Can the President Be Impeached for Falsifying Information to Justify War?

[Ivan Seeking]

They said it - Impeachment!

AFAIK, the first serious suggestion by a talking head that an impeachment may be in the works - Eleanor Clift of Newsweek. In agreement were Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, and somewhat so, Mort Zuckerman of US News and World Report. This, all on the McLaughlin Group in regards to falsified or misleading information used to justify the war. Of course this depends in large part on the 2006 election. Clearly McLaughlin also believes that an intentional effort to deceive the public was afoot.

 

[Skyhunter]

AFAIK, the first serious suggestion by a talking head that an impeachment may be in the works - Eleanor Clift of Newsweek. In agreement were Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, and somewhat so, Mort Zuckerman of US News and World Report. This, all on the McLaughlin Group in regards to falsified or misleading information used to justify the war. Of course this depends in large part on the 2006 election. Clearly McLaughlin also believes that an intentional effort to deceive the public was afoot.

It certainly seems from the downing street memo, the fake Niger yellow cake documents that there was a game being played, and we were being manipulated. This is becoming more and more obvious, and only the extremely blinded right cannot see it.

My pro-Bush brother called me yesterday to tell me he thinks Bush should be impeached.

Not with this Congress though, the leadership refuses to investigate anything the administration is doing or has done, and Dem's don't have subpoena power.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I had to laugh when the Bush supporters claimed that when Rove wasn't indicted, the whole matter was about over. I think that Fitzgerald knows that he has the opener for the whole can of worms. This will just take time to play out.

 

[Skyhunter]

I had to laugh when the Bush supporters claimed that when Rove wasn't indicted, the whole matter was about over. I think that Fitzgerald knows that he has the opener for the whole can of worms. This will just take time to play out.

I was surprised when Scooter didn't fall on the sword and cop a plea, so that the whole affair could be swept under the rug before the next election cycle.

[edit]Here is an organization with a plan.

http://impeachpac.org/

 

[SOS2008]

I was surprised when Scooter didn't fall on the sword and cop a plea, so that the whole affair could be swept under the rug before the next election cycle.
[edit]Here is an organization with a plan.
http://impeachpac.org/

Consider the options. If he cut a deal, he would have had to do so via exchange of information that could bring down the cabal immediately. The question is why not just plead guilty? Well who would want to go to jail? Instead he secured one of the best lawyers for a knockdown drag-out fight to save himself as best he can. I say you go boy--drag this thing right into 2006.

EDIT: From the link: "A brand new poll that you paid for (see below) reports 53% of Americans think Bush should be impeached for lying about Iraq, while only 42% disagree."

Once again, and as always, I find it disturbing that 42% don't think lying about Iraq is worthy of impeachment. Holy cow--this is what concerns me the most about this country!

Corrected from copped a plea to cut a deal. :-)

 

[Skyhunter]

Consider the options. If he copped a plea, he would have had to do so via exchange of information that could bring down the cabal immediately. The question is why not just plead guilty? Well who would want to go to jail? Instead he secured one of the best lawyers for a knockdown drag-out fight to save himself as best he can. I say you go boy--drag this thing right into 2006.
EDIT: From the link: "A brand new poll that you paid for (see below) reports 53% of Americans think Bush should be impeached for lying about Iraq, while only 42% disagree."
Once again, and as always, I find it disturbing that 42% don't think lying about Iraq is worthy of impeachment. Holy cow--this is what concerns me the most about this country!

Cop a plea is not the same as cut a deal.

Pleading guilty could have put an end to a trial that will feed the media, even if it is force feeding to some portions of the media.

Scooter has money. A lawyers best client is a rich man in trouble. It will be interesting to watch how this plays out.

Who will fill step into fill the leadership void that inevitably is coming.

Looks like Cheney is gearing up for a fight by bringing David Addington into fill Libby's open position. Here is a Washington Post profile of Addington from last October

I wonder if they will torture poor Scooter.

 

[Tsu]

Let's say we do impeach the SOB. What do we end up with?

President Cheney?

President Hastert?

I'd take Hastert but definitely NOT Cheney.

 

[Moonbear]

EDIT: From the link: "A brand new poll that you paid for (see below) reports 53% of Americans think Bush should be impeached for lying about Iraq, while only 42% disagree."
Once again, and as always, I find it disturbing that 42% don't think lying about Iraq is worthy of impeachment. Holy cow--this is what concerns me the most about this country!

That is disturbing, especially since the way the poll question was worded didn't require that you believe he did lie, as I first thought might have been the case when I saw your quote. It was phrased: "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

I would understand a poll where 42% didn't believe he should be impeached because they didn't believe he had lied about the reasons for the war, but if it is proven that he did lie, then that sure seems like an impeachable offense to me. Though, I'd still also hold accountable every single member of Congress who approved our entry into the war for not doing their job and checking the facts and examining all the motivations, and basically asking the questions they're supposed to ask before voting to go to war.

Maybe it's time to clean house and start dumping incumbents in elections...I don't care what party, just get the old boys out and bring in some new blood to get rid of all the old favors owed, and paybacks and coverups that keep impeding real progress.

 

[Moonbear]

Let's say we do impeach the SOB. What do we end up with?
President Cheney?

*shivers* I have to say, that's one thing that gives me serious pause whenever the idea of impeaching Bush is mentioned. As much as I don't think Bush is a good president, I think Cheney would be WAY worse! Unless they could nail Cheney right along with Bush, I think we'd just be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

 

[Skyhunter]

Let's say we do impeach the SOB. What do we end up with?
President Cheney?
President Hastert?
I'd take Hastert but definitely NOT Cheney.

Any member of Congress can introduce one or more articles of impeachment.

Once articles are introduced the leadership must decide whether or not to hold hearings. The current leadership would probably oppose the hearings. This could then become a powerful mid-term issue for Democrats.

Impeach them both in 2007 and Nancy Pelosi would become President.

 

[edward]

According to (page 2) of the link below: The FBI discontinued the investigation into the origin of the fake Niger documents when they came to the conclusion that the documents had been produced for monetary gain.?

It seems to me that a new investigation should begin to determine just who was willing to pay for forged documents. All Bush the administration had to base the invasion of Iraq on was the worthless aluminum tubes and the blasted fake documents.

It is time to cut to the chase and open up this garbage bag of an administration to scrutiny by some agency other than a biased Senate investigation committee.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/03/news/italy.php

 

[Astronuc]

Let's say we do impeach the SOB. What do we end up with?
President Cheney?
President Hastert?
I'd take Hastert but definitely NOT Cheney.

Impeach Cheney as well. Both Bush and Cheney conspired to wage this war AFAIK. Bush mentioned using troops to remove a dictator during the presidential campaign (comment during debate at Wake Forest).

George W. Bush: Opposed Somalia intervention when it became nation-building

Somalia started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission and that’s where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price, and so I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator when it’s in our best interests. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise.

Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University - http://www.issues2000.org/Archive/Wake_Forest_debate_Defense.htm

I am quite sure that during the energy task force meetings, Cheney informed Halliburton that the Bush Administration was planning to invade Iraq so that they were well prepared for a non-competitive bid. That needs to be investigated. According to Paul O'Neil, former treasurery secretary, Iraq was the first item on the agenda at the first cabinet meeting.

Where there is smoke . . . .

And given the collateral damage - i.e. 1000's of innocent civilian deaths at the hands of the coalition forces, primarily US - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al should be incidicted for negligent homicide and manslaughter. They conspired to wage war on a nation that was not a threat to the US.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Impeach Cheney as well. Both Bush and Cheney conspired to wage this war AFAIK.

It is starting to look like they will get Bush through Cheney. So I hope for him to go first, then Bush.

 

[Astronuc]

And to the charges above, I would add terrorism, torture, kidnapping, and conspiracy to commit those acts, racketeering and corruption, and otherwise conduct unbecoming of president and VP.

As far as I know, both Bush and Cheney took oaths of office, so lying and misleading Congress is a big no-no.

And, Congress has failed to provide a proper check on the president and VP.

 

[Art]

Here's some more sleaze centered on Halliburton but involving the pentagon too.

US should repay Iraq for Halliburton work: audit

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States should reimburse Iraq for $208 million in apparent overcharges paid to a Halliburton Co. subsidiary, an U.N. watchdog agency said on Saturday.

......

In May, the board noted "with regret" that Pentagon auditors had tried to hide from it more than $200 million in apparent overcharges in contracts paid for with Iraqi oil money and awarded on a noncompetitive basis to Halliburton, a company once led by Vice President Dick Cheney.

U.S. military auditors had turned over heavily edited audits to the board, saying the deletions were made to protect trade secrets. An unedited version of the audit later surfaced, showing the deletions sought to conceal questionable billings

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-05T203830Z_01_SCH574193_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-UN-HALLIBURTON.xml&archived=False

It appears this apparent theft of $200 million which the american taxpayer is now being asked by the UN to reimburse is classified as a 'trade secret'. One wonders what other 'trade secrets' Halliburton and it's friends in the admin are hiding.

It seems incredible that the american public are allowing this type of scandal to continue.

 

[SOS2008]

Here's some more sleaze centered on Halliburton but involving the pentagon too.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-05T203830Z_01_SCH574193_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-UN-HALLIBURTON.xml&archived=False
It appears this apparent theft of $200 million which the american taxpayer is now being asked by the UN to reimburse is classified as a 'trade secret'. One wonders what other 'trade secrets' Halliburton and it's friends in the admin are hiding.
It seems incredible that the american public are allowing this type of scandal to continue.

Now that's a list I'd like to see compiled--all the $$$ that has disappeared, or been overcharged, or skimmed (kickbacks), redirected, or misappropriated during this administration. I'll bet the total would be enough to pay off our national debt, maybe even shore up Social Security and Medicare, and rebuild New Orleans.

 

[Skyhunter]

Now that's a list I'd like to see compiled--all the $$$ that has disappeared, or been overcharged, or skimmed (kickbacks), redirected, or misappropriated during this administration. I'll bet the total would be enough to pay off our national debt, maybe even shore up Social Security and Medicare, and rebuild New Orleans.

Maybe just a slight exaggeration, but I get your point. If the CPA had not told 400,000 members of the Iraqi army, "We kicked your butts, so take your guns and go home", the security situation and reconstruction would not be the disaster it is now.

If the administration had not snubbed the rest of the world that wouldn't join their "coalition of the willing", we might be enjoying the help and goodwill of the world community.

Oh well, nothing to do for it now, except dump these guys and try to fix their ****-up!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That is disturbing, especially since the way the poll question was worded didn't require that you believe he did lie, as I first thought might have been the case when I saw your quote. It was phrased: "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

This is what was so disheartening throughout the re-election. It became more and more apparent that many Bush supporters would support him no matter what he does. This is why I keep saying that his re-election constitutes a failure of the American people. What in the world are people thinking and doing here? And I have a hard time believing that most people don't know what's going on here. Consider the torture issue. In the country that I believed this to be, that alone would be the end of Bush.

Edit: It seems to me that basic American values are lost on a large percentage of the population. I would start teaching kids to read using the
U.S. Constitution as the text.

 

[Art]

This is what was so disheartening throughout the re-election. It became more and more apparent that many Bush supporters would support him no matter what he does. This is why I keep saying that his re-election constitutes a failure of the American people. What in the world are people thinking and doing here? And I have a hard time believing that most people don't know what's going on here. Consider the torture issue. In the country that I believed this to be, that alone would be the end of Bush.

As a european I am shocked by the US of today. Like the vast majority of other europeans I was always very partial to the US and what it stood for.

Although there have always been isolated incidents which one could criticize they were generally small in magnitude and few and far between. It was comforting to know that when people were found to have acted illegally against the stated principles of the US they were prosecuted and if elected officials either resigned or were quickly hounded out of office, even if they were the president.

It seems to me that from Reagan's tenure to today there has been a huge change in how accountabilty and responsibility is handled in the US with the most worrying aspect being that so many americans seem prepared to condone the worst possible behaviour by their government to the extent that the current administration has an arrogance bordering on dictatorship as they believe they are 'untouchable'. Unfortunately their perception appears to be correct.

 

[Astronuc]

I would start teaching kids to read using the
U.S. Constitution as the text.

Well first, children must be taught to read.

Then they must be taught to comprehend.

And then they must be taught to think - and think for themselves.

TV and video games have certainly helped dumb-down the nation, which is sad indeed.

 

[SOS2008]

What in the world are people thinking and doing here? And I have a hard time believing that most people don't know what's going on here.

Well first, children must be taught to read.
Then they must be taught to comprehend.
And then they must be taught to think - and think for themselves.
TV and video games have certainly helped dumb-down the nation, which is sad indeed.

That is part of the answer to the question--certainly in regard to apathy in our country. But I feel it is more than that. I believe the new mix of conservatives is fully aware of the dirt swept under the rug, and often help with the sweeping. The religious-right only care about changing the Supreme Court, the neocons only care about using our superpower status to conquer the world, and big business only care about profits. As long as Bush helps them pursue their agendas (e.g., he is back in good graces with the fundamentalists on the new SC nomination) they will remain loyal to him.

In particular, the religious-right has worked hard to achieve power. Those who complain about these things need to work hard to balance it—signing petitions, contacting representatives, voting, and volunteering for candidates they support.

 

[faust9]

Well, we now have proof that the WH knew MONTHS before it started trumpeting the ties between Al-Queida and Saddam that those ties never existed. So, if the admin KNEW the intel was wrong and used it anyway is that not lying?

http://nytimes.com/2005/11/06/polit...&en=0d091794b0c89f27&ei=5094&partner=homepage

We also know the admin KNEW the Nigerian yellow-cake story was false (the statement was pulled from the Cinncinnatti speech but managed to work itself back into the congressional address).

Bush KNEW this stuff was wrong and still used it to bang the war drums. Bush made statements he knew to be false to congress(an impeachible offense).

I wonder how long it will be before more of these lies come forth and when the proceedings will begin.

[edit] Ignore my spelling errors. I'm too lazy to fix them.

Also, here is what Bush sent to congress just before starting the war:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
GEORGE W. BUSH

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

We now know the 'terrorist' assertions and the like were lies and known to be lies. Hmmm legally binding letter sent to congress riddled with known lies--- makes you wonder.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well first, children must be taught to read.
Then they must be taught to comprehend.
And then they must be taught to think - and think for themselves.
TV and video games have certainly helped dumb-down the nation, which is sad indeed.

I think it goes deeper than that. Because he was needed on the farm, my grandfather never got past the 8th grade, but he never would have fallen for Bush's line of bull. He was much too wise for that. Now, obviously, 911 factors into the psychology of the masses, and now Americans have been hurt and killed so naturally we want to go out and kill other people, but I have long complained that the Constitution is treated like an afterthought, so in many ways this goes far beyond current events. This problem has gotten worse and worse for as long as I can remember. So even though I agree that education is a problem, and even though 911 acts as a high amplitude transient in the American psyche, this is all part of the bigger problem of losing sight of the values that define this country. Frankly, I don't see how any loyal American can stomach the sight of Bush. He is much of what I was taught defines the enemy. And the constitution does allow for enemies you know; both foreign and domestic.

 

[SOS2008]

Maybe just a slight exaggeration, but I get your point. If the CPA had not told 400,000 members of the Iraqi army, "We kicked your butts, so take your guns and go home", the security situation and reconstruction would not be the disaster it is now.
If the administration had not snubbed the rest of the world that wouldn't join their "coalition of the willing", we might be enjoying the help and goodwill of the world community.
Oh well, nothing to do for it now, except dump these guys and try to fix their ****-up!

Of course I'm counting the cost of the Iraq war under "misappropriated" though since it is not included in the WH numbers it could be classified as "disappeared," and funds transferred from Afghanistan to Iraq as "redirected," and then back one of the above terms. And when I say during this administration, I mean all the scandals, whether DeLay, Ohio, or what have you. Accounting arguments aside, I believe we had a surplus before Bush started, and that was a lot of $$$ ago. (Hey, did you use the 'f' word? :rofl: )

 

[Informal Logic]

I think it goes deeper than that. Because he was needed on the farm, my grandfather never got past the 8th grade, but he never would have fallen for Bush's line of bull. He was much too wise for that. Now, obviously, 911 factors into the psychology of the masses, and now Americans have been hurt and killed so naturally we want to go out and kill other people, but I have long complained that the Constitution is treated like an afterthought, so in many ways this goes far beyond current events. This problem has gotten worse and worse for as long as I can remember. So even though I agree that education is a problem, and even though 911 acts as a high amplitude transient in the American psyche, this is all part of the bigger problem of losing sight of the values that define this country. Frankly, I don't see how any loyal American can stomach the sight of Bush. He is much of what I was taught defines the enemy. And the constitution does allow for enemies you know; both foreign and domestic.

Maybe it is a little of the 'me' generation and lax ethics in business practices. You cannot get ahead just by working hard, and certainly not by being honest and fair. Sometimes you have to fudge a little, so how can there be blame when leaders use the system to his/her advantage? Especially when it is to these individual’s advantage too. When people learn to think outside themselves and truly learn to care for society as a whole, that is the day things will change for the better.

 

[SOS2008]

Maybe it is a little of the 'me' generation and lax ethics in business practices.

There is advertisement for a new video game with the slogan: "Win at all cost" -- apparently this is what we teach our children. Meanwhile, back at the White House, Bush ordered ethics refresher courses to all staff following Libby's indictment.

And back to the topic of $$$, and in follow-up to Art's post, 11/7/2005 transcripts from MSNBC:

OLBERMANN: And unrest in Iraq may be pegged to many things, but not in the most paranoid dreams of its critics could the insurgency have been blamed in small part on Halliburton. A United Nations board says the U.S. should repay as much as $208 million to the Iraqi government for work performed by Kellogg Brown Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton.

