Kucinich begins impeachment process for GW Bush
Thirty-five articles were presented by Rep. Dennis Kucinich to the House of Representatives late Monday evening, airing live on C-SPAN.Link (Thanks, Mary!)"The House is not in order," said Kucinich to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), upon which Pelosi pounded her gavel.
"Resolved," Kucinich then began, "that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate. ...
"In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of power..."
The first article Kucinich presented, and many that followed, regarded the war in Iraq: "Article 1 - Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq."
I'm already de-fuzzing the hemp.
A bit late, isn't it?
I'll take what I can get. Here, help me with this trap, hold it up while I oil the hinges...
I'm getting a 404 error for the link
quickly!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,2284712,00.html
I can't help but worry that Kucinich will get nowhere with this. Unless the leadership has changed it's position that impeachment is off the table.
Meanwhile, back at the Crawford ranch, the Bush family settles down for a light snack. Hurrah, the butter is finished!
try this then
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/kucinich_pushing_for_bush_impe.html
Is there any chance of tis actually going through? And who is the "leadership" that gets to decide impeachment is off the table? Not the current administration surely?
Uh... why isn't this on the major news services yet? It's a little early to cry either conspiracy or fraud, but this would seem to be a pretty newsworthy item. The AP is carrying it, but apparently no one else. MSNBC is talking about crane safety, CNN is talking about Obama, Google's news tab is talking about tomatoes -- oh, sorry. I just referred to MSNBC as a news service. My bad.
Here's a link or two to the video on YouTube.
(part one) http://youtube.com/watch?v=1qy3z7XWtQc
(part two) http://youtube.com/watch?v=dv2SdTeN7dY
There's nothing about this on the Fox Affiliates I'm forced to watch at work.
It's on Reuters now.
While this isn't much more than a defiant gesture, I can't help hoping it will speed up the regime change.
my understanding is that this is the only way to get the charges recorded in the 'congressional record'. not sure what that does, other than making the enumeration of high crimes and misdemeanors a part of the official record.
(kucinich is closer to my views than anyone else i've seen in my 60 years, fwiw.)
There is not possibly enough time to do this before the terms of both congress and the President expire, even if there were the political support for this to happen, which I suspect there is not.
As such, Kucinich is making it so that Bush will be recorded as a President who had articles of impeachment read in the house, but which failed to get out of the house. Perhaps better, I suspect the leadership thinks, that it be recorded that they never tried to impeach, rather than tried and failed.
you lot just carry on, don't mind me. Can someone please help me a moment with the sandbag - it's so important to get the weight right. Ah, there's a good lad!
Any member of the House can introduce articles of impeachment.. they're just always ignored
In the text of the article, they allude to Cynthia McKinney's outgoing bill to bring forth articles of impeachment against Bush in 2007 ( http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=146722 )
He did this because he wanted to. Sadly, no one else in the House listened or cared.
It's Kucinich. Of course the media isn't covering it. When it comes up to a vote, or if Brad Ellsworth supports it, then it'll be newsworthy.
#2 & #13: There are 225 days left in Bush's term; Clinton's impeachment took 181 days. Unless you're saying that, pace your cynical tone, there are just too many crimes to try over the remainder of the term, impeachment does not require the official being prosecuted to be in office.
#8:
About as much chance as McKinney's had. It was symbolic.
Oh... and Pelosi said impeachment was off the table 2 years ago. Google that phrase "impeachment is off the table" and follow the news.
extraordinary times make extraordinary laws....
Now, we'll be needing the tarpaulins for the monkey, he's a messer, or Old Takuan's no judge of these affairs( but ah,he IS). The fat, bald one's a spitter, so he'll be a-needing the hood....
posted by noen
Worry? Of course he'll get nowhere. The Dem leaders will see to that. It'd be instant political suicide for the entire Democratic party. Dem leaders aren't as out of touch with reality as Kucinich (which isn't saying much).It could be more than symbolic. The threat presented could dissuade or be used to mediate a possible declared state of emergency, which would postpone the election. It could happen.
