COL Gene COL Gene

WHY Bush and Cheney MUST BE IMPEACHED!

WHY Bush and Cheney MUST BE IMPEACHED!



In 2002 Bush and Cheney were telling the American People and Congress that we had to remove Saddam from power because to fail to act would risk “Mushroom clouds over American Cities”. Make no mistake about it, it was the belief that Saddam might use nuclear weapons against the U.S. that was feared most and was the issue that convinced Congress to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq.

At the same time Bush and Cheney were pushing the nuclear threat issue from Saddam, the National Intelligence Estimate had several conclusions that said Saddam had no such weapons and would most likely not be able to acquire such weapons for 5-7 years. This NIE was classified and was only shared with the top leaders of Congress and the members of the intelligence Committees in Congress. The majority of Congress was not given the NIE assessment that Saddam did not have nuclear weapons in 2002 and would not be able to acquire such weapons for 5-7 years.

Time has proven that the 2002 NIE assessment of Saddam’s nuclear capability was correct. The argument by Bush and Cheney that we did not find WMD in Iraq because of the failure of our intelligence is incorrect so far as the nuclear threat is concerned. Bush further contends that Congress agreed that Saddam was a such a great threat that they gave Bush the authority to go to war AS A LAST RESORT. The problem is that when Congress voted on the Iraq War Resolution, the majority DID NOT have the NIE from 2002 because it was classified. Those few members of Congress that did have this intelligence could not share the information with other members of Congress or the American People without violating the law. Thus Congress acted WITHOUT the intelligence from the 16 U.S. Intelligence Agencies that said in 2002 and for 5-7 years in the future Saddam did not pose the nuclear threat the Bush and Cheney claimed when they asked for the authority to invade Iraq and depose Saddam.

Thus, we had a President and Vice President that ignored the most comprehensive intelligence about the major potential threat from Iraq – nuclear weapons. We had a President and Vice President that warned of the smoking gun in the form of Mushroom Clouds over our cities if we failed to remove Saddam from power knowing that Saddam did not have the weapons to conduct a nuclear attack against the United States!.
It was not the failure of our intelligence but the LIES of our two top leaders about the actual danger to our country posed by Saddam in 2002. For this reason, both Bush and Cheney should be Impeached and removed from office. There is no greater offense that a President can commit then taking our country to war predicated on lies. There was no nuclear threat in 2002 from Saddam and Bush and Cheney had the intelligence that said that was the case and deliberately asserted this danger in direct opposition to the intelligence. They further kept that intelligence CLASSIFIED so it was not available to ALL members of Congress and the American People. Bush and Cheney knew, if Congress and the American people saw that Saddam did not have nuclear weapons they would NOT support the invasion of Iraq.

Below are excerpts from the now declassified 2002 NIE that Bush and Cheney had and the majority of Congress and the American people did not have prior to the Iraq War Vote:


How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.


Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.

Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.

State/INR Alternative View of Iraq's Nuclear Program
The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.
In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Moderate Confidence:
Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009.
Low Confidence
• When Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction.
• Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland.
• Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.



INR's Alternative View: Iraq's Attempts to Acquire Aluminum Tubes
Some of the specialized but dual-use items being sought are, by all indications, bound for Iraq's missile program. Other cases are ambiguous, such as that of a planned magnet-production line whose suitability for centrifuge operations remains unknown. Some efforts involve non-controlled industrial material and equipment -- including a variety of machine tools -- and are troubling because they would help establish the infrastructure for a renewed nuclear program. But such efforts (which began well before the inspectors departed) are not clearly linked to a nuclear end-use. Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.
48,082 views 184 replies
Reply #51 Top
None of which constitutes "high crimes or misdemeanors" so zip it, already, & move on to your next pathetic excuse for another diatribe.
Reply #52 Top
2002 NIE said Saddam did not have nuclear weapons! Pentagon report that said Saddam had VERY limited military capability that was limited to operations in central Iraq. I posted copies of the 2002 NIE. If you claim that is not true you are a LIER!


Then give me a link to where you posted copies of the NIE! We've been through this before! The 2002 NIE has NOT BEEN FULLY DECLASSIFIED! So "whatever" it is you've posted it NOT the entire NIE. Which by the way is 93 pages long. Less than 1/2 of the material has been declassified.
Reply #53 Top
Daiwa

The unnecessary killing our Military does qualify as a High Crime. Wasting ¾ of a Trillion dollars on a war that was not needed and has not made us safer is a High Crime! A Misdemeanor is a crime less then a felony. Bush and Cheney have committed MANY such crimes. The determination of a High Crime or Misdemeanor is what Congress judges it to be.
Reply #54 Top
The unnecessary killing our Military does qualify as a High Crime.


Are you willing to hold other Presidents to that standard as well? 
Reply #55 Top
Time to take your lies and distortions apart, I am sorry not to have done this sooner but I was sick in bed the last 3 days and did not have the energy to play your silly game.

2002 NIE said Saddam did not have nuclear weapons! Pentagon report that said Saddam had VERY limited military capability that was limited to operations in central Iraq. I posted copies of the 2002 NIE. If you claim that is not true you are a LIER!


You told the truth that the NIE said there were not nuclear weapons. Your distortion was simply put making it hard to dispute unless people took the time to deal with your distortion. The president never said that Iraq had nuclear weapons. The President did say that we did not know what he has been doing since he kicked out the inspectors and it was safer to assume the worse than assume the best because he was trying to reconstituted his weapons programs. We could not account for the WMD he admitted he had that were not destroyed. So technically you are correct there was not nuclear weapons but that was not the issue for going into Iraq. Cute distortion also known as a lie.

Advice from Former Sec of State Baker that warned invading a Moslem country by the U.S. risked getting bogged down in a protracted war. “Do not try and invade Iraq on the CHEEP!” Baker has been on numerous news shows and has testified before Congress that he did provide this advice to GWB BEFORE the invasion.


Yes, we risked getting bogged down in a protracted war in the middle east, what you fail to notice or acknowledge is that the war began in 1993 and we did not start fighting it until 2003 so we were already bogged down in a war for 10 years we just ignored it until 2001 and did not try to fight it until 2002. You admit that we did not have the troops to fight this war but the enemy was already setting up a new base camp in Iraq to replace the one they were losing in Afghanistan. If we waited for the troop build up you demand we would not have the people to start to kick them out until 2012. So it seems your solution is to wait another 10 years before we go after a serious threat. Forget the 500 tons of yellow cake that can be used to make dirty bombs a plenty. So in those ten years we wait to build up our troops we risk having nuclear material spread around the United States because yellow cake in small batches will not be picked up by detectors unlike atomic bombs. Great military strategy you have there.

Advice from Powell You must have overwhelming force to be successful in Iraq. He was both interviewed on various News shows and has written articles saying that he gave this advice to Bush and this was the Military Doctrine that Bush ignored called the Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force.


Secretary Powel did say overwhelming force was needed. The fact that we took the country and ended the war in 6 weeks tells me that we had the overwhelming force. If you remember when President Marcos was deposed the Filipinos stormed the Presidential palace and other places claiming that it belonged to the people and they looted what they could. The same thing happened when Saddam was taken down. The difference is that we had Iran sending in troops to keep the area destabilized. That was not the war with Iraq it was the war on terror.

Advice from Former Ass Sec of State Armitage We will not be welcomed as liberators but invaders even to remove Saddam. We could unleash sectarian violence. Armitage stated publicly he provided this advice to GWB Before the invasion.


Advice from Former Ass Sec of State Armitage is not all that good since he was wrong about that as evidenced by the 20,000 still photographs and 50 hours video of flowers, candy and cheering people as we entered and took control of the nation. Another lie or distortion told by you. Oh yeah, wasn't he the one that leaked Mr. Wilson's wife to the press then got immunity and let the world think that Mr. Libby did it?

Army CoS told Bush he needed far more troops to occupy Iraq. We all know that is correct and the COS was fired for telling Bush he needed the added manpower that both Powell and Baker advised.


Former Army Chief of Staff was not fired as you continue to lie about. His time was up, he was scheduled to retire and the President wanted someone who would be there to see the war through the end. The people that wanted to use more troops were the ones that Rummy said he wanted to get rid of to revamp the military because the war on terror would not be fought in the conventional way. Since you say you were a colonel in the Army then you would know that the military fights three types of wars. Conventional, where we fight a country or countries. Bush wars where we fight a Vietnam type war and non-conventional wars where there is no nation we are fighting terrorist scattered around the world. If you expertise is conventional war and we are fighting a non-conventional war you are not equipped to fight this type of war. But you would know this with you extensive military experience right? I mean you are a colonel and I was just a sergeant and I know this.

Military planners that planned the first gulf war said it would require 500,000 troops to successfully occupy Iraq after Saddam Fell. All you have to do is look as Op Plan 1003 (plan to invade Iraq) which was the foundation of the plan Gen Franks used. It called for 500,000 troops when Saddam Fell. General Franks, UNDER GREAT PRESSURE, reduced that to 360,000. Bush sent about 150,000 troops which is LESS then half the lowered requirements Franks developed and less the 1/3 the number the military planners said was needed.


The Gulf war was a different type of war. You should know this because of your extensive military knowledge. What destroyed Saddam in the Gulf war was the fact that he was fighting with WWI tactics against WWII tactics. Your suggestion is to fight a non-conventional war with WWII tactics. Different war different tactics unless you want to lose the war.

I have just shown that NONE of the issues I raised has been proven wrong. Every one has taken place JUST AS I CLAIMED! You and the others on this Web Sight that support the Idiot in the White House ALL live in some “other world” but not on Planet Earth in 2007 AD!


All were proven wrong, just cause you quote facts does not make your conclusions factual. You distort the facts to fit your conclusions. You lie when you can’t find fact to back up your conclusions. You ignore any facts brought to you that don’t agree with your lies. You have no intellectual honesty. Not once have I seen you admit to being wrong even when the facts prove it and the articles you quote are proven to say the opposite of your conclusion. You can’t be trusted to tell the truth.
Reply #56 Top
The unnecessary killing our Military does qualify as a High Crime. Wasting ¾ of a Trillion dollars on a war that was not needed and has not made us safer is a High Crime! A Misdemeanor is a crime less then a felony. Bush and Cheney have committed MANY such crimes. The determination of a High Crime or Misdemeanor is what Congress judges it to be.


You have no concept of the American legal system. Once again your ignorance shines through.
Reply #57 Top
IslandDog

YES

However the ONLY President that Congress can impeach is the one currently in office.

Paladin77

We are not talking about the American legal system we are talking about removing a sitting President from office by the Congress! You are the one that does not, as usual, know what you are talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!


Reply #58 Top
"2002 NIE said Saddam did not have nuclear weapons!Pentagon report that said Saddam had VERY limited military capability that was limited to operations in central Iraq.Advice from Former Sec of State Baker that invading a Moslem country by the US risked getting bogged down in a protracted war. Do not try and invade Iraq on the CHEEP!Advice from Powell You must have overwhelming force to be successful in Iraq.Advice from Former Ass Sec of State Armitage We will not be welcomed as liberators but invaders even to remove Saddam. We could unleash sectarian violence.Army CoS told Bush he needed far more troops to occupy Iraq.Military planners that planned the first gulf war said it would require 500,000 troops to successfully occupy Iraq after Saddam Fell."


What you don't say is how that is grounds for impeachment. It doesn't meet any standard that I have ever seen. If it was Lincoln, FDR, Johnson, and others would have been eligible. You'll say no, but all you are accusing Bush of doing is making bad decisions about why to enter a war, and how to enter it.

At this point I have to assume you KNOW that your argument doesn't meet any legal standard for impeachment. You know that no crime has been committed, and that the Congress when into this with both eyes open, nothing hidden from them. There's no way, not a chance in hell, that Bush is going to be impeached. Waste your time with your fantasies if you want.
Reply #59 Top
We are not talking about the American legal system we are talking about removing a sitting President from office by the Congress! You are the one that does not, as usual, know what you are talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!


So the impeachment process that it presided over by the Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court is not part of the American legal system? Please explain this to me. Poor ignorant me was under the impression that all laws are based on the constitution of the United States. Or are you tossing out the constitution as well as the laws written by Congress. How nice of you. Does this mean that you are now in charge of the planet as well? Are you sure you are an American? I don't mean to insult you but you say you spent 30 years in the Army yet you don't know basic military strategy, you say you were in the private sector for an additioonal 30 years but you don't seem to understand how business works, you say you are an american but you don't seem to know the basics of our laws or how the government functions.

It seems the only justification you have for impeachment is that you don't like him. If that were the case then there is not a president ever that would not be impeached. What laws did ne break. For Mr. Johnson there was a clear set of laws he was charged with and he survived by one vote. For Mr. Clinton he lied under oath and survived conviction as well. He was however found guilty of breaking the law and lost his law license. So again I ask you what laws did Mr. Bush break?
Reply #60 Top
Paladin77

"So technically you are correct there were not nuclear weapons but that was not the issue for going into Iraq." Without the threat of nuclear weapons there would not have been a resolution to invade Iraq. That is why Bush and Cheney used the scare tactic of the Mushroom Clouds to get their way. Congress would not have approved invading Iraq to enforce UN Resolutions or because Saddam was an evil dictator.

"Yes, we risked getting bogged down in a protracted war in the middle east, what you fail to notice or acknowledge is that the war began in 1993 and we did not start fighting it until 2003 so we were already bogged down in a war for 10 years we just ignored it until 2001 and did not try to fight it until 2002." The issue was INVADING Iraq that Baker was warning against. We had not invaded Iraq in 1993 because Bush 41 was a lot smarter then his SON.


"Secretary Powel did say overwhelming force was needed. The fact that we took the country and ended the war in 6 weeks tells me that we had the overwhelming force” We had the force needed to defeat Saddam but not to secure a country of 26 Million. That is what the 500,000 troops were needed to do as the Op Plan 1003 clearly stated. It said that WHEN Saddam fell we needed 500,000 troops to SECURE the country. Bush Ignored that phase and placed our military in a position of danger without the troops needed to secure the country. 95% of the deaths and casualties took place AFTER Saddam was out of power because Bush failed to send the troops needed for the job they were given. That makes Bush responsible for the deaths of our troops.


"The Gulf war was a different type of war." The Iraq was a very conventional war. There was a phase to destroy the military and bring down the civilian government and a second phase to establish and maintain order and the second phase required many more boots on the ground. There no senior military officer that has not admitted that we NEVER had the force levels to establish and maintain control after Saddam fell and that has prevented a return to order. The military planners knew it would take many more troops to establish order in a country of 26 million especially given the history of sectarian violence among the major factions in Iraq. They were kept in check by brute force under Saddam and when he was deposed and we did not have the troops to go into all the cities where the former Saddam military fled, we set the stage for what we see EVERY day in Iraq!

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. You have a view of the leaf on the tree. I have the view that looks at the entire landscape. I was not promoted to Colonel in 19 years, given three commands and selected to attend the Army War College by accident!


Impeachment is carried out by the legislative branch. A bill of impeachment is brought by the House and the president is tried by the Senate.
The Chief justice is there as the procedural official in the Senate trial of a President or Vice President. It requires a 2/3 vote of those present in the senate to uphold the impeachment.
Reply #61 Top
"So technically you are correct there were not nuclear weapons but that was not the issue for going into Iraq." Without the threat of nuclear weapons there would not have been a resolution to invade Iraq. That is why Bush and Cheney used the scare tactic of the Mushroom Clouds to get their way. Congress would not have approved invading Iraq to enforce UN Resolutions or because Saddam was an evil dictator.


Please provide members of Congress that made this claim prior to the vote.

The issue was INVADING Iraq that Baker was warning against. We had not invaded Iraq in 1993 because Bush 41 was a lot smarter then his SON.


As soon as Mr. Baker becomes an elected official with the powers to go to war I might want to listen to him. Had we gone in and taken Iraq over in 1991 we would not have to be there today. But Mr. Baker was one of the people who demanded we stop the war too soon.

It said that WHEN Saddam fell we needed 500,000 troops to SECURE the country. Bush Ignored that phase and placed our military in a position of danger without the troops needed to secure the country. 95% of the deaths and casualties took place AFTER Saddam was out of power because Bush failed to send the troops needed for the job they were given. That makes Bush responsible for the deaths of our troops.


You still have no understanding of war or how it is fought. Fine, We did not have half a million troops, the Democrats said they would not support an increase in troops even after 9/11. We had to go to war and we go with what we have. You want to look at this with hindsight not the light of reality. It was demanded that we draw down our forces after the Soviet Union fell and we continued to draw down those forces until well after 2001. Mr. Bush tried to raise troop levels but was calld a war monger after the China problem. So the liberals held us back for years on troop levels but you seem to think it is the Presidents fault. Good one hack.

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. You have a view of the leaf on the tree. I have the view that looks at the entire landscape. I was not promoted to Colonel in 19 years, given three commands and selected to attend the Army War College by accident!


Yeah but did you graduate? Allow me to show you the whole picture. We were short on troops for 10 years, we were attacked and for the first time in 12 years we chose to fight because not fighting would be worse. This is evidenced by the bipartisan support to go to war. No one on either side of the isle mentioned nuclear weapons as the reason to go to war. Could we have used the extra troops? Yup, but we did not have them so what do you suggest we do? Continue to allow Saddam to support terrorist after 9/11? Continue to allow Saddam give safe haven to AQ? Continue to allow Saddam to publicly state that he would give or sell WMD to terrorist including AQ? All because we don’t have enough troops to stop him and provide peace? We stopped him and shut down the training camps that AQ was using in the country. Sorry col but your big picture seems very small in comparison to the facts we faced at the time. You see col political hack I was on the war planning staff for the Middle East from mid 1978 to 1979 and the planning staff for the west pacific from mid 1979 to 1980 I was also a member of the RDJTF the forerunner of SOCom. You can’t be seriously saying that we should not go to war just because we don’t have enough troops to win the peace when we are threatened. We did not have enough troops in WWI but our going to war ended WWI and WWII we did not have enough troops to fight the war in the Pacific but we won that war with just the USMC and on Brigade from the Army while in Europe the entire US Army plus one Brigade of Marines, the only war we had enough troops was Korea and we got our butts handed to us for most of the war. When attacked we do the best we can with what we have. In fact there has been only one war in modern times where we did not get our butts handed to us and that was the Gulf war and had Saddam attacked while we were still building troop levels in Saudi we would have lost that war. One constant of the last few wars was the media saying that we are going to lose long before the war started. Remember the “experts” said that we would need 50k body bags for the first week of the war? four years later we have lost 3000 plus people and that is seen by idiots as a disaster. Please keep in mind that any war we risk losing people, remember the problem with the training accident during WWII where we lost a few thousand people in one day? Or the thousands we lost on D-Day? In war people die, usually in large numbers on both sides. In this war we lose a very small number of people on our side and thousands of people on their side but you claim we are losing and the President should be impeached. Sorry but the big picture it too big for you to see.

Impeachment is carried out by the legislative branch. A bill of impeachment is brought by the House and the president is tried by the Senate.
The Chief justice is there as the procedural official in the Senate trial of a President or Vice President. It requires a 2/3 vote of those present in the senate to uphold the impeachment.


Very good you passed your 5th grade civics class. You missed one minor detail, the person being impeached has to first break a law of some kind. This is what you have been asked over and over and you still refuse to answer. What law did he break?
Reply #62 Top
Paladin77

You are just like Bush -- a stupid ass. Bush is responsible for killing 3,100 Americans in an unjustified war. Impeach him NOW!
Reply #63 Top
You are just like Bush -- a stupid ass. Bush is responsible for killing 3,100 Americans in an unjustified war. Impeach him NOW!


For what crime!  You dismiss everything posted to you and result to personal insults.
Reply #64 Top
Paladin77

You are just like Bush -- a stupid ass. Bush is responsible for killing 3,100 Americans in an unjustified war. Impeach him NOW!


NAME THE CRIME FOOL! Sending soldiers to die in a war, justified or unjustified is NOT an impeachable crime. If it was Kennnedy, Johnson, Nixon and a host of others would have also been impeached! Fool that you are.
Reply #65 Top
IslandDog & Drmiler

What crimes-- Murder, lying. Since Bush and Cheney knew Saddam did not have nuclear weapons from the 2002 NIE and they told Congress and the American people we were in danger from Saddam attacking us with something they knew Saddam did not have-- THAT IS A LIE and that LIE was used to send our troops into a war that has resulted in 3,100 deaths. Thus Murder and Lying. The GOP tried to impeach Clinton for lying about his sex life that did not result is ANY deaths. The Lies Bush and Cheney told resulted in the death of 3,100 Americans and the injury of over 22,000.

In addition the investigations show that Billions of our Tax dollars are missing in Iraq. Since he is the person in charge and who has appointed the key staff that are to be safeguarding our money he should also be charged with misappropriation of Federal Funds. All he needs to have done is committed either a High Crime (Murder and Lying) or a misdemeanor to be impeached. There is also the issue of violating the FISA Act. and not enforcing immigration and tax laws which is his responsibility.
Reply #66 Top
IslandDog & Drmiler


There are more then enough issues that can be alleged in an article of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney. Bush can claim what ever he wants as a defense which would be presented in the Senate trial. Improper death caused by the act of sending our troops into a war that was justified by lies-- Murder, man Slaughter in addition to the lies. Violating the FISA Act that REQUIRES the President to obtain a Warrant from the FISA Court. Bush has admitted he violated that law and claims he had the power as commander -in-chief. That can be used as a defense but the fact that Bush has admitted violating the FISA Act is cause to bring impeachment charges.

The Libby trial testimony clearly documents that Cheney was involved in the outing of a CIA Agent which endangers ANY Agents with that Mrs. Wilson interacted with when she was an under cover agent.

After the charges are brought, it is up to the Senate to judge if Bush and Cheney are guilty of any of the allegations made in the Bill of Impeachment!
Reply #67 Top
You are just like Bush -- a stupid ass. Bush is responsible for killing 3,100 Americans in an unjustified war. Impeach him NOW!


Yet you have no legal basis to do such a thing. So much for civil rights, or legal rights. You sir are worthless.

In addition the investigations show that Billions of our Tax dollars are missing in Iraq. Since he is the person in charge and who has appointed the key staff that are to be safeguarding our money he should also be charged with misappropriation of Federal Funds.


So the billions misapproprated by Katrina victums means that we should arrest the Governor of Louisiana, all past and present Mayors of New Orleans because they were given money to fix the levies but spent it elsewhere. Shall I go on you hack?

The Libby trial testimony clearly documents that Cheney was involved in the outing of a CIA Agent which endangers ANY Agents with that Mrs. Wilson interacted with when she was an under cover agent.


You can thank Mr. Clinton for this, the liberals say that lying to the American people is not an impeachable offence. I know you think your smart but for an 80 year old man you are real dumb. The reason that there is a 5 year hold on a covert case officers name after they stop being covert is to protect the other officers. All the people she worked for or with while she was covert would have been replaced by the end of 5 years. it was 8 years since she was covert. Contort the lies one more time you might get it right. No laws were broken you wanker. From now on I will only post to point out a lie if I see it. I am not going to kill more electrons dealing with someone who's reality check was never cashed.

Reply #68 Top
There are more then enough issues that can be alleged in an article of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney.


There in itself "is" the entire nutshell! "Alleged" but "NEVER" to be proven!
Reply #69 Top
Paladin77

You do not get it. An Impeachable offense is what the House considers justified to bring a Bill of Impeachment against the President. Then the Senate acts as a jury to determine if he is guilty. It has NOTHING to do with the court system.

drmiler

The Allegations is when the House brings a Bill of Impeachment. The trial to prove guilt is in the Senate. There is more then enough cause for the House to bring the Bill of Impeachment. When the evidence is presented in the Senate we would see if 2/3 of the Senate decided that the President was guilty and thereby removed from office.
Reply #70 Top
"You do not get it. An Impeachable offense is what the House considers justified to bring a Bill of Impeachment against the President. Then the Senate acts as a jury to determine if he is guilty. It has NOTHING to do with the court system."


You are wrong. The only CRIMES that the president can be tossed out for are treason, and high crimes and misdemeanors. Things like Nixon engineering break-ins or Andrew Johnson breaking the (stupid) law by firing Stanton, or Clinton lying under oath. You can't just impeach someone because you differ with their policies.

By your standards, Clinton should have be impeached for Desert Fox. He moved militarily against Iraq on the same kind of intelligence, made even MORE broad claims about WMDs, and was dubiously involved in an even more obvious "wag the dog" situation to do so. Come on, at least try to build a valid argument for impeachment.
Reply #71 Top
Baker Street,

Give it a rest, this guy is a one note samba all he knows is the word impeach. Laws don't matter, rules don't matter he is a spoiled 80 year old that wants what he wants nothing else matters. If he were serious and honest, two things of which I have doubts he would have layed out his case in his article and debated the points. He has no points, look how long it took for him to actually give reasons he thinks the President should be impeached and they are all bogus.
Reply #72 Top
Bakerstreet

A Misdemeanor is a crime LESS THEN a FELONY. Bush has admitted he has not followed the law on wire taps by not using the FISA Court to obtain a warrant as one example. In fact that is a felony if convicted. He has asserted that as Commander-in-Chief he can disobey this law. That may be his defense but the very fact that he has conducted wire taps in violation of the law would be sufficient cause to bring a Bill of Impeachment (like a charge) then the trial in the Senate would decide if he were guilty. Cheney was part of outing a CIA Agent and endangered all those other CIA Agents and others that Mrs. Wilson was associated with when she was a under cover agent. There is NO valid reason for Cheney, Libby and Rove to have released her name to the press! That is cause to bring a Bill of Impeachment against Cheney.
Reply #73 Top
"A Misdemeanor is a crime LESS THEN a FELONY. Bush has admitted he has not followed the law on wire taps by not using the FISA Court to obtain a warrant as one example."


And you can't get more than three or four legal experts in a room without an argument over the Patriot act. The issue is wiretapping FOREIGN phones, and whether or not you shut down the tap if an American calls them. You don't think the Congress would nail Bush for that if they could? They can act as judge and jury, sure, but there requires a CRIME to be committed beforehand, and no one can even pin down whether anything criminal was ever done.

As for the CIA agent thing, they can't even convict Scooter Libby of that, rather they are chasing down some misstatement. If there was a crime there the proper authorities would have been successful LONG before now. The fact is that Bush is in charge of the intelligence wing of the government, and all the maneuvering about what should and shouldn't be declassified and used as propaganda is just semantic.

You didn't write your original blog about wiretaps or Plame, you're just struggling now to find something that can be pinned down as a crime. Impeachment is a grave matter, because it allows the Congress to simply "recall" a president that the American people chose TWICE. You either have a rock solid crime, or you don't do it.
Reply #74 Top
There is NO valid reason for Cheney, Libby and Rove to have released her name to the press! That is cause to bring a Bill of Impeachment against Cheney.


Two lies for the price of one. First lie, there was a valid reason to release her name. Mr. Wilson claimed that the Vice-President sent him on the mission that, by the way in his report I provide you, the classified report, says he found evidence of Iraq seeking to buy yellow cake which he left out of his article. The press was asking what evil sprit had possessed the Vice-President to send his critic to investigate the matter. The reply was he did not choose Mr. Wilson his wife did. Well who was his wife? She is an analyst over at CIA. Keep in mind that the Wilson family is in Washington’s who’s who. Lists name and occupations of both people care to explain how this happened if she was still covert? You idiot.

Second lie, the person who released her name to the press was your hero Mr. Armitage. You might have noticed this as it has been in the news for several months and the prosecutor knew this before he was a week into his investigation because he gave the man full immunity destroying his case. So no law was broken, and none of the people you list leaked anything to anyone. No one is on trial for leaking anything or had you not noticed you political hack?
Reply #75 Top
Bakerstreet


No it does not require PROOF before hand that a crime was committed ONLY enough evidence to show Probable Cause. There is more then enough evidence of Probable Cause that both Bush and Cheney broke many laws. What can and should happen is Congress needs to conduct oversight hearings like the BS that Doug Fife was generating at DOD. The testimony in the Libby trial is more then enough to bring impeachment charges against Cheney for attacking Wilson by outing a CIA Agent.

Then let the Senate decide if the evidence warrants removing Bush and Cheney from office. Not a day goes by that does not produce more evidence of just how corrupt, manipulative and incompetent the Bush administration has been over the past 6 years! It starts at the very top and goes down the chain to the people Bush and Cheney appointed.