International Advisory and Monitoring Board saying that the contracting work was overpriced, sometime poorly done, paid for, by the way, with Iraqi oil proceeds. The advisory board‘s findings were based on audits, produced after months of refusal to cooperate from the Pentagon. At issue, the so-called sole source or no-bid contracts that are the coin of the realm in Iraqi reconstruction.

But that $208 million is just a drop in the bucket compared to the $20 billion that has been squandered in Iraq, according to a mind-boggling account by Philip Giraldi of The American Conservative. According to Mr. Giraldi, it is that money trail or the missing money trail that is at the center of nearly everything that‘s wrong in Iraq.

Iraqis caught in the middle of car bombings, spotty public services, no reason to get behind the occupation instead of the insurgency because rampant cronyism and profiteering rule the day. For example, April 2004, three Black Hawk helicopters delivered $1.5 million in cash to a courier in the Kurdish region of Iraq. Destination unknown. All those bags of money just disappeared. Joining us now, Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer and now a contributing editor for The American Conservative.

Thank you for your time tonight, sir.

PHILIP GIRALDI, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE: Good evening.

OLBERMANN: Before the big picture here, what might have happened to that $1.5 million, for example, and how would you begin to describe the kind of corruption you‘ve investigated there?

GIRALDI: Well, the corruption in Iraq seems to be pervasive. And it began really when the Coalition Provisional Authority that was headed by Paul Bremer took over the country shortly after the—Saddam Hussein was defeated. Money, as you described, $1.5 million, disappearing in three Black Hawk helicopters, was only one example of the nearly $20 billion of Iraqi money that came from the Oil-for-Food Program and also from frozen Iraqi government assets that were literally disappeared in the course of 15 months.

OLBERMANN: It is not just a question of the money, there‘s also what that money was intended to be used for that it did not get to do: rebuilding; improving Iraq‘s infrastructure; water supplies; electricity. Is any of that happening to an acceptable degree?

GIRALDI: Well, it is very much debatable if any of it is happening. If you think back, after the fall of Saddam Hussein. There was no insurgency. And there was no insurgency for a very long time. The Pentagon basically went into Iraq with no plan for reconstruction. And if this $20 billion had been used to restore water supplies and restore electricity, it would have made a huge difference in terms of the popular support for the insurgency which increased as the infrastructure continued to deteriorate.

OLBERMANN: So apart from that direct—it is be really a direct connection, but that kind of inferential connection, is there anything regarding that money vacuum that also played into the establishment of the insurgency? Is there a way that any of that money could have wound up in the insurgents‘ hands?

GIRALDI: Well, you know, when you have a country that was awash in money, and there are numerous sources that report that there was money literally floating around everywhere and unaccountable, it is almost certain that a lot of this money didn‘t wind up in the hands of the insurgents.

It is also very clear that a lot of this money, which is—has ostensibly gone towards the reconstruction of an Iraqi national army, has not in fact gone in that direction. It has gone to support the various militias which represent a centrifugal force in Iraq, which means that there will probably never be an Iraqi national army.

OLBERMANN: And in terms of there being an Iraqi national consensus of any kind, the idea that the money has gone disproportionately to the Shia and the Kurds, and that could be priming that country for even worse? For potential full scale civil war?

GIRALDI: Absolutely. Civil war may be slightly overstating the case. But certainly, it is money that is being used to create regional armies, if you want to call it that. And basically if the intention ever was to create a unified Iraqi state, the corruption and the fact that the money is unaccountable and uncontrolled has really tended to create something quite different.

OLBERMANN: Is there a way back from this? Is there something to do to even to begin correcting what‘s happened in terms of this—all this free-flowing and non-traced money?

GIRALDI: Well, history does not teach us a very good lesson on this, I‘m afraid. In situations where corruption gets out of control, as has happened in places like the former Soviet Union and other countries, it is very, very difficult to get it back under control. And normally, only a strong central government employing draconian measures, like, for example, in the Ukraine earlier this year, the president fired the entire police force because they were so corrupt. Those are the kinds of steps you have to take. Those are the measures you have to employ.

OLBERMANN: Extraordinary. Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, a contributing editor, The American Conservative magazine. It‘s an extraordinary read. We recommend it to you. Thank you for sharing some of your time tonight, sir.
GIRALDI: Thank you.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9969022/

 

[Art]

The problem with impeachment in the US from what I gather is that it is invariably politically driven rather than legally driven.

Ensuring the president didn't run amok appeared to be a major concern of the founding fathers who very carefully laid out elaborate plans to allow for the removal of any president who abused his position or the bill of rights. Unfortunately however I don't think they had reckoned on the gov't evolving into party politics whereby members rather than vote with their conscience vote with the party line.