Let's see.... nothing will happen before the election anyways.
Well, it won't do any good but I wrote my congressmen. Well congress man and congresswomen. I'd like to see people at least talk about it for a while.
Well, it may not do any good, but it'll say, Hey World, We Disapprove Too.
Which may be helpful. Or may not be. Or may somehow lose the Democrats the election. Or lose McBush the election. Or... fade into the annals of history, ignored because Kucinich is only worth listening to in order to see his wife.
I'll help you Takuan. We should have a lottery to see who gets to pull the lever.
why, thank ye very kindly there Young Evil Jim, that be right good-hearted o' ye. Alas though, professional standards demand I do the client's personal service meself. Not so much for the likes of them, of course, I just dare not bring the trade into disrepute. Tell ye what, ye can stay below the scaffold if there's any hitch, ye grab the legs and give a good jerk - if anthin' gang agley. Or just if ye be in the mood for a good swing!
All our hands should be on the lever.
arrr... I suppose then we could make a Special Exception then. The trap will be solenoid locked to a web-polling accumulator. If the majority of the World Web say so be it: So be it.
Finally Kucinch does something for America. Look you short freak, we're SICK of you teasing us with your hot young wife. More stuff like this, less teasing.
And yes, Mr. Kucinich, I've voted for you twice. Do SOMETHING dammit!
thars still the problem of the shriving. I've already asked the Old Ones and They'll have no part of them. Isn't there some gods, somewhere, so depraved and vile that they'll take even these souls? Unless.... none on the Dark Side like bein' hornswoggled - pr'aps there's no souls to shrive!
I guess we'll have to turn to Congress.
It doesn't matter if they impeach him, just that someone is finally trying to do it!!! And we tried to impeach Clinton for a little nookie?
Liar Liar....Burn the witch!!!! I mean bastard! GW has made a mockery of almost every reason we should be proud to live in America. I want his record tarnished so no one will think he did a good job 20-50 years from now when recalling his pathetic time in office.
I'm offski to Sheol for a bit o' rest, on the morrow then
On the other hand, I can sort of see the republicans throwing bush to the wolves just to seperate the party from his unpopularity as forcefully as possible.
Hey, if I could semi-seriously try to impeach Bush, you can bet I'd be all over that. Even if I didn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
NoahApples
The threat presented could dissuade or be used to mediate a possible declared state of emergency
This is very observant. Pelosi and Reid have already warned Bush that he'd be impeached immediately if he invaded Iran. That they allowed Kucinich to go forward with this might mean it's a shot across the bow. Another thing that it might accomplish is to prevent Bush from making preemptive pardons. Or from him stepping down and then Cheney pardoning him. Impeachment is not a criminal procedure, it's purely political.
He's doing it in the wrong order.
In the (vanishingly unlikely) event that this impeachment was to actually happen, what would the consequences be?
In two words: President Cheney.
There's an interesting OpEd by John Kusumi on the non-coverage of this by the major U.S. news outlets here.
" At CBSnews.com, "Revolutionary Swimsuit Built For Speed" is a higher priority for the editors who choose the front page stories. But they have a box at the top right, which indicates the "most viewed" story is Kucinich Offers Impeachment Articles Against Bush. So the tendency of editors is on display at the left, while the tendency of readers is on display at the right. "
Some very good comments on the timing of this.
Takuan. Wonderful weaving. I will gladly lend a hand.
Thanks for the delicious imagery and the laugh.
Doesn't Kucinich do this every year?
Let's not forget that the Democrats have looked in to the lead up to the Iraq war and found that 'The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."'
It says that a lot here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html
In the WaPo none the less.
Probably too little too late. Just send in the Feds and arrest that war criminal and his thug buddy Cheney. Send them to the Hague. Today.
Sorry, here is the link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html
YAY!
I was going to vote for him. I wish he had never dropped out.
jsg:
WaPo editorial page is hardly a credible source.
