I was watching the debates with one of my last Bush-supporting friends (he's wavering). He asked me for one good reason why Bush needs to go.
"Okay," I said, "how about because this is the most criminal administration since the Teapot Dome scandal?"
He immediately asked me to prove it. We hopped on the computer and I started to explain, but time ran short. So I wrote him this long e-mail.
I'd appreciate it if you folks would help me hone and add to my arguments. My pal may be one of the last Bush-bots I know in Arlington, but not THE last. And if this election gets close enough to steal, then this is the last ammo we have in the bag, so it had better be correct.
Here it is:
________________________________________________________________
Okay, (Soon-to-be-former Bush supporter, I hope). You asked me for it. Here it is. This is long and you probably won't want to read it all, but you should. I told you this was the most criminal Presidency since Warren G. Harding's Teapot Dome scandal, but after slogging back through years of my notes on this subject, I realize I may have been underestimating the scope of the crimes.
___________________
1) Deceiving Congress in justifying going to war.
Here's a copy of the October 11, 2002 resolution. I was wrong, by the way. The resolution was in fact a public law signed by the President himself, PL 107-243.
http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html The important things to note: First, that the "Whereas" clauses which precede the resolution are NOT findings of fact by Congress. The evidence they were based upon was the information the White House supplied to Congress to draft the resolution. Second, that Congress demanded a formal determination from the President which would CONFIRM those "Whereas" clauses, showing that diplomatic means alone would not resolve the Iraqi WMD question AND that the military action would be part of the war on terrorism INCLUDING those involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Here is the President's report to Congress, from March 18, 2003:
http://www.c-span.org/executive/presidential/Report107_243.pdf If you read the report, you will find that the President's determination that we needed to attack Iraq cites Congressional "findings" as justification for going to war. The "findings" are the "Whereas" clauses contained in the very law which requires the President to make the formal determination! In other words, the President confirmed the bullshit information that he gave to Congress by citing the fact that Congress printed his bullshit information.
"I think it's a nice day outside, let's go out," I say.
"You think it's a nice day outside. I'll go outside with you if you check out the window first," you say.
"You said it's a nice day outside," I say. "So it's a nice day. Let's go outside."
We go outside and find it's raining. You call me a dumbass. I say that you had the same information I had, and you agreed with me.
That's how the President justified his war to Congress. It is a clear deception and a dereliction of duty, and since the President did it to Congress, it is most certainly an impeachable offense. I would suggest that this is why the White House has constantly changed its rationale for invading Iraq--because if they fully admit they were full of shit, they are immediately in violation of PL 107-243 and will risk impeachment.
For a full explanation, see John Dean's Worse Than Watergate, pp. 140-156.
_________________
2) Not having a National Security Strategy.
Yeah, this happens all the time, but I think this one is criminal for a lot of reasons. Section 603 of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, the last great reorganization of our nations defenses, requires the following:
SEC. 603. ANNUAL REPORT ON NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY
(a) ANNUAL PRESIDENTIAL REPORT.-(1) Title I of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 402 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
“SEC. 104. (a)(1) The President shall transmit to Congress each
year a comprehensive report on the national security strategy of the
United States (hereinafter in this section referred to as a ‘national
security strategy report’).
“(2) The national security strategy report for any year shall be
transmitted on the date on which the President submits to Congress
the budget for the next fiscal year under section 1105 of title 31,
United States Code.
“(b) Each national security strategy report shall set forth the
national security strategy of the United States and shall include a
comprehensive description and discussion of the following:
“(1) The worldwide interests, goals, and objectives of the
United States that are vital to the national security of the
United States.
“(2) The foreign policy, worldwide commitments, and national
defense capabilities of the United States necessary to deter
aggression and to implement the national security strategy of
the United States.
“(3) The proposed short-term and long-term uses of the political,
economic, military, and other elements of the national
power of the United States to protect or promote the interests
and achieve the goals and objectives referred to in paragraph
(1).
“(4) The adequacy of the capabilities of the United States to
carry out the national security strategy of the United States,
including an evaluation of the balance among the capabilities of
all elements of the national power of the United States to
support the implementation of the national security strategy.
“(5) Such other information as may be necessary to help
inform Congress on matters relating to the national security
strategy of the United States.
“(c) Each national security strategy report shall be transmitted in Classified
both a classified and an unclassified form.”. information.
http://www.ndu.edu/library/goldnich/99433pt2.pdf The Executive Branch is required to submit thousands of reports to Congress annually, but this one has got to be one of the very most important--it is the document which details how the President plans to protect the United States. The important things to note here are that the report must be submitted when the President submits his budget to Congress each year, and it must be released in an unclassified--public--form.
President Bush took office in January of 2001. He submitted his FY 2002 budget to Congress sometime in February or March of 2001. No NSS was submitted to Congress.
America was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001. There was no national security strategy to guide United States policy in the aftermath of those attacks. We invaded Afghanistan without a National Security Strategy.
The President submitted his FY2003 budget to Congress in March 2002. No NSS was submitted to Congress. That summer, the President toured the nation, stumping for Congressional candidates for the mid-term elections and mentioning "Saddam" every time he mentioned "September 11." No NSS was submitted to Congress.
Finally, on September 17, 2002, the President released his first and only National Security Strategy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html No annual NSS has been published since that date. But you really ought to read that strategy above, because among other things it lays out the tortured logic that America used to get our ass into Iraq. The NSS says we can no longer rely upon solid evidence before we start wars. We have to kick potential enemies' asses BEFORE they become a potential threat. Hence, no weapons of mass destruction necessary--Saddam might get them. No ties with al Qaeda--Saddam might make them. We better kick Saddam's ass right now, whether we have any evidence or not.
That logic, of course, can be applied to every single country, organization, and individual on the globe, based upon the evidence-free assessment of the ass-kicker.
Think about that. We didn't have a strategy when we were attacked. So, a year late, we created a strategy which justifies attacking other nations because they pose the threat of becoming a... threat. Then we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq went into the shitter. The National Security Strategy was not revised. OUR WAR PRESIDENT has submitted only one NSS in the past four years. He has failed to elucidate his policy to Congress or the people. He has invaded two countries, occupies both, and hasn't deemed those events worthy of updating our nation's "strategery."
This is a violation of the letter of the law. But it's also a far larger violation of the spirit of the law and the basic relationship between Congress, the President, and the American people. It also strikes at the very heart of the incompetent soul of this administration. When John Kerry says the President doesn't have a plan, he's not kidding. And it is an impeachable offense on the part of the President.
Extra bonus: Encouraging an incorrect assumption. Not impeachable, but tragic nonetheless.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm _____________________
3) Violation of Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.
Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
According to Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack, within two months of September 11 the President instructed General Tommy Franks to begin planning and organizing for an invasion of Iraq. By the summer of 2002 (when the President had "no plans on his desk" to attack Iraq), General Franks required $700 million for unspecified charges relating to the invasion of Iraq. Some have charged that much of that money went into the pockets of Dr. Ahmed Chalabi, who fed the United States spurious intelligence about Iraq's WMDs while he was secretly meeting with Iran, and then publicly laughed about it after the invasion. You'll recall that Chalabi sat with the First Lady when the Presdent rattled off a list of bad intelligence during the 2002 State of the Union Address. Much of that bad intelligence came straight from Chalabi himself.
Whatever it went for, there is no question where the money came from: it was diverted from the funds Congress authorized for the invasion of Afghanistan, not Iraq. It was diverted without the authorization or approval of Congress.
That's not just against the law, it's a violation of the Constitution itself. And that is impeachable.
Summary of Woodward's allegations:
http://www.amanaonline.com/Articles/Adujie/P_Adujie_113.htm Chalabi is a "hero in error":
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040219-115614-3297r.htm Chalabi is an Iranian shill:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1223389,00.html "No plans on my desk," a transparent deception:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020613-8.html ________________________
4) Lying to Congress: Medicare
Remember that great Prescription Drug Care bill the President rammed through Congress? The President told Congress it would cost $400 billion. The President knew it would cost $534 billion, but concealed the true costs in order to get the bill passed. What do you call that? Lying to Congress, every bit as impeachable as lying to a grand jury about a blow job.
http://www.elderlawanswers.com/resources/s4/r37363.asp ________________________
Like I said, these are just some of literally DOZENS of flagrant violations of the law, deceptions of Congress, unauthorized diversion of funds, and cooking the intelligence books to reach a preconceived result. Now throw in the organized operation to deliver Florida to Bush in 2000, the operation of a government-in-secret since 2001, and Tom Ridge's admission that the Department of Homeland Security is looking into the possibility of postponing the 2004 elections in case of a "terra" attack, and you should be scared shitless.
You asked for it; there it is.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
