Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush

Here are two of the biggest whoppers.
Just days before Bush ignited the war, Cheney went on Meet the Press to discuss the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Cheney said: "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
And in Bush’s address to the nation on March 17, 2003, he said there was "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Remember, this was after the U.N. weapons inspectors had been scouring Iraq for evidence of those weapons and had found nothing.In fact, Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency who received the Nobel Peace Prize last year, told the Security Council weeks before the remarks of Cheney and Bush that not only did Saddam not have any nuclear weapons, there was no evidence that he had even reconstituted his nuclear weapons program.
Bush and Cheney were engaging in "a conspiracy to commit fraud," as Lewis Lapham points out in his pathbreaking essay, "The Case for Impeachment," in the March issue of Harper's Magazine. Lapham notes that the Supreme Court in Hammerschmidt v. United States said someone engages in a conspiracy to commit fraud against the government when that person obstructs lawful government functions "by deceit, craft, or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest" and when its "legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane, or other overreaching of those charged with carrying out the government intention."
That fits Bush and Cheney to a T.

That's from Matthew Rothschild's "Grounds for Impeachment." So what do you think? Impeachment plausible or not?

I'm half-way through a book put out by the Center for Constitutional Rights entitled Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush. It makes a strong, concise case for impeachment. When you see Bully Boy's actions laid out like above or in the book, it becomes obvious that we either do something or accept that no president in the future will ever have to tell the truth.

C.I.'s got a quote from the book in an entry this morning. Read that and see if you're not interested in picking it up. I think you will be. I read about it last week at The Common Ills and was thinking about getting it but C.I. ended up getting it for all of us so we could discuss it at The Third Estate Sunday Review. Mine arrived yesterday and as soon as I'm done with this post tonight, I'm going to get back to the book and finish it.

It's really hard to put down. Even if you think you know all that the Bully Boy did wrong, you may not know all the legal reasons his actions were wrong. The book makes a strong case for impeachment.

If we don't impeach, we're saying that the actions are okay so we better be prepared when future presidents attempt to do the same thing. It's like, "Do you draw a line in the sand or not?"

He's done so much. The illegal detentions at Guantanamo where he's held prisoners for years and years without any trials; the round up of Arabs and/or Muslims after 9/11; lying us into war; the spying on American citizens without warrants; and, most of all, this desire to ignore the other two branches.

I took the book to work with me thinking I could read some of it on break or at lunch but it didn't happen. Everytime I would pull it out, someone would walk over and, nodding to the book's cover, say, "We really need to, you know?"

I think the people do know. I think it's our elected officials that are out of the loop. I hear a lot of talk about how if the Dems take back at least one house in the 2006 elections, things will change but I don't know how you go over night from spineless to leadership.

On the radio, they're saying that the House passed the Patriot Act. That says a great deal about how non-independent our Congress is.

Anyway, I'm going to get back to reading the book. You can order it online, just click on the title:
Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush.

No comments: