|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
Vyan (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-20-06 11:30 PM Original message |
The Impeachement Case Against George W. Bush - Count 4: Dereliction of Duty and Criminal Negligence |
(Crossposted fromTruth 2 Power Project)
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. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. “Any person subject to this chapter who— Under the U.S. Codes Misconduct 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. Criminal Negligence. 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. 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 September after 11th. 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. 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. 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 Exhibit B: The Iraq Quagmire From Crooks and Liars. On June 20, 2005 (a year ago)-Dick Cheney said that the insurgency was in it's last throes. He was talking to the National Press Club today and said: 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. From Thinkprogress. “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.” 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. 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. From Gen Zinni on Meet the Press (Video) 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. Casualty Count: 2,954 (And rising) Exhibit C: Nuclear Proliferation Since Bush took office North Korea has developed and tested a Nuclear Device. President Clinton had managed to freeze the North Korean Nuclear program in it's tracks. North Korea did not separate a gram of plutonium while Bill Clinton was in office. He also stopped their missile tests. Bush poured warm water on the wheels by walking away from that arrangement in his first few months in office. 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 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. 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. 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 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301711.html&e=9797">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. 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 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 remove 80% of the cities occupants (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 saved people from drowning in their own homes and 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." Medical supplies, MRE's, water and buses to take the evacuees out of the disaster area did not arrive for days. Fingerpoining 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. Casualty Count: 1723. Exhibit E: Signing Statments The Presidential Oath of Office is as follows: "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. From the Boston Globe. 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. The Congressional Research Service has also denouced these statements. 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. 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 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 will 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. From the Medical Sentinel (Published in 1999). 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." 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 he 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 law, but to also re-write the laww 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 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 become 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. The future of our nation depends on it. Vyan |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Independent_Liberal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-20-06 11:35 PM Response to Original message |
1. You're awesome Vyan! |
Edited on Wed Dec-20-06 11:35 PM by Independent_Liberal
I love your articles of impeachment!
:yourock: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
frankly_fedup2 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-20-06 11:38 PM Response to Original message |
2. I think that the congress needs to go with him and we start over with |
a clean slate. Those that voted for this war have blood on their hands as well. They claim "If we knew then what we know now." No excuse! They should have waited for better testimony then cartoon-looking sketches of trucks and buildings. That alone should have set off alarm signals in their heads. I know Powell presented that to the U.N.; however, any Congressperson and/or Senator worth their weight should have seen through it all. For Christ's sake they just saw how he stole an election and then they believe this load he and his cabinet were feeding them. These are not stupid, uneducated people, and yet they have allowed this to go on almost four years.
|
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
babylonsister (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-20-06 11:51 PM Response to Reply #2 |
3. Go with who? I think Congress and the American people were |
lied to, myself included. I know there are many people who didn't believe Powell, but I did. I believed those stupid little sketches of trucks and buildings because this was my government, they wouldn't lie. :eyes: I know better now, but didn't then, so can't fault a politician who might have agreed for the same reasons I did. As long as they are no longer being duped, that is.
And Yvan, what a compilation! I'm e-mailing this to myself so that I will read it! Thank you! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
frankly_fedup2 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-21-06 01:14 PM Response to Reply #3 |
15. I believe Congress should go with him because even if they were |
Edited on Thu Dec-21-06 01:17 PM by frankly_fedup2
"duped," they have people who do nothing but do research for them. It would be nice if we all had the time to look further into certain things. Thank goodness for people who have the time to do the research and find out the facts. vYan is a great assest to us all, obviously, and probably works full time as well. I admire him/her greatly and thank him/her for the information given. It's mind boggling to look at all of the laws broken.
I think Colon Powell right now probably feels like his little presentation of sketches (why would anyone believe sketches when we live during a time where we have to-the-minute satellites that can pick up a group of men with a really, really tall man in all white), has found him a place in Hell beside the rest of them. If there is a Hell but that's a whole other conversation. I'm no genius, and they are few and far between; however, I knew the war in Iraq was wrong before they went. Why do you think all the protesters were out against even starting the war. A lot of us knew in our hearts Bush was lying because it went from "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and he is a great threat to this country, then it turned to what a bad guy Saddam Hussein was and the Iraqi people wanted to be free. This man started a war in a part of the World that has never seen peace. These tribes will hate each other forever, and have. Why a little man with a big head thought he could bring peace to a part of the World that would not know how to live without killing people, is beyond me. Wasn't it Alexander the Great that lost everything in the middle east (middle Asia really). Other rulers in history as well but George Dumbya Bush is going to bring peace to that region of the World. Yeah George, we believed everything you said. I haven't believed that man since he stole the election of 2000. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
goclark (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-20-06 11:57 PM Response to Original message |
4. Bravo K and Recommend and Bookmark |
We can no longer wait foir Nancy and Harry,they are nice people but they are not going to do it.
But WE ARE THE PEOPLE and this gang of evil doers MUST be impeached. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Higans (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-21-06 12:20 AM Response to Original message |
5. K&R |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dave_p (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-21-06 12:23 AM Response to Original message |
6. more thoughts |
Yes! Magnificent work!
Here's a start to a possible Exhibit F: Iran US military action in Iraq was conducted without regard to its likely consequence of enhanced Iranian influence in the region through Iraq's Shia majority. Yet a 2003 Iranian offer to negotiate directly with the US on all outstanding differences was ignored by the Administration, leaving Iran to conduct its nuclear program and support for Shia movements in Iraq, Syria and Palestine in the absence of any attempt at bilateral talks to bring its activities into line with international norms in return for normalization of relations. Speaking to the http://www.cfr.org/publication/10326/">Council on Foreign Relations in March 2006, former NSC Middle East chief Dr Flynt Leverett stated that the President had taken a personal decision that ruled out bilateral negotiations with Iran even if they offered to advance the long-term security interests of the United States: he is "very, very resistant to the idea of doing a deal, even a deal that would solve the nuclear problem. You don’t do a deal that would effectively legitimate this regime that he considers fundamentally illegitimate." And perhaps Exhibit G: Lebanon Administration delay of a Security Council Resolution held up United Nations progress toward a ceasefire in the Israel-Lebanon conflict for four weeks in July-August 2006, despite heavy loss of civilian life, the risk of heightened region-wide instability unfavorable to the US, and the threat of increased Muslim hostility towards US troops in Iraq, thought to be responsible at least in part for the rise in US deaths in Iraq in October (106) and the whole of August 1-December 20 (an average of 75.8 per month, up from 56 in the previous five months). |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bluehighways911 (67 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-21-06 11:08 AM Response to Reply #6 |
14. OMG |
You think Americans are going to pay attention to what happened a year ago in Lebanon.
This will drag on for two years. And frankly America will say, Damn, these Democrats really don't have anything. We are about to be bankrupt by the Pentagon. You think anyone but the same five stooges that our in this same thread every day really care. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Old and In the Way (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-21-06 03:04 PM Response to Reply #14 |
18. Do you speak for America now? |
Or just the WH?
A Majority of Americans favor impeachment on wire tapping (1/16/06): http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2 From MSNBC- Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 387924 responses Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 87% No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors." 4.5% No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching. 6.4% I don't know. 1.9% In 2005 a by a margin of 50% to 44% favored impeachment for lying about the causus belli in Iraq (I wonder how many more would favor impeachment today?)- http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528 What is disturbing is that pollster's aren't asking the question today. Why is that? They were doing weekly polling during the Clinton Inquistion asking the impeachment question, but the corporate mainstream media seems to have no interest in polling the question on Bush...is it because a poll such as MSNBC would show a clear majority of Americans believe he should be investigated and impeached if the evidence warrants? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Old and In the Way (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-21-06 12:30 AM Response to Original message |
7. Well stated! |
Very compelling case you are building.
Personally, I think all present and future actions of this administration should be viewed through the prism of this analysis. If you were directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of 6000 Americans by criminal negligence or incompetence....what actions would you take to avoid your day of reckoning? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Old and In the Way (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-21-06 12:35 AM Response to Original message |
8. A suggestion Vyan |
I assume you've posted the 3 other counts in earlier threads.
You might want to include the links to the earlier threads so you give DUers an easy way to go back and pick up on these counts as well. Outstanding case you're building....I see a bright future for you on a Senate Panel soon! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vyan (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-21-06 08:02 AM Response to Reply #8 |
11. They're all in my journal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bobbie Jo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-21-06 01:15 AM Response to Original message |
9. K&R...This is your slam-dunk! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
calimary (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-21-06 02:03 AM Response to Original message |
10. Bwaaahaaaaa! Fifth vote! |
I hope you're saving these, Vyan, like maybe in your journal or someplace where they remain accessible, especially for those of us who might have missed one of the installments. You're putting loads of work into this, it's ALL good, and well worth keeping. Anybody who gets into a debate about the validity, indeed, the necessity of IMPEACHMENT could put this material to great use.
GREAT stuff! :yourock: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
vixengrl (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-21-06 09:33 AM Response to Original message |
12. A breath-takingly informative post-- |
great job--K&R.
|
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bluehighways911 (67 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-21-06 11:05 AM Response to Original message |
13. No One |
But no one is going to sit through that and stay awake.
America want real solutions. Not rerunning the same arguments. Yes, you make a wonderful case. And easy to do when you have no one listening except people on a message board, all that agree with you. Now try putting this boring piece on the evening news, and America will take a nap. We need action in helping Americans and other nations we have screwed up. Two years of this dribble is not it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Old and In the Way (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-21-06 02:25 PM Response to Reply #13 |
17. Thanks for the concern. |
Perhaps you find it hard to stay awake when discussing crimes against our country; most of us here don't. I assume you had no problems staying awake when the impeachment was about a President's penis.
I love this contradiction, though- "We need action in helping Americans and other nations we have screwed up." The OP spells out the action remedy, but you view this as "dribble"...please tell us what your action plan is to help America and other nations we have screwed up, given that we have a criminal pResident who has no intention of changing the course. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Martin Eden (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-21-06 01:48 PM Response to Original message |
16. K&R !!! |
IMPEACH!!!
|
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lpbk2713 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-21-06 03:17 PM Response to Original message |
19. I wonder .... will the RICOH Act be sufficient to indict BushCo? |
After all they did all conspire together to pull off crimes of a magnitude never even thought of before. They will go down in history as the biggest band of thieves ever. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:16 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC