Kucinich is Enacting Articles of Impeachment against Bush!

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: palehorse
Those of you who believe that anything productive will come from this stage show are even dumber than I've always suspected... which is pretty damn dumb.

/popcorn

I believe that a lot of productiveness can be accomplished.

First and foremost if it gets passed would be an open trial in the Senate to show the American people just how widespread the violations of our civil liberties and constitutional rights were.

Second would be the black marks that would forever be attached to the tenures of Bush and Cheney.

Thirdly would be the importance of showing the world that we aren't just some puritanical country that will only go after a president for something sexual, but for something criminal also.

But, none of that is going to happen.

As I said in my last post -- and what I meant in my first -- Kucinich's efforts here are pure theater, nothing more.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I guess congress is getting uppity again.

Were they uppity over Clinton's BJ?

 

[Lemon law]

I think everyone is getting their panties in a bunch over nothing. Although I think GWB&Cheney should have been impeached and convicted years ago and better late than never, it looks like the Kucinich effort is going nowhere. First Kucinich has to find 217 more house members to get impeachment enacted and then he has to find 67 Senators to convict.

And this is not going to get out house from the reception he is getting from the democratic leadership.

 

[Tab]

I think I'll cross my fingers.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I guess congress is getting uppity again.

How dare any other branch of the government get "uppity" against the executive branch. We don't want none of that checks and balances shit anyway.

Face it, if this were a Dem President being impeached by a Rep congress you'd be cheering your lungs out.

Partisan hack.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RY62
I'm enjoying the show but don't they have more important issues right now? Gas prices, the economy, steroids... anything would be more productive than this. They should've done this long ago.

This is an attempt to distract everyone from Congress' complete inability to make any real progress on any real issues... duh.

That's ridiculous.

But let's assume you know what you're talking about.

You are saying that Dennis Kucinich is trying to distract everyone from Congress' inability to do anything, while he himself has blasted the Democrats for the same reason?

The guy stood up on Congress and blasted his own party for not ending the war in Iraq.

No, PH, your post is just another diversion. Yeah, this isn't about the destructive administration in power, just partisan politics.

:roll:

It's no surprise you have the reputation you do here.

Pale is correct here. Kucinich already tried, and failed MISERABLY, to introduce articles of impeachment against Cheney. He's a fuckin loon.

Yes, he failed because he's a "loon", not because the assholes run the show. Good joke!

No, I wasnt saying that. His failure and the fact he's a loon are two unrelated issues.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
This administration should be held accountable for their crimes. Better late than never to make an example out of them for future reference.

I agree, although not for reasons most would like to see him impeached, which, frankly, wont stick - war crimes. I want him pursues AFTER he leaves office for the civil liberties he's stripped.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Strikes me as pandering, nothing more. I'd enjoy being wrong though.

 

[NeoV]

I can't stand Bush, but Kucinich is an idiot - his wasted time running for president, and now this.....shouldn't have have better things to do?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

I believe that a lot of productiveness can be accomplished.

Right. Wasting millions of taxpayer dollars that will net nothing of substance is always productive.

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
First and foremost if it gets passed would be an open trial in the Senate to show the American people just how widespread the violations of our civil liberties and constitutional rights were.

Well, it wont get passed.

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Second would be the black marks that would forever be attached to the tenures of Bush and Cheney.

As if they wont already?

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Thirdly would be the importance of showing the world that we aren't just some puritanical country that will only go after a president for something sexual, but for something criminal also.

I seem to remember impeaching a president for lying under oath...not having sex. Are you talking about a president of the United States? Or are you forgetting what our recent impeachment was about?

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: Citrix
what a waste of tax payers money.

Just like the "millions" spent on Clintons blowjob lie. As oppossed to the Bush Administration lies & law-breaking.

It's real easy to marginalize Kucinich. Exactly what makes him a "loon"? Is it his incompetence or his undignified bearing? No, that would be the PRESIDENT!.

It is clear that this administration has broken the law. And when it comes to the serious crimes of torture and illegal wiretapping, impeachment is appropriate and newsworthy. The collective yawning garnered by much of these issues all along is laughable.

This effort has a great deal of public support. The hurt being done to the Democrats at the moment, as reflected in the polls of how the US regards their Congress and Senate, is being done because the Democrats haven't been militant enough, not because they may impeach one of the least popular presidents in history. Impeachment is not conviction, but If Congress should vote articles of impeachment, that would make it impossible for Bush to pardon everyone on his last day in office.

I don't completly support wasting time in an impeachment at this juncture. However, I do believe that both Bush and Cheney should have been impeached, and the fact that they haven't been heretofore is a travesty. Kucinich, doesn't give a damn about the political downside of an impeachment right now, It seems he is concerned only with justice. That's why he's a "lone Congressman". Good for him. When an elected official stands up for the truth, as opposed to succumbing to political expediency, Thats news...err, maybe not..

A prospective journalist who comes into journalism school believing that so-called "impeachable offenses" are news will quickly be disabused of that notion. If he's recalcitrant, he washes out of journalism school and has to step down to a lesser career, if such a thing exists. Journalism is an austere and demanding calling, and isn't for the soft-headed.

Wait till Obama goes bowling again, or gets a haircut. Or McCain farts or fumbles in a speech. Then you'll see some news.

 

[DealMonkey]

You can read the articles of impeachment here:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde...06/democrat-files.html

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You can read the articles of impeachment here:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde...06/democrat-files.html

Full Document Here

Seriously, it's solid. I think I'll cross my fingers, legs, toes...

 

[Lemon law]

I think BMW is correct in saying, its Kucinich who is right and the its rest of the congress that are a bunch of spineless looney tunes.

But its really the republicans that call the tune on any GWB&Cheney removal from office. As long as 34 GOP Senators say no to conviction in the Senate, impeachment is a waste of time. But when and if the GOP decide GWB&co is a giant liability to Republican chances in the election of 2008, we will see the GOP leading the impeachment efforts. The same thing happened with Nixon, and the GOP waited until the August before elections before they decided to give Nixon the ole heave ho. Nixon was smart enough to count noses and resign,
I doubt GWB&co would do the same. GWB would probably still think he was still President long after the Senate conviction gavel banged down.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...8/AR2008060801687.html

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.


On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...8/AR2008060801687.html

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.


On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

Good article.

/grabs popcorn and waits for Harvey's cut and paste reply.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...8/AR2008060801687.html

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.


On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

This should be good...

/popcorn

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I hope dumbya and company get all they deserve, maybe actually be held accountable, like the profess they want everyone else to be. Fuck 'em, burn them down, they deserve much worse.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...8/AR2008060801687.html

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.


On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

This should be good...

/popcorn

The article is right: Bush will hide behind classified documents as he has shrouded his entire administration in secrecy to cover his tracks. It's his Get Out of Jail Free card, the administration planned it this way from the start. For example the >5000 government documents that USED to be public are now classified. Why? The best way to keep a nation in fear is to take away the evidence refuting that no threat existed...

 

[hellokeith]

Originally spoken by Hillary Clinton

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm?s way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I?ve followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. . . . I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn?t believe should be in any way part of this decision.

Link to Clinton's audio

So will Kucinich be leveling charges against Hillary as well? Obviously she lied since she had access to the same intelligence and spoke with confidants who would have told her this was trumped up intelligence.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
The article is right: Bush will hide behind classified documents as he has shrouded his entire administration in secrecy to cover his tracks. It's his Get Out of Jail Free card, the administration planned it this way from the start. For example the >5000 government documents that USED to be public are now classified. Why? The best way to keep a nation in fear is to take away the evidence refuting that no threat existed...

WTF does this have to do with the article? The word "classified documents in no where int he article...

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...8/AR2008060801687.html

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.


On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

Good article.

/grabs popcorn and waits for Harvey's cut and paste reply.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Lemon law]

Of the 35 articles of impeachment, only a fraction regard the alleged lies told to the congress and the American people regarding Iraqi intel.

Yet THOSE WHO DEFEND BUSH ACT AS IF THESE ARE THE ONLY IMPEACHMENT GROUNDS OFFERED UP by Kucinich.

There are matters of illegal contracts awarded, violations of the FISA laws, the GWB signing statements and the over 750 laws he does not follow, and a host of other very real grounds for impeachment and conviction.

Nixon was tossed on far less, but in those good ole days the GOP still had an iota of principles and we had a supreme court who knew how to read the constitution.

 

[Harvey]

Last January, George McGovern layed out his reasons Bush should be impeached:

Why I Believe Bush Must Go
Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse.

By George McGovern
Sunday, January 6, 2008
.
.
But what are the facts?

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.
.
.
How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness?

It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood. Many times in recent years, I have recalled Jefferson's observation: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

The basic strategy of the administration has been to encourage a climate of fear, letting it exploit the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks not only to justify the invasion of Iraq but also to excuse such dangerous misbehavior as the illegal tapping of our telephones by government agents. The same fear-mongering has led government spokesmen and cooperative members of the press to imply that we are at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world -- more than a billion people.

Another shocking perversion has been the shipping of prisoners scooped off the streets of Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries without benefit of our time-tested laws of habeas corpus.

Although the president was advised by the intelligence agencies last August that Iran had no program to develop nuclear weapons, he continued to lie to the country and the world. This is the same strategy of deception that brought us into war in the Arabian Desert and could lead us into an unjustified invasion of Iran. I can say with some professional knowledge and experience that if Bush invades yet another Muslim oil state, it would mark the end of U.S. influence in the crucial Middle East for decades.
.
.
(continues)

McGovern was a little more polite than I am in stating it, but those are some of the exact same things I and others have been posting, with links and documentation, for years. The Bushwhackos have committed the gravest of criminal offenses against the American people, our Constitution and the world. They've been caught up to the top of their lying skulls about WMD's, domestic spying on American citizens, torture, screaming threats of WW III with Iran and obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence of crimes by the CIA.

Before anyone screams that I'm posting "macros," you bet I'm quoting from my previous posts. They take a long time to write and format, and they happen to be true so I'm not going to rewrite the same information from scratch. Here are five general areas of high crimes:

1. TREASON

2. MURDER

3. LYING TO CONGRESS

4. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

5. WAR CRIMES

---

1. TREASON

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

Here's another definition:

trea·son

(tre'z?n)
n.

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
   
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

If you don't consider offering only a continuous string of ever changing lies as justification for taking the nation into a war that has squandered thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars in current and future debt, or illegal, unconstitutional unwarranted spying against American citizens to be a betrayal of trust or confidence, please tell us what it is. :shocked:

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution provides that each president shall recite the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Vice President also swears of affirms a similar oath. Since the day Bush and Cheney took office, they and their henchmen have waged an aggressive war against the rights guaranteed to all American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.

How is that not a violation of their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

How is that not a violation of allegiance toward one's country or the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies?

Even if you don't believe that in so doing, they have committed treason, they have most definitely violated their oaths of office. :|

2. MURDER

Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another. One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, many deaths. As of 6/8/08, your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal have murdered 4,094 American troops (and growing) and left tens of thousands more wounded, scarred and disabled for life in his war of LIES in Iraq.

All of the American casualties did not occur in one cataclysmic event. They happened over the years we since the Bushwhackos started their illegal war. If you question whether their actions constitute callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others, it begs the question of how many times, and over what period, can one consider excusing those ongoing, repeated acts that continue to raise the number of dead and wounded Americans on a daily basis. At what point does it shock the conscience sufficiently to cross the threshold from being 4,094 cases of mere negligent homicide, which is another criminal offense? :shocked:

3. LYING TO CONGRESS

In case you didn't know it, lying to Congress is a felony even if it is not done under oath. The following list of public lies are the same ones the Bushwhackos fed to Congress to convince them to authorize their war of LIES. It took just a few minutes to find lots of threads, including some like this one going back to 2004. The "macros" weren't as long, then, but either was the string of known lies. :shocked: (All times are Pacific time zone):

10/14/2007 01:34 PM

Originally posted by: Harvey

Remember, YOU asked for this, so don't give me shit about its length or the fact that I posted it previously.

• "Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
  Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
  
• "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
  
• "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
  
• "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
  George W. Bush, 9/26/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
  George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  
• "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
  George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  
• "There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
  George W. Bush, 10/7/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
  George W. Bush, 10/16/02
  
• "There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
  George W. Bush, 10/28/02
  
• "I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
  George W. Bush, 11/1/02
  
• "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
  
• "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
  George W. Bush, 11/3/02
  
• "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
  George W. Bush, 11/23/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
  George W. Bush, 1/3/03
  
• "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
  
• "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
  
• "Well, of course he is.?
  White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03
  
• Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
  Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  
• Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
  Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  
• Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
  Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
  
• "This is about imminent threat."
  White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
  
• "The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
  George W. Bush, 3/16/03
  
• "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
  George W. Bush, 3/19/03
  
• "It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
  Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
  
• "The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
  
• "We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
  George W. Bush 4/24/03
  
• "Absolutely."
  White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
  
• "Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
  George W. Bush, 7/2/03
  
• Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
  White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
  
• "We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
  George W. Bush, 7/17/03
  
• "There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
  White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
  
• We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ?90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
  
• "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
  George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  
• "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
  George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  
• "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
  Dick Cheney, 3/16/2003 on ?Meet the Press?
  
• We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ?93. And we?ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
  Dick Cheney, 9/14/2003 on "Meet The Press"

You can continue with info about more lies and deception as documented in the 9-11 Commission Report from 2004.

If that's not enough for you, we can move on to admin quotes about the mysteriously disappearing communications between the Whitehouse and Gonzo the Clown and his lackeys at the Department of Justice and their lies about a host of their other lies, failures and deceptions.

Want more? No problem, but remember, if you do, YOU asked for it. :shocked:

11/03/2007 05:59 PM (See later post in same thread with more detail on first half)

Originally posted by: Harvey

It took me only two minutes to find several of my posts with the following list of Bushwhacko lies and incompetence from one of my earlier posts. I warned you, and I apologize in advance for reposting it because it's very long, but since you insist...

• The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.
  
• Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
  
• There was no yellow cake uranium in Niger.
  
• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  
• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's.
  
• There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:

• They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.
  
  The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.

Need more lies? Try these:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction
Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent?. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly?..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need?.so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing, April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein ? because he had a weapons program.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003

We said what we said because we meant it?..We continue to have confidence that WMD will be found.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, but for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003

I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons [SEE NEXT QUOTE].
Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003

We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.? Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat." [SEE NEXT QUOTES].
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004

This is about an imminent threat.
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003

After being asked whether Hussein was an "imminent" threat: "Well, of course he is."
Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein?s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: "Absolutely."
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

11/07/2007 01:23 PM (Links and details for the first half of the previous post):

Originally posted by: Harvey

Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed them that the reports were false, and that several European intelligence agencies had thoroughly discredited the source for the reports.

The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.

• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges to process nuclear material.

Evidence on Iraq Challenged
Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 19, 2002

A key piece of evidence in the Bush administration's case against Iraq is being challenged in a report by independent experts who question whether thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq were intended for a secret nuclear weapons program.

The White House last week said attempts by Iraq to acquire the tubes point to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. But the experts say in a new report that the evidence is ambiguous, and in some ways contradicts what is known about Iraq's past nuclear efforts.

The report, from the Institute for Science and International Security, also contends that the Bush administration is trying to quiet dissent among its own analysts over how to interpret the evidence. The report, a draft of which was obtained by The Washington Post, was authored by David Albright, a physicist who investigated Iraq's nuclear weapons program following the 1991 Persian Gulf War as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection team. The institute, headquartered in Washington, is an independent group that studies nuclear and other security issues.

"By themselves, these attempted procurements are not evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing, nuclear weapons," the report said. "They do not provide evidence that Iraq has an operating centrifuge plant or when such a plant could be operational."

The controversy stems from shipments to Iraq of specialized aluminum metal that were seized en route by governments allied with the United States. A U.S. intelligence official confirmed that at least two such shipments were seized within the past 14 months, although he declined to give details. The Associated Press, citing sources familiar with the shipments, reported that one originated in China and was intercepted in Jordan.

