what to do or say when captured and interrogated. It also talks about playing up Geneva Convention Protections….which we covered is not applicable because they are not in a uniform. This is why they earn the title enemy combatants and have less rights than prisoners of war. Not our rules–these are from the Geneva Accords.
Violating our 6th Amendment by detaining thousands of people at Guantanamo Bay without due process or effective representation.
Joe, you find this immpeachable? What about FDR? No clamor against him for interning Japanese Americans? The Courts have forced some changes in the military tribunal system, but there are very limited 6th Amendment protections here. Even the Courts refused to release these guys. They simply don’t have the same rights as normal Americans.
Violating the law hundreds of times with signing statements which appear to give the President authority to subjectively interpret and do the opposite of what the signed law intended. Joe, are you referring to Executive Orders here? Need some more definition of what you mean.
So, basically, impeach the President for protecting the United States? As laughable and ridiculous as impeaching Clinton for Lewinsky-even if he did lie about it.
My overall point is that we don’t pay attention to history. We don’t pay attention to detail. And if our media can’t spit it out in a 10 second sound bite they don’t explain the entire circumstances because it is either too hard for them to understand or they have this inkling that the American public can’t or won’t bother to listen to it either.
Impeachment is being pushed by a few radical congressmen who are exploiting the issue to look good to their constituents. As for polls that 75% support impeachment, that is near impossible. Maybe 75% of some liberal blog. Heck, we can’t get 75% or more to agree on most anything. I would love to see the source and see how the question(s) were asked in this poll. Overall, impeachment is a loser issue that is only cared about by nut jobs like Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink. This is not an issue that even most independents care about.
Vote:
0 0 Place extra taxes on those who voted for President Bush and now pretend they didn’t. Make those pay for their mistakes.
Vote:
0 0 I’m in favor of sitting back and waiting for the Tacumsah Curse to take him to hell.
Vote:
0 0 Mike…Would more Iraqi people have died had we left Iraq a week or two after Saddam was captured rather than staying and trying to force a democracy on them (and seeing more than 700,000 of their people die for our efforts)? It seems to me that their own political power bases would naturally sort out winners and loser in that struggle, regardless of our presence there and perhaps with less loss of life.
Our job was done once Saddam was no longer a threat to the oil stability of the region. Our military occupation of that part of the world can only incite further hatred for us Infidels.
This civil war we find ourselves in the middle of should not be decided by our presence there, it should be decided by the Sunnis and Shia (which seems to me to be as much a class struggle as a conflict amongst religious sects). The oil will still flow to us regardless of the victors, Shia, Sunni or Wahhabists and hopefully it will be a less volatile region than when Saddam was in power no matter which faction comes out on top.
We are 5% of the world’s population and we consume 25% of it’s oil. It’s high time we went on a diet. When we invade sovereign nations (to preserve our gluttonous, oil-addicted lifestyle) we are nothing more than a pariah in the world.
We used bases in Saudi Arabia, at the behest of Saudi royalty, to drive Saddam out of Kuwait and quell Saudi fears that they were next, but remember it was Saudi Muslim extremists who flew those planes at us on 9/11. Saudi Arabia’s home grown Muslim extremists attacked us for our military presence on their sacred soil and not so much for our “decadent” lifestyles.
It seems that we have ample reason to throw Bush and Cheney out and in so doing show the rest of the world that few of us support their regime and military occupation of a country (Iraq) that didn’t attack us. I’m not sure this country can survive another year and a half under their leadership.
Vote:
0 0 I have a son in Iraq. Serving his second tour. They are still finding caches of weapons. He writes that the people there, and he was out in the farmside, only want to farm and live their lives. They like the American’s but would really like to get back to a ‘normal’ way of life.
That said….. What has Bush done for this country? Our unemployment rate is down to 5%. The economy is up.
Wars don’t start overnight and they can’t be ended in a heartbeat. 9-11 should never be thought of as…. a distant memory.
I think we all need to go take a history/government class and remember just how dependent every country is on the others. The US has it’s fingers in a lot of other countries pots and they in ours. None of us would survive without the alliances and trades that we have with each other.
Vote:
0 0 Meso,
I was understanding your comments up until the last paragraph. You seemed to have a good understanding of some points. I can appreciate your comment about not wanting us in the middle of a civil war. It is not an envious position to be in.
However, when you state, “It seems that we have ample reason to throw Bush and Cheney out and in so doing show the rest of the world that few of us support their regime and military occupation of a country (Iraq) that didn’t attack us. I’m not sure this country can survive another year and a half under their leadership”…
are you suggesting that by impeaching Bush we are currying favor or trying to impress someone or some group? If so, are you referring to the Jihadists? Would this be a ‘peace’ offering so they won’t attack us? Please clarify. Thanks.
Vote:
0 0 Anonymouse…
Two and a half centuries ago, England had her fingers in our pots and with occupation troops on our soil to protect her “right” to our raw materials. What we called American patriots the English called terrorists or insurgents when this country fought to free itself from that foreign domination.
It’s fine to make alliances and trading partners in the world but not when you have to quarter troops on the soil of those resource-wealthy nations in order to secure your own economic survival and prolong your addiction to, in this case, their oil.
I hope your son comes home safe and sound from that conflict, those troops deserve our utmost respect for the job they have been asked to perform. But yes, it’s time to bring them home, and if that can only be done by impeaching the architects of that conflict, then the sooner the better. We need to send a message to the rest of the world that saner heads have prevailed in this country and we have taken back our government.
Remember, it wasn’t the Iraqis who precipitated 9/11 but they are showing the same fanatic zeal in their suicide attacks on our occupation troops that the Saudi plane hijackers did when they flew into the twin towers and the Pentagon, and yes, those images are ever present in the memories of most of us.
Vote:
0
Vote:
I made clear before that I support dual impeachment of both Bush and Cheney, try them both at the same time and hold the impeachment votes immediately one after the other, separated only by minutes. The reason for this is that you know Cheney will pardon Bush immediately.
Would you support impeachment if these actions were taken by bill clinton? What if they were taken by hillary clinton? I hope we can separate the person from the crimes.