3 Impeachable Words

[ThomWV]

I am not a man of the law. Tell me if my argument is sound.

Watch the C-Span clip of the State of the Union Address given by Bush on January 28, 2003. Move into the clip almost to the end. At 59 minutes and 36 seconds Bush said, in reference to the situation with Iraq, "We seek peace." Just 3 words.

The 3 words constitute a lie. We know from the memo that is the Downing Street Minutes that by some time prior to July 23, 2002, six months and five days earlier than the evening of the speech, that Bush had already made the decision to go to war. The decision was shared with the head of state of our ally, Great Britain and that an official (hence presumed accurate) document was created clearly indicating that Bush was making no attempt to seek peace. The lie was this: Bush reported to Congress that he was doing something that in fact he was not doing.

Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution requires that "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union,". He is required by his oath of office (Article 2, Section 1) to report faithfully. Faithfully in this context means, (Random House College Dictionary) 'true to fact' He did not. In those 3 words he perjured himself.

It is the perjury of those 3 words that is the impeachable offense because the were Constitutionally mandated and he was bound by oath to the truth.

He also lied hundreds of times in speeches and press conferences but those are a different matter. Those lies speak to a weakness of character in the man but they are easily dismissed. The State of the Union Address and the Oath of Office are matters of the law.

[LightningFlash]

1. Good work....Hand caught in the cookie jar!!!

:crazy: :crazy:

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. He's a Liar many times over.

They impeached Clinton based on a "lie" why not bush**, whose lies really were lies and murderous lies at that?

[Meeker Morgan]

28. Clinton was charged with perjury ...

... not just lying. And he was acquitted.

Simply lying is not an impeachable offense.

We should be concentrating on the 2006 elections. There will be no impeachment proceedings before that.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I think you have something there

The problem will be getting a bill of impeachment introduced in the House and debated...if yesterday's outburst is any indication, I fear the Repukes will merely walk away, turning off the Democrat's microphones as they leave.

[benburch]

5. A shame the Consititution prohibits detention of Congressmen...

Because otherwise I would suggest that the blue states trump up charges against their few Filthy Reds and then have the blue congressmen force a quorum.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. While the nation watches!

I have decided that it doesn't matter anymore that the repukes are in power. They are behaving like power hungry madmen and the whole country is watching them. I am old enough to remember repukes pulling away from Nixon when he went nuts and his dirty laundry was exposed. It took time, but he lost enough of his 'base' to go down in flames. I am an optimist and honestly believe the same thing can happen again.

[Kansas Wyatt]

20. If and when it happens again, 'We The People' must demand this time...

That our government must be purged of all those who were complicit with and active in crimes against and a dereliction of duty to 'We The People.'

Today is only a continued extension of what happened on November 22, 1963, and we will never be 'We The People' again until the truth has been fully exposed for all to see. Only then, will the continued corruption and illegal activity from the same organization lose it's ability to operate with impunity, only to be handed down to it's next generation.

[longship]

12. Not if Dems win in 2006

BTW, nice post.
Recommended and kicked.

[Richard D]

4. Yeah but . . .

. . . in the current (dys)lexicon, war is peace.

[Just Me]

6. Tuesday, the LIAR said he intended to wage war ONLY as a last resort.

Wrong. There's TON OF EVIDENCE going back before the man was even elected that he intended to remove Saddam, period.

He has asserted so many freakin' lies that we'd have to work real damn hard to uncover a truth or two.

[LightningFlash]

8. Call upon all reps and senators who now feel betrayed about war...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/11/more_in_congress_want_iraq_exit_strategy/

It's time to call for impeachment, prosecution, and accountability!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Old and In the Way]

11. So what basis did we start the war?

If he is telling the truth, what action of Saddam's constituted a "last resort"? UN inspectors were in Iraq and they are on record, day after day, as saying "we're looking, but we can't find WMD". Saddam was certainly not attacking us in this time frame. So just what constituted this "last resort"?

I think the "last resort" was the need to get the war underway because they weren't finding WMD..the longer the search went on, the less justification Bush would have to invade.

Yes, he should be impeached on the lies to put us into this unethical, immoral quagmire. To the hypocritical cowards who call themselves Republicans...please explain why impeachment of Clinton was warrented on the basis of his lying about having consensual sex with a consenting adult....but impeachment is not warrented by a President who lies about a causus belli and kill's 10's of thousands of people in the process?

Talk about moral relativism, no one does it better than Republicans.

[Just Me]

16. All bases for the war were lies, lies, lies.

Supposedly,...

Saddam was linked to 9/11.
LIE

Saddam was developing nukes.
LIE

Saddam was developing drones which could deliver biological/chemical death.
LIE

Saddam was failing to comply with inspections.
LIE

Saddam presented an imminent threat to our security.
LIE


Then, after the war of aggression and profit,...

We are delivering freedom.
LIE

We are creating democracy.
LIE

The Iraqi people are better off.
LIE

The world is better off.
LIE

We are making progress.
LIE

[Karenina]

29. Something like this?

[Just Me]

31. Yep! And WHO THE HELL IS EATIN' ALL THAT CANDY?!!!

People wonder why we, the people who know precisely what is going on, go nuts from time to time as we scream "get the hell outta' the way" while the train is coming down the tracks.

[goclark]

35. They needed to rush it because of the weather

as I recall.

The reporters were talking about Iraq getting extremely hot and the soldiers and more important to them, THE REPORTERS, would have a hard time.

I recall all kinds of lies about why the invasion had to take place "quick."

