Anyone who thinks they have all the Answers before they've even heard the Question - is Dangerously Deluded! Real Truth Requires Vigilance, Perseverance and Courage, regardless of Party and who wields Power. Left, Right, Center, Corporations, Government, Unions, Criminals or the Indifferent.
There comes a point where tough talk simply doesn't cut it anymore; where words, threats and promises just aren't enough.
Literally, it's time to either sh*t or get off the fracking pot on two critical fronts.
Iraq Prime Minister Maliki says that U.S. Troops can "leave whenever they want." It's time we took him up on his offer.
The White House has blatantly defied Congressional Subpoenas, refusing to let Harriet Miers even appear to testify and denying access to documents related to the death of Pat Tillman. It's time that our Congress returned us to a nation of checks and balances by invoking their power of Inherent Contempt.
The ironic thing is that in order to move forward on the first issue, we may have to push the second to it's ultimate conclusion.
BAGHDAD (AP) — Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress on Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "any time they want."
One of his top aides, meanwhile, accused the United States of embarrassing the Iraqi government by violating human rights and treating his country like an "experiment in a U.S. lab."
Al-Maliki said his government needs "time and effort" to enact the political reforms that Washington seeks — "particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference."
But he said if necessary, Iraqi police and soldiers could fill the void left by the departure of coalition forces.
"We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want," he said.
Despite Maliki's claim that the Iraqi forces can take control of their own country, Sen Lindsey Graham today on Meet the Press wasn't buying it. Surprise, surprise.
The surge is working, we've accomplished things in the last two weeks in Anbar province that we could never do before. Let [our troops] win, don't pull them out now for political reasons.
Sen Jim Webb responded back forcefully.
It's taken a lot longer than two weeks. The President announced [the implementation] of his surge strategy in January. He promised that that all provinces of Iraq would be under Iraqi control by the end of the year, clearly that is not going to happen.
We need to do the hard work of putting together a political solution. The Iraqi Military isn't fighting al-Qaeda - what we've got going on there is "hillbilly" justice. These militia groups are fighting them, they don't like al-Qaeda, they won't like them when we leave.
The difficulty in this situation is oddly that just about everyone is at least particularly right simultaneously. The just released report that the Iraqi government has failed most of it's benchmarks does indicate that more time is needed for them to pull together the political reconciliation that needs to happen, yet at the same time our own troops have been pushed to the brink of their endurance and beyond with stop-loss and repeated deployments.
Time is what the Iraqis need, but time and patience isn't what we have any more of. Certainly not according to the latest polls.
Newsweek 7-11: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"
68% Disapprove. 27% Approve
Do you think President Bush's 'surge' plan increasing U.S. troops in Iraq has been a success or a failure?"
19% Immediate Withdrawal - 24% Out Next Spring - 40% Fall Back to our Bases - 13% Make No Cutbacks
If they are truly a sovereign nation, Iraqis have to come up with the solution to their problems on their own and they have to do it on their own timetable, however we may be able to jump start that process a bit - but not by using our military.
I've said it before, I'll say it again - just as we did with the Dayton Peace Accords and the the Belfast Agreement it's time to put together a Summit Conference between all the major factions and forces vying for control of Iraq. This "Reconciliation Commission" - featuring a relatively small group of diplomatic representatives of the Sunni, Shia, Kurds, even al-Sistani and al-Sadr - needs to come together and hammer out the broad framework that can unite the nation and end the violence.
That is the only way this will work.
The current strategy of using our military forces as cannon fodder buffering an ever escalating civil war while the Iraqi parliament bickers and dithers is simply a recipe for failure, just as it would be if we were waiting for our own congress to take the initiative on any number of issues from immigration to health care while lives hang in the balance.
It's time we changed direction and put away some of our partisan manipulations just as Webb admonished Graham today.
Webb: This is one thing I object to, which is politicians who attempt to put their political views in the mouths of soldiers. The view of military reflect those of the general public. Only 35% of the U.S. Military agrees with the policies of this President.
And here with hit the crux of this problem - the President.
With his Veto of the Iraq Redeployment Bill several weeks ago Bush pretty much showed everyone just whose boss - at least for the moment.
The White House has issued signing statements that rationalize their clear violations of federal law. They've violated FISA, the Hatch Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Geneva Convention, the War Crimes Act and the UN Conventions against torture. Now they've blatantly thumbed their nose at Congressional subpoenas.
Congress has to ACT.
And at this point in time, there is only one viable path left.
Impeachment and Removal, though frankly necessary, is not yet a possibility except as a pointless exercise in vainglory. Just as failed subpoenas have further emboldened the rampant lawlessness of this Presidency, a failed Impeachment Vote or even a failure to Remove in the Senate would make Bush nigh unto a God. All powerful. Unstoppable. That can't happen.
Standard Contempt of Congress continues to have a limited possibility of success with Alberto Gonzales' hand-picked U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor still in place in D.C. until his Patriot Act enabled appointment expires in 3 months.
Only the Congress's power of Inherent Contempt cuts out the middlemen, and gets right to the heart of the issue.
It's time - as Congress John Conyers alluded to in his letter to Harriet Miers attorney George T. Manning upon learning of her intent not to testify - to pull the trigger.
A refusal to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings, including but not limited to proceedings under 2 U.S.C. § 194 and under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives.
Inherent Contempt allows for the Congress to order the House Sargent at Arms to take the witness - in this case Miers - into custody and hold them in the Capital Jail where only Congress has jurisdiction. It is debatable whether a person held in such a way could be pardoned, my feeling is that they could not be - which means that either Miers cracks and testifies or she rots until the end of this Congressional Session.
It is my firm belief that without direct and damning testimony from Miers tantamount to that provided by former Nixon Counsel John Dean - Nobody is going to be Impeached - except for maybe Abu Gonzales for repeated perjury and obstruction with Monica Goodling, but Commander Guy and Fourthbranch's impenetrable shield of loyal lackeys will have kept them safe until they can slip out the back of Marine One on January 20, 2009.
This can't be allowed to happen.
Congress has to step up. The White House must be put on notice. Their numerous crimes, incompetence, deliberate willful ignorance and stonewalling has to end and it will only happen when Congress realizes - in order to save the legal fabric of our nation from completely unraveling, in order to save what's left of Iraq and finally begin Real Diplomacy, in order to save what's left of our armed forces, in order to get serious about stopping Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan - This is GO Time!
Congress has to Finally Win one of these battles with the White House before they can even begin to deal with the next issue like the obvious obstruction at play in the Libby Commute, or the next such as changing course in Iraq before or even after September. The White House is long overdue for a Congressionally delivered bloody nose.
It's GO NOW, or not at all.
Contact John Conyers and let him know that the time has come to take that next step at:
Keith Olberman's Special Comment on the Libby Commutation. Bush and Cheney should resign.
I think Olbermann makes a great many statements here which for anyone who hasn't been specifically watching his show for the past year, or hasn't been following left-leaning blogs would seem on the surface quite outrageous.
President Bush lied us into a War? Oh, but didn't the Democrats who voted for it have the exact same intelligence he did?
No, they didn't.
I'm not sure that what he has said, like many of his previous Special Comments will be able to reach into the hearts of those who have allied themselves with this President and his party above the desperate needs of the American people who were devastated by Katrina, who have been devastated by the loss of loved ones (and/or thier limbs) in Iraq, and the loss of heathcare for 50 Million Americans.
The 23 Percenters will stand with Bush and Cheney until the bitter end, and buoyed the support of this ever increasingly slim yet increasingly rabid minority of boot lickers - Bush remains serene as he drives our ship of state directly into rocks of Dictatorship.
Bush and Cheney will not resign, they will only be stopped when Congress finally Nuts-Up and does their duty to Impeach and Remove them both.
Exactly when that will happen, if it ever does, remains to be seen.
On the fourth anniversary of "Bring 'em On" and just hours after an highly unfavorable ruling by the appeals court which would have sent Irvin Lewis "Scooter" Libby to prison in just six weeks, George Walker Bush , the 43rd Resident of the White House, communted his sentence and completely obliterated all 30 months of jail time he would have served for perjury and obstruction of justice in a case that was tantamount to Treason During Wartime.
But that's not the worst part...
The public and the editorial pages across the nation are enraged.
Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.
We agree that a pardon would have been inappropriate and that the prison sentence of 30 months was excessive. But reducing the sentence to no prison time at all, as Mr. Bush did — to probation and a large fine — is not defensible.
But in nixing the prison term, Bush sent a terrible message to citizens and to government officials who are expected to serve the public with integrity. The way for a president to discourage the breaking of federal laws is by letting fairly rendered consequences play out, however uncomfortably for everyone involved.
Nearly a decade ago, a GOP-led House impeached President Bill Clinton for lying under oath and obstructing justice in a civil deposition. Yesterday, a Republican president commuted the sentence of former top White House staffer Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was convicted of the same thing in a criminal investigation. Republicans are known for being tough on crime. Apparently there’s an exception when the criminal is a member of President Bush’s inner circle.
In commuting the sentence of former White House aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby, President Bush sent the message that perjury and obstruction of justice in the service of the president of the United States are not serious crimes.
We now know that Bush, as opposed to normal practice and procedures did not consult with the DOJ or the prosecutor prior to his decision. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald was not silent on the matter.
It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.
Unfortunately that principle doesn't guide George W. Bush, who has quite possibly never before commuted a sentence of someone who has not even served a single day of jail time, not to mention the other normal requirements such as having exhausted all appeals, and having shown "remorse" for your actions.
Libby fits none of these.
We all know that justice is more equal for some than others, but isn't it amazing that not even Judith Miller or Paris Hilton weren't able to receive the "justice" afforded to Scooter Libby?
It's even possible that this action by Bush just might have push him past the tipping point eroding away the last vestiges of his public support in the same manner that the Saturday Night Massacre essentially doomed Nixon.
But then again there's Fred Thompson, who in 1998 voted to convict and remove Bill Clinton, but now sits as a member of the Scooter Libby Defense Fund.
I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children.
While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the president’s decision.
This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life.
"A Good American" you say?
Yes, certainly let him "resume his life" because it's not like Joe Wilson who risked his life to save other Americans in Iraq as the first Gulf War started is a "Good American", and it's not like Valerie Plame-Wilson who'se career as a covert CIA operative tracking weapons of mass destruction is a "Good American" or that hundreds of other agents and assets at Brewster-Jennings who were compromised by Libby's actions were "Good Americans" -- they're just F-ing HEROES is all.
But Fredrick isn't the worst thing - just listen to what Novakula has to say.
“Bush is blamed by friends of Libby for losing control of the Plame investigation by putting it in the hands of a special prosecutor — the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald. In his decision sparing Libby jail time, Bush did not say a word of criticism about Fitzgerald.”
Yeah, right... Bush should've fired Ashcroft (like Archibald Cox) for even suggesting a Special Counsel was needed. This is how they view things in the psychosis laden "no underlying crime" world of Toensing and fTucker. There was "no crime", Plame wasn't "covert" even though Judge Walton said she was, Patrick Fitzgerald said she was, and both General Hayden and Valerie herself said she was a covert operative and covered by the IIPA while under oath before Congress.
Since these guys consider fantasy to be me more valid than fact maybe someone should point out to them that even in the first episode of Alias (the only show on TV that's ever had every one of it's episodes approved by the CIA) Sydney Bristow walked right through the front doors at Langley. Even on ABC/GOP/TV, they know that CIA agents don't avoid Langley like it's the plague.
What could be worse is what Kagro X posits, that Bush could continue to use this strategy to void all possible threats and looming prosecutions against his key advisors such as Alberto Gonzales (who is currently at risk for Perjury over the NSA Wiretaps, as well s Obstruction and Witness Tampering with Monica Goodling) or Condoleeza Rice, Harriet Myers and Sara Taylor (who are at risk for Contempt of Congress for refusing to respond to congressional subpoenas).
But I don't think that's the worst - I think, as was discussed on Rachel Maddow last night, that the reason Libby wasn't pardoned outright was to further protect the Bush Administration from scrutiny. Y'see, if Libby had been pardoned he would no longer be able to evoke his fifth amendment priviledge against self-incrimination. He's already been incriminated.
All leverage that Fitzgerald might have had to find out what really went on in this case and what's really hidden in those big Mosberg Safes, such as a reduction in sentence in exchange for a proffer against the Veep (aka Fourthbranch) has been foreclosed.
Even though the House Judiciary Committe is already planning to look into the circumstances of his commutation with hearings, this move just might be Check and Mate for Shooter in his ongoing battle against the Rule of Law.
We're seriously looking at a situation where the President and Vice President could effectively evade any and all accountability for a failed policy that left us wide-open and vulnerable on 9-11 and has led us into an unneccesary, obscenely costly and pointless Civil War in Iraq.
At this point there's only one move left for Congress to make and hold this Administration Accountable.
Impeachment.
The only question is, without the ability to make subpoenas or Contempt of Congress Stick, or the ability to get a Special Prosecutor to look into the NSA Wiretaping and/or the DOJ Purge and produce hard incontrivertable evidence (as the Nixon tapes did so long ago) - how will Congress actually get the smoking gun that they still need (yes, I know many disagree that this is needed, but IMO and likely the opinion of both Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers it is) to bring formal Impeachment charges against Cheney or Bush directly?
Cheney being a Dick and jerking around the White House Staff is annoying, but as long as Bush lets him - not a crime. Bush commuting of even pardoning Libby is not a crime. Bush firing US Attorney's is not a crime. But there clearly have been crimes committed (War Crimes, Torture, Election Fraud) and the trick is how do you catch a major criminal mastermind (Cheney) in the act when he's running the government?
Vyan
P.S. Judge Walton's response to the commutation indicates that it is self-contradictory. Someone can not serve probation without first serving jail-time under federal guidelines, and LithiumCola points out that the judges encouragement to legal counsel to gain "clarification" from the White House on the meaning of Libby's non-status status just might unveil The Wizard of Cheney hard at work manipulating the levers behind the curtain.
I know that this pack of rabid criminals running the White House and the Government have got you hopping mad with ignoring Richard Clark, ignoring the Cole, ignoring the PDB, ignoring the attempted invervention on Rice and the Crawford One-on-One with Tenet on Osama, Yellowcake, no al-Qaeda in Iraq, trumped up links between Saddam and 9-11, ignoring the insurgency, ignoring the Iraqi People, ignoring Afghanistan, Body Armor, Abu Ghraib, Tora Bora, Gitmo, revoking Habeaus Corpus, the Katrina aftermath, ignoring both Fact and Science on climate change and stem cells, the Voter Caging, Freedom Fries, the midnight ride to Terry Schiavo's hospice, the Domestic Spying, The NSL's, outing Valerie Plame-Wilson, Diebold, Abramov, Safavian, Guckert, the "fucking faith-based thing", the midnight ride to Ashcroft's bedside, the Partisan Purging of DOJ and Civic Rights Division, Walter Reed, the Cheney Branch of Government and most of all -- the endless lies and bullcrap about all the above.
But take deep breath say these words with me.
"It's not time to Impeach, not yet."
This diary is directly squarely at the Impeach First, Ask questions later crowd.
And I'm sure "Ok, smart-guy - why not?" is what many of you are saying right now.
Unfortunately the answer isn't simple, so bear with me - but the main problem is the fact that Bush hasn't been caught red-handed yet.
Just yesterday I posted a rec'd Dkos diary on the Contempt of Congress motion being brought forward by John Conyers judiciary committee. That news was met here, at the Impeachment Captial of the Web, with a great deal of skeptism and frustration. It was too weak, too timid. Yet I think that objectively Conyers is doing exactly what he needs to do and shouldn't jump the gun all the way to drawing up articles of Impeachment against Bush because of one simple fact.
There was even a Defense Argument by Major Danby posted against my many and various charges to which I submitted a Rebuttal and then rested my case.
Back then we didn't have majority control of congress. Impeachment was an abstraction. A wishful dream. Now Dems do have control and many of us are getting quite upset at the "lack of progress" so far - many of us are ready to throw up our hands in frustration at the inaction of the Congress Critters.
Congress's approval rating is even lower than the President's and that's saying something - but what it says isn't good.
I understand this frustration, really I do, but the fact is that things are going exactly as they should.
Back then I was speaking generally, and including the idea of Impeaching Rumsfeld (who was still in office) as well as Gonzales and Cheney, but now I'm just focusing on Bush himself and in my view it simply isn't his time yet.
Oh, we thought we had him with the Downing Street Minutes, but not quite because you see - "fixing the facts around the policy" were the words of various British ministers who were quoting (apparently) the words of Tenet and Rice, but not Bush.
We thought we had him with Downing Street II, when it was revealed that Bush had admitted to Blair that it didn't matter whether Saddam had WMD's or not, he was invading anyway.
Unfortunately, being an F-inking Liar to the press and the American people isn't a criminal offense and so far isn't Impeachable.
And I don't care what Arlen Specter says about there being a law against "False Official Statements" (something he's mentioned several times in relation to Alberto Gonzales) - there isn't one. That term refers to a set of Military Regs, and could lead to a court-martial for members of the military who lie on official documentation, but it doesn't exist in criminal law.
So yes, he lied about not planning to fire Rumsfeld - annoying - but not Impeachable.
Going Count by Count...
Intelligence Fraud : Much of the real mischief took place far downstream from Bush. It happened with Douglas Feith who stovepiped and cooked intelligence while the DIA kept vital info such as the real facts about al-Libby and Curveball hidden and Cheney kept pressing the Niger-Yellowcake story alive despite 14 different skeptical rebuttals. That's a hit on the "Rumsfeld and Cheney Cabal" as Lawrence Wilkerson has described it - but not Bush.
Domestic Espionage: This issue remains on appeal after Judge Anne Diggs-Taylor's viciously pointed ruling on the NSA wire-tapping programs. She did declare that It was a crime one which we know has been specifically authorized and implemented by Bush personally - but we don't yet know what the appeals courts will say and whether they Supremes will back Diggs-Taylor or not.
There is also the fact that a FISA Judge has since signed off on the program, which again makes the issue largely moot - for now.
Except for the Midnight Ride to Ashcroft's bed which is a new revelation and may open up direct links both to breaking the law, since that version of the NSA program was found to be illegal by the DOJ - and was temporarily implemented by the White House anyway over the objections and threats to resign by Ashcroft and Comey. Gonzo is looking at perjury for his false Congressional testimony - but, we still don't yet have any direct links to Bush other than his making the phone call to Ashcroft's wife indicating that Card and Gonzo were "heading over". Who exactly made the decision to override the DOJ has not yet been revealed.
War Crimes: This mostly leads back to Gonzales' advice and attempts to circumvent Geneva by trumping up this "Enemy Combatants" pseudo status nonesense - and to Rumsfeld for authorizing interrogation techniques outside the Army Field Manual guidelines. Bush has been an accessory after the fact, but it's largely their crime.
Criminal Negligence: Last year I argued for Impeachment in the wake of Katrina, the failure to respond to 9-11 warnings, the deteriorating situation in Iraq and Bush's abuse of Signing Statements. Unfortunately Bush was far from the only one who totally fucked-up in these situations. Ample blame can and will be thrown at Ray Nagin, Kathleen Blanco, Rumseld, Tommy Franks, Colin Powell, George Tenet and others. The legal basis for Bush's use of signing statements has not been challenged or verified either way. Again annoying, probably extra-constitutional - but not illegal, yet.
All the above is very different from what actually occured in either Nixon's case or Clinton's impeachment - they were both busted cold.
The Paula Jones Story and suit broke while Clinton was running for President in 1992, it didn't metastisize into a full-blown disaster until six years later in 1998 when Clinton was caught in carefully crafted perjury trap during his deposition and further pummelled during in his Grand Jury testimony. It was his own words under oath that got him into trouble, not the actions of anyone else.
Nixon's near impeachment was a different story, but it was still his own words that did the trick. It also took quite a long while find out what those words actually were.
The Watergate Break-In took place in June of 1972, all five burglars were tried and convicted by January of 1973 for breaking and entering. It was a minor little case, until one of the burglars wrote a letter to the presiding judge.
In March 1973, James McCord, one of the convicted burglars, wrote a letter to Sirica charging a massive coverup of the burglary. His letter transformed the affair into a political scandal of unprecedented magnitude.
With the help of Mark Felt (Deep Throat) Woodward and Bernstein at the WaPo as well as Senate investigators began to slowly unravel exactly what McCord's letter was really talking about.
All the witnesses rallied around the president, until in June of 1973 John Dean testified - and gasp - told the truth!
But that didn't break open the floodgates, it just made Nixon circle that wagons even tighter. Dean was written off as a kook.
The story was over.
A month later in July the existence of the White House taping system was revealed during congressional testimony by Alexander Butterfield. Congress subpoened the tapes which led to Nixon trying to fight those subpoenas with the Saturday Night Massacre on October 20, 1973 having Robert Bork fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox when Attorney General Elliot Richardson refused to drop the axe himself.
This move is what turned the Republicans against Nixon - before they or anyone else even knew what was really on the tapes. Eventually Nixon complied with the subpoena and after people heard the tapes and their transcripts in April of 1974 it was all over but the shouting.
But here's the kicker...
Impeachment proceedings against Nixon didn't begin until May 9th of 1974 almost one year after Dean's initial testimony and almost two years after the initial break-in.
We haven't yet had anyone stand up and truly spill the beans the way John Dean did in 1973 or Fawn Hall and Ollie North did in 1986. We haven't yet found the smoking gun tape, a piece of evidence which specifically points to crimes by Bush himself. We haven't had a Saturday Night Massacre - all because many people in the current administration were there during Watergate [as well as] Iran-Contra and they are specifically trying to avoid getting caught in the same way.
When it does happen, it probably going to be from something we haven't anticipated yet.
So with all this in mind, what I have to say to the IMPEACH NOW people is ... calm down and have a bit more patience.
We're going the right direction, and we're right on schedule - at this point we're looking at a constitutional showdown on the contempt of congress charges by late summer/early winter. Either Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton are going to court (and prison) or we're going to get the the truth in detail early next year - possibly both - just in time for fabulous mid 2008 Summer Impeachment and Removal Trial Extravoganza! .
Don't forget to bring the hot-dogs and the charcoal.
In the meantime, rather than obsessing over Bush - let's focus on Gonzo, 1) he's already in major criminal jeopardy and 2) he's the gatekeeper on access to yummy Special Counsel goodness.
Once we get a real dogged SC on the case, all bets are off the table.
Congressman Kucinich Introduces Impeachment Articles Against Dick Cheney
Tuesday , April 24, 2007
WASHINGTON — Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced three articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney on Tuesday, saying the vice president lied to America to get into a war in Iraq.
Kucinich, a 2008 presidential candidate, said Cheney misled the nation about Iraq's having weapons of mass destruction; he had been deceitful about a nexus between Iraq and Al Qaeda and was being aggressive toward Iran "absent any real threat" from the Islamic Republic.
Cheney "purposely altered intelligence gathering to justify the use of the Armed Forces in Iraq in a manner damaging to national security," the first article reads. The vice president also is accused of using the "intelligence process to deceive citizens and Congress about the tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda in a manner damaging to the United States."
The Ohio Democrat said he hadn't discussed his articles of impeachment with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or other Democratic leaders but "has the support of millions of Americans."
n fact, Kucinich's proposal comes ahead of a series of protests this weekend calling for the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney. Hundreds of delegates to this Saturday's California Democratic Convention in San Diego are expected to introduce their own impeachment resolution against the president and vice president, said Jacob Park, national coordinator for the April 28 action.
In a new article on Afterdowningstreet.org former Pentagon Offical Lt. Col Karen Kwaitkowski, whose been extremely outspoken on the subject of the Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans where the Iraq War was ginnied up, makes a series of statements that perhaps many of us would enjoy taking to heart.
There is no doubt in my mind that Feith, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as Abe Shulsky should have been (or in the case of Abe Shulsky, still in the Pentagon – be) formally impeached for incompetence, neglect of and disregard for national security, and reckless malfeasance in the conduct of their duties. Impeachment and prosecution for criminal misconduct while holding public office is certainly appropriate in these cases.
Kwiatkowski retired from the military in protest of the Iraq War as hostilities initiated. While there she worked in close proximity to those within the OSP and was able to observe how they functioned up close and personally. Especially Douglas Feith.
SWANSON: Did the operations led by Doug Feith gather intelligence?
KWIATKOWSKI: When I spoke to the DoD IG over a year ago (regarding the investigation that recently produced a report pronouncing the Feith operations as inappropriate), I tried to explain to the IG that what the Feith group and the Office of Special Plans was doing was information manipulation, not the production of what we legitimately call "intelligence." Intelligence is vetted, contextualized, and conservative. What Feith's OSP wanted, needed and produced was inflammatory bits of data, cherry-picked statements, and isolated observations by often shady characters, presented as if they were vetted, contextualized and conservative intelligence. Unlike intelligence, this effort was designed not to inform decision makers, but to shape a national conversation such that decisions already made by the administration (to topple Saddam and get bases in Iraq) could be pursued without political backlash. That's what Doug Feith and his folks did for Bush and Cheney in the Pentagon.
On the issue of whether Feith's stove-piping of unvetted intellegence data was criminal.... you betcha.
Kwiatkowski: A good prosecutor could probably make the case that these guys – Feith, Shulsky, Cheney, etc, broke several other laws. Speaking to the press on issues of national security and top levels of intelligence out of school or without specific authorization from the classifying authority is illegal. For example, if I as a Lt Col in the Air Force, or any member of the military or civil service had given either the press or any Congressmen or women any information that I described as Top Secret or Secret level intelligence, as did the OSP and OSP connected political appointees in 2002 and early 2003, we would have been charged with a crime, and successfully prosecuted. In that prosecution, our intent would have come into play, and this is critical as well. Why exactly were Feith and company lying, and conspiring to mislead Congress?
As many of us know the core of what Karen is describing here are the claims that Iraq still had an agressive program to develop and deploy chemical weapons according to one lone ex-pat Iraqi codenamed "Curveball". This information was passed to the CIA and found it's way into speaches by Colin Powell and President Bush prior to the war - however, neither Powell or DCI George Tenet were never informed that Don Rumsfeld's DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) had gone to Germany to check on Curveball's credibility and found that he had none.
This is about the claims from Ibn Sheik al-libi, a Ghost Detainee who after being tortured and also supported the claims that Iraq had links to Al-Qaeda - yet again the DIA considered him a liar - but CIA and the State Dept were never informed.
Instead these claims, along with the forged Niger documents about yellow-cake uranium and alimium tubes for centerfuges (two claims that were heavily critized by the State and Energy Depts) were paraded out as absolute proof of Saddam's mendacity.
In each case Doug Feith and the DIA stand at the center of the maelstrom.
Considering the wealth of first hand information that Kwiatkowski possesses regarding exactly how this War began you would think that she'd be a very strong candidate to speak to congress on the Senate's Phase II Intelligence investigation. You'd think....
SWANSON: Did you expect to be called to testify?
KWIATKOWSKI: I was not called for the Part II Senate Intelligence Subcommittee investigation, on the politicization of the Iraq intelligence. I had been called for a few hours with the staff of the committee for the Part I investigation in 2004, and yet what I have observed and written about mostly was indeed the politicization. So I don't expect to be called ever again. The only Congressmen I hear from are those who already understand it isn't about Republicans and Democrats, but rather the Constitution and what is right and wrong.
Hmm, I guess not. Maybe that might have something to do with Sen Roberts being too busy swinging from Cheney's Dick.
Frighteningly we now see some of the same intellgence skewing efforts we saw against Iraq being directed against Iran.
SWANSON: Reps. Kucinich and Conyers have suggested they would impeach Bush if he attacks Iran. Good idea? What about impeaching first to prevent it?
KWIATKOWSKI: Great idea. Impeach early and often. That's my advice. It can be done by the House so easily, for so little. Most senior members of the administration involved in our disastrous foreign policy and our incredibly stupid approach to fighting terrorism could be easily impeached for incompetence, wrongdoing, dishonesty, failure to honor the spirit and letter of the constitution and other laws, even in my view, traitorous acts, placing the interests of foreign countries above those of the United States. Some of these impeached officials would be easily removed from office by the Senate, and we would regain our honor as a nation by publicly recognizing their misbehavior.
Please note that Kwiatkowski isn't neccesarily recommending that we Impeach George Bush, although I suspect she supports that idea. She like John Dean is merely pointing out the truism that various administration officials can be impeached and removed by Congress.
Of those still in office, the most likely current candidate to be first up on the chopping block is Albert Gonzales for most recently thumbing his nose at Congressional Subpeonas and forcing out several U.S. Attorney's for political reasons.
Gonzales is they key-stone to the Bush Administration. His advice to ignore Geneva regarding terrorist detainees was tantamount to advising his client (the President) on how to get away with War Crimes!
It's only through his office that an Independant Counsel to investigate the many high crimes and misdemeanors of George W. Bush can be established and succesfully put forth the case to the American People and the Congress. With him in place, Bush is perfectly protected. Without him - the entire ball games shifts into a new court.
Kwiatkowski is absolutely correct - we should Impeach Gonzales, then Cheney, then Bush one by one - Early, Often and hopefully soon.
Senator Kennedy also posted on Dailykos with the text of his bill to block further troop deployment to Iraq unless the President first outlines the mission and it's goals.
In contrast we've seen Joe Biden and Steny Hoyer both state that they don't think the Congress has the Constitutional Power to block the President's "Surge" even though Congress has done exactly that many times in the past.
December 1970. P.L. 91-652 — Supplemental Foreign Assistance Law. The Church-Cooper amendment prohibited the use of any funds for the introduction of U.S. troops to Cambodia or provide military advisors to Cambodian forces.
December 1974. P.L. 93-559 — Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. The Congress established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within six months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year.
June 1983. P.L. 98-43 — The Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act of 1983. The Congress required the president to return to seek statutory authorization if he sought to expand the size of the U.S. contingent of the Multinational Force in Lebanon.
June 1984. P.L. 98-525 — The Defense Authorization Act. The Congress capped the end strength level of United States forces assigned to permanent duty in European NATO countries at 324,400.
November 1993. P.L. 103-139. The Congress limited the use of funding in Somalia for operations of U.S. military personnel only until March 31, 1994, permitting expenditure of funds for the mission thereafter only if the president sought and Congress provided specific authorization.
The main problem with a "Surge" is that it's just doesn't include enough troops to get the job done.
Counter-insurgency operations require at least 20 combat troops per 1000 people in a given area. And look closely. That's not just military personnel, but combat troops.... [Yo]u'd need 120,000 combat troops to mount real counter-insurgency operations just in Baghdad. We currently have 70,000 combat troops in the whole country. So concentrate all US combat personnel in Iraq into Baghdad. Then add 20,000 more 'surge' combat troops. That leaves you 30,000 short of the number the Army thinks you'd need just in Baghdad.
And it's certainly clear we don't have 120,000 combat ready troops to spare, not right now. This "Super-Surge" idea which is essentially what Gen. Shinseki argued we needed at the very start of the Iraq War - has now been embraced not just by John McCain, but also Lindsey Graham and even Dick Morris.
If 120,000 is what we need and we don't have it - we'll need to get those troops elsewhere. If we hadn't completely fubar'd the training of Iraqi Troops, and could trust them not to engage in sectarian internecine warefare we'd have more than enough of what we need.
But we don't.
If we could trust the Saudi's to come in a create a bulwark to protect the Sunni's - we possibly have enough if the presence of even more foreign troops wouldn't drive the Iraqi even further over the edge.
But we can't.
The one option left to us - is Diplomacy. We need to sit down and start having some serious talks with al-Maliki, and the Sadr Sect of the Iraqi government. We need to talk about Insurgent Amnesty. We may need to talk about Partitioning the Country (and the Iraqi Security forces) and establishing a Senate with equal reqpresentation from each the three major factions, Kurd, Sunni and Shia. We may need to include the Saudis, Iranians, Turkish and Syrians in these talks.
We need to put al-Qaeda in Iraq on the back burner. Zarqawi is long dead. Saddam is dead. It's time to look toward the future and it won't be easy, especially since this is the very last thing anyone expects President Bush to recommend tonight.
He's heard from everyone, he's heard from the Iraq Survey Group and most of the Congres and almost no-one supports this "Surge" as insufficent and pointless in the midst of a growing Civil War.
But he's going to do it anyway and warn the Congress not to try and stop him.
They will debate the issue and ultimately they probably will generate a resolution of some type denying and/or objecting to escalation - and then he'll just do it anyway and punctuate his action with a Signing Statement.
Where we go from there is anyones guess. Does Congress sue the President in order to get him to abide by an anti-escalation resolution? How long will that take to go through the courts? What court has jurisdiction? What if the court sides with the President, or worse yet - what if the Court sides with the Congress?
Would not such a blatant disregard for the will of the people, the will of Congress and the rule of law - knowingly sending more of our troops into a hopeless "No win" situation - not be a highly Impeachable Offense?
If this is the path the Bush intends to pursue tonight will be the first day of the end of his Presidency. May it be remembered long in infamy.
What Democrats in Congress will have to do (and already plan on doing) is use their bully pulpit to amplify the overwhelming public opposition to the war. Bush isn't up for reelection, so he doesn't give a damn about himself. But if he sees that in political terms the war could cost his party dearly in 2008, that may be the one thing that could pull him back from the precipice.
It's clear that lots of Republicans are already panicking about their 2008 chances, and it won't be long before most of the Republican senators up for reelection in 2008 are fervent war opponents, as well as any House Republican who won her or his reelection battle by single digits.
But it won't save them, just like it didn't save Lincoln Chafee.
This is the Republicans' war. They bought it. They broke it. They own it. And they will suffer the brunt of it.
And the more Bush and McCain escalate the war, the deeper the consequences will be.
So don't fret that Congressional Dems can't unilaterally get us out of that mess. That power is vested in the president. But the bigger the mess Republicans make of the war, the bigger our victories in 2008. And if we make those big gains in Congress and the White House, ending this war will be tops on our 2009 agenda.
Although I agree that Congress absolutely needs to use the bully pulpit and hearings to help underscore the point that this war must be stopped - I contend that it isn't true that Congress can't get us out of this mess and can only rearrange the funding on the deck of this Titanic.
The Fastest way to end the Iraq War is for Congress to simply repeal HJ 141, the Iraq Force Resolution, and de-authorize the War. If the Power to declare War belongs to the Congress, so does the power to end it, if they have the will to do so. At this point in time all major objectives sought by that resolution required Saddam to abide by various and sundrie UN Resolutions have been met.
Not to mention those which were just plain bullshit.
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
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;
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;
An ABC Survey has revealed that if the IFR were put to a vote today - it would fail.
In Oct. 2003, 77 senators voted to give President Bush authorization to go to war in Iraq. Just 23 senators voted against it.
But according to a new ABC News survey, 33 out of the original 77 senators “indicated they would vote differently knowing then what they know now.” Five senators — including three Republicans — said that in retrospect, the intelligence was so wrong that the matter should never have even been brought to a vote. These results would mean that a vote to authorize war in Iraq today would be 43-57, and the resolution would fail. (Full list of senators here.)
There may not yet be enough support to sustain a veto override - YET - but after sustained and thorough hearings on how this war was falsely justified and how it has been totally mis-handled - that hill will be much easier to hurdle than either Impeachment or any attempt to repeal the War Powers Act.
Saddam is dead (and now Official a Martyr) His regime is destroyed. We've had our oppurtunity to rebuild the country and have completely blown it, we tried to help them establish a new goverment and new army and have blown that too. Although it pains many of us to say it - It's time to go, period.
We have to finally understand that the fate of Iraq is out of our hands, it's in the hands of the Iraqis.
If the Saudi's want to come in and grapple with al-Sadr and his Militia - while they roast the shrivelled cojones of al-Maliki on a spit - maybe we should let them.
A resolution for a phased troop withdrawal is simply not enough - the various "Unitary Executive/Command-in-Chief" powers that Bush has claimed unto himself also need to be addressed. Repeatedly he has issued signing statments and executive orders for Extreme Rendition, Secret Prisons, Torture, Domestic Spying on our Phone Calls, E-mail, Websites and even opening our U.S. Mail in direct defiance of the law under color of the Authority to Use Force given to him by the Congress and his role as "C-in-C".
It's time to bring that abuse of power to heal.
By the way - A Resolution to do exactly this was originally introduced to the House by Sheila Jackson Lee in 2003 as House Concurrent Resolution 2, before the Iraq War even began.
Whereas the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498), enacted into law on October 16, 2002, authorizes the President to use United States Armed Forces against Iraq to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;
Whereas since the enactment of Public Law 107-243, Iraq has allowed international weapons inspectors to re-enter Iraq in order to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities;
Whereas since the enactment of Public Law 107-243, actions by North Korea relating to its nuclear weapons capabilities pose a more immediate threat to its neighbors and to the United States; and
Whereas in light of these circumstances, Congress should reexamine the threat posed by Iraq, including by allowing time to review fully and accurately the findings of the international weapons inspectors: Now, therefore, be it
Cosponsors at that time were:
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 2/4/2003 [MI-14]
Rep Davis, Danny K. - 1/7/2003 [IL-7] Rep Filner, Bob - 2/4/2003 [CA-51] Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. - 2/4/2003 [IL-2] Rep Kleczka, Gerald D. - 2/4/2003 [WI-4] Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. - 1/7/2003 [OH-10] Rep Lee, Barbara - 1/7/2003 [CA-9] Rep Oberstar, James L. - 2/4/2003 [MN-8] Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 2/4/2003 [IL-9] Rep Waters, Maxine - 2/4/2003 [CA-35] Rep Watson, Diane E. - 1/7/2003 [CA-33]
I think we could find a few more co-sponsors this time around, considering how badly the War has gone since then.
As would be appropriate in an actual Impeachment Trial - Major Danby has posted a "Defense Against Impeachment" arguement that is quite thorough and cogent as should be expected in any case of this level of seriousness.
I never had any expection that Impeachment would be easy, if I beleived so I wouldn't have started writing the series - I felt that we needed a "roadmap" to pull most of the issues as we understand them now, before the 110th Congress begins it's investigations.
In this diary I take my turn providing a Prosecutorial Rebutal to the arguements of the Defense in order to bring the series to an appropriate close.
Let The Court of Truth be Now in Session. You are now the Jury.
Opening Statement by the Defense.
The overarching observation I begin with is that you impeach a person, not an administration. Every attempt at Presidential impeachment (and to my knowledge, all others) begins with the President voluntarily taking an action that he knew or should have known was wrong.
* Andrew Johnson intentionally provoked a Constitutional Crisis by firing Sec. Seward in contravention of the Tenure in Office Act, which he believed was unconstitutional. (Rightly, the Supreme Court later held.) * Richard Nixon intentionally ordered that hush money be paid for people who had committed a burglary and committed espionage on behalf of his campaign. * Bill Clinton was intentionally misleading (if not actually lying) under oath in his deposition regarding a civil case in which he was a defendant. (Yes, what he did wasn't technically illegal -- and to my mind not nearly impeachable -- but there was no doubt that he knew the truth and intended to conceal it for his own gain.)
I clearly agree the Impeachment relates to individuals, not an entire Administration - however what I was alluding to through-out my entire Impeachment Series was the fact that Congress has to be ability to not only Impeach the President, they can also Impeach the Vice-President or members of the Cabinet.
On the issue what a potential Impeachment target "should have known" - I do not agree that President Clinton should have known that his unwillingness to divulge information that he wasn't really asked - was "wrong". A lifetime ago I wrote my own rebuttal to the Starr Report. The Charges against Clinton were based on Perjury, Witness Tampering and Obstruction of Justice.
Allegation #2 reads as follows:
In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.
The primary problem with this allegation was the Clinton didn't claim he wasn't ever alone with Monica Lewinsky - he admitted that he was and gave examples of when that could have occured such as
"A... when she worked at the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically worked some on the weekends. Sometimes they'd bring me things on the weekends. She – it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends."
Q. So I understand, your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening?
A. Yes, that's correct. It's possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there. That's possible.
Certainly there was more to the story, the problem is that the they didn't ask him about it during the Jones deposition. His failure to volunteer additional information that he wasn't asked is not a "wrong" act on his behalf.
Back to the current President, almost.
So I take it as a given that we need to find similar personal knowledge, in advance of a crime, on Bush's part. Otherwise we may end up in the situation that we did with Iran-Contra where the investigation could not show that Reagan himself ever quite connected the dots -- due to his own incuriousity and feeble thinking -- to see that actions he ordered (or at least acquiesced to) were illegal. And that didn't work out so well.
In Iran-Contra many of the subordinates involved chose to "fall on the sword" and protect the President through plausible deniability and by lying to Congress. But Reagan did eventually admit wrong-doing.
Reagan's admission in March 1987 that "it was a mistake" to trade weapons for hostages was what saved his reputation, according to Cannon.
Reagan said at the time, "A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that is true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."
As far as I'm concerned Iran-Contra worked out fine - because it resulted in changing the President's behavior and sending several criminals to jail, at least until Federalist Society Judges overturned the various perjury and contempt of Congress convictions that had been given to various Reagan Administration Officials.
The minimum requirements for fraud are that you (1) intentionally (2) represent to someone else (3) that something is true, (4) when it is not true and (5) when you know is not true, intending that (6) they will take some action (7) that benefits you.
1. PNAC wanted to "invade." Arguably relevant to "motive," but "motive" isn't at issue here.
2. Bush said he wanted to invade Iraq "if I have the chance." Pretty much irrelevant to impeachment. The question is whether he did it by illegal means. If I want a Mercedes, and later you see me driving one, that doesn't mean that I stole it.
Actually "motive" is at issue here - since it statisfies requirement (7). In this case the benefit that Bush would have received by invading Iraq is exactly as he stated - he stated that he would gain political capital, and be better able to implement his legislative agenda.
3. About yellowcake: (a) Bush never said that the yellowcake story was true, but that the British government believed it to be true (so element (3) of the crime is not satisfied);
It's clear that by mentioning the issue during his state of the union Bush was expressing that he believed the story, not what the British Government believed. If he believe something different from what the British believed - it was incumbent upon him to make the distinction. He did not, instead he said:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
This is not a statement of what the British government believed, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" is stated as a fact, not an opinion of the British. Add to that his statments during the Cincinnati speech.
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.
He would be - Kim Jong-Il?
None of these statements were true, and there was ample information available in the State Dept, Energy Dept, IAEA, CIA and DIA to refute all of it prior to October 2002. Further the NIE stated that the Niger claim was "highly dubious" and as a result references to it were removed from the Cincinnati speech, it also said it was highly unlikely that even if Saddam Hussein possesed WMD's that he would use them unless he was provoked. So naturally, Bush provoked him.
(b) the questionable acts described are those of his advisors -- note where Vyan quotes people saying "*they* put it back in, they preferred to perpetuate a lie" (so element (1) isn't satisfied, and remember that you can't impeach the administration, just the man);
As stated above, you can Impeachment individual members of the Administration. In this case the target(s) - exempting those who've already resigned - would be Cheney and members of his staff such as Scooter Libby, Stephan Hadley and Donald Rumsfeld who were all heavily involved in what Wilkerson describes as "The Cabal".
The ultimate question though is whether Bush himself was a willing member of the "Cabal" or simply improperly served by those beneath him. I think the answer to this is found in several places.
Bush was personally briefed by George Tenet and chose to ignore the information provided by Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri - that Iraq no longer had WMD in September of 2002. This was before the Cincinnati speech, before the passage of the Iraq Force Resolution and cleary before the 2003 SOTU.
European CIA Chief Tyler Drumheller was told "Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.'"
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
And speaking of manufacturing a fraud...
Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".
Defense Continued...
(3) so there's no evidence on record to show that Bush himself did not believe the story to be true or, more to the point, that he believed it was not true (as opposed to, say, mostly but not entirely proven) based on his advisors' representations, (so element (5) of the crime is not met).
According to the record he didn't care whether it was true or not. Bush was willing to paint as US plane as if it was a from UN on the hopes that Saddam would fire on it and prove that he had broken UN sanctions. That suggestion statisfies all 7 elements of criminal fraud right there. According to Downing Street - the policy had already been set in July of 2002, long before the President's State of the Union or Colin Powell's UN speech. From that point foward it was a matter of "selling the war" - not finding out the truth.
4. Most of the other things "they" did or didn't know do not refer to Bush's own demonstrated knowledge; nor does the fact that any of these turned out not to be true, or that with hindsight turned out to be based on a weak premise, prove that the proponents of the information knew that it was false. Did the CIA say otherwise?
Yes they did, the NIE said that Saddam was unlikely to use WMD even if he had them according to Senator Bob Graham - who along with Sen. Durbin has requested the NIE in the first place.
There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so [use WMD's] unless he was first attacked.
...
Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.
Continued...
All Bush has to say is that he didn't fully trust the CIA's position. If he knew that they were anti-war, he would have had reason for skepticism. Most of the stuff dealing with Powell, etc., doesn't implicate Bush's knowledge.
This suggests facts not in evidence.
5. Bush's 2003 SOTU can be defended against constituting fraud. When Bush said "This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors," this is not literally untrue (element (4) not satisfied), though it's misleading as hell; as Vyan's diary shows, Saddam did kick out "the" inspectors, if by that one means American inspectors (a misleading but permissible construction) in 1997.
Misleading but technically true statements are permissible? - You mean like "It depends on the what the meaning of "Is" is?" or "I did not have 'sexual relations' with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky?"
In both of these cases, Bill Clinton was telling the truth as he saw it. "There is no relationship" depended on whether one of Clinton's attorneys was speaking in present tense or past tense. What Clinton was saying was the statement was true in present tense, and false in past tense. He was admitting that had been a relationship, but it was over at that time. In this case, he was actually admitting something against his own interests - that his lawyer might have been lying.
The definition of 'sexual relations' was not something Clinton made up, it was a very specific list of items provided by the Jones attorneys, and in Clinton's judgement he didn't do anything on the list - Monica did. They never asked him what Monica did.
Yet again, misleading - true - but permissible? Not hardly according to existing precedent.
By contrast Bush did not claim that the Saddam kicked out the American inspectors, he clearly implied that he'd kicked out all the inspectors and that simply isn't true. If he'd said "some" it might have been closer to the truth.
His counsel will argue that even if that was misleading, it didn't matter, because Bush did believe that Saddam posed a serious danger and possessed WMDs and the additional puffery he ladled on to help make the political case for war doesn't constitute fraud. As for the fact that Saddam didn't violate the agreement -- if Saddam thought that he has a chemical and bio weapons program, then we certainly can't say that Bush knew for certain that he did not (element (5) unsatisfied.)
Saddam knew full well that he had no chemical weapons since he'd ordered them destroyed in 1991. He actually announced this fact to his own Generals three months before the war.
So then we get to the crux of Vyan's argument in point 1:
If Bush didn't know what he was claiming were complete falsehoods - he should have known. It's HIS JOB TO KNOW. Whether he personally initiated the fraud isn't the point, he helped perpetrate it. He legitimized it. He is the one ultimately responsible.
No. That is simply not the law of fraud, absent specific statutory language (such as you may see in some Sarbanes-Oxley requirements) to the contrary. Here's a perfectly good defense against fraud: Bush relief on the advice of competent advisors, the most senior of which were approved by the Senate, in these areas, and he believed in good faith that Saddam had at least some WMDs and therefore posed a threat to the U.S. It is not "his job to know"; it's his job to take the information he has, form an opinion, and promote a policy that is not, to his knowledge, opposed to the facts.
The record shows, including the NIE, that Bush had been told by several competent advisors - who had been approved by the Senate such as George Tenet - that there was significant doubt regarding Saddam's WMD status.
The reason I say that it was Bush's "job to know" isn't based on the law of fraud - it's based on the Presidential Determination section of HJ 141, which like Sarbanes-Oxley did include very specific requirements for the President to meet prior to using force against Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate 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, and
The President was required by the Iraq Force Resolution itself to report to Congress his determination that further attempts at diplomacy would not be effective at protecting the United States from Saddam Hussein. The core of my fraud charge is based on this point - the President was required to prove that Saddam was a imminent threat, he was required to know by the resolution he himself had signed in October of 2002, but according the Downing Street Minutes (with various levels cooberation) Bush and his Administration were already commited to regime change regardless of the facts at least as early as the previous July.
I submit that there is no reasonable way that document delivered to Congress to justify the use of force against Iraq under the requirements of HJ 141 could not have been fraudulent.
1. Let's start by dispensing with the Constitutional argument. There is already no warrant needed. You can get authorization for a warrant after a call -- it's now three days; the Democratic Congress wants to make it a whole week. No one is still challenging the fact that you don't need a warrant in advance for surveillance. For "chasing down terrorists" -- as Vyan quotes the President -- then you do. But then we have probable cause, thanks to this surveillance -- a program that is highly supported by the American people, unlike, say, paying hush money or lying during depositions.
The issues isn't whether you need a warrant in "advance" of doing listening - it's whether you need a warrant and any judicial oversight to verify that probable cause has been met ever. The President's position is now that he doesn't need to meet probable cause and doesn't need to secure a warrant at all, which is clearly extra-constitutional.
And I wouldn't say the program is "Highly supported".
"As you may know, the Bush Administration has been wiretapping telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so. Do you think the Bush Administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?"
9/15-17/06 Right 55% Wrong 45% Unsure 3%
2. FISA doesn't intend to tie the President's hands during wartime. Congress never intended FISA to prevent the Administration from defending against direct attack on the United States.
And truth be told, the President hands would not be "tied" if he were to simply use FISA as it currently exists to obtain surveillance warrants. The existing three-day grace period guarantees this.
3. If FISA does do so, it's an unconstitutional encroachment on the President's powers as the unitary executive. During wartime, the constitution demands deference to the President's authority as Commander-in-chief. Etc. If the unitary executive model is correct, then the President's actions are proper. "If the President does it, it's not a crime," some guy once said.
No, the Constitution makes no such demand. The only change which is created by the existence of a war, is the option for the Congress to temporarily suspend Habeas Corpus - the Constitution does not grant the President any special dispensation or additional powers during wartime.
4. AUMF authorized these actions. [OK, I can't write much to support the argument, but they will make it and some will buy it.]
That has been debunked by Hamdi V Rumsfeld, which states that there is a "judicial role" to be played involving the handling of terrorists.
5. Much of what the Administration is accused of is not actual interception of the content of messages, but the equivalent of looking at the outsides of envelopes without opening them. This is legal.
If we were talking about the U.S. Mail - it would be, but we aren't. Tracking the "wrapper" of an email or phone call - without accessing the content - required the installation of a "Pen and Trap" or equivelent device similar to those which have been installed it would violate 18 USC § 3121.
(a) In General.— Except as provided in this section, no person may install or use a pen register or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order under section 3123 of this title or under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
Defense continued...
6. Most importantly, the President was relying on the advice of competent counsel, the leaders of which were approved by Congress, in all of these matters. It may be that the President's position was mistaken; Presidents win some court cases and lose them, but we don't talk about impeachment when they lose a case. (LBJ favored minority set-asides ruled unconstitutional in Adarand. Was his action impeachable?) Even if the President's actions were wrong here, he was acting on legal advice. To find an impeachable offense here, you have to include that not only was the advice he was given about FISA, the AUMF, and the unitary executive wrong, but that it was so obviously wrong that the President was unreasonable to accept it. The fact that the author of one such memo was approved by Congress to a lifetime appointment on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and that another is a prominent professor at a leading law school, both positions being attained after their participation in these activities was known, shows that -- at worst -- the position was arguable. To say that the President risks impeachment for relying on the legal advice of counsel would weaken the Presidency irreparably. This is not the standard we would use when the penalty at issue was a mere fine, let alone the Presidency.
Well, if they could consider Clinton's attorney saying "There is no relationship" to be Impeachable - I think the bar has been signicantly lowered in this area.
However, I think again that the Supreme Court Hamdi decision where the Court required Judicial Review in relation to terrorist suspects and established that "War is not a Blank Check" for the President has largely eviscerated any legitimate argument supporting this program.
The fact the Gonzales and the DOJ continue to ignore this is a good argument for the Impeachment of Gonzales on malpractice grounds for giving advice to a client that knowingly precipitated and justified a criminal act.
(A) Vyan argues that the Gonzales Memo suggesting exempting Taliban fighters from the protection of Geneva is prima facie evidence of a crime, stating that "We Are Signatories and as such we are required to abide by Geneva." But this doesn't contradict the memo, In fact, Vyan himself quotes the relevant portion:
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
I've boldfaced the parts that Vyan did, but the critical section is what I've italicized: terrorists, including unrecognized governments, are not representatives or forces of states, and therefore they are not "High Contracting Parties" and the protections we have agreed to do not extend to them. Because of this mistake, Vyan raises a number of arguments related to treatment of "Prisoners of War" that are inapplicable to the Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. They aren't Prisoner's of War because they aren't fighting for a Geneva signatory.
I did make a mistake, but not the one you claim. I didn't quote the right paragraph of the Conventions.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Any signatory or High Contracting Party to the Conventions is required to abide by the Convention in all cases, not simply when they are in armed conflict with another High Contracting Party.
I would also agree that Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are not "Prisoners of War" under the Convention until they has been a competent tribunal to determine this on a case by case basis, and then prior to such a tribunal any persons captured by opposing forces are afforded the full protection of the conventions under Article 5.
Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Furthermore, Congress has implicitly if not explicitly accepted this in numerous of its acts, by both commission and omission. Should the President now be impeached for a "crime" that Congress has agreed up until now is not a crime based on a fair interpretation of Geneva?
The likelyhood of the Military Commissions Act passing Constitutional muster is extremely low, and partly why the restrictions on Habeas Corpus within the bill are so onerous. If - no when - the new Congress acts to restore Habeas and remove these restrictions this law is likely to fall into itself like a souffle. The fact that Congress repeated the President's error does not change the fact that it is a gross Constitutional error.
This issue was indeed the one where various members of the Bush Administration had the highest and most serious vulnerability, hence their urgency in utilizing the 109th Congress to provide legal cover for their actions with the MCA before the end of their term. For the time being they have "innoculated" themselves on this count.
(C) The Rumsfeld memo is subject to a similar analysis as the Bybee memo.
Possibly, pending a judgement on the matter from the Supreme Court or a repeal/amendment to the MCA.
(D) Extraordinary rendition fell within the power of the President under the theory of the Unitary Executive. Again, impeachment on this point means fighting that out.
Bring it.
(E) If Hamdan did make previous Bush Administration actions potential war crimes, the Military Commissions Act settled that they are not, and impeachment will take place after passage of the MCA, not before. Many of the Bush Administration's actions have been retroactively "cleansed" by a bipartisan vote and cannot serve as a basis for impeachment.
Agreed. As I said, they've been "innocolated" for the time being. Any future SCOTUS decision which overturns all or portions of the MCA will reopen this issue.
(F) Again, consider the "advice of counsel" defense. The President is entitled to rely on the advice of his competent counsel. Taking away that right would be a disaster. This means that you must show not simply that the President was wrong, but that the President was not reasonable in accepting this advice. That's a high bar to clear.
Going again back to the Clinton precedent, Ken Starr argued that Bill Clinton was engaging in Obstruction of Justice when he gave factually inaccurate information to his staff, including White House Counsel - even when there was no pending legal proceeding related to that issue, and none of the persons he was speaking with were on any witness list.
Essentially he was considered to be "under oath" at all times even in private conversations with his secretary Bettie Currie. The bar is already pretty darn low.
What I'm suggestion though is that there is no legal protection for an attorney who gives his client advice to specifically circumvent and break the law, and that is exactly what Gonzales and Bybee have done here. The charge is that their advice was knowingly false, and that it was requested specifically by the President in order to persue illegal activities.
Conclusive proof of this intent does not currently exist in the record, but sufficiently targeted Congressional subpeonas are IMO likely to discover quite a bit of information that we don't current have which just might resurrect this charge even while the MCA is still in effect.
I have presented a Count 4: Criminal Negligence - which was not included in the Defense argument, but for the sake my carpal tunnel - I'll leave that for another time.
In this, the last segment in my multipart series on why George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, Condoleeza Rice and Michael Chertoff must be Impeached, Removed, Indicted, Arrested and Prosecuted for their crimes against the American People - I examine what may be the most devastating charge against these men (and woman), their gross dereliction of duty which has which has directly and indirectly led to the loss of nearly 10,000 American Lives.
The Impeachment Case Against George W. Bush - Count 4 : Dereliction of Duty and Criminal Negligence. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleez Rice, Micheal Chertoff and Donald Rumsfeld did commit a series of inexcusable errors of judgement and failures of leadership amounting to malfeasance, misconduct, dereliction of duty and criminal negligence.
Every captain, engineer, pilot, or other person employed on any steamboat or vessel, by whose misconduct, negligence, or inattention to his duties on such vessel the life of any person is destroyed, and every owner, charterer, inspector, or other public officer, through whose fraud, neglect, connivance, misconduct, or violation of law the life of any person is destroyed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
To constitute a crime, there must be an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") accompanied by the mens rea (see concurrence). Negligence shows the least level of culpability, intention being the most serious and recklessness of intermediate seriousness, overlapping with gross negligence. The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance' where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of wilful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation.
Exhibit A: Al-Qeada
The most sacred of Presidential duties is that of protecting the people of the United States from Foreign Attack. To Date, President Bush and his Administration have utterly failed to address the attacks against the United States intiated by Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Ladin including the Oct 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
Six years after the Cole bombing and five years after the fall of the World Trade Center - Bin Laden and his chief deputies remain at large.
Rather than head the warnings provided by Counter-Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke - who called for an urgent NSC Principles meeting on Al-Qaeda on January 25th 2001(PDF) just five days after Bush inaguration - President Bush and his administration did nothing.
The Al Qida terrorist organization led by Usama Bin Ladin has stitched together a network of terrorist cells and groups to wage jihad. Al Qida seeks to drive the United States out of the Arabian Peninsula and elsewehre in the Muslim World. It also seeks to overthrow moderate governments and establish theocracies similar to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Al Qida network is well financed, has trained tens of thousands of jihadists, and has a cell structure in over forty nations. It is also seeking to develop and aquire weapons of mass destruction.
The United States Goal is to reduce the Al Qida network to a point where it no longer poses a serious threat to our security or that of other governments. That goal can be achieved over a three to five year period, if adequate resources and policy attention are devoted to it.
Yet Clarke was ignored, and found his position downgraded. No longer would he be one of the NSC Principles (key members of the FAA, FBI, CIA and other agencies tasked with national Security issues) and no longer would he have the ability to call a Principles meeting in the case of an emergency. No resources were directed toward dismantling Al-Qeada and no significant policy attention was paid. Not until after September 11th and it made no difference.
Before the 9-11 Commission Condoleeza Rice claimed that she had not been presented a plan to address al-Qaeda.
The January 25, 2001, memo, recently released to the National Security Archive by the National Security Council, bears a declassification stamp of April 7, 2004, one day prior to Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004. Responding to claims that she ignored the al-Qaeda threat before September 11, Rice stated in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."
Unfortunately for Rice - the Plan she says she didn't receive was attached the Clarke's Jan 25th Memo and is Right Here.(PDF)
Not only did Rice recieve warnings and a plan from Clark, she was also advised that Al-Qaeda would be the "most series issue" facing the Bush Administration from outgoing National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and even President Clinton himself.
Bush supporters have attempted to blame Clinton for the lack of response to 9-11. But the record is clear that the responsibility for the bombing of the Cole was not established until after he left office. (What a disaster it would have been for a American President to respond to an attack on America - without first verifying the source of the attack, hmm??)
As was revealed by Bob Woodward, Clarke's memo wasn't the only warning that was ignored.
The CIA'S top counterterrorism officials felt they could have killed Osama Bin Laden in the months before 9/11, but got the "brushoff" when they went to the Bush White House seeking the money and authorization.
CIA Director George Tenet and his counterterrorism head Cofer Black sought an urgent meeting with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, writes Bob Woodward in his new book "State of Denial."
They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and "sounded the loudest warning" to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden.
Woodward writes that Rice was polite, but, "They felt the brushoff."
Interestingly Rice has squirmed on the hook concerning this issue - claiming at first that the meeting didn't happen before the 9-11 Commission, and then that it did happen only that the threat "wasn't that serious", but then again it was apparently serious enough that instead of giving Tenet and Black the "Brush-off" she suggested that they repeat their presentation to Donald Rumself and John Ashcroft on July 17th.
It would be fair to state that having Tenet and Black repeat their Powerpoint slideshow was at least a "response" (even if Ashcroft strangely doesn't seem to remember it) - but it certainly wasn't the clarion call to arms and full meeting by all the NSC Principles that Clarke had urgently requested 6 months previously.
From Clarke's Book "Against All Enemies" Page 236.
During the spring as inital policy debates in the Administration began, I e-mailed Condi Rice and NSC Staff colleagues that al-Qaeda was trying to kill Americans, to have hundreds of dead in the streets of America. During the first week in July I convened the CSG and asked each agency to consider itself on full alert. I asked the CSG agencies to cancel summer vacations and official travel for the counterterrorism response staffs. Each agency should report anything unusual, even if a sparrow should fall from a tree. I asked FBI to send another warning to the 18,000 police departments, State to alert the embassies and the Defense epartment to go to Threat Condition Delta.
It would be yet another 2 months before any meeting was held what-so-ever. But on August 6th the President received a PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) which was no doubt fostered by the efforts of Clarke and Tenet - which stated "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside U.S.".
"After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington," the document stated.
The document further stated that the New Year's Eve 2000 plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport may have been bin Laden's first attempt at a terrorist strike inside the United States.
"Al-Qaida members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks," the document said.
Bush's reported response to the briefer? "Well, now you've covered you're ass."
Less than a week before 9-11, on September 4th the meeting that Richard Clarke had urgently requested in January had finally occurred.
It remains debatable whether a more robust reponse to Clark, Tenet, Black, Berger and Clinton's warnings about Bin Laden might have prevented 9-11, whether the Pheonix Memo would have set off some red flags - or the 52 warnings of a possible al-Qeada highjacking which was received by the FAA intelligence unit had gone up the chain - or whether searching Moussaoui's hard-drive might have revealed some of the details of the plot - but one thing is certain. They couldn't have done any less than the did - because what they did was effectively NOTHING UNTIL IT WAS FAR TOO LATE.
Contrast this to the how Clarke's concerns and warnings that there were no protections in place against a plane being hijacked and crashed into the Atlanta Olympic Stadium in 1996 resulted in Vice President Gore personally chairing the NSC Principles meeting - just one week after being asked. After grilling the Principles on their security plan - which they didn't yet have - he put the "fear of God" into them and said.
"I know General Shelton over there could probably personally scare away most terrorist, but we can't put Hugh on every street corner. We need a better plan than this." Turning to me on his right Gore handed me all the authority I needed. "Dick, I am going to ask you to pull that together, use whatever resources these agencies have that are needed. Anybody got any problem with that?"
The plan and tactics that were then developed for the Olympics were later reused and expanded for the Millenium Alerts. As a result the attempts to bomb LAX, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels were all thwarted.
The crux of the charge here against the Bush Administration isn't that they didn't prevent 9-11 (Gore's direct involvement with the Principles didn't prevent Eric Rudolph from bombing the Atlanta Olympics), it's that they didn't even try despite ample and urgent warnings. They were effectively asleep at the wheel.
When 9-11 occured, what did Bush do? Stare at "My Pet Goat" for 4-1/2 minutes. Dick Cheney hid in a White House Bunker. Condoleeza Rice stood aside (thank god) and the person left effectively running the Country from the Situation Room during the entire crisis - was Richard Clarke!
Following 9-11, the Bush Administration continued it's trend of failure by allowing a wounded and trapped Bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora.
This is a pattern on the part of Bush and the cronies in his Administration, a pattern that blatantly disregards the need to dispatch their duty as public servants, a pattern that is tantimount to criminal negligence. Given the information they had been provided, it was their duty to do everything they could before the problem festered - and they utterly failed in that duty.
Casualty Count including New York, Washington and Pennsylvaia : 3030
Q: Do you think that you underestimated the insurgency's strength?
Cheney: I think so, umm I guess, the uh, if I look back on it now. I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we've encountered....
Despite the advise given by General Shinseki to include enough troops to maintain the peace in a post-invasion Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld choose a different path.
“We didn’t send enough troops in to quell the insurgency in the first place.” L. Paul Bremer, the former head of the administration’s coalition provisional authority, admitted in October 2004 that the United States failed to deploy enough troops to Iraq in the beginning. According to Bremer, the lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. “We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness. We never had enough troops on the ground,” he said.
Once "Mission Accomplished" was declared they stopped really caring about Iraq. Last year exactly how badly the Reconstruction effort had been completely bungled and handed off to inexperienced ideologues finally came to light.
“We thought political allegiance was a more important job requirement than know-how and left reconstruction in the hands of inexperienced party loyalists.”
The Washington Post reported last year the $13 billion reconstruction project in Iraq was headed up by young, inexperienced politicos whose main qualification was they’d applied for jobs with the Heritage Foundation. Clueless, they were unable to get the project up and running. Today, only $2.2 billion of the funds allocated for the reconstruction of Iraq have been distributed.
In September, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) called that record “beyond pitiful and embarrassing; it is now in the zone of dangerous.” Two years after the invasion, Iraqis are suffering from major food shortages and the country is producing less electricity than it was before the war. In addition, the deterioration of water and sewage systems has led to the spread of hepatitis and outbreaks of typhoid fever.
And the above doesn't include the $8.8 Billion that was just plain lost in Iraq by the transitional government.
They have failed our troops and needlessly contributed to their death and injuries through their negligence.
The New York Times reported that a “secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor.” Body armor “has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field.” Additionally, the Pentagon has refused to reimburse troops who purchased their own armor. [New York Times, 1/7/06; AP, 9/30/05]
After making the fatal flaw of de-Baathification and dismantling the Iraqi Army without disarming the Iraqi army. Bush and Rumsfeld have also failed at the effort to train Iraqi Security forces. Wapo.
In dozens of official interviews compiled by the Army for its oral history archives, officers who had been involved in training and advising Iraqis bluntly criticized almost every aspect of the effort. Some officers thought that team members were often selected poorly. Others fretted that the soldiers who prepared them had never served in Iraq and lacked understanding of the tasks of training and advising. Many said they felt insufficiently supported by the Army while in Iraq, with intermittent shipments of supplies and interpreters who often did not seem to understand English.
Over the last year the Insurgency has continued to grow, Moqtada al-Sadr's militia forces have grown to nearly 60,000 - his prominence has risen to the point that he has nearly shutdown the Iraqi goverment.
All of this could have been foreseen and avoided, if the occupation had been handled by the State Department - who like Clark's al-Qaeda plan, also had plans for Iraq sitting on the shelf.
I saw the - what this town is known for, spin, cherry-picking facts, using metaphors to evoke certain emotional responses or shading the context. We know the mushroom clouds and the other things that were all described that the media has covered well. I saw on the ground a sort of walking away from 10 years’ worth of planning. You know, ever since the end of the first Gulf War, there’s been planning by serious officers and planners and others, and policies put in place - 10 years' worth of planning were thrown away. Troop levels dismissed out of hand. Gen. Shinseki basically insulted for speaking the truth and giving an honest opinion.
All of these failures are clear examples of negligence which should be laid directly on the doorstep of "the Decider" who initiated and maintained them by refusing Donald Rumsfeld's resignation 3 three times, until finally accepting on November 8th 2006.
For years, the United States and the international community have tried to negotiate an end to North Korea’s nuclear and missile development and its export of ballistic missile technology. Those efforts were dealt a severe setback in early October (2003), when Pyongyang acknowledged having a secret program to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons, shocking Washington and capitals around the world.
...
The Clinton administration subsequently pursued talks with Pyongyang to limit its ballistic missile programs but was unable to finalize an agreement. After suspending talks in March 2001 pending a policy review, the Bush administration expressed a willingness to meet with Pyongyang, but President George W. Bush also named North Korea part of an “axis of evil” and linked progress on nonproliferation with other issues that delayed talks. North Korea’s admission of having a uranium enrichment program now calls into question the future of U.S.-North Korean relations, in particular the implementation of the Agreed Framework.
The end result of yet another example of Bush's failure to act responsibly is that North Korea abandoned the framework that had been agreed to under Clinton.
U.S. intelligence had detected signs near the end of the Clinton years that the North Koreans were trying to evade the freeze by beginning a uranium program. When confronted with the evidence in 2002, the North Koreans admitted it and offered to put that program on the table as part of a comprehensive deal. Bush used it as an excuse to walk away from negotiations. He thought he did not need to talk to the North Koreans. He thought he could overthrow the regime.
He failed. He issued threats and drew lines in the sand. The North Koreans walked right past them. They threw out the IAEA inspectors in December 2002, while Bush was preparing to invade Iraq. The month after the invasion, they withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 2005, they reprocessed plutonium from the fuel rods Clinton had made them keep in pools under IAEA inspection. They took another load of fuel out of the reactor and processed more plutonium. They reloaded the reactor to make even more plutonium. They tested missiles, they made bombs, now they have tested a bomb.
Bush did nothing.
Again. Just as he has repeatedly refused to engage and negotatiate with Iran, regardless of the progress made when Kennedy talked to Kruschev, when Nixon went to China, when Reagan talked to Gorbachev - Bush continues to refuse to do his job - and the result has put millions of Americans, and the world, at greater risk.
And this becomes truly criminal when it's revealed that some Bush administration officials wanted North Korea to have the bomb so that they could justify an invasion, and yet another round of regime change.
October 2006: Senior Bush administration officials wanted North Korea to test a nuclear weapon because it would prove their point that the regime must be overthrown.
This astonishing revelation was buried in the middle of a Washington Post story published yesterday. Glenn Kessler reports from Moscow as he accompanies Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:
Before North Korea announced it had detonated a nuclear device, some senior officials even said they were quietly rooting for a test, believing that would finally clarify the debate within the administration.
Until now, no U.S. official in any administration has ever advocated the testing of nuclear weapons by another country, even by allies such as the United Kingdom and France.
Escalation Roulette is not a game the President or his administration should be playing.
Exhibit D: Katrina
Bush on Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer (Video).
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
Yet again, Bush is wrong. Someone did anticipate the Breach of the Levees and that some did indeed inform the White House.
In the 48 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit, the White House received detailed warnings about the storm's likely impact, including eerily prescient predictions of breached levees, massive flooding, and major losses of life and property, documents show.
A 41-page assessment by the Department of Homeland Security's National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), was delivered by e-mail to the White House's "situation room," the nerve center where crises are handled, at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, the day the storm hit, according to an e-mail cover sheet accompanying the document.
The NISAC paper warned that a storm of Katrina's size would "likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching" and specifically noted the potential for levee failures along Lake Pontchartrain. It predicted economic losses in the tens of billions of dollars, including damage to public utilities and industry that would take years to fully repair. Initial response and rescue operations would be hampered by disruption of telecommunications networks and the loss of power to fire, police and emergency workers, it said.
In other words city resources would be overwhelmed by the size of the catastrophy, effective and rapid state and federal aid would be crucial to preserve life. The warning was based on the result of Hurricane Pam, a simulation which had been perfomed during the previous year.
This point was also made directly to President Bush during a video conference days prior the Katrinas landfall.
(Video) Federal officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief of possible devastation just before Hurricane Katrina struck. Six days of video footage from briefings and transcripts were obtained by The Associated Press. The warnings were that the storm could [overtop] levees, risk lives in the New Orleans Superdome and overwhelm rescuers.A-P reports Bush didn't ask any questions during the final government-wide briefing the day before Katrina struck on August 29th....more.
The briefer who brought up the subject of possible overtopped leaves was Max Mayfield, head of the National Weather Service. It was Max who was able to convinced New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin to perform a full city-wide manditory evacuation on August 28th. That evacuation suceeded in removing 80% of the cities occupants, when most cities have no full evacution plan and would normally only expect about 30% of their citizens to leave.
Once Katrina hit and the levees did breach, local resources were overwhelmed. Rather than provide leadership and ensure that the support they needed was made available, Bush went on vacation.
Days passed while the U.S. Coast Guard and Fish and Wildlife Commission fielded a massive rescue operation, which unfortunately after saving people from drowning in their own homes desposited them to die of starvation and dehydration on the freeway overpass or Superdome. FEMA employee Marty Bahamonde who was in the Superdome was writing desperate emails to Director Michael Brown.
On Aug. 31, Bahamonde e-mailed Brown to tell him that thousands of evacuees were gathering in the streets with no food or water and that "estimates are many will die within hours."
"Sir, I know that you know the situation is past critical," Bahamonde wrote. "The sooner we can get the medical patients out, the sooner we can get them out."
Medical supplies, MRE's, water and buses to take the evacuees out of the disaster area did not arrive for days. Fingerpointing between Mayor Nagin, Governor Blanco, Michael Brown and Home Secretary Chertoff are not acceptable.
An American city drowned and over a thousand Americans died of neglect while Bush fiddled with guitar.
Yet another example of criminal negligence and dereliction of duty on behalf of George W. Bush.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
.
President George W. Bush has violated that oath over 700 times through the use of extra-Constitutional Signing Statements designed to subvert the will of Congress.
WASHINGTON -- The American Bar Association's House of Delegates voted yesterday to call on President Bush and future presidents not to issue ``signing statements" that claim the power to bypass laws, and it urged Congress to pass legislation to help courts put a stop to the growing practice.
After an hour's debate, the ABA voted to declare that it ``opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the misuse of presidential signing statements by claiming the authority . . . to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the president has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress."
In a 27-page report written for lawmakers, the research service said the Bush administration is using signing statements as a means to slowly condition Congress into accepting the White House's broad conception of presidential power, which includes a presidential right to ignore laws he believes are unconstitutional.
The ``broad and persistent nature of the claims of executive authority forwarded by President Bush appear designed to inure Congress, as well as others, to the belief that the president in fact possesses expansive and exclusive powers upon which the other branches may not intrude," the report said.
Under most interpretations of the Constitution, the report said, some of the legal assertions in Bush's signing statements are dubious. For example, it said, the administration has suggested repeatedly that the president has exclusive authority over foreign affairs and has an absolute right to withhold information from Congress. Such assertions are ``generally unsupported by established legal principles," the report said.
Article II Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution regarding the President.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
The duty of the President is not to reinterpret the laws, or to attempt to upsurp power from the Congress (or the Court) - his job is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
As he has failed in his duty in so many areas through neglect and dereliction, he has failed in this regard as well through willful disregard..
Conclusion.
U.S. Constitution Article II Section 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Impeachment, according to the Founding Fathers, was the remedy for those officials who through professional or personal misconduct violated the public trust and vitiated our republican form of government. Accordingly, Article VI, Paragraph 3, of our constitution provides, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...." And Article II, Section 4 notes, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
The Founding Fathers defined treason in Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 1: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Bribery was, and remains, well understood, then and now --- namely, the intention to corrupt or influence, particularly public policy, by offering, or a government official accepting, something such as money or favor, quid pro quo, his vote or support in a particular public policy matter.
Which brings us to "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." As constitutional lawyer Ann Coulter correctly notes in her book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors --- The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery Publishing, 1998): "The derivation of the phrase 'high crimes and misdemeanors' has nothing to do with crimes in English common law for which public servants could be impeached," but had much to do with dishonorable conduct or a breach in the public trust.
I submit that President George W. Bush has repeatedly breached the public trust when he perpetrated a fraud on the American public using false intelligence to justify the Iraq War, when he commited Domestic Espionage against the American people, when he commited War Crimes and authorized Torture, when with his repeated dereliction of duty in regards to Al-Qaeda, our Troops in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, Nuclear Proliferation in North Korea and Iran, failure to respond to Katrina and Signing Statments which attempt to grant him not only the power to execute the laws, but to also re-write the law on the fly.
These charges are not restricted to George W. Bush, but also include other Constitutional Officers such as Richard Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Albero Gonzales, Michael Chertoff and Donald Rumsfeld who may have aidded and abetted in this High Crimes and Misdemeaners.
In a recent article on Findlaw, former White House Counsel John Dean has argued that the Impeachment of George W. Bush is an impossibility, and that consequently there should be a refocusing of energies on offices below that of Vice-President.
There Is No Chance Either Bush or Cheney Will Be Removed From Office
The Republican Congress shamed itself when it impeached and tried President William Jefferson Clinton. It was a repeat of what an earlier Republican Congress had done to President Andrew Johnson, following the Civil War. Both proceedings were politics at their ugliest.
Democrats, when they undertook to impeach Richard Nixon, moved very slowly, building bipartisan support for the undertaking. Nixon, of course, resigned, when it became apparent that the House had the votes to impeach and the Senate had the votes to convict, with his removal supported by Democrats and Republicans, and conservatives and liberals alike.
Getting the necessary two-thirds supermajority in support of impeachment in today's Senate, which is virtually evenly-divided politically, is simply not possible.
...
Quite obviously, Bush and Cheney have not acted alone in committing "high crimes and misdemeanors." Take a hypothetical (and there are many): Strong arguments have been made that many members of the Bush Administration - not merely Bush and Cheney -- have engaged in war crimes. If war crimes are not "high crimes and misdemeanors," it is difficult to imagine what might be. Jordan Paust, a well-know expert on the laws of war and a professor at University of Houston Law Center, has written a number of scholarly essays that mince few words about the war crimes of Bush's subordinates. For example, many of their names are on the "torture memos."
I think Dean's point is well taken, but I would add this: If you can successfully and clearly lay out the case and address each issue concisely, and further show how they are connected - as I have attempted to do - it becomes clear that Impeaching George W. Bush is a neccesity, not for the High Crimes he has already commited, but to prevent what further Constitutional errors his is very likely to commit considering his track record. And further, their clear and highly illegal attempts to hide their crimes using an disinformation campaign of propaganda - only makes their guilt all the more obvious and damning.
The continuance of this Presidency and his Administration are a Clear and Present Danger to this Nation and the World.
I agree that simple numbers make it unlikely that the case will easily succeed in the Senate, and that Impeaching in the House only to fail to remove would be a sinful partisan mockery. However, by starting Impeachment at the most vulnerable point - which I would argue is probably Alberto Gonzales for his involvement in War Crimes now that Donald Rumsfeld has finally resigned - it may be possible to begin systematically dismantling the Bush Administration one piece at a time.
It's true that best way to collapse a house of cards is to take out it's foundation. Removing key players such as Gonzales would leave Bush exposed to not only Congressional subpeona's but a new 110th Congress-approved Attorney General who might not look quite so eskance at the appointment of a Independant Counsel such as Patrict Fitzgerald to seriously investigate the various and sundrie crimes of the Bush Administration and finally BRING. THEM. DOWN.