Ref:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/06/washington-po-4.html
I like this comment:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/06/washington-po-4.html#comment-118178022
#40: Yes, criminal charges post-Presidency please, none of this namby-pamby impeachment. Though I can't imagine the US actually doing what should be done. It's going to take another country (Belgium? Ireland? Hello, anyone?).
Vanishingly unlikely as it all-too-depressingly is, if criminal charges were to happen it's going to be an Augusto Pinochet situation: many years on when some prosecutor with more interest in justice than politics brings down the hammer on behalf of innocents renditioned.
Hague.
I'm getting a 404 error for the concept.
Here is an article from ~20 minutes ago from the Belfast Telegraph that lists all 35 articles. Decent litle summary, but no transcript yet. Anyone found a good transcript yet? No video at work...
Later,
-cajun
@ 36: People always mistakenly think that impeaching Bush would immediately lead to President Cheney.
When Clinton was impeached, did it lead to President Gore?
Impeachment is only the first in a two-step process for getting rid of someone, the second of which in conviction of the crimes that the person is accused of. As Clinton showed, it's much easier to impeach someone than to convict them.
D.K., gawd how i love that crazy little rat-faced bastard! undoubtedly the largest brass balls in congress! sail ye hardy, lad. and give no quarter!
Sigh. The Hague.
Now, what are the odds of that happening from a country that passes laws punishing other countries for daring to even participate in the ICC, and allowing for the use of military force to liberate any U.S. citizen brought before the court? (American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002)
The important question is: How do we get our money back? It's like busting the thief that stole all your money but only after they'd partied it all away.
I'd rather see Congress go after the corporations (Halliburton, etc.) that raked in vast sums of money with no-bid contracts for projects that may or may not have been completed (or started for that matter). That's even less likely than impeachment, unfortunately.
Justice is an abstract concept, but compensation is quite tangible. A case could be made that Cheney's former position at Halliburton (the CEO, fer chrissakes) and at least several years of receiving $1 million a year from the company (which continued until after the Iraq war started, and may still be ongoing) is an extreme conflict of interest to say the least.
We have these shape-shifting reptilian space bankers like Cheney in positions to both order the destruction of a country (nobody really thinks Bush is in charge, do they?) AND influence the awarding of the contracts to rebuild said country afterwards. Nice gig, that is if you have no respect for your fellow Americans, or the Constitution for that matter.
And whatever happened to Rumsfeld? Remember him? He had his own conflicts of interest to profit from, and is the tip of his own corrupt iceberg. No offense to icebergs intended.
That said, impeaching Bush might improve our relations with the rest of the world a little bit; better late than never...
Too bad it was only 35. I'd have preferred it be 37.
<clerks>"37!?!"</clerks>
later,
-cajun
For so many reasons I would like to see Bush Impeached. but I fear that his crimes may exceed the minor offences that our system is adept at handeling. it seems that historicly the more vast the crime the less likely the sucess in prosecution.
By the way, my first post, but I've been a reader since sometime around 911. but you know, I've read a lot of post, so I know, you know? yeah you know. and they know.
but I am confused. not about simple things but about more important things and on a much higher level.
Now you know.
congrats there, red. just remember, theres no joy like your first disemvowelling!
Kucinich should be happy he was on camera. You know, the last time a Jedi Master tried to take down the Emperor he got into a big lightsaber battle over it.
... and the article remains the most viewed story on CBS news, despite being next to impossible to find on the website in any other way.
At least it suggests that those at the receiving end of the Bush propaganda machine (the mainstream U.S. media) haven't been completely brainwashed. Yet.
To those bemoaning the fact that this is a nice idea, but purely symbolic because it will never get anywhere:
The reason it won't get anywhere is because of you and me. We're willing to occasionally comment on the sidelines about things we disagree with, but if impeachment gets "taken off the table" it's not like we're actually going to do anything about it.
Stop paying war taxes. Organize a work-stoppage against Bush, refuse to go back to work while Bush is in office. See how fast impeachment comes back on the table when people actually affect the bottom-line of this country.
Or, if those things seem to inconvenient, content yourself with complaining about politicians who, much like us, won't do anything drastic to address a dire situation.
Zizak @ #58-
You first.
On one side, I am annoyed by the new tactic of trying to impeach every president when they do things the other party doesn't like. I don't like the idea of our government getting impeachment happy.
On the other hand, I think this time it's actually more deserved as opposed to perjury about sex life. Questions on constitutionality of several actions, and on actions of the administration on getting us into war.
One of the most viewed on CBS, as Kieran says, but not anywhere else on the front page. Nowhere on the front pages of CNN, MSNBC or NYTimes.com, despite all those websites having an average of about 30 articles on their front pages....
Can we start a campaign to move the story higher on the "most-viewed" lists (it's not on any of the last three posted above).
Here's the Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Kucinich-Impeachment.html?scp=2&sq=kucinich&st=nyt -- email it to someone or your other address (Times list works by email). I just emailed it to three different addresses.
Here's Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902878.html -- you only need to view it.
Here it is on ABC news: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5034180 .
(Note WashPost and ABC have the exact same TWO stories on it, one copied from the AP wire and one copied from the Reuters wire. Did no editor notice that thy were posting two identical versions of the same story??)
I can't find it at all on MSNBC or CNN
Tak, don't forget to have a sharp stick on hand to poke Cheney with. You've got to make sure he hasn't just closed off his trachea and gone into hibernation.
It may be only symbolic, as many are saying in criticism of the efforts, but symbols historically have sometimes been the most important things, acting as catalysts for greater events and awareness.
And it could lead to further investigation after his presidency when I suspect he won't be covering his ass with paper quite so effectively.
In any event, it will draw attention to the perilous position "business as usual" has meant for our government (Bush is hardly the first or only...and both mainstream parties have dirty hands).
But just "getting" Bush isn't that important to me, though I believe he will reap as he's sown and will look forward to that day.
Ye can always trust ashes , lad. That an' a good soak in the Holy water with a bit of chopped garlic, followed by a quick running stream. Here in the abyss we can hear 'em still, every one as ever had a scythe blade run through the froat and the haid cut off, burnt n' flushed. They ends up platin' out on the bottom muck and makes a vague background murmur o'low-grade evil that as reminds us ta be careful.
#44 WSTRL
Dvd Krtz? Rlly? H's s fr t th lft h prbbly blvs Ls Chng.
There is not a lot that we can do Zikzak. Demonstrations, work stoppages and general strikes are nice but they are a blunt instrument and somewhat ineffective. The most effective thing that people can do is to be active in local politics. The ringhtwing in American spent 30 years working locally in order to effect the change that they wanted. They succeeded. We can do the same if we are willing to work for it. If not, if the left is not willing to buckle down and work for change then perhaps they don't deserve it.
The really big message to take from the recent success of Barak Obama is in how he defeated Hillary. Hillary's campaign was enormously successful in it's fund raising through traditional channels. She ran a good, tough campaign and Obama beat her. How? He raised something like 50 million through social networking over the internet.
That is a reason for hope. For a long time the right has been pursuing it's "Southern strategy" i.e. exploit the racism, homophobia and fundamentalism of a certain demographic to further your political agenda. Which, BTW goes directly against the self interest of that same demographic. That strategy is failing catastrophically, I have to wonder if the GOP will even survive much longer.
The reason that this gives me pause to hope is that perhaps we are entering a period of relative political sanity. We've been dominated by special interests for too long. One hopes that the power of fund raising through the distributed networking of the social web can get us to a more representative political era. That would be good I think not only for the left but also for the right. It's win win. Cross your fingers.
One more thing,
It doesn't matter where or by whom the story is written, this was a report from Sen. Rockefeller a democrat, from a democrat run Senate. With no input from the GOP. Yeah, this is biased toward the Republican Party.
Isn't the Bush Administration currently negotiating a long-term presence in Iraq, i.e., permanent military bases, control of Iraqi airspace, and legal immunity for US soldiers?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html
Now is a great time to show the rest of the world that we don't have nefarious desires to control the entire middle east (at least some of us some of us don't) by rejecting Bush and his policies outright.
Call or email your congressperson and tell them to listen up, despite what Pelosi said.
Why did SanFran Nan say impeachment was off the table? I remember how excited everybody was when she became Speaker but then she seemed to fizzle out. Why hasn't she held Bush and Cheney accountable?
Why hasn't she held Bush and Cheney accountable?
The usual answer is that Dems have a thin one vote majority and what with the Blue Dog Dems voting GOP on many issues impeachment would therefore fail. The cynical answer is that they are complicit and owned by the same corporate backed interests that got us into this mess in the first place. Probably a bit of both.
Too late... the American shpl failed to wake up in time. Now it's just up to future generations to fix all the horrific damage done and bring up America back from its knees. Of course, that's IF and only IF America (and the World for that matter) can even survive the lasting, murderous effects of this treasonous corporate communist regime.
IMPEACH BUSH.
TOO LATE USA, YOU FUCKED UP.
[cow throws out middle hoof to most of America and rolls on down the pasture to get a few drinks with Gore Vidal]
Write your congressperson and urge them to help out on this. Or call them - someone want to come up with a quick link to find your congressperson's office number?
Even if they voted against it when this came up before; even if they're GOP. They're supposed to represent you, and there's a little voice reminding even the most cynical old hand at politic-as-usual that this is what they're there for.
JSG, but you haven't quoted from Rockefeller's report. All you've done is read Fred Hiatt's biased summary of it, in which he cherry-picks a few sentence fragments that support his pro-war views.
Courtesy the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a Contacting Congress How-To.
* * *
If you can't impeach a president for lying, getting the country into a unnecessary war, egregiously fucking up the followup to that unnecessary war, screwing over critics of the unnecessary war, and screwing up the finances of the country to pay for the unnecessary war, what should it be used for?
Oh yeah, blowjobs.
@59, iwood: One shouldn't wait for others to do the right thing before one joins in. The fact that others are doing or not doing something doesn't make it more or less right. However, if you require a role model or inspiration to follow, I'm glad to play that role. Done. You're up next.
@66,neon: There is a lot you can do, just not anything you're willing to do. You call work stoppage a blunt instrument. It's not an instrument for specific change at all, it's a way to directly strip leaders of their power. When leaders step out of line they must first have their power stripped. Only then can discussion of alternatives begin. Plenty of leaders have been forced to resign due to little more than a general strike. That doesn't fix everything, but it establishes the political climate: if the leaders get corrupt, the economy will grind to a halt and nobody will get their way. This is a necessary precursor to a functional democracy.
Withholding taxes works the same way - it can't fix our problems, but it can very effectively punish a corrupt government and make it difficult on a practical level to carry out their plans.
Corrupt leaders don't care if you have good alternative ideas or not, or even if you've gotten a lot of other people to agree with you. They care if they can get away with enacting their plans without being punished. As long as we're paying for their weapons (or CCTV cameras), and keeping "business as usual" afloat by shopping and working, there's no reason to consider anything we have to say. When we make our economic behaviors conditional upon their behaviors, they have to pay a lot more attention to us.
Kevitivity, I think you'll find that Kucinich is savvier and more durable than many people imagine.
JSG @39:
Malarkey.I don't care whether Rockefeller and/or Fred Hiatt said that. I am mildly curious about whether that statement follows a section that says, "Of course, this happened after Bush reconfigured intelligence collection and reporting in ways guaranteed to yield bad intelligence while giving him the answers -- i.e., the war -- he wanted."
However, it doesn't really matter whether it makes that distinction. The fact is, Bush & Co. lied themselves blue in the face. So did Fred Hiatt. Check out Brad DeLong's post on the subject. There's only one reason to keep believing that piece in the Washington Post: because you want to believe it.
People who require you to believe lies are in the same category as people who don't believe in counting votes: they aren't on your side and never will be, no matter what else they said this year.
MintPhresh @55, you confuse me. I see no reason to disemvowel Red Leatherman.
JSG @65: That's a true ad hominem argument. Does asserting that he's "far to the left" make David Kurtz's article inaccurate somehow? Feel free to elaborate on that.
Ok, I will elaborate, it gives Mr. Kurtz, to me, as much credit as a leftist gives FOX news. They may be reporting the same news as CNN but it is light years away in spin.
Here is Sen. Rockefeller's report to the Senate:
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/press/phase2publicstatements.pdf
All 171 pages. I notice that in almost all of the speeches and quotes they say things like "I believe", "could have a nuclear program", and "predicts". No certainties just best guesses.
In the end that is what intelligence is, a best guess.
#78 TERESA NIELSEN HAYDEN / MODERATOR
To answer your question better, is this the same David Kurtz that writes for Talking Points Memo? The same TPM that has a list of approved site which include Daily Kos, Altercation, The Democratic Strategist, Eschaton, and Andrew Sullivan, the lone quasi republican on a list of leftist websites.
Mr. Kurtz is biased. There is no illusion of journalistic non partisanship, of course when has there ever been.
dearest theresa, i meant no harm, certainly it was an ill attempt at a humorous welcome. please forgive your humble servant/savant. and this whole partisanship/rightwing/leftwing/repub/ocrat paradigm that JSG is peddling just doesn't seem to flush 'round these here parts. "he's a lousy liberal who just wants to tax and spend because he hates freedom!" gimme a break.
"Teresa", not "Theresa". Beware the Wrath of the FireAunt!
Still no "main stream" media coverage of this in the USA.
Now do you understand how all those dead Iraqis came to be?
I was disappointed to find nothing in the LA times today.
MSNBC POLL with (currently) 643,427 responses
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?
89% Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
4.1% No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
4.7% No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
2% I don't know.
Link to poll:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/
@#87: Fantastic!
The bush Legacy: copy,distribute and preserve:
Kucinich's case: the 35 points
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
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders
Well I can see that I'm in the minority here. This isn't any sort of partisan attack on Rep. Kucinich, but he has done this before. Every time it has been shot down because of lack of merit not because of political expediency. The only reason that Rep. Kucinich does this is for media exposure. The President has done nothing wrong in Iraq, there may have been missteps, but they have been fixed.
Rarely is the reason for going to war the same as the reason the war was fought. The Civil War is a great example, we went into the war to preserve the union. After the war was fought the reason changed to freeing the slaves. Both are honorable reasons for fighting a war. In Iraq, we were over there to find out if Saddam had weapons programs, he wasn't working with UNSCOM which was established specifically for post Gulf War Iraq. When we went into Iraq we found out that Saddam may not have had weapons. Ok fine, do we leave then? Or do we take out a tyrant for the good of the people of Iraq and the neighbors of Iraq?
We realized that another democracy in the Middle East was a good thing so we remained and fought for a stable democracy in Iraq. The men and women of the armed forces are fight along side the Iraqi's to stabilize the nation. They are working on infrastructure and helping rebuild schools in Iraq. The next election is in October. We'll be seeing more of those women in their burkas with the purple fingers.
Will Iraq ever be a peaceful and prosperous nation? It took the United States a little under 200 years to even be a blip on the radar of other nations, so we'll see.
jsg@90: In Iraq, we were over there to find out if Saddam had weapons programs
Oh my god. You're a koolaid drinking moron.
he wasn't working with UNSCOM which was established specifically for post Gulf War Iraq.
Sure. That's true.
in the minds of complete imbeciles who refused to look at facts being reported around the world as to just how complete bullshit this idea was.
Jan 2003
In response to White House pressure to go on fishing expeditions to find intel that fit the story, CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin tells Cheney's aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby says "I'm not going back to the well on this. We've done our work."
reports from the National Intelligence Council express skepticism over Niger yellow cake story.
Hans Blix appears before the UN and reports that inspectors have found no "smoking guns" in Iraq after two months' work, and that they have not encountered any impediments from the Iraqis.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency says the tubes Iraq has (that the White House claims were for centrifuges) couldn't be used for centrifuges wihtout massive rework and seemed more likely to be rocket parts.