[Hubert Flottz]

39. Rumbo was running out of quality targets in Afghanistan, he said!

Can't be wasting all those great smart weapons to smite old mud brick Afghani hovels, according to the Pentagon bean counters! I guess that's one time that a country with housing as poor as the housing is in Afghanistan, saved their citizen's lives! I believe that Rumbo has a quota of Daddy Bush's weapons that he must expend somewhere in the world, so that the investors in the military weapons business, see a good steady income.

The five cons at the PENTAGON who 'secretly advised' everybody, about everything, leading up to the war in Iraq are REAL "BAD APPLES"!


FIVE CONS? PENTAGONS? Pet GOATS? SPIRITS TELLING THE PRESIDENT OF THE US TO,"GO YE FORTH ASAP AND SMITE SADDAM & SONS"? GOD TELLING THE PRESIDENT TO "TORTURE PEOPLE"? GOD TELLING BUSH "ATTA'BOY"? What kind of God do these people talk to? Here are a few clues....................>

http://www.exposingsatanism.org/signsymbols.htm

[linazelle]

7. Not only did he plan ahead with Britain, they bombed Iraq

secretly. That's no way to seek peace. Or maybe I'm just :crazy:

[bpilgrim]

10. better, he lied when he spoke of URANIUM from Niger against our own CIA

THAT is just one of MANY examples of evidence being FIXED to fight a war, an ILLEGAL WAR, which is an impeachable offense all by it self.

peace

[MGKrebs]

13. I can do it in two:

Congressional Majority.
There is probably all sorts of possible impeachment material that will not be used until the Dems get a majority in the House AND the Senate.

[yella_dawg]

14. I think you have something.

I strongly encourage you to write this up and fire an email barrage at Congress and anyone else you can think of.

It's beauty lies in it's simplicity.

[merbex]

15. You summed it up perfectly in roughly 6 paragraphs

Newspapers LOVE short and pithy letters like this

Send it off

[Al-CIAda]

17. Add those to the impeachable 16 words about Yellowcake from Nigeria . n/t

[WilliamPitt]

18. He left off the next three words

"...through superior firepower."

[AuntiBush]

26. Nice Site, Will! Joined. All should sign-up!

:thumbsup:

[ThomWV]

34. That Is NOT True

His next sentence was "We strive for peace."

He repeated his lie in the next breath.

[alfredo]

19. If bush is a man of God, then his God should be flogged

[BikeWriter]

21. " Fuck Saddam. we're taking him out." * March 2002

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101030331-435968,00.html

[gulliver]

22. It's a "Bushian" lie.

It is about a life and death matter. It is untrue as understood by most listeners. It is told (acted really) with an air of sobriety and morality. It's a disgraceful thing for a president to do. But like most Bush lies, it has an escape hatch.

Bush did not say "We are seeking peace." He said "we seek peace." It's slimy and misleading, but not necessarily a lie when expressed that way. In his mind, he could have been thinking "Yeah, we seek peace all right. F*ck Saddam! We are taking him out! That's how we'll get the peace we seek." The Downing Street Minutes make it fairly clear that he probably was thinking exactly that.

[uppityperson]

23. Exactly: We seek peace, through total control.

I like your term "Bushian lie". I've been saying the same for yrs, he does not lie. He misleads and says things that no reasonable person could believe he means, but somehow it is true and he means it. The trick is figuring out what his twisting of the words means. In this case: We (meaning the royal "we") seek peace through total control of everything. He just "forgot" the last part.

[Jack Rabbit]

24. The statement is misleading

The Downing Street document says unequivocally that the decision to go to war had already been made; nevertheless, "we seek peace" is a pretty broad statement that could have many interpretations.

One might make it part of a bill of impeachment only if one really wanted to pile it on. It wouldn't make a good point on which to anchor the entire case. There are much ones.

[dubyahater]

25. True as this may be...

what can we as common citizens do in order to counter the lies, misinformation and other heinous acts committed against the truth that we so desperately seek?

[Jack Rabbit]

27. Kill your television and get your news from the Net

Seriously. It's the media's job to challenge the lies and they have not done it. It certainly isn't because the lies aren't obvious.

Kill your television and watch their ratings (and advertising revenue) fall. Let them know that it's because they have failed to show any real interest in exposing the crimes of this administration and even now and doing so with less vigor than warranted.

I'm not saying that the rest of television news should turn into a left/liberal mirror of FoxNews; frankly, I don't want to see that any more than I want to see the original. But we should demand the truth that we aren't getting.

[newyawker99]

30. Hi dubyahater!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Just Me]

32. Pass it on, one person at a time.

Does so, gently, with due respect for people's sensitivities.

I do it by asking simple questions: "Why?" or "Who is really benefitting?" or "What is really happening?"

[grace0418]

33. I'm a little afraid of talking about impeachment before 2006

If a full cry for impeachment goes up before 2006 and is shot down by all the slimy Republicans currently in office, is it a dead deal? Or can it be reintroduced after the election when hopefully common sense will win over Diebold and some Dems take over?

[helderheid]

36. nothing can win against Diebold

Unplug the machines!

[ThomWV]

37. When Do You Call The Police?

If your home was robbed today would you wait until next week to call the Police? If your neighbor was beating his wife would you wait until next week to go over to stop him? If your child was very sick would you wait until next week to arrange for medical attention?

The crimes of the Administration are being exposed now, now is the time for Impeachment.

[grace0418]

38. My point and my question was this

If we call for impeachment now and it gets shot down by our corrupt, Republican-controlled government, is that it? Can we call for impeachment AGAIN when we're more like to succeed in convicting BushCo or is it one of those cases where once impeachment gets shot down we can never bring it up again and BushCo gets off scot free? Because if that's the case, I would rather wait until we can actually convict the fuckers.

But to answer your question regarding calling the police. Does it do much good to call the police when the police are the ones robbing your house?