Slashdot Mirror
35 Articles of Impeachment Introduced Against Bush
vsync64 writes "Last night, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) spent 4 hours reading into the Congressional Record 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. Interestingly, those articles (63-page PDF via Coral CDN) include not just complaints about signing statements and the war in Iraq, but also charges that the President "Sp[ied] on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment,' 'Direct[ed] Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens,' and 'Tamper[ed] with Free and Fair Elections.' These are issues near and dear to the hearts of many here, so it's worth discussing. What little mainstream media coverage there is tends to be brief (USA Today, CBS News, UPI, AP, Reuters)." The (Democratic) House leadership has said that the idea of impeachment is "off the table." The Judiciary Committee has not acted on articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney introduced by Kucinich a year ago.
From http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/clinton/clin826.htm How impeachment works: The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power of impeachment - the constitutional equivalent of an indictment - and gives the Senate the power to try all impeachments. The first step in removing the president is the approval of articles of impeachment by the House Judiciary Committee. A majority vote of the full House is then needed to impeach and send the case to trial in the Senate. The chief justice of the United States presides at the trial, and a two-thirds majority of those senators present is needed to convict. Conviction results in automatic removal from office. Most of the house and two thirds of the senate are needed, and they have to decise that he has committed a crime. If so, the person being impeached will be removed from office and the next in command takes the post. *shudders at a Cheney presidency*
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
The wikipedia article on impeachment goes into more depth than I could here.
>Everyone knows Bush will be gone in seven months. What's the point?
There's a value beyond the symbolic one. Article I, Section 3 allows the outcome of impeachment and conviction to include "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States". We've had convicted felons re-hired into the Executive branch before. Impeachment and conviction could remove the risk of something like that happening.
Then why did he say "The House is not in order"? Who banged the gavel? Your post had no resemblance to fact whatsoever. :p
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
>all that is needed is approval from the Attorney General
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, requires approval from a judge for eavesdropping.
Even if the Attorney General could repeal laws, in this case the Justice Department had decided the program was illegal and Ashcroft refused to sign off on it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500864.html
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93581
My sig of choice is Marlboro
IANACL (I am not a Constitutional lawyer) but the Impeachment process goes something like this:
1.) One or more Congressmen in the House of Representatives present the Articles of Impeachment for consideration.
2.) The House considers the Articles and says "yea" or "nay"; A yes vote (a simple majority is required) acts like an official indictment against the President. This is the actual "Impeachment" that everyone talks about. A common misunderstanding is that Impeachment means removal from office. That takes place in step three.
3.) If impeached, the Senate acts as the jury in a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If convicted (this part requires a 2/3ds majority of Senators), the President is then removed from office.
Two Presidents have ever been impeached. Andrew Johnson (succeeded Lincoln after his assassination) and Bill Clinton. Johnson resigned before his Senate trial and Clinton was aquitted. Richard Nixon was never officially impeached, but he resigned after it became clear that not only would be be impeached, but that the Senate would remove him from office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States The Wikipedia entry has more info.
Clinton was impeached. Impeachment simply means the accusations were raised; it means that there is a possibility of removal from presidency. The senate has to hold a trial to determine the president's fate AFTER he's been impeached.
Correction. "Impeached a president because a lying about a BJ". Yes, Bill was impeached. Look it up.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
The same way you do when he's in office.
Impeachment refers to conducting an investigation and filing charges. Removal from office or disqualifying one from holding other office is what the Senate does in their trial.
It pays to note that Bill Clinton was impeached. He just wasn't removed from office because the Senate decided he wasn't guilty of what the House said he did.
This was put together during the Clinton impeachment proceedings: it's a long and fascinating account of what the authors of the Constitution had in mind as grounds for impeachment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm
If you impeach Bush and successfully remove him from office, then you get Cheney.
But, maybe if they SIMULTANEOUSLY impeached Bush and Cheney on the same charges, then Pelosi could be President.
paintball
On a related note...
A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.
For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.
A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.
The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.
(more)
Then you might want to get behind the Read the Laws Act.