The UN issues a press release regarding Iraq's response to Resolution 1441. "It would appear that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on substance in order to complete the disarmament task through inspection." The press release reports that UN weapons inspectors, after 60 days on the job, have inspected 106 locations and found "no evidence that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons programme."
According to a secret memo brought to light in early 2006, President Bush told British PM Tony Blair he plans to invade Iraq even if UN inspectors find no evidence of banned Iraqi weapons programs.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush meet in the Oval office to discuss the impending invasion of Iraq. A memo of the private meeting written by two senior British officials later reveals that Bush and Blair were aware that no WMDs had been found and that it was possible that they never would be, but Bush, determined to invade, spent the meeting discussing ways in which the two could justify the invasion.
February 2003
The Los Angeles Times reports in 2005: Three days after Powell's speech, the U.N.'s Team Bravo conducted the first search of Curveball's former work site. The raid by the American-led biological weapons experts lasted 3 1/2 hours. It was long enough to prove Curveball had lied.
Hans Blix appears before the UN Security Council and says his inspectors have enjoyed uninhibited access to 300 sites over a period of 11 weeks. Everything is in accordance with the Iraqi weapons declaration, and no weapons of mass destruction have been found.
March 2003
IAEA official tells U.S. that the Niger uranium documents are forgeries so error-filled that "they could be spotted by someone using Google."
Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, appears before the Security Council and says that searches have found "no evidence" of mobile biological production facilities in Iraq. He also says that the Iraqis are cooperating with the inspectors. The IAEA's ElBaradei also speaks and says, "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq." He says the Niger uranium documents are "not authentic."
Joseph Wilson appears on CNN, says the Niger uranium document are obvious forgeries.
The U.N. resolution justifying the use of force will not pass (Bulgaria is the only country other than the original sponsors to publicly support it).
With little international support, the U.S., Britain, and Spain officially scrap the quest to obtain a new U.N. resolution on Iraq. Four and a half months have passed since U.N. Resolution 1441, and a new resolution would signal the world's belief that Iraq had failed the terms of that resolution and now faced the consequences. The "coalition of the willing" announces it will enforce the U.N. resolution without the U.N.'s approval.
March 19: the US led invasion of Iraq begins.
When we went into Iraq we found out that Saddam may not have had weapons. Ok fine,
OK fine???? The white house was being slammed by an international clue bat that there were no WMD's for several months leading up to the invasion, and even then refused to give up on invading.
Or do we take out a tyrant for the good of the people of Iraq and the neighbors of Iraq?
You, sir, are a complete and absolute idiot.
A month before the invasion, Bush and Blair are sipping tea discussing the FACT that there were no WMD's in Iraq, discussing the FACT that the lack of WMD's was completely IRRELEVANT to Bush's desire for invasion, and discussing how to JUSTIFY an invasion anyway.
Your president lied to you and you believed him. Rather than admit the emporer has been running around naked since 2002, you argue how well his new clothes fit.
Greg, he's pulling your chain, no one can be that stupid.
#91 GREGLONDON
My last post may have been a bit melodramatic, but that is still no reason to get as bent out of shape as you appear to be.
So you call me a bunch of names, real mature, but where do you get your information from? I see no sited references.
These are pdf files from the Government Printing Office of the Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec3.pdf
If you read the whole thing, I'll admit it is rather long, but worth it. You will notice that it basically blames those that wrote up the NIE. They may or may not have exaggerated Saddam's alleged weapons program, as you can see some of this intelligence was found to be true. Case in point, the section where it states that "The assessments regarding Iraq’s continued development of prohibited ballistic missiles were reasonable and did accurately describe the underlying intelligence."
Another interesting quote, "The fact that Iraq had repeatedly lied about its pre-1991 WMD programs, its continued deceptive behavior, and its failure to fully cooperate with UN inspectors
left the IC with a predisposition to believe the Iraqis were continuing to lie about their WMD efforts." Or maybe some thought that the Baathists were believable, after all Saddam used chemical weapon on the Kurd's in Halabja, and the Israelis did severely damage the Osirak Nuclear testing reactor in 1981 and the American forces destroyed it in the Gulf War. You can read about both on Google Maps and Wikipedia.