The shipments sparked concern among U.S. intelligence analysts because of the potential use of such tubes in centrifuges, fast-spinning machines used in making enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. High-strength, heat-resistant metals are needed for centrifuge casings as well as for the rotors, which turn at up to 1,000 rotations per minute.

There is no evidence that any of the tubes reached Iraq. But in its white paper on Iraq released to the United Nations last week, the Bush administration cited the seized shipments as evidence that Iraq is actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said in a televised interview that the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."

Since then, U.S. officials have acknowledged differing opinions within the U.S. intelligence community about possible uses for the tubes -- with some experts contending that a more plausible explanation was that the aluminum was meant to build launch tubes for Iraq's artillery rockets.

"But the majority view, held by senior officials here, is that they were most likely intended for gas centrifuges," one U.S. intelligence official said in an interview.

The new report questions that conclusion on several grounds, most of them technical. It says the seized tubes were made of a kind of aluminum that is ill-suited for welding. Other specifications of the imported metal are at odds with what is known about Iraq's previous attempts to build centrifuges. In fact, the report said, Iraq had largely abandoned aluminum for other materials, such as specialized steel and carbon fiber, in its centrifuges at the time its nuclear program was destroyed by allied bombers in the Gulf War.

According to Albright, government experts on nuclear technology who dissented from the Bush administration's view told him they were expected to remain silent. Several Energy Department officials familiar with the aluminum shipments declined to comment.

Note the date -- September 19, 2002, BEFORE they launched their war of LIES.

• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's.
  
• There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Even Colin Powell has since said he strongly questioned the "evidence" the Bushwhackos were pimping to Congress and the American people before he gave his infamous dog and pony show at the U.N.

Powell: Some Iraq testimony not 'solid'

Saturday, April 3, 2004 Posted: 11:05 AM EST (1605 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said his pre-war testimony to the U.N. Security Council about Iraq's alleged mobile, biological weapons labs was based on information that appears not to be "solid."

Powell's speech before the Security Council on February, 5, 2003 --detailing possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- was a major event in the Bush administration's effort to justify a war and win international support.

Powell said Friday his testimony about Iraq and mobile biological weapons labs was based on the best intelligence available, but "now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid," Powell said.
.
.
. (continues

You can pick and choose from the examples in the article, but remember George Tenet's "slam dunk?" Remember the infamously unreliable testimony from "Curveball? :roll:

Powell also told columnist, Robert Scheer that he and his department?s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim.

Robert Scheer: Now Powell Tells Us
.
.
On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department?s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us.
.
.
I queried Powell at a reception following a talk he gave in Los Angeles on Monday. Pointing out that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate showed that his State Department had gotten it right on the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat, I asked why did the president ignore that wisdom in his stated case for the invasion?

?The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,? Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush?s State of the Union speech? ?That was a big mistake,? he said. ?It should never have been in the speech. I didn?t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn?t a Niger connection. He didn?t tell us anything we didn?t already know. I never believed it.?

When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn?t the president: ?That was all Cheney.?
.
.
. (continues)

4. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

The Bushwhackos have continually withheld evidence from Congress regarding Whitehouse involvement with anything and everything from Alberto Gonzales' communications to their involvement with outing covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame, to their direct involvement with the CIA's use of torture and the subsequent destruction of the tapes showing them in the act of committing that torture.[/list]

5. WAR CRIMES

George W. Bush, Dickwad Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and others authorized and encouraged American intelligence agencies to commit gross violations of human rights, including TORTURE, in violation of international laws and obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which Berto the Clown Gonzales derided as "quaint."

---

At this point, with all the evidence against them that is public information, anyone who continues to deny the Bushwhackos' crimes is either in complete self denial or one of the lying murderers and traitors. :|

 

[WHAMPOM]

Just let George answer questions under oath without Cheney there to hold his hand and then see what comes out of his mouth.


Neocons Bush is a monster!
You can quit defending him!


You Bushlickers start to remind me of a bruised, bloody woman defending her abusive husband after the neighbors call in a disturbance and the cops are there waiting for the ambulance.