They better not... their own rulebook says about the like:
A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business (III, 2045-2048, 2051, 2398; VI, 468, 469; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989, p. 8814; ept. 23, 1998, pp. 21560-62; see Deschler, ch. 14, 8). It may not even be superseded by an election case, which is also a matter of high privilege II, 2581). It does not lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has been made at a previous time during the same session of Congress (III, 2408), previous action of the House not affecting it (III, 2053).Unless they've got a darn good reason not to move along with this, they've got to deal with it...before anything else, it seems, but I'm not lawyer-shaped.
I'm just glad someone, anyone more like, finally pointed out the emperor has no clothes...and hasn't for a while...
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
Treaties ratified by the congress are Law in the United States. That would include agreements made with the UN.
The Supreme Court recently scoped that down a bit, eloquently saying 'uh, but not REALLY'.
I'll leave it to the Constitution to tell you who's right about this (hint: apparently not the 'conservative' and 'strict constructionist' Court in that decision):
Article VI: [...] This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. [...]
Here we have a US Representative reading 35 articles of impeachment (with lots of supporting documentation and citations) on the House floor and there's virtually no media coverage. There's an AP wire paragraph that's quoted about it several places and that's about it. No commentary. No detail on any of the articles. How is this possible? What the hell?! Google it yourself. NOTHING. What does it take? ITMFA!
If you've ever set foot near the Capitol, you'd realize the chamber is constantly on an internal multichannel CCTV feed with captioning.
Just because no one is in the room does not mean it isn't being watched or heard in the members' offices.
Man this whole clinton thing is so overdone but here goes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13173-2005Mar7.html
it's the only way not to be squelched. If he just submitted it to the register it would be sure to be buried in 1000 pages of republican comments nobody would read. By reading it aloud it's "minutes" and must be given space in the register as official discussion. He may be ignored now, but his complaint is legally registered for historians to come.
In all of that, not a single mention of the alternatives to oil. Not a single mention of nuclear power. Not a single mention of wind power. Not a single mention of solar power.
But the part that gave you away, was the part about "China is drilling off the shore of Florida, that should be OUR OIL". Because, you have somehow taken the fact that the straights of florida are 90 miles wide, and HALF of them are legally within the territoy of Cuba. 45 miles is ours, and 45 miles is theirs. Cuba has leased out the dilling rights to a company from China. Whats the problem with that? If the world oil market global as you say it is, then it doesnt really matter who is drilling it, as it will be sold to the person who pays market value for it.
Its not OUR oil, its the oil of a sovereign country that happens to be within 90 miles of our own coastline. It makes me skeptical that you chose to not present that fact in your post.
I know you made a mistake in typing out the first can(t) in the following sentence, but the humor of saying "If he can handle an interview with Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly, then he can't handle being president!" was probably the most amusing Freudian slip Ive seen in a very long while.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
This is not a (to use the passage you quote) "direct proposition to impeach"--that would be an actual "articles of impeachment," as voted on by the entire House of Representatives. Kucinich's screed would properly be called a "demand for impeachment," and it has no more authority than any other speech in Congress.
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
...because he got a BJ and lied about it... In addition, your "correction" seems to need some grammar work:
...because a lying about a BJ... Bad form.eleven plus two / twelve plus one
> Johnson resigned before his Senate trial
False. Johnson was tried, and fond not guilty, by one vote, a Republican from Ohio. The "law" that he "violated" (firing a member of his own Cabinet without Senate approval) was later found to be unconstitutional.
Johnson then served out the rest of his term, but did not try to run for election in his own right.
... Paula Jones. She cared too because her case was thrown out as a result of his obstruction of justice.
Keep in mind, the President's first job is to ensure that the law is faithfully executed. When you violate that responsibility for political expedience.
If he could have argued that violating her rights actually helped the nation, then it wouldn't have been an issue.
YOU might have given YOUR support. I didn't support Bush's war. I fought like a badger against the Iraq War. Anyone actually paying attention knew Bush and his cronies were lying before that war even started.
The UN weapon inspectors said there were NO WoMDs in Iraq well before combat began.
Several statements by the president and the vice president were either contradicted by the intelligence they had or made up from thin air. These are statements made to convince the public and Congress that Iraq was a threat to the United States. If that's not lying, then what is?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge's oil remained off the market.
Don't like the price of oil? Ask your representative to push renewable technologies. Otherwise, don't wine about the price of oil. It's not our right as American's to cheap oil, so we better get over it now, before China and India are consuming more than us.
Genghis Khan, like his empire, was Turco-Mongolian...
As were (naturally) his offspring such as Tamerlane (Timur)
And his descendant Babur, founder of the Mughal Empire
And his descendant Jahan Shah, who had the Taj Mahal built
Sadly, there's not much chance of Bush facing an international court for his war crimes... Bush himself withdrew the U.S from our treaty commitment to the very court which would have prosecuted such crimes. Convenient, eh?
Scott McClellan's book says not only that they were lying, it says they KNEW they were lying about the intel when they said it.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-Washingtons-Culture-Deception/dp/1586485563
>In no court in the land is that perjury.
No court except U.S. district courts, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Arkansas Supreme Court, that is.
ok:
The first item is only a short term fix, so thirdly, Congressional Democrats should encourage research and development in to new technologies and energy sources.
I'm not sure how you managed to miss that. Maybe you need to slow down while reading?
Oh, and if you're thinking of whining about him not going into detail on exactly what kind of "new technologies and energy sources" we should be developing, don't bother - that wasn't the purpose of his comment, and such a complaint would be utterly purposeless.
You're preaching to the choir. Start beating up hippies, and maybe we'll see some progress.
I watched Kucinich read all 35-counts. His mailing list was the first to inform me that he was about to do it, and I'm thankful I was at my computer at the time.
Some of it was just jaw-dropping. Children being detained as enemy combatants? Going on vacation while the terrorist attack sirens were blaring? Sitting back and doing nothing while Katrina destroyed the gulf coast? Usurping FISA's exclusive authority to issue electronic surveillance warrants for intelligence purposes?
Never, in the history of the United States, has any President, EVER, deserved to be impeached and removed from office more than George W. Bush.
As a Progressive Democrat, I understand why my party is moving for the impeachment of George Bush. What I really *don't* understand is why the Conservative Republicans aren't doing the same thing? If there's *anything* in the world that will give McCain even a slight chance against Barack Obama, it would be rallying the Republican party to impeach George W. Bush. Republicans who supported him might even be allowed to keep their jobs in the next election cycle! Why aren't they all over this like flies on dog shit???
Let's remove this tyrant from office. For the good of the Presidency, for the good of America, for the good of the American people, and finally for the good of the whole damn world!
IMPEACH BUSH NOW!
Doesn't work that way. International war crime laws apply to the rulers of all nations no matter if they sign up or not. Otherwise, every two-bit dictator could just declare that their country is immune and do whatever they want. Assuming the next President doesn't decide to throw Bush to the wolves by shipping him out, Bush will probably have to stay within US boarders lest he get picked up.
Not that this will be a big change, since Bush hardly ever left Texas before he was elected.
Not a typewriter
Why not?
You've been punishing people with far less evidence of criminal intent.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Prosecutors didn't indite O.J. Simpson because they didn't like him and wanted to send him to prison for the rest of his life, they indited him because they had two dead bodies in the morgue and a ton of evidence.
What led to Clinton's impeachment wasn't a crime he committed, but a desire among Republicans to remove him from office by any means necessary. Whitewater and Vince Foster were investigated and re-investigated and no dirt was found on the Clintons. So Ken Starr and House Republicans settled for a manufactured perjury charge.
Whereas with Bush and Cheney, we know for a fact that they have broken the law and violated the Constitution countless times. They violated Habeas Corpus, the 4th Amendment (warrantless wiretapping), 5th Amendment (due process), 6th Amendment (speedy trials), 8th Amendment (cruel & unusual punishment) and laws against using federal agencies for partisan gain (attorney firings, Don Siegelman prosecution).
Democrats shouldn't remove Bush and Cheney from office because they don't like them, but because they committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Those websites are grossly misrepresentative.
US produced 1.9 gigabarrels last year, and imported 4.9 gigabarrels. We got 0.9 gigabarrels from canada.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasoline/index.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm
In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
200 billion barrels in the Bakken Formation in North Dakota.
ANWR
Both coasts and the Gulf.
We have the oil. JUst too many stupid laws that prohibit drilling for it.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Except TheDarkener was likely comparing the current situation where an attempt to impeach Bush is not receiving any publicity, to Clinton's experience. As I recall there was tons and tons of media coverage, for long periods of time, before Clinton was actually impeached.
You think gas is $4/gallon because we didn't drill in ANWR?
Gas is that expensive due primarily to a weak dollar coupled with high global demand. ANWR would do next to nothing in terms of supply. According to Reuters, http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2934033020080429?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true, The US uses 20M+ barrels per day while ANWR would supply 40K per day in 2011 - a 0.2% gain. It rises to 780K per day by 2020, cutting our dependence on foreign crude from 62% to 60%.
Take this tired canard and bury it, please.
Thats a good idea. We should call it the War Powers Resolution.
I live in the Cleveland area and it is a fact that we didn't believe Bush at all even in the beginning. To bad the rest of the dumb sheep went along with his ridiculous claims of WMD. It was well known he wanted that war and just struggled to come up with something vaguely threatening to scare the dumb people. That is obvious and if you didn't realize that PRIOR to the war, then you are a total idiot. Kucinich represents us here and we want the president impeached because he is a particularly bad criminal. What is so crazy for our representative to do the will of the voters? He is actually doing his job unlike most of congress.
> ..he should also be handed over to an international war crimes panel
> to be tried for the use of torture on prisoners.
In a perfect world I'd agree, just to watch the shock and horror on assholes like you when he walked free. Because if they actually applied the Geneva Conventions as actually written there is no crime.
The Geneva conventions classify Al Queda members as unlawful enemy conbatants and you can just shoot em on sight if you want, they ain't got shit for rights. Go back to WW II and observe the Germans vs the French Resistance. In the main the Germans did follow the Geneva Conventions, but they shot the French Resistance and never gave it a second though and they didn't get brought up on charges for it when the war was over. Because irregulars (out of uniform) bearing arms or committing acts of sabotage or spying are "Unlawful Enemy Combatants" and other than explicitly allowing them to be shot are pretty much outside the scope of the Treaty. But even more black letter law, the Geneva Conventions only apply if the person captured is a soldier in the military service of a SIGNATORY country. AQ isn't and has no plans to be.
Which explains why uniformed Taliban soldiers captured during the opening days of the Afgan operation were given traditional POW status, as were Saddam's soldiers in both of the Iraq wars werw as well, while AQ gets to go to Gitmo and we could legally do pretty much anything to em legally. Tactically, politically and morally are of course different and militarilly important considerations.
Of course this not being a sane world, in fact being firmly in the asylum, none of that would matter should the "International Court of Justice" get it's hands on Bush or Cheney it would be an orgy of hate ending in an execution.
Democrat delenda est
Ahem, I'd like to begin with a reading of the Articles of Impeachment. Here goes.
(You know, some of these are actually plausible. It will be interesting to see where this goes.)
Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.
Article II. Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.
Article III. Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
Article IV. Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.
Article V. Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.
Article VI. Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
Article VII. Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
Article VIII. Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
Article IX. Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
Article X. Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI. Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII. Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XIIII. Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries
Article XIV. Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
Article XV. Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
Article XVI. Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Article XVII. Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives
Article XVIII. Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Article XIX. Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Article XX. Imprisoning Children
Article XXI. Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
Article XXII. Creating Secret Laws
Article XXIII. Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Article XXIV. Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
Article XXV. Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
Article XXVI. Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Article XXVII. Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
Article XXVIII. Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
Article XXIX. Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article XXX. Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
Article XXXI. Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency
Article XXXII. Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change
Article XXXIII. Repe
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
>and they have to decise that he has committed a crime
That was a good summary but this particular point leaves out something important.
An impeachable offense does not have to be a crime. Some, such as bribery and treason, definitely are. Historically, others aren't. We got the idea of impeachment from the English, whose history included the 1450 impeachment of the Duke of Suffolk for "obtaining offices for unfit persons and delaying justice by stopping writs of appeal". Official misconduct and misuse of power were among the problems impeachment was meant to solve but which were beyond the criminal code. Hamilton in the 65th Federalist Paper described impeachable offenses as those "which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."
That's not how classification works.
First, to be "outed", Valerie Plame would have had to be a covert operative. She wasn't at that time. You can check the Congressional Record to read the testimony of the author of the governing regulations.
Second, the ultimate classification authority is the President. This has a long history of precedent. If the President wishes to reveal something which is classified, that's his prerogative. The Soviet nuke missile sites in Cuba were classified information and JFK didn't need anyone's permission to reveal that.
Third, it was Richard Armitage who revealed the information about Valerie Plame. Even the special prosecutor knew that before investigating.
This is a country of laws, It's the usA, not the usSR.
He stood there on the floor and read the whole thing, in person, live, on the floor, as carried by C-Span. The archive of the reading is here:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=205889-3
Your understanding of the law is very poor, as is your logic. But I don't have the energy to parse your argument, especially since it's beside the point.
Laws don't determine what's right or wrong. They're just an encoding of the traditions of the societies that make them. In American, we happen to believe that before the government can lock people up without showing something in the way of evidence that they need locking up. The exception is POWs, whom you can imprison without charge for the length of the war. There's no third category.
Except for the Gitmo detainess. And that only works because Gitmo happens to be a U.S. military base on the soil of a country (Cuba) with which the U.S. does not have relations. But enough with the legal hairsplitting: it doesn't matter whether Dubya actually has found a loophole in the constitution. It's enough that he's ignoring it. How does that make us look to the rest of the world? Like hypocrites and assholes, that's how.
And incidentally, a lot of the detainees were not picked up on the battlefield. The were rousted out of their homes, often in countries far away from any battlefield, and on the basis of accusations considered credible only by the local secret police. So fuck you and your "saboteurs".
As for your stupid little rant against Congressman K.: it's ad homimen, it's bigoted, and it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. And jeez, haven't you ever heard of paragraphs? You're the one that's coming across as a mouth-breather.
You're perfectly right, but the Republicans have shattered the all-time filibustering record this session. Virtually every bill that's gone through the Senate has been filibustered, which is partly why nothing gets done -- almost every bill requires 60 votes to pass the Senate.
Oh, and guess who set the previous record? The Republicans, the last time they were the minority.
Hey Man, When the president does it, it is not illegal.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Absolutely correct, congress authorized the invasion,and all its excesses, with the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002&redirect=no A modern-day Gulf of Tonkin Act. To end the war, congress can simply repeal the act, like they did the Gulf of Tonkin Act,and the War Powers Act will quickly force a withdraw. This will end Iraq just as it ended Nixon's bombing sprees in Laos and Cambodia.
"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." Dwight Eisenhower
First, to be "outed", Valerie Plame would have had to be a covert operative. She wasn't at that time.
Sorry, I was barely paying attention to this thread, but couldn't help noticing this bit of misinformation.
Plame was covert agent at time of name leak --MSNBC
Yes, Valerie Plame Was Covert --CBSNews
Leak Prosecutor says Plame was Covert --NYTimes
Video: Valerie Plame confirms her covert status --thinkprogress.org
etc.
You may be confused because of the following misinformation campaign:
Right-wing noise machine: Plame not covert --Salon
That's why Kucinich entered articles of impeachment for Cheney a year ago. If Congress had enough spine to impeach Bush, they'd probably also have enough spine to impeach Cheney first to keep the unthinkable from happening.
My truck is like a series of tubes.
Wow, okay, most of these don't even make any sense. Most of these resort to the conflicting ad hominem attacks on President Bush (either that he is an idiot or an evil super genius). Imprisoning children? What's next, Bush likes to kill kittens and little bunnies? Some of these are related to Bush acting on authorizations from Congress (Invading Iraq without a declaration of war, for example). Some of these aren't high crimes and misdemeanors, they're just political opinions (wasting money on Iraq for example). Many aren't Bush's fault (Katrina, failure to respond...). There might be one or two that could be true, but when it is surrounded by such complete and utter non-sense (when will the people of Cleveland realize they have a crackpot for a congressman?), I don't see anyone touching this with a ten-foot pole. The charges would be a ultra left-wing liberals wet dream, but that's all.
The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
First of all, Congress did not "authorize the invasion, and all its excesses". What Congress authorized was the "use of force" to make Iraq comply with the UN resolutions. This does not necessarily imply an authorization for a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and the destruction of that nations government. This is exactly why there is some distinction between the President's authority as CINC and Congress' power to Declare War.
Second of all, the War Powers Act will quickly force...nothing. *Every* president since the War Powers Act was passed has argued the unconstitutionality of that law.
A puppet installed and backed by the US ... which point were you trying to prove? That the US is the only one who won't play along with the rest of the world? Or that the US is the only one who won't play along with the rest of the world?
Try to remove your bias and read what I typed. The facts are the facts.
No, it's very naive to think ANYONE a person who was supposedly an undercover agent 15 years prior has dealt with is "potentially exposed."
What's your position here, that everyone else's cover must have already been blown in 15 years or that intelligence services are too lazy to trace back 15 years to uncover other agents?
No, my "argument" does not rest on "the fact that Bush OK'd the leak." By definition, the President can't "leak" anything because "leaking" would involve unauthorized disclosure which, by definition, the President cannot do. It is impossible for the pre-requisite to exist. The President has the authority to declassify, at will, either explicitly or implicitly.
You're argument rests on the fact that Bush must have given the OK to tell the press Plame was CIA. This is exactly opposite to what Bush has publicly maintained. We already know he lied when he said he'd fire anyone involved, did he also lie when he said he had nothing to do with it?
You say "Abuse of power" is a phrase with no legal definition. I say blowing the cover of an agent who worked to stop nuclear proliferation to get back at an op-ed writer is an impeachable offense.
As as aside, the legal basis for action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq was laid years ago. The first Gulf War was never officially ended according to the U.N. conditions and Saddam's troops kept violating the cease fire agreement.
Which is up to the UN security council to enforce, if they feel is necessary. The passed a tough resolution, found violations, and forced Saddam to comply. Consequently, they refused to authorize the use of force. The history of 2002-2003 seems to be completely missing from the thinking of most Bush defenders.
WRT "a campaign to make sure the secret is as widely heard as possible", it was Valerie Plame and her husband in conjunction with Vanity Fair and the traditional news media who were proclaiming a "secret" had been revealed.
Let's see, you're leaving out Libby and Rove's successful efforts to get prominent newspapers to publish Plame's CIA role which led to saturation news coverage then months later Vanity Fair did it's bit. Where do you get these talking points?
Joe Wilson was a paid staffer for John Kerry's Presidential campaign before he wrote the article in which he claimed the VP sent him on a secret mission to gather intel in Niger.
By the time Wilson wrote the op-ed, he'd already warned the administration repeatedly that it's Niger claims were false, but they refused to drop the claims.
What you are promoting fits the structure of a halfway decent conspiracy theory but only with "a willing suspension of disbelief" given the facts.
Let's see: the administration claims that Iraq was buying Uranium from Niger, their sole evidence is a amateurishly forged document that didn't even have the right fake signatures, but *just to be sure*, Joe Wilson is sent to Niger, and finds that no, there's nothing to the story, writes an article to that affect.
And you believe the administration and doubt Wilson even though Saddam already had a stockpile of yellow cake, and he didn't have a nuclear program, and not a single piece of real evidence of a Uranium deal has ever been found anywhere in 5 years since. Now that's what I call "a willing suspension of disbelief".
Play Command HQ online
This statement, which is a paraphrase of what the president said once, is actually true in this case.
The authority that protects classified documents lies with the executive branch of government, and as the head of that branch the chief executive holds ultimate authority to classify, declassify, disclose or deny any material information held by the government.
Which doesn't mean the action and the statement weren't dumb. They were. But as regards disclosure of classified information: When the president does it, it's not illegal. Really.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
He's a well respected US representative, which is more than you will ever accomplish. He received the Ghandi Peace Award from the Quakers (who know a thing or two about peace.) He helped draft the US National Health Insurance Act. Voted against the Patriot Act. Voted against the Military Commisions Act. One of only six with the balls to vote against the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act. Advocates withdrawal from NAFTA. Much more I can't think of for now, but basically he has taken a principled stand on all the issues that matter to me.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Then you should support the Read The Bills Act.
Just sayin.