Another interesting quote, “revelations after the Gulf War starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. The revelations also underscore the extent to which limited information fostered underestimates by the Intelligence Community of Saddam’s capabilities at that time.”
I'll let you read it, here is the rest...
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/Iraq.html
This Congressional report is long, and it is not definite, because no intelligence is prefect, it is a lot of educated guesses. There are a lot of maybes and should've in this report. The committee was looking at these documents with 20/20 vision, something that nobody had at the time that Iraq was invaded.
jsg: where do you get your information from? I see no sited references
You're kidding, right? You want me to give you a link to Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, saying the niger yellow cake story was shit? Have you heard of Wilson or Plame? Will you also be needing a cited "reference" to explain that Plame was outed by the White House in retaliation for Wilson speaking the truth?
Have you been living under a fucking rock?
Do you need a cited reference to remember that the second UN resolution, the one that authorized the use of force, failed to get international support?
Did you miss the news about the secret memo regarging the Bush/Blair meeting?
Were you watching the news in early 2003? Or were you watching Fox and eating up the propaganda channel?
In Iraq, we were over there to find out if Saddam had weapons programs
you just keep telling yourself that pokey.
#94 GREGLONDON
I'll answer your questions one at a time.
You're kidding, right? No I'm not kidding.
You want me to give you a link to Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, saying the niger yellow cake story was shit? If you read the Congressional Report, it states on page 37 that the CIA's Director of Operations issued a report from a foreign government service, stating with more detail than the first report and in "verbatim text", that " Subsequently, the governments of Niger and Iraq signed an agreement regarding the sale of uranium during meetings held July 5-6, 2000. The report indicated 500 tons of uranium per year." Now there is a lot that is redacted from the report, but it later states that a CIA analyst asked about the credibility of the report to which the analyst "says he was told by the CIA’s DO that the report was from a “very credible source.”
And as an added bonus, if you check the CIA world fact book, under Niger, one of the main industries uranium mining.
Have you heard of Wilson or Plame? Yes, I do know who Wilson and Plame are.
Will you also be needing a cited "reference" to explain that Plame was outed by the White House in retaliation for Wilson speaking the truth? No, I don't need references for them, as stated, I know how they are.
Here is a direct quote from the Congressional report:
"On February 18,2002, the embassy in Niger disseminated a cable which reported that the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal “provides sufficient detail to warrant another hard look at Niger’s uranium sales. The names of GON [government of Niger] officials cited in the report track closely with those we know to be in those, or closely-related positions. However, the purported 4,000-ton annual production listed is fully 1,000 tons more than the mining companies claim to have produced in 2001.” The report indicated that the ambassador had met with the Nigerien Foreign Minister to ask for an unequivocal assurance that Niger had stuck to its commitment not to sell uranium to rogue states. The cable also noted that in September 2001 the Nigerien Prime Minister had told embassy personnel that there were buyers like Iraq who would pay more for Niger’s uranium than France, but the Prime Minister added, “of course Niger cannot sell to them.” The cable concluded that despite previous assurances from Nigerien officials that no uranium would be sold to rogue nations, “we should not dismiss out of hand the possibility that some scheme could be, or has been, underway to supply Iraq with yellowcake from here.” The cable also suggested raising the issue with the French, who control the uranium mines in Niger, despite France’s solid assurances that no uranium could be diverted to rogue states."
And the CIA doesn't do follow up interviews with Wilson and the officials in Niger to make absolutely sure that no uranium was sold? The CIA believes an ambassador and doesn't do a second round of interviews? All because Wilson was going on a business trip and would be in Africa and had contacts? To me that seems a little slipshod, and it seems as though the CIA has had another intelligence breakdown.
Have you been living under a fucking rock? No I do not live under a rock, I have a nice house in the suburbs.
Do you need a cited reference to remember that the second UN resolution, the one that authorized the use of fo