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.
Actually, I think it's a good idea to force representatives to read out loud any legislation that they propose/endorse. Maybe then they'll actually read the fine details instead of just signing off on legislation that lobbyists wrote up for them.
The benefit I see from this is that it will go on the permanent record that SOMEONE did know what the fuck was going on in the world and decided to stand up and point it out. Regardless of whether he is booted out of office or not it is now a stain upon his much anticipated "historical legacy".
You're nothing; like me.
One could argue it is beneficial to tarnish a president's record with an impeachment when warranted by his conduct because it becomes a part of history. Particularly if this conduct is more than perjury over sexual conduct. Clinton's impeachment was a joke.
why not? Is Bush incapable of doing further damage to the US in the next 7 months? I think not. Would an impeachment send a message to the current presidential candidates that they need to do something different and that they need to pay attention? I think so. If you had a family member in Iraq, and an impeachment led to a withdrawal of troops, would it have real benefit then?
ôó
Congressman Dennis Kucinich read off all thirty-five articles of impeachment, each one accompanied by a great deal of supporting evidence, so that the other Congress Critters couldn't avoid hearing about it, and that at least people watching C-SPAN could witness it for themselves (as he probably knew it would get ignored by the traditional media). The vile actions of this administration need to rest on the consciences of all our representatives, whether complicit or just complacent.
:)
If you want to complain about wasting time in Congress, look up which party has done more filibustering in recent years.
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
It needs to be done regardless of how long GW has left in his term. If we are going to pretend that the USA is governed by the rule of law, GW and his cronies need to be held accountable for the way they have violated the constitution. It should be done now to show that the checks and balances built into the system actually work. By not moving on these articles congress is exposing the fraud that the American democratic republic has become, which may be the point Kucinich is trying to make in the first place.
Where would we be if Wheel had hid her round rock in a cave instead of showing everyone how it rolls?
What's the point?
As the American Freedom Campaign put it in an email to members this morning:
"The founders of our country feared more than anything else the prospect of an executive who put his own power and desires above the Constitution. Congress was given the power of impeachment so that it could remove any president who committed the high crime of violating the Constitution during his (or her) term in office.
A strong case can be made that no president in the history of this country is more deserving of impeachment than George W. Bush. If he is not impeached, the bar for impeachment will have been raised so high that it might as well no longer exist. Future presidents will know that they can violate the Constitution at will, confident in the fact that Congress does not have the courage as an institution to do anything about it.
We cannot allow this to happen."
That's about as simple as it gets. Even if Bush only have seven months left, Congress has to set an example and exert its authority.
I just found a new sig.
You're dead on, I think. Kucinich's primary motivation for introducing articles of impeachment against Bush (and Cheney in the past) seems to be to stop us from going to war with Iran. That would seriously damage the US!
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
How interesting is it that attempting to impeach a president because he got a BJ and lied about it gets so much more publicity than one who kills thousands in an unjust war, breaks the constitution, and effectively turns a "free" country into a police-state. /me weeps for the future
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Well, I agree with your point there.
...just a thought.
Now there needs just needs to be a Constitutional Amendment which requires the ENTIRE US TAX CODE to be read into the Congressional Record every single year for it to be legally binding! Of course, that would either require CSPAN to get another satellite or for the tax code to be shortened into the flat tax...
Then again, I was under the impression that "earmarks" were not required to be read into the record either? Whoops... confusing the Congressional Record's purpose with that of Official Congressional Business as Usual...
What? What was its purpose again?
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.
>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.
Is that I finally have a good reason to use the phrase "Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D'OH!)" in casual conversation.
... is awesome. He's the only candidate I would have bothered driving to the polls for, despite the fact that when I got there diebold would have just erased my vote.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
it's completely unfair to compare bush to a mass murderer.
no petty mass murderer has ever been responsible for the deaths of so many innocent people.
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.
(1) It will establish a precedent of impeaching presidents who are grossly incompetent and overstep the constitutional limits on their power. Future presidents will think twice before starting wars on false pretenses or torturing prisoners of war or illegally spying on citizens without warrants. Failing to impeach him would imply that these actions are acceptable, which WILL have an effect on future presidents' actions.
(2) It will show the world that America realizes that we made a huge mistake by electing Dubya twice. Right now, we're the laughing stock of the world (see any opinion poll taken after 2003). This decline in world opinion has real economic and political consequences that, for the most part, haven't been felt yet. Impeaching Bush would help to show the world that America always does the right thing, albeit after exhausting every alternative.
(3) It will remind Americans that impeachments can be used for something other than lying about blowjobs. Sometimes I cynically suspect that Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about his affair because they had the foresight to suspect that one of their own would be in this position today. (No, I don't actually believe this, but it's funny how convenient this sequence of events turned out to be for them...) It's a lot harder to push impeachment proceedings through Congress when the only impeachment anyone alive today remembers is one that centered around a trivial, non-job-performance related non-crime. Impeachments should be about high crimes and gross incompetence related to the duties of the office of the President, and impeaching Bush will help to restore some measure of seriousness to this procedure.
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!
No, but you CAN take away their rights for it in the interest of THE CHIIIIIIIILDREEEEEEEEEEN
No. Anyone else would have gotten away with it.
They never would have been caught because no one would have CARED.
There would not be the initial scrutiny and there would not be the continued witch hunt and bullying of witnesses.
The "Law and Order" tactics would never have come up because
under normal circumstances NO ONE would view it as a useful
expenditure of the effort.
The "crime" would never have come to light to begin with.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
And then your signature tells us the irony in your ad hominem for kucinich.
Clinton was asked if he had sexual relations with Lewinsky.
He asked the judge to define "sexual relations". The *judge* told him sexual relations means intercourse.
Now, you might have a different definition, but unless you are going to try to convince us that he had intercourse with Lewinsky, then you must admit that he did not commit perjury.
Actually, it's works kind of like Sauron and the Orcs. Once Bush is out of office, the soldiers will just kind of stop fighting and meander back home, dazed.
The Clinton thing was blown out of proportion because they had a provable lie under oath. The fact that it was a lie about a trivial matter (trivial to the public anyway; obviously not trivial to the Clinton family) was irrelevant to the right-wingers who attacked him on what many of them saw as a matter of principal. The problem is the same principals are ignored when one of their own engages in provable lie after provable lie about matters of grave public importance such as war and peace. But Bush and co. have been smart enough not to find themselves in the position of uttering provable lies under oath (they avoided this simply by refusing to take an oath when testifying to the 911 Commission, for example, and by refusing to testify altogether). So we don't have the "gotcha" moment that we had with Clinton. I can agree that Clinton's lies were shameful whether under oath or not and that perhaps I'd have more respect for him had he come clean, but it doesn't change the fact that the issue he lied about was one I had no business knowing anything about in the first place. Whereas Bush & Co's lies have been about issues that the public does have a right to know, and thousands of Americans have died as a direct result of these lies. I hope people can see the difference.
But in this case, the crime will continue. The killing won't stop. And if Bush is a criminal, then so is the congress that authorized him and handed over the money. And so are the voters who failed to watch over their representatives. Let's just say he couldn't have pulled it off without our support. It was handed to him on a silver platter.
What?
Bush has a *Clear* fixation on historical legacy. He is always talking about how history will view him. Probably this is him wishing and hoping for a vindication of his reign, 'cause his approval ratings been in the dumps for 2 years now. If so, he's ignoring the evidence once again. Some president has to be the worst ever; according to 98% of historians he's taken the lead in that race.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
How about every bill being publicly posted without alteration for 90 days before any voting is allowed? That would stop a lot of bad legislation from being pushed through congress.
Bitches don't know about my Stalin.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
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.
After the 2006 election, Nancy Pelosi's first action as Speaker of the House was to take impeachment off the table. Why would she do that when the vast majority of the Democratic base clearly wanted it? Because, even if it had succeeded, it would have hurt the Democrats' chances in 2008. The first interest of the Democrats was to ensure that they remained in power, or solidified their grip on power. An obligation to the Constitution and their constituents was a second priority. And before anyone thinks I'm taking sides here, I'll say that both major parties do this.
Why are they doing it now, when Bush has only seven months left in office rather than a year and a half ago? Election year theater.
And that's why I cringe when people say "We really need to get the Democrats the White House and majorities Congress in 2008" or something to that effect. They have no interest in you, the country, or anything but power and money.
Kucinich is an exception among them. We need more like him, but he is an anomaly.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
Bullshit. If this country had more Kucinich it would be a much better place. Unfortunately idiots like you, and even the (what's left of) liberal press (Starting with Ed Schultz) denigrated him since the beginning preferring to spend time saying that he looks like a troll rather than what his views and accomplishments are. He never got a shot at presidency because people were too busy talking only about his looks. He would have made a great president, a honest and progressive one at least, trying to get the country out of the hole instead of burying it any further.
>Clinton LIED under oath in a federal court after taking an oath to tell the truth.
Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
I'm sorry, what's your point? You going to build a time machine and travel back to 2001 so that Bush can get impeached for the human rights abuses he hasn't committed yet?
Anyway, Congress could force Bush to close Guantanamo any time they want. All they have to do is say that they war powers they gave him after 9-11 don't include the ability to invent a new category of prisoner, denied both the constitutional protections of the accused criminal and the treaty protections of the POW.
Congress is complicit in all of Dubya's excesses. That's the real reason they can't impeach him.
People that hate Bush 43 are going to have to choose: too stupid to tie his own shoes or the mastermind of the Iraq war for his oil buddies. I believe he is neither, but he can't be both.
All they have to do is say that they war powers they gave him after 9-11 don't include the ability to invent a new category of prisoner, denied both the constitutional protections of the accused criminal and the treaty protections of the POW.
