The Huffington Post
by Sam Stein
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy insisted on Monday in firm and passionate terms that a comprehensive investigation be launched into the conduct of the Bush administration, saying anything less would prevent the country from moving forward.
Speaking at a forum at Georgetown University, the Vermont Democrat suggested the creation of a truth and reconciliation commission to uncover the “misdeeds” of the past eight years.
“Many Americans feel we need to get to the bottom of what went wrong,” said Leahy. “I agree. We need to be able to read the page before we turn the page.”
The Senator also stated that Attorney General Eric Holder never gave assurances to Republican Senators that he would not prosecute Bush administration officials who may have been involved in illegalities such as authorizing torture or warrantless wiretapping.
“There are some who resist any effort to investigate the misdeeds of the recent past,” he said. “Indeed, during the nomination hearing of Eric Holder, some of my fellow Senators on the other side of the aisle tried to extract a devil’s bargain from him in exchange for the votes — a commitment that he would not make… That is a pledge no prosecutor should give and Eric Holder did not give it. But because he did not it accounts for some of the votes against him.”
At one point, Leahy slammed the lectern with his right fist, underscoring the emotion he brought to the debate. His remarks referred to claims that Holder had provided Republicans on the Judiciary Committee a pledge not to prosecute Bush officials — claims that the Obama administration denied.
Leahy framed his commission idea — which he had not discussed publicly prior to Monday — as a middle ground of sorts between those who adamantly oppose investigations and those who say “we must prosecute Bush administration officials to lay down a marker.”
The Senate, he proposed, would “authorize a group of people universally recognized as fair-minded and without any axe to grind” to investigate the Bush administration’s actions.
“Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened,” he said.
This is “not to humiliate people or punish people, but to get the truth out, so we don’t make the same mistakes again,” Leahy said later during the question and answer session. “We fought Revolution in this country so we could protest the actions of government. We should protect that.”
After the speech, Leahy elaborated a bit on what he had just announced: The commission could, if needed, be granted subpoena power and it would investigate everything from torture to the faulty information that brought the country into war in Iraq. He had not, he acknowledged, discussed the idea with the Obama administration or Holder. After 35 years in Washington, he said, “I like being able to say what I want to say.”
Such amazing corrupt “elected officials” how they resign
washpa?
Support the resignation of corruption elected abuse pigs!
Peachie,
I never delete posts that simply offend my world view – only those that are personally abusive in nature. I am more than happy to dialogue in a decent and respectful manner and tend to do so if not attacked. When attacked I will respond in kind and win, period.
We serve as a gathering station for articles relevant to criminal activities of the Bush Administration and any other public servants.
This site and my passion has much more to do with illegalities and abuse of authority than it does with left/right politics. If a conservative President obeyed the law and honored their oath to the Constitution I would never take this much time to be involved in debate.
Whatever the moronic talking heads are parroting from their superiors, Obama is not a radical leftist. He is a moderate liberal – hardly a full-blown Progressive. He is simply bringing the nation back from the far, far right where the Bushies dragged it. Of course it is a move to the left after our recent move toward becoming a neo-fascist state under CheneyBush.
Mikael, I’ve been visiting this site for quite a long time. Most of the articles are written by other people, copied and pasted from other sites. The majority of everything YOU write seems to consist of feeding trolls, expressing your superiority over them and how much better informed you are than they, and how you have more important things to do than edit their posts for content that offends your worldview, etc. etc.–yet somehow you eke out the time to do it.
You and the rest of the left didn’t go away in 2000 or 2004. Once upon a time, you were the losers in the minority. Yet you didn’t give up.
The right won’t, either. Not until AFTER you finally get Bush hanged or his head on a pike, or whatever grisly fate you fantasize for him. Until then, they’re here to stay–because now it’s THEIR turn to be patriotic! Remember–dissent? Question authority!
Enjoy your time on top, though you seem to prefer it in the rear. And thanks be to Obama– that’s where you’re gonna get it!
Check the entire post above. I did not use a single derogatory epithet. I used descriptors. Are you capable of staying away from epithets coined by others?
“‘diplomatic or other peaceful means’ would have given us adequate protection.”
That is pure moonbat delusion:
[Listen clearly please. You have called me a name for the last time. If you include another derisive term it will be your last post ever on this site. The day of pretending that you have the upper hand and can talk down to those more informed than you are done. Did you miss the results of the last two elections? You lost and continue to lose for a reason. The American public has caught up with the inanity of your ilk. You are a victim of radical right-wing propaganda and I am happy to discuss and debate in order to help you and others to disconnect from your hypnotized hard-wiring, but I will no longer tolerate such disrespectful terms and tone. Why should I? You are in the ever-shrinking minority of the deluded. I am not deluded. I am fully informed and my eyes and ears are wide open. I just have read beneath the propaganda and you have not. I have pity on your lack of ability to catch up with the vast majority of the nation – especially the most highly educated and informed, but not so much pity that I will tolerate a single word of abuse more. Done. One more word of it and you can go engage in an attempted act of self-impregnation, but not in my presence. Clear enough?]
But for McCarthy’s faults in prosecution, especially in the latter part of the crusade he embarked on, was he wrong in his suspicions about Communists having infiltrated much of the American infrastructure? Recent documentation has pretty much justified his basic thrust. What I know from my associations with his former secretary (who is still alive, although she’s fighting cancer right now) also justify him.
[You are confirmed as a radical paranoid by maintaining this ‘commie under every pot’ delusion.]
“America will never turn communist, so fear of them is simple paranoia.”
Beware the frog in the pot syndrome, Mikey. No one would have ever thought Democrats would espouse Socialist agendas several decades back, either.
[The name-calling continues, Holgie? You call me ‘Mikael’ and I’ll call you Holger. Communism and socialism are two very different animals. America’s judeo-christian roots and now multi-faceted deism and other spiritual beliefs will never allow for an atheistic system to take hold here.
Collecting taxes to pay for things in the ‘common good’ is essential. You ever drive on a public road? Ever mail a letter? Attend public schools? Glad murderers aren’t wandering your streets? Ever have the need of a police officer? These things are taken care of through the ‘socialist’ aspects of our government. I am all for competitive private industry, but a healthy balance of private markets and public programs – all held accountable through regulation and a free media – is the best system possible. Extremism in any direction causes major problems.]
“What sort of convoluted psychobabble is this?!?!?”
Tit for tat, Mikey.
[Nice retort… but not an explanation of your convoluted attempt at appearing to bring a psychological perspective into the discussion.]
“Well… we agree (kinda) on one thing, although it is sad to see you buy into the simplistic Democrats=Marxists nonsense.”
Wake up, Mikey. The high-profile movers and shakers among the Spend-on-Craps put Marxist (redistribution) principles into action quite consistently. Until they act otherwise, I’ll keep calling a spade a spade.
[Hissy… I am the one to wake up? Who spent us into an overwhelming debt and right into recession over the last 8 years? Your myopic blaming of everything Democrat and progressive makes it impossible for you to see the forest for the trees. ‘Redistribution’ isn’t the problem, nor is it the goal of intelligent progressives. We just want public systems in place to keep the economy running smoothly, cops on the streets, an intelligent and educated public, etc. and we don’t want corporate greed to run unfettered and destroy our nation and the country. Accountability goes a long way.]
