The Iraq thread 4

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

I can't beleive this debate has been on going since 2003. This seriously has to be the longest internet debate ever. Someone should call guiness.

4 years is nothing, have you any idea how long evolution debates have gone on the internet?

not to mention in real life. i mean there still arguing what killed JFK. personally i think it was the bullet.

[fardwark 0]

Funny, I thought they argued who killed him.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Funny, I thought they argued who killed him.

then maybe all these years ive been missing the point ^^

[Balschoiw 0]

On the matter of impeaching Bush and his crew:

Excerpt from legal justification of impeachment in the case of GW and his crew:

Quote[/b] ]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—

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.â€

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.

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 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.

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

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:

Video-WMP Video-QT

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.

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.â€

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. 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.

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 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 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 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."

"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. 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.

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."

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.

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 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."

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 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

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."

One of the initiatives that are already on the way:

Land of Enchantment and Impeachment

Quote[/b] ]