They don't even have to do that. All they had to do was say "no more money" and cut his appropriations to the bare minimum needed to provide the necessary services and no more. All of Bush's blustery posturing and wild legal theories don't change the fact that Congress could have shut him down in a heartbeat, but they've chosen not to do so.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
When you can't see Cheney's right hand and his lips are moving.
Nonsense. The Legislative Branch should not be responding to emergencies. That's the Executive Branch's job.
The quintissential case is a Pearl Harbor style scenario, where America is under attack and we need a declaration of war. I'd argue that, in this day and age, we could have a provision stating that the President is free to deploy the troops for up to 90 days, but, following that grace period, he must get a declaration of war from Congress (not a resolution, or an authorization, but a formal declaration of war), otherwise he has to bring the troops home. This would allow ample time for the president to respond to short term emergencies, while still leaving leeway for the US to respond credibly to unprovoked attacks.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
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*!
Remember: no bush, no dick.
(damn I was all set for +5 insightful and had to spoil it down to +5 funny with that last line ...)
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
Thats a good idea. We should call it the War Powers Resolution.
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.
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.
Congress shall make no law exceeding in length this Constitution.
(Let's make them earn their pay by holding a separate vote on every pork-laden amendment.) ptriot act section 56889
fbi n cia can spy on ppl. dnt need to ask cngress only prez. prez can amend ptriot act with exec order. prez is root. sudo ptriot act.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
$5 a gallon? That's nothing. That's cheap. You ain't seen nothing yet.
And do your really think that domestic drilling is going to keep oil prices low? Tell me how that works, then.
Those oil reserves have immense long-term strategic and economic value. What's your reason for tapping them now? To save a few cents for people who are wasting oil just to fill their SUV to go to the supermarket? What a total waste. Instead of just throwing it all away for frivious purposes today, why not wait until it is really needed, and use it in a more efficient manner?
It's not really a good idea wasting precious oil on fueling private cars. We can do transport without oil. But it's harder to replace when making things like plastics and petrochemicals. Sure, there are some substitutes emerging. But oil would be really useful in the case of a real national emergency where we need to manufacture or rebuild things quickly, or in the case of a real war.
I still can't get over the fact that you think current gas prices are expensive, and that's significant justification for tapping domestic supplies. That's fucking hilarious.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Even if half of it is true, it's more than enough.
No wonder Kucinich was able to snag such a young, sprightly and attractive wife. The man has the biggest balls in Congress.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
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
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." Semantically, your statement is correct but it's not realistic. Everyone, you included, interacts with thousands of people over 15 years. You may have heard of the concept of six degrees of separation. Apply that and it's quickly apprent the words you used, while semantically correct, yield an impossibly large number of contacts when seen from the "outside." It's common for people who have never been in these types of environments to think that type of thing. As I said, read the Congressional Record. The sworn testimony during a Congressional investigation is more accurate than projections.
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.
"Abuse of power" is a phrase with no legal definition. The Executive Officer is not subservient to the Representitive Brach of the Federal Government. The CIA is in the Executive Branch, under the authority of the Executive Officer. Again, the President cannot be guilty of violating classification. It really is that simple.
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. An existing war cannot be "started" again, it can only be in stasis, continue or end. (The Korean War never ended, either. It's in the same situation, a cease fire agreement.) Saddam's troops violated the cease fire repeatedly during Bill Clinton's terms in office. History didn't start in February of 2001.
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. Those are not Federal Branch entities and, most certainly, not controlled by a Republican administration. The President didn't force all the "reporting" and speculating in the press. He didn't put a scarf and sunglasses on Valerie Plame, sit her in a convertible next to her husband, take a photo, write an article and publish them. Valerie, most certainly, wasn't trying to "hide" and wasn't concerned about any past contact who might have been "potentially exposed." If she was, she wouldn't have taken those actions. You can dig through archives such as Lexis-Nexus or even the recorded press briefings on C-Span's website if you wish. What you'll find is the Executive Branch overwhelmingly said there wasn't any "there" there.
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. Curiously, there was no record of such a meeting, Joe's story changed significantly over time and even he said there was no written record. Additionally, he did state that Iraq was seeking to build increase imports from Niger whose primary exports are livestock products, onions and Uranium ore. Look at a map. Iraq wouldn't get importing onions across Libya then onto ships when they could come from much closer areas. Liby's public renouncement of NBC porograms wasn't an isolated occurrence. It's all in the Congressional Report.
What you are promoting fits the structure of a halfway decent conspiracy theory but only with "a willing suspension of disbelief" given the facts.
I assume this was meant to be funny, but in reality it seems like that statement is closer to the truth than it should be.
If anything, the punishment for breaking a law should be more severe the higher up in the government you are.
This would discourage people in power from abusing their power.
Granting them any kind of immunity is asking them to abuse you...
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)