“Reagan did more to widen the ‘have/have-not’ gap in America than any President.” etc, etc., blah blah blah.
He also pulled us out of the economic crisis brought on by the Carter Administration, in case you forgot. And if he did so poorly a job, he would not have won re-election by the landslide he did in ’84.
[He was trailing Carter and would not have won in the first place had ‘behind the scenes’ negotiations not delayed the release of the hostages in Iran. You claim Reagan’s electoral win makes him a great President. By the same argument you have to agree that Clinton was a great President then. The myth of Reagan has been created after-the-fact. Economically Reagan’s legacy is destroying the unions and thus taking us back toward the dark ages of the early industrial era and widening the gap between haves and have-nots – the destruction of the middle class. Clinton policies helped to rebuild it and then Bush II continued the ass-licking of big money cronies to the detriment of the majority of Americans – just like Reagan.]
“Injecting money into creating jobs”
THIS is redistributionism, one of the main tenets of Marxism. Where does that money come from, Mikey? Do government agencies tax themselves?
[Marxists also like the color red, so does that make the St. Louis Cardinals a great evil? Marxists favor berets so does that make jazz musicians a great evil? ‘Redistribution’ is simply collecting money from EVERYONE, hopefully in an equitable fashion, and then spending on things we all need to make the nation run smoothly and healthily. The money is available to invade foreign countries who pose no threat to us, which you supported, yes? The money is available to subsidize insurance companies, airlines and banks and then bail them out when they fail ‘in the common good’. Where do you stand on the string of ‘bail outs’? Would you rather see the nation auger into the ground based upon your calcified and narrow beliefs?]
And who creates the jobs? That’s not really government’s purpose. That sort of thinking encourages our government to be more of a kleptocracy than it already is.
[Left unsupervised, private industry has shipped jobs overseas, destroyed the environment and now resoundingly failed to stay solvent. Like it or not, more than 50% of Americans hold jobs in the public sector. It has worked for decades. The push toward privatization gave us Halliburton, Blackwater and Bechtel corruption. Did you favor the Bushie push to privatize Social Security? Of course you did. How would those Wall Street accounts for the elderly look right now had you gotten your way? FDR’s social programs didn’t get us out of the depression by themselves, WWII did it, but those programs kept hundreds of thousands of Americans from starvation and in lodging and built infrastructure we are still utilizing today. It was a success and it will be again if myopic idealogues will get the hell out of the way.]
“…and putting money into the hands of the middle and lower middle classes has always been the path to economic recovery.”
The best way to do that is to encourage privately-owned businesses, who will hire them. Just dishing out money to the lower classes is the “bread” part of the “bread-and-circuses” downward spiral. This is how the Greeks ruined their civilization, this is how the Romans followed suit. And that gave rise to my Sharpton-and-Jackson remark, because they are doing exactly the same thing…handing out money to keep themselves in power.
[I agree that handing out money isn’t the answer. Remember the little stimulus $ Bush tried to appease the masses with? Laughable. The latest stimulus package was full of problems, but the ‘green jobs’ it created were not a mistake. I favor social aid programs that have built in job training and a ‘weaning off’ provision. However, there will always be a small percentage of neighbors that cannot fend for themselves, such as the tens of thousands of mentally damaged war veterans. Do you oppose tax dollars going to take care of returning troops?]
“Unfortunately precious little of this is being done. The lion’s share of the bail out money has gone to the banks and other big business morons who are responsible for much of the problem in the first place because without government (on our behalf) keeping them in check, they were reckless and careless in their excessive greed.”
I did not approve of the bailout for the auto industry, whose labor-union inner rot (don’t get me started on that) has finally manifested itself in an unholy stink.
[There you go. You blame the workers. They simply organize in order to attempt to insist upon acceptable wages, benefits and working situations and you demonize them. Do you think maybe that those who insisted upon continuing to force unsalable products like gas-guzzling hummers and escalades that allowed foreign companies to dominate the market had anything to do with their failings or is it all the workers’ fault?]
As for the banks, they were saddled with bad loans thanks to the egalitarian mentality (i.e. the belief that housing is a right instead of a responsibility) of the Clinton administration, who in 1996 forced them to take on loans they normally would not, otherwise face federally-dictated penalties.
[There you go, reciting the tiresome GOP mantra: “It’s all Clinton’s fault” eight years after he left office. The toxic loan crash has everything to do with newly lax oversight and accountability over the last few years. It is a classic example of why ‘Chicago School’ hand’s off industry economic model fails. When left to their own devices, too many CEO’s and Boards think short-term profit margins and arrange for those profits to be shoveled into their own offshore bank accounts. See today’s headlines for new accountability that will begin to turn this around: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/19/ubs-american-investors-id_n_168135.html ]
And then, there was Barney Frank’s dirty hand in all this, but I’ll spare you the sordid details.
[Yeah.. good idea… I am sure it is b.s. anyway.]
“Ummmm… 9/11 was on Bush’s watch, in case you didn’t notice. They ignored the intelligence handed to them by the Clinton intelligence leadership and took their eyes off the ball.
Ummmm…9/11 happened BEFORE the War on Terror, Mikey, hello? In fact, it prompted the war (do you have THAT short of a memory?). And while I appreciate your finally acknowledging the Clinton administration’s intel on the Middle East, you seem to be willing to ignore it when it comes to the Dems’ complicity in deciding to take on Iraq.
[You are so incredibly naive to think that the threat of terrorism BEGAN on September 11th, 2001??!?!?!?! Wasn’t 9/11 a second attempt – at least – to bring down those towers? Ever hear of the U.S.S. Cole? The Lockerbie, Scotland incident? Do you think the Bushies invented the fight against radical Islamic extremism??!?!?!? The Clinton intel was handed off to the Bushies and included sharp warnings about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda that the Bushies completely ignored – leaving us wide open to attack. The Bushies then used 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq, WHO HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11… HELLO??!?!?!?! The ‘War on Terror’ just put a name on a conflict and threat that preceded 2001. It was just a propaganda campaign that the Bushies created as a pretext to push their pre-existing Empire-building agenda to establish the ‘toehold in the Middle East’ named in 1999 in the “Project for a New America” documents in order to have an excuse to access the oil reserves in Iraq and to build the pipeline down the western half of Afghanistan to get the oil in the Russian splinter states down to the gulf. Patriot Act I, which was part of the plan to suppress American dissent and interference in their global empire quest was written IN ITS ENTIRETY PRIOR TO 9/11. You think the ‘War on Terror’ was in reaction to 9/11? Really? You really need to do some reading, Dude.]
“The anthrax attacks were on Bush’s watch as well.”
Very good. You’ve mentioned ONE, which happened right on the heels of 9/11. Given it’s suspected origins, it probably helped further push us into the War on Terror. While you’re paying attention to so much detail, list to me all the other acts of terrorism against the US that have happened on Bush’s watch.
[I just did. Now… please compare how safe we were on Clinton’s watch compared to on Bush’s watch. Nice try, cowboy.]
“So you are claiming knowledge about WMDs that the American media and Hans Blix and his crew weren’t?”
OK, I take it you HAVEN’T talked to any soldiers that returned from Iraq, much less those trained in removing chemical stockpiles.
[Nice dodge of the facts that Blix and all his co-workers concluded that there was no nuclear threat and the fact that they were ordered out of Iraq by Bush, NOT by Sadaam as is widely propagated by the corporate media. Once again, you are decidedly wrong. One of my jobs involves working with law enforcement – many of whom are veterans. My roommate is an 8-year marine vet. You know nothing of what you speak. But instead of allowing hearsay from a select few, I listen to hundreds of independent voices that form my opinions based upon as broad a span of sources as possible.]
Instead, you turn to the media, which we know has it’s own agenda. [Yes… profit. Do you think the fact that war profiteer GE owns NBC might affect what they cover?]
Speaking of which, their bias towards the left is well-known. [Bullshit. The major media is owned by precious few – four, in fact – major corporate entities who have their own profit agenda. THAT problem was created by both Reagan and Clinton if you track down the consolidation of the media over the last few decades. While educated press members tend to lean away from the fascist right and toward true centrism, the ownership is decidedly right wing.]
Look at your own sources of information. I notice you draw a lot from sources like the Huffington Post, Democrats.com, Slate.com–sources that are notoriously left-biased.
[Only judged to be so by those indoctrinated by the likes of FoxNews, Drudge and other far right sources.]
Do you expect any of them to look favorably on anything Bush does, much less give him any credit for anything positive he has done?
[Not in general, because the Bush legacy is one of abject failure so any true journalist will report it as so. Please list all the good things from the Bushie years. If you don’t I’ll accept that we agree he was horrible and that the media is just being honest in reporting all the bad. ]
[I am sure that since your sources have brainwashed you into thinking legendary journalist Bill Moyer is Satan you’ll write this quote off, but it nonetheless hits the nail on the head: “All it takes to appear liberal in today’s political climate is to tell the truth”. ~ Bill Moyer]
Hans Blix had his own difficulties in getting Iraq to come clean with its weapons. Also, the corruption involved in the UN’s Oil-for-Food scandal doesn’t inspire a lot of faith in them in matters pertaining to Iraq.
[Yeah… Wasn’t my own EX-Senator slimey Normie Coleman supposed to investigate all that, just like he was in charge of investigating mercenary corruption in Iraq and held exactly ZERO hearings on the matter?]
“Haven’t you read the Project for a New American Century’s plans to invade Iraq written up in ’98 or ’99?”
Did you read the “Iraq Liberation Act” that was signed into law by President Clinton around the same time? And how it was passed by an extremely wide margin in the House and unanimously in the Senate? Maybe that’s another reason why Bush won’t be brought up for impeachment for the war.
[Once again you dodge, having been exposed to be off track. Permission to invade and occupy was never given to Bush.]
Moving on…
“Socialism isn’t the problem. Dictatorial ambition is the problem.”
But it’s funny how you find more dictators in socialist countries than you do in more democratic ones, no? Which came first, socialism or the dictator?
[Are you talking about pure democracy or democratic republics? You might want to look up the distinction. Aren’t you aware of the difference? By definition, a democratic country is not run by a dictator so your comparison is absurd. Whether any form of socialism or any form of capitalism is the socio-economic system, they cease to be democratic as soon as a tyrant takes control. Read the history of South America over the last few decades – it is one of freely elected leaders consistently elected due to their support for ‘people-friendly’ fair trade programs forced to be ‘strongmen’ – like Chavez today – due to the threat of outside attack by corporation-backed coup in order to end nationalization of local resources. They are taken down through CIA-backed, corporation-financed coups. ‘Free trade’ corporate-friendly dictators such as Pinochet are propped up by our government at the behest of American corporations – ALL our past Presidents, in fact have abetted in this disgusting pattern.]
“Bush wasn’t impeached because…” blah-buh-blah-blah-blah…
Mikey, you’re still showing this “Mob Rule” mentality. Bush couldn’t get impeached because there weren’t enough votes…
[I get that you are opposed to pure democracy, which you call ‘mob rule’. We are supposed to be a democratic republic, yes, but in truth we are a oligarchy and will remain so as long as elections are paid for by those who can afford to buy candidates into office and politicians make decisions based upon who paid their way into office and who pays the most pushy lobbyists. Publicly financed elections, which I am sure you oppose, and strict restrictions on lobbyists – which Obama is implementing to a degree much to his great credit – are the only way we will start to return to the system our forefathers dreamed of.]
“Actually Bush did not receive the Carte Blanche permission he, and you, claim he did.”
But it wasn’t him who authorized military action on his own, nor could he. The Constitution puts that in the hands of Congress, and they passed the resolution. He did not micromanage this war, as Lyndon Johnson tried to do with Vietnam (and consequently made that ordeal a bigger Charlie-Foxtrot than it really needed to be). The war was a joint operation authorized by the President and Congress, carried out by the military.
[The vote was based upon incomplete and at times, consciously inaccurate information brought to Congress by the Bushies along with a massive marketing push by them, paid for by your tax dollars nonetheless, that put huge pressure on members of Congress to go along or be vilified as “unamerican” or “traitors’. Here is a link that lays it all out. It is from an ‘Impeach site’, but be aware that this type of information is WHY there was such a huge national campaign to impeach BECAUSE of lies, manipulations and abuses of power such as those made clear on this site: http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/noiraqauthority.html ]
You see, you’re going to the other extreme–putting it all on one man, and that’s where this impeachment crusade falters.
“Bush invaded Iraq without permission from the Security Council.”
You mean Bush, with congressional approval through passed resolution, authorized our military to invade Iraq.
[Read the link. The approval was tempered by very strict guidelines – all of which Bush ignored.]
Bush’s oath was to the Constitution, which is not superceded by the UN Charter.
[Hilarious that you would attempt to justify anything at all that Bush ever did due to an oath to the document that he called “just a fucking piece of paper” and spent his whole tenure circumventing and desecrating, but his sworn oath to the Constitution – unique only to the President – to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” means he will honor all laws of the nation, which include by statute all international laws and treaties. That includes the UN Charter, the moronic opinions of that abomination of an appointment Bolton notwithstanding.]
And what did the UN do in response to the US after Iraq? Impose sanctions? Try to remove the US status as a permanent member of the Security Council? As best as I can recall–NOTHING.
[Made a lot of noise of complaint on the floor, but after so many nations were forced with threats of trade blockades and sanctions, joined the “Coaltion of the Willing (coerced)” they were disempowered. How many of those nations still have troops involved now? This is Bush’s war and now Obama has the onus of trying to correct one of the worst mistakes of our nation’s history.]
The UN is more of a vehicle to facilitate relations between nations, rather than an organization with any real power in and of itself. In short, it’s little more than an elaborate gentlemen’s agreement, and I think that’s a good thing.
[It is only as strong as it is willing and able to stand up to the U.S. and unfortunately that is ‘not at all’.]
House Resolutions blah-buh-blah-blah-blah
[“bla, bla, bla” – the phrase you use when you have nothing really to say.]
Enjoy your fantastical view if you want, Mikey-boy, but in the real world, if the case were as really clear as you assume it is, some action would have actually been taken.
[Hissy boy, in your fantastical world, does the right and best thing always happen?]
Attempts have been made, as late as June of last year–Dems had their chance, and they certainly could have pulled it off, but they unanimously killed the effort.
[“Unanimously”… oh really?]
“We now know that Iraq did not have WMD and was not seeking nuclear capabilities. Bush knew this at the time and deliberately misled Congress about the threat from Iraq.”
Refer again to Dem Intelligence on Iraq WMDs. Look up what happened to the Kurds in the late ’80s (hint: it wasn’t laughing gas, and it wasn’t a different dictator at the time). Look up also what the Israelis did to Baghdad in 1981 at a facility called Osiraq and why. Congress was well aware of Iraq’s track record, and signed the authorization resolutions accordingly.
[Ancient history. We had total fly-over dominance from the Gulf War onward as well as ongoing inspections and it was concluded that there were no WMD’s. Did you miss the fact that we won the Gulf War? The gassing of the Kurds was horrific and justified Saddaam’s ouster by itself – just as Bush/Rumsfeld, et al’s approval of the use of banned white phosphorous and depleted uranium, but that is another story as well. There was no new WMD development and the Bushies knew that full well.]
Bush Exceeded the Authority of HJR114
In October 2002, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 114, which gave Bush limited authority relating to Iraq. Here is a complete text of the bill. HJR114 has been described as legal justification for Bush’s invasion of Iraq but that is not the case.
HJR114 authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” but required that he meet certain conditions. Bush did not meet these conditions. In addition the entire resolution should be rejected because Congress was misled into signing it in the first place.
Basic Assumptions were Flawed
HJR114 begins with a series of “whereas” clauses. These give the reasons that Congress signed the resolution. Unfortunately, the most critical of these “whereas” clauses are based on fraudulent misrepresentations by Bush and Cheney.
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
We now know that Iraq did not have WMD and was not seeking nuclear capabilities. Bush knew this at the time and deliberately misled Congress about the threat from Iraq.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Bush and Cheney tried very hard to connect Iraq with 9/11 and Al Qaeda but there was simply no credible evidence. “Today’s reports show that the administration’s repeated allegations of a past, present and future relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq were wrong and intended to exploit the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks,” said Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, the panel’s ranking Democrat. [ABC]
Congress did not have access to the same information that Bush had. If they had then it is unlikely that they would have signed HJR114. It is called fraud in the inducement “if the party signing the document knew what he or she was signing, but relied on misrepresentations when induced to sign it.”
Basically Bush tricked Congress into signing HJR114 by fraudulent means which negated his authority to invade Iraq.
Violation of Requirement for Determination
Bush also violated several terms of the resolution. The first violation relates to Section 3(b), which states:
“In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall … make available … his determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;”
If Bush had told the truth about Iraq then he would have said Iraq did not pose a threat to America. In that case “diplomatic or other peaceful means” would have given us adequate protection.
Bush accused Saddam Hussein of violating the UN Security Council resolutions by not revealing the presence of his WMD. Bush then invaded Iraq without permission from the Security Council. It then became apparent that Iraq did not have WMD. Ironically, therefore, Bush violated the UN resolutions and Iraq did not.
Because Bush did not fulfill his obligation to truthfully show the need for the invasion, he did not have authority under HJR114 to invade Iraq.
Violation of War Powers Resolution
The second violation relates to Section 3(c)(2), which states:
“Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.”
This means Bush cannot ignore the War Powers Resolution of 1973 when determining what is “necessary and appropriate”. So what does the War Powers Resolution say about this? Section 9(d)(1) states:
(d) Nothing in this joint resolution–
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
What existing treaties address the issue of attacking other nations? Two immediately come to mind: the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter.
The Nuremberg Charter says that it is a crime to plan a war of aggression. Many people believe that Bush is the aggressor in this situation. Iraq has made no threats or attacks against the United States. They have simply built weapons to defend themselves from attack. They are also cooperating, albeit begrudgingly, with the United Nations. Bush, on the other hand, has surrounded Iraq with a huge military force and has threatened to destroy Saddam Hussein and much of Iraq in the process. Bush has also labeled the UN as irrelevant.
The UN Charter states that “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means…”. War can be used but only as a last resort and only under the direction of the UN Security Council.
Bush attacked Iraq based on false pretenses and without UN permission. He, therefore, violated the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, HJR114, and indirectly the Constitution. These are grounds for impeachment.
from: http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/noiraqauthority.html (go to this link for access to verifying links and sources… to those of you for whom this is new, it is called “research”).
Hoagie (tit for tat for the “Mikey” monicker. You do realize it was you that set the low tone for our exchange, don’t you?),
“As if your slate has been that clean these past few days…”
You set the tone. I just responded.
“charges of racism”
It was a racist slant. You deny it, but it was pretty clear.
“wife-beating, animal cruelty”
Again… you set the tone, I regretfully sunk to your level.
“I was tempted to label you McCarthy, but I think the honor would have been lost on you.”
Labeling me McCarthy would have been ridiculous. Glad to hear you were able to resist the temptation. McCarthy was the one who originated the “Democrat Party” diminutive so favored by the Rovian attack machine hacks recently and thus is closer to a Limbaugh or a Hannity. McCarthy was much like the Nazi’s who demonized the gays, communists and gypsies before going after the Jews. McCarthy demonized the Communists. I am a christian and would never be a communist due to their atheistic basis, but I worked with some communists during the impeachment efforts. I respect people for their principles and integrity and don’t really care what label the claim or label others place upon them. America will never turn communist, so fear of them is simple paranoia.
“Ahhh, now it’s the “guilt by psychoanalysis” dreck. But having worked in the field of psychology and sociology myself, I know full well those that point out insecurities do that to “spoof” attention from their own. I see you doing this a lot. You’re not getting off the hook that easily with me.”
What sort of convoluted psychobabble is this?!?!?
“For the record, the President I really miss is Reagan.”
Reagan did more to widen the ‘have/have-not’ gap in America than any President. We are feeling the inevitable long-term effects of the Reaganism, trickle down, Free Trade, Supply-side, Chicago-school deregulation and ‘hand’s off-they’ll regulate themselves economic model. Our current economic crash is the natural tail-end result of the moronic thought that if you give all the government financial support to the ‘haves’, take away all the rights of the workers and trust businesses to self-regulate we will all traipse daintily into economic shangri-la. Milton Freedman has proven an abject failure. Injecting money into creating jobs and putting money into the hands of the middle and lower middle classes has always been the path to economic recovery. Unfortunately precious little of this is being done. The lion’s share of the bail out money has gone to the banks and other big business morons who are responsible for much of the problem in the first place because without government (on our behalf) keeping them in check, they were reckless and careless in their excessive greed.
“Also for the record, I have no inordinate love for the Bush administration, if only because it spent the last four years acting way too much like the neo-Marxist Spend-on-Craps.”
Well… we agree (kinda) on one thing, although it is sad to see you buy into the simplistic Democrats=Marxists nonsense.
“But, for all its faults on the domestic front, it handled the War on Terror a lot better than a Demorrhoid would. Two oppressive regimes toppled, and not a single terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.”
Ummmm… 9/11 was on Bush’s watch, in case you didn’t notice. They ignored the intelligence handed to them by the Clinton intelligence leadership and took their eyes off the ball. The anthrax attacks were on Bush’s watch as well. And all four major Intelligence agencies agreed that the ‘war on terror’ created a breeding ground for terror where none had existed before in Iraq, that terrorists were being created faster than ever by Bush policies and that America was now LESS safe rather than more safe due to his ‘war on terror’ policies.
“And as far as WMDs were concerned–have you really talked to any of the soldiers that came back from Iraq? I have (stationed out in Ft. Wainwright, not far from where I live), including those who specialize in the disposal of chemical weapons. It’s too bad the Ministry of Information isn’t that interested in how their findings really justified the whole WMD threat.”
So you are claiming knowledge about WMDs that the American media and Hans Blix and his crew weren’t? THERE WERE NO WMDs FOUND, PERIOD. IT WAS A CONCOCTED STORY TO JUSTIFY THE INVASION BUSH AND HIS CREW HAD WANTED PRIOR TO 9/11 AND PRIOR TO BUSH’S PRESIDENCY. Haven’t you read the Project for a New American Century’s plans to invade Iraq written up in ’98 or ’99?
“Mugabe–what makes you think holding a socialist POV didn’t have a hand in his approach to government?”
Socialism isn’t the problem. Dictatorial ambition is the problem.
“t I’m still waiting for you to tell me what separates a Republic from mob-rule democracy? And do you think that has any bearing on why Bush hasn’t been impeached?”
Bush wasn’t impeached because (a) Republicans in Congress, who had the integrity to convince Nixon to step down in ’72, lack even the slightest bit of integrity in their current incarnation – not an ounce. With a few exceptions such as Collins, Snowe, Spector in the Senate, Ron Paul in the House and Governor Charlie Crist, they are totally sold-out lock-step party loyalists – even if doing so isn’t in the country’s best interests and (b) because spineless Democrats like Pelosi and Reid put party over principle and prioritized winning elections over doing the right thing – honoring the oaths of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC”. Their excuses evolved from “we don’t have the votes” (2006 and earlier) to “there isn’t enough time” (2007) to “we need to win the election” (2008) to “we must look forward rather than backward” (2009).
“Sharpton and racism–there goes the dance again, Baryshnikov! Is keeping a people dependent on social programs not a form of slavery? Or racism?”
I’ll take the Baryshnikov compliment, thank you. I am all for social programs that are need-based, thoroughly regulated and overseen and designed to teach job skills, etc. to wean the recipients off if possible as soon as possible. Those incapable of working should be supported, but that is a very low percentage. Programs that encourage teenagers to get pregnant in order to qualify for housing support, etc. are poorly designed and must be reformed.
“…IN THIS CASE, it was an ACT OF CONGRESS that passed the Iraqi Resolution. Why are you so intent on skipping over this fact?”
Actually Bush did not receive the Carte Blanche permission he, and you, claim he did. Bush invaded Iraq without permission from the Security Council:
“Bush Exceeded the Authority of HJR114
In October 2002, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 114, which gave Bush limited authority relating to Iraq. Here is a complete text of the bill. HJR114 has been described as legal justification for Bush’s invasion of Iraq but that is not the case.
HJR114 authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” but required that he meet certain conditions. Bush did not meet these conditions. In addition the entire resolution should be rejected because Congress was misled into signing it in the first place.”
from: http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/noiraqauthority.html
“Bile-filled diatribes” – Hey, you said they were WELCOME here! Supposed to keep me from beating my wife/dog, remember?”
Oh yeah… whatever I can do to keep your dog happy and healthy.
Peachie,
Back for another round of “I have nothing to contribute to the discourse so I’ll just play attack the messenger” are we?
Anything to contribute to the discussion?
Anything at all?
Anything?
Mikey–
“Because you insist upon attacking the messenger…”
As if your slate has been that clean these past few days…charges of racism, wife-beating, animal cruelty (with a rather disparaging attitude towards women on your part–tsk, tsk, tsk)…You want to edit out those personal attacks, too?
I do appreciate the token of dropping the “Hiss” nonsense, although I did take it as a title of honor coming from a self-styled progressive. I was tempted to label you McCarthy, but I think the honor would have been lost on you.
“it appears you are really insecure in your devoted defense…”
Ahhh, now it’s the “guilt by psychoanalysis” dreck. But having worked in the field of psychology and sociology myself, I know full well those that point out insecurities do that to “spoof” attention from their own. I see you doing this a lot. You’re not getting off the hook that easily with me.
“…of the President you love so dearly and miss so horribly… YOUR Highness, the tyrant you worshipped: “W”.”
Wrong again, Mikey. Man, I’d hate to play baseball on your team for the batting record you have. For the record, the President I really miss is Reagan. Also for the record, I have no inordinate love for the Bush administration, if only because it spent the last four years acting way too much like the neo-Marxist Spend-on-Craps.
But, for all its faults on the domestic front, it handled the War on Terror a lot better than a Demorrhoid would. Two oppressive regimes toppled, and not a single terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.
And as far as WMDs were concerned–have you really talked to any of the soldiers that came back from Iraq? I have (stationed out in Ft. Wainwright, not far from where I live), including those who specialize in the disposal of chemical weapons. It’s too bad the Ministry of Information isn’t that interested in how their findings really justified the whole WMD threat.
To your other comments:
Mugabe–what makes you think holding a socialist POV didn’t have a hand in his approach to government? If you look at the history of socialist regimes, this is the logical conclusion they generally reach. That certainly was the case in the USSR and former Warsaw Pact countries. It is the case in North Korea and China. Mugabe is simply following suit.
Oh, and what’s with this “we” BS? Are you answering by committee or something?
OK, I’m glad you recognized the US as being a Republic. But I’m still waiting for you to tell me what separates a Republic from mob-rule democracy? And do you think that has any bearing on why Bush hasn’t been impeached?
Sharpton and racism–there goes the dance again, Baryshnikov! Is keeping a people dependent on social programs not a form of slavery? Or racism?
“[Allow me to educate you to the fact that every President since FDR has circumvented Congress to initiate military action. It is laughable that you would use the Constitution as reason that Bush did or didn’t do anything when he spent his entire 8 years attempting to dismantle it.]”
That is such a poor attempt at a rebuttal. You still seem wont to ignore the fact that, IN THIS CASE, it was an ACT OF CONGRESS that passed the Iraqi Resolution. Why are you so intent on skipping over this fact?
“Bile-filled diatribes” – Hey, you said they were WELCOME here! Supposed to keep me from beating my wife/dog, remember?
Peachie–
What you’re seeing here is a side-effect of the proposed “Fairness Doctrine” enforced in miniature. When Leftists say “Fair,” they generally fall back to some egalitarian fantasy where all voices of opposition are silenced. And then is everything “equal,” if you can think in doublespeak.
But if you eliminate challenges to your point of view–and sometimes your harshest critics are the ones most faithful to see the holes in your argument–you wind up with nothing but yes-men and boring conversation.
Mikael: For months and months you called the Bush-worshipers “19 percenters” (check your archives). Now that he’s out of office, they’re up to 29 percent?
What gives?
[As Bush’s approval ratings fell, we used his current ratings to label his sadly misled and ill-informed supporters: “26%ers”, “23 %ers”, “19%ers”, etc. Now that 71% of Americans polled by Gallup want Bush investigated either by the Department of Justice or Congress the label is 29%er.]
BTW, you couldn’t possibly have better things to do than edit Holger’s posts or you wouldn’t be doing it. Oops, I think I just made a personal attack–pointing out one of your hypocrisies. Oh well, no big deal–I’m sure you have time to edit it out. Oops, another personal attack, I’m sure.
Holger,
Because you insist upon attacking the messenger, it appears you are really insecure in your devoted defense of the President you love so dearly and miss so horribly… YOUR Highness, the tyrant you worshipped: “W”.
Why can’t you simply debate the issues?
Why are we so threatening to you that you have to attack members of our organization personally rather than simply discussing the facts and engage in comparative political philosophy?
Really.
Can’t you just calm down, act like an adult and soberly debate?
Personal attacks–like accusations of racism? I like how you’re covering up for Sharpton and Jackson…are you aspiring to be one of their overseers?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes…
[Personal attack deleted]
Still, I have my means as well–here’s the entry again, enhanced even, for the edification of all:
[Personal attack deleted]
“This site has no more to do with the Clinton impeachment than any other historical event. This site is about what is going on right now and the rampant criminality in our government over the last eight years.”
[Personal attack deleted]
[Personal attack deleted]
“You bring partisanship to the table by bringing up Clinton. If you feel so strongly about Clinton’s crimes go after him – power to ya.”
You bit on the Clinton bone. Maybe you see too many similarities between those proceedings then and this present fantastic crucible of your own obsession, Mr. Hawthorne?
And you miss the point of looking at Clinton in the process…how Dems managed to have Clinton acquitted while being behind about ten seats in the Senate, yet with a stronger presence in Congress now, they can’t wing an impeachment against Bush.
“No. I just have limited time allocated to dealing for the ten thousandth time with those who chose to ignore the facts about the pre-war intelligence ignored, skewed or manufactured by the Bush Administration in order to justify the invasion and occupation of a nation that posed no immediate threat to us. The vast majority of the nation and the world have come to understand the Iraq invasion as a “war of aggression”. There is no point in wasting time with those who are incapable of understanding this.”
All hail Mikael Baryshnikov! That’s a nice two-step you do around Dem complicity in the whole affair. You can’t seem to reconcile the fact that it was an act of Congress that passed the Iraqi Resolution. That is one of the major reasons no one has seriously pursued an impeachment of Bush. At least Clinton got properly called to the floor for his own impropriety. Bush cannot be blamed for something he got Congressional support on.
[Personal attack deleted]
“Actually if you do a simple comparison of the ‘Red States’ (mostly in the midwest and south) who supported Bush v. the ‘Blue States’ (mostly on the coasts and around the Great Lakes) the level of education obviously favors the states that supported Gore and then Kerry and finally Obama (who made inroads into the midwest and south). But hey… if ignoring the simple facts makes you feel better about your positions, enjoy your delusion.”
Problems with your methodology here, bub–you automatically assume those states voted as a bloc. Try again (the delete function also relieves you of any burden to look into that as well).
“Do I notice a not-so-subtle racist slant here, Hiss? Any other ‘Negroes’ you wish to disparage?”
Ahhh yes…I criticize the Modus Operandi of certain demagogues who exploit black issues to stay in power, and I am labeled as a racist. But take the position of Sharpton and Jackson concerning blacks’ socioeconomic status, or more importantly, what they feel these folk can do about it, then compare it with that of Thomas Sowell and Mason Weaver on the same subject. Who encourages the economic freedom of blacks, and who encourages dependence on the State (and therefore, encourages votes to keep them in their positions of power)? The ones who want to keep folk “on the plantation” are the real racists.
[Personal attack deleted]
“So your definition of Democracy is “mob rule”? Your support for Bush reveals you to be an adherent to tyranny as a preferred political philosophy, so you might consider moving to Zimbabwe where Mugabe more closely enacts your dream government.”
[Personal attack deleted]
…what is the difference between a Democracy and a Republic? And don’t confuse that latter term with the “R” in DDR or the “R” in USSR.
[Personal attack deleted]
By the way, Mugabe has been a long-time socialist. Pardon me while I go grab some Glade.
[Personal attack deleted]
“Your arguments blaming the Democrats for any problems despite being in the minority are so ridiculous as to not even merit a response.”
[Personal attack deleted]
“But hey! Keep coming back to post here. If we can serve as a dumping site for your backlogged bile, at least we will keep you from beating your wife or the family dog… if there is indeed a distinction between the two.”
[Personal attack deleted]
“In case you didn’t notice Darling Holger…
February 14, 2009
71% of Americans want to see Bush administration investigated
Your pathetic little game of condescension (“foaming moonbat”) is over. You lost. You are among the 29% exposed as an uninformed idiot. You lost the election, you are losing your game of ‘cover up the Bush crimes’ and you have lost the argument, so take your meritless little game of ‘holier than thou’ and go away.”
Let’s recap here:
– you miffed on Mugabe
[Actually no, we didn’t. The point is that Mugabe is a soul-less tyrant – of any political slant]
– you seem to have no idea what a Republic is [Straw man argument. Definition of our political system was not the topic, and it isn’t news to us that the U.S. was founded as a Democratic Republic nor is it news to us that it has devolved for the most part into an oligarchy]
– you can’t identify a real racist [Your defense of your racist attack on Sharpton and Jackson was specious, at best. How many blacks were delegates at your political party’s convention btw?]
– you want to blame a war on one man who, by the very Constitution [Personal attack deleted] cannot do so by himself.
[Allow me to educate you to the fact that every President since FDR has circumvented Congress to initiate military action. It is laughable that you would use the Constitution as reason that Bush did or didn’t do anything when he spent his entire 8 years attempting to dismantle it.]
(That war, btw, has been pretty light on casualties while toppling a dictator with a history of WMDs in the process)
[The WMDs were a lie-gone for years. Aren’t you up on that fact yet?]
– and furthermore, you try to cover up your ignorance through administrative privilege
[We reserve the right to delete and/or edit post to minimize personal attacks in an attempt to raise the level of public discourse. I am editing your post as a one-time courtesy. All future posts full of attacks will be simply deleted. We have better things to do than to waste time editing out your bile-filled diatribes.]
[Personal attack deleted]
“Just go away.
Far, far away…”
[Personal attack deleted]
Are you done 29%er?
Good…
Because you bore me.
[Ed. Note: Entry deleted due to pervasive personal attacks.]
In case you didn’t notice Darling Holger…
February 14, 2009
71% of Americans want to see Bush administration investigated
Your pathetic little game of condescension (“foaming moonbat”) is over. You lost. You are among the 29% exposed as an uninformed idiot. You lost the election, you are losing your game of ‘cover up the Bush crimes’ and you have lost the argument, so take your meritless little game of ‘holier than thou’ and go away.
Just go away.
Far, far away…
Holger Hiss Sweety Pie,
This site has no more to do with the Clinton impeachment than any other historical event. This site is about what is going on right now and the rampant criminality in our government over the last eight years. You bring partisanship to the table by bringing up Clinton. If you feel so strongly about Clinton’s crimes go after him – power to ya.
“I’ll take your silence on Bush’s “lies for starting a war of aggression” as a concession, too”
No. I just have limited time allocated to dealing for the ten thousandth time with those who chose to ignore the facts about the pre-war intelligence ignored, skewed or manufactured by the Bush Administration in order to justify the invasion and occupation of a nation that posed no immediate threat to us. The vast majority of the nation and the world have come to understand the Iraq invasion as a “war of aggression”. There is no point in wasting time with those who are incapable of understanding this.
“Dems might be a relatively uneducated bunch”
Actually if you do a simple comparison of the ‘Red States’ (mostly in the midwest and south) who supported Bush v. the ‘Blue States’ (mostly on the coasts and around the Great Lakes) the level of education obviously favors the states that supported Gore and then Kerry and finally Obama (who made inroads into the midwest and south). But hey… if ignoring the simple facts makes you feel better about your positions, enjoy your delusion.
“career Demagogues in power–works for Sharpton and Jackson!)”
Do I notice a not-so-subtle racist slant here, Hiss? Any other ‘Negroes’ you wish to disparage?
“mob-rule (which tends to be the political philosophy of Democrats, hence the party name)”
So your definition of Democracy is “mob rule”? Your support for Bush reveals you to be an adherent to tyranny as a preferred political philosophy, so you might consider moving to Zimbabwe where Mugabe more closely enacts your dream government.
Your arguments blaming the Democrats for any problems despite being in the minority are so ridiculous as to not even merit a response.
But hey! Keep coming back to post here. If we can serve as a dumping site for your backlogged bile, at least we will keep you from beating your wife or the family dog… if there is indeed a distinction between the two.
Partisan hack–hello, Pot, this is Kettle. The very nature of this site is partisan (just slapping “Nonpartisan” does not make it so any more than Pelosi’s claims of a “new era of bipartisan cooperation,” and the recent handling of the Porkulus bill earlier this week exemplifies just that). How many of your subscribers and regular posters are non-Democrat?
[Many of our most passionate and devoted members are just as disgusted with the Dems as the Repubs. We were just as happy to see Blogojevich impeached as anyone for crimes far less than those of Bush.]
I mean, apart from the male enhancement vendors. [Stupid comment] But I’m sure they have political affiliations, too. Ever done a survey?
Anyway, thank you at least for the concession of Clinton’s contempt of court citation. It sort of throws a pallor on much of the rest of Clinton’s business. Indictments of obstruction of perjury and obstruction of justice do not come easily, and the very murky Whitewater matters… [For which he was acquitted] the death of Vincent Foster (which was no more of a suicide than Nicole Brown Simpson’s death) [Agreed] and the convenient disappearance of many of Madison’s files made the case even harder to resolve.
I’ll take your silence on Bush’s “lies for starting a war of aggression” as a concession, too. Dems might be a relatively uneducated bunch [Actually more educated on the average than Repubs] (certainly moreso their constituency–keep ’em in the dark with mandatory dumbed-down public education, feed ’em bread and circuses to keep ’em fat and happy, and it’s a sure recipe to keep career Demagogues in power–works for Sharpton and Jackson!) but they’re not that stupid. About half voted for the Iraqi Resolution, about half against. Who among them were the dupes?
“So… in your fantasy world the Democrats have held a majority in the Senate since 2002? You might want to do a little fact checking next time.”
Did I mention anything about a majority, as if to imply that the Senate should run by mob-rule (which tends to be the political philosophy of Democrats, hence the party name)? [Completely nonsensical] No, I was drawing from what I remember of congressional history…like the Clinton impeachment. Dems threw their full weight on that one, hoping that there would be enough Republican dissenters to vote an acquittal. They got what they wanted there, despite being in the minority. Since 2002, the margin has been even narrower, and since 2006, it has been even with the Republicans.
Despite this, the Dems haven’t been able to pull off an impeachment resolution for Bush. Even with Kucinich’s proposal in 2008.
[Which is why most of our political pressure over the last couple of years has been toward Conyers and other Democratic members of the House Judicial Committee not supporting impeachment as well as pressuring Pelosi and then-Presidential candidates.]
“Good question… one we have been asking of them all along.”
Well, good luck with your attempts. Write to me from Salem if you make any better progress than what the Dems have done. [Clinton was a witch hunt from the get go, but he deserved to be impeached for lying to a Grand Jury nonetheless. Bush and Cheney have publicly confessed to felonies and should have been impeached for those and many other crimes and misdemeanors, abuses of power,etc.]
Holger Hiss,
As I made perfectly clear. Clinton was found innocent of all initial charges – Whitewater, etc. He was (rightfully) spanked for lying about his sexual escapades… but none of that would have come up had the Ken Starr partisan witch hunt never been initiated.
“If the evidence is so clear, and the case so obvious, why haven’t the Dems managed to pass something through?”
Good question… one we have been asking of them all along.
“They certainly have been pretty much capable of bringing it up and passing it, given the number of seats they have held in the Senate since 2002, and since 2006, the situation has been even better for them”
So… in your fantasy world the Democrats have held a majority in the Senate since 2002? You might want to do a little fact checking next time.
“foaming moonbat”
Is that really necessary? It just exposes you as a partisan hack incapable of intelligent and respectful dialogue.
“Clinton’s impeachment was a partisan witch hunt, which is why he was found innocent of all initial charges.”
Being found innocent and voted innocent are really two different things. Dems threw pretty much all their votes to save Clinton’s ass, which was actually pulled out of the fire by 10 Republican senators’ votes on the charges of perjury. Almost the same case with the charges of obstruction of justice–there again, it was Republican senators’ votes (5 of them) that left the decision more or less hung at 50-50. So much for the idea of a witch hunt along partisan lines.
And, people who are really innocent don’t have to be slapped with citations of contempt of court (for repeatedly providing false testimony–hardly the behavior of an innocent person), nor suspended from the US Supreme Court Bar because of it.
“Bush lied to Congress and the American people about reasons for starting a war of aggression”
Using pretty much the same intelligence quoted by the Dems in the late ’90s for concerns about Iraqi WMDs. If Bush fell for bad information, the Dems were the first dupes to swallow it. And, apparently, they still believed in their own intelligence, since over half the Dems in the Senate voted for passage of the Iraqi Resolution in 2002. They certainly were in a position to block the resolution at the time.
“lied about spying on Americans, lied about the use of torture – the latter two being war crimes.”
If the evidence is so clear, and the case so obvious, why haven’t the Dems managed to pass something through? They certainly have been pretty much capable of bringing it up and passing it, given the number of seats they have held in the Senate since 2002, and since 2006, the situation has been even better for them.
Ho! It’s been TRIED ALREADY–remember Kucinich in June of this year, trying to get such a resolution passed? Who killed it by voting it into the Judicial Committee to let it die? The DEMOCRATS. UNANIMOUSLY. Apparently, even they see something a foaming moonbat doesn’t.
Captain Ramos…
Welcome back…
Clinton’s impeachment was a partisan witch hunt, which is why he was found innocent of all initial charges. He was spanked for lying about a blow-job during the witch hunt – an incident which never would have come up if the witch hunt hadn’t been initiated in an attempt to take down a very popular and successful President.
Bush lied to Congress and the American people about reasons for starting a war of aggression, lied about spying on Americans, lied about the use of torture – the latter two being war crimes.
You think a President should be impeached for a blow-job. We think a President should be impeached for war crimes.
Our push to impeach war criminals has nothing at all to do with getting even. That is your world. That is your petty, partisan paradigm.
To John H Kennedy-
“All Peace & Justice groups who really care about our troops should be in the streets weekly until a special prosecutor is appointed.”
I work for a living, so I’m sure that I won’t have time to protest weekly John. I’m too busy trying to save my country from a party that would have all of us become Socialists! Besides, the garbage, misinformation and conspiracy theories that are espoused on this blog are beyond a rational citizen’s ability to comprehend! Leahy defended Clinton slavishly, and tried to block his impeachment as well. Would you not expect him to try to discredit a Republican president to get even? The fact that Andrew is in awe of the senator speaks volumes for my point.
Hello,
Kurt Daims
Brattleboro, Vermont
For TRAC (Truth and Reconciliation Action Committee)
Where does the arrest of Bush/Cheney stand other than Brattleboro Vermont?
I dont favor Bush Escapeing yet accountability of the war crimes or 9/11 and Cheney/Rumsfield
has a lawsuit regarding the “evaculation order” that was never given,which implies proves Cheney/Rumsfield have lied regarding
9/11 and the jet or object etc that hit the Pentagon.
“People would be invited to come forward and share their knowledge and experiences, not for purposes of constructing criminal indictments, but to assemble the facts,” said Leahy, a frequent Bush critic.
This commission will be a whitewash.
PAY ATTENTION FOLKS:
“my view is also that nobody is above the law. And if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen,” Obama said.
Sounds to me like Obama is for prosecution.
BUT, that like FDR, Obama needs you to
MAKE HIM DO IT!
Everyone nationwide that believes our troops who died in Iraq were murdered for the Bush/Cheney WMD lies needs to
TELL YOUR CONGRESSMAN, the Justice Department and Obama to
APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
and
Investigate, Indict and Prosecute all who broke the law.
All Peace & Justice groups who really care about our troops should be in the streets weekly until a special prosecutor is appointed.
All right senator Leahy!!!! We need to investigate the whole Bush family and all their business dealings they have done with Cheney, Dashel, Rumsfeld, and a lot of the republican party and even some of the democrats and at least one independent who has more of a foreign interest position than an American one. This is a family of tyrants and criminals that have turned the government into a mafia by way of the military industrial complex, greed and the V.A. mafia. Unfortunately for them the literacy of G.W. Bush has shown them to be criminal. His military service was, and is a question just like Dan Rather said. And the truth in news broadcasting left with Rather. His college education at Yale and Harvard along with his intellect is in total question. Everything about him and his administration is a question of dignity and integrity. I could go on clear back to the formation of the CIA and “certain interest groups” such as the military industrial complex and the Bush family and the assassination of Kennedy and his thought on the CIA. Enough of foreign wars and special interest profit. To H— with the U.N. and and the EUs half a-s support and all their ideas. Prosecute these tyrants, bring home all the soldiers that we have fighting worthless wars for worthless reasons, limit trade to equal or none and put America on the track for self preservation. And if any country has a problem with that limit the response to a six day nuclear Blitzkrieg.
Mr. Leahy’s comments on humiliation and vengeance indicate we may have similar concepts of the resistance to prosecution. We (TRAC) contend that they are overriding forces, and that without accommodating them we will never bring BushCo to justice.
We are promoting this Truth and Reconciliation Resolution as a way to concentrate Obama Euphoria on justice and national reconciliation. It has elements to attract support from Obama supporters. It takes a broader view of the truth, which certainly involves more than the man Bush, in order to attract support from Bush loyalists as well. And it offers a difficult and provocative compromise that can draw public attention to the issue and to abuses of the presidential pardon power.
* * * * * Whereas George W. Bush may issue fraudulent decrees called pardons in order to conceal crimes in which he himself has conspired;
And whereas President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to end slavery;
So let President Obama issue a Revelation Proclamation to reveal the truth and to nullify all so-called preemptive, blanket and self-pardons granted by George W. Bush as absurd, unconstitutional and obstructive of justice;
And whereas George W. Bush may be a witless pawn, enabled by a weak and complicit Congress, and manipulated into treason, graft, and genocide by powerful special interests who profit from these crimes;
And to expose these interests and serve justice the people of Brattleboro therefore advise that after indictment, trial, and conviction for such crimes George W. Bush be considered for a true pardon.
* * * * *
The proclamation (a la Lincoln Emancipation Proclamation) of reasonable pardon principles compliments the Obama mystique and paves the way for prosecution of BushCo, but it cannot be expected without compromise. So, the resolution accuses the System and encourages Obama to consider granting a true pardon — after trial and conviction — to Bush. On the most elementary strategic level we need a compromise because Bush is so well defended. From a wider perspective we see our nation as deeply fractured and in need of reconciliation. If Bush is never prosecuted, his opponents will be embittered and withdrawn. If Bush were incarcerated, his supporters would be infuriated. The compromise of prosecution and pardon allows support from both sides.
The strongest opposition to the idea of a pardon for Bush comes from impeachment activists, and this should be of interest to us. People on the street are more open-minded. Bush supporters and opponents alike hesitate when they first hear about it, and many of them change their minds to support it. That is rare in casual political discourse. The proposal is favored here by two-to one. For now the town selectboard has blocked resolution form the ballot, but this setback is actually a golden opportunity for Brattleboro to compromise on the wording and to be a visible example of reconciliation. On the national scene the acceptance of such a resolution will remove the primary obstacle justice and reposition the peace movement as a unifying influence, a thoughtful, conciliatory and decisive leader in our society — AS A LEADER !
Collaborators Welcome!
Kurt Daims
Brattleboro, Vermont
For TRAC (Truth and Reconciliation Action Committee)
[email protected]
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Feb02/0,4670,SenatorInvestigationRendell,00.html
Pa. gov. to testify at ex-state senator’s trial
So many corrupted elected officials,huh?