The Impeachability of the Bush Administration

berni_mccoy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jun-12-05 11:34 AM
Original message

The Impeachability of the Bush Administration

Introduction
First off, I'd like to start by saying that this isn't about impeaching Bush. The subject is clearly about the Impeachment of the Administration. The entire administration, even those who we may find more politically palatable than the rest, need to go given the recent findings in the numerous leaked minutes, reports and internal secret communications of the British government.

Secondly, it is obvious, someone high up in the British government has the moral fortitude, bravery and patriotism to do what's right, not just for Great Britain, not just for the American people, but for the entire free world as we *used* to know it.

Let us address the validity of the documents, for we must have authentic documents to be considered evidence. No government officials, British or U.S., have denied the authenticity, despite what party leader, Mehlman, has said. Any statements that have questioned the authenticity of the document have been soundly defeated, at times by the press directly addressing the point during questioning. <5> British and U.S. officials have passively acknowledged the validity of the documents, and instead have only tried to question the contents of the documents, saying either they represent opinion, are out of context, or mean something completely different. This is a weak argument at best and demands *and* requires an investigation to get to the truth.

Impeachment
Now, let's move on to the question of impeachment. I will say that there is now plenty of hard evidence now to proceed. The leaked internal secret communications of the British government corroborate the testimony of Richard Clarke <1>, the statements in Clarke's <2>, Woodward's <3> and Senator Graham's books <4>, that had been dismissed by the administration as invalid due to the limited access given to these people. I will remind the reader that Clarke *never* gave testimony that the Bush administration was pre-occupied with Iraq prior to 9-11 or in the summary of 2002, but only testified to the effect that Bush's re-allocation of resources to Iraq instead of focusing on Al Qaeda have only caused more terrorism against the U.S. and its allies:

" Hostility toward the US in the Islamic world has increased since 9-11, largely as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq."

Clarke's testimony, while damning the incompetency of the administration, in and of itself does not constitute an impeachable offense. And that is why, until the leaked secret communications of the British government, there has not been enough evidence to impeach.

What is required for impeachment? Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states <6>:

"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'd like to also note that Section 3, Clause 1 also states that a conviction of impeachment is an exception to the executive branch's power of pardon.

We start with bribery and treason. No evidence to date demonstrates the crime of bribery. Let's consider treason. Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

If the contents of the Downing Street Minutes <7> and the newly leaked set of secret communications that shows the British Ministers being requested to create reasons for war <8>, then one could say that creating reasons to bring the U.S. to war is in effect 'levying War' against the U.S. If you cause someone to pick a fight with the U.S., by proxy, you are fighting the U.S. This is in effect what was done by the Bush Administration. They colluded with Britain <7>, bombed Iraqi targets in 2002 <10> in an effort to provoke Iraq into U.N. Security Council resolution violation and furthermore asked the British government to create justification for war <8>. This again is corroborating evidence for other challenged testimony that's out there, specifically the statement that the Administration illegally re-allocated $700 million dollars from the war in Afghanistan to the War in Iraq in July of 2002! <11> It's not what many would argue as direct treason (aiding and assisting the enemy), but then again, that definition is being pushed by the republican party recently with respect to Mark Felt, a.k.a. "Deep Throat". In fact, Attorney General Gonzales contemplated charging Mr. Felt with treason <9>. What the administration has done is no less than directly cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, 1700 American soldiers and the wounding of tens of thousands of American soldiers to the point permanent disability.

If treason can not be successfully argued as a result of the secret communications of the British government, surely, there are high-crimes here.

Constitutional Attorney John Bonifaz makes the case for these high-crimes in his letter to Congressman John Conyers <12>. At a minimum he calls for an investigation, but lays the case for the following potential crimes:

A. "Conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people as to the basis for taking the nation into war against Iraq"

B. " Manipulated intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States by Iraq"

C. "George W. Bush, President of the United States, has committed a felony by submitting a false report to the United States Congress on the reasons for launching a first-strike invasion of Iraq"

Others have been calling for the impeachment of the Bush administration, but now their articles are much more credible given the continuing stream of secret communications leaking from the British government. One particular site that includes violation of the Geneva convention and the use of torture to obtain false statements for continuing attacks and warfare is the "Vote To Impeach" site. Their articles are at: http://impeachbush.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=VTI_articles .

Feasibility of Impeachment
Many, including bloggers here at Democratic Underground, have argued that even if there is massive support by the public to even bring articles of impeachment to the table, the articles will never leave the House Judiciary Committee due to partisan politics. Given the recent actions of Congressmen Sensenbrenner, there is very little chance that in spite of massive and mounting evidence against the administration, that these republican congressmen will allow an investigation, let alone articles of impeachment, to leave committee. This is the shame of our nation, that we have become a state ruled by one party that holds its agenda and politics above that of the American people. What is required is massive outrage by the public to demand an investigation and a hearing. If we don't we are passively approving of these crimes by the administration. If we do mount a successful public pressuring of the Congress, then any who thwart that effort would likely have stood by Hitler when he gassed millions of innocent people.

Sources
<1> 911 Commission hearings, Richard Clarke's testimony: http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8/clarke_statement.pdf

<2> Clarke, Richard, "Against All Enemies", ISBN: 0743260244

<3> Woodward, Bob, "Plan of Attack", ISBN: 074325547X

<4> Graham, Bob, and Nussbaum, Jeff, "Intelligence Matters", ISBN: 1400063523

<5> The Washington Post, June 7, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700474_2.html

<6> The U.S. Constitution Online: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

<7> The Times Online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

<8> The Times Online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822,00.html

<9> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1828205 (original link on Newsday is no longer available).

<10> The Times Online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html

<11> http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/05/06/ana05019.html

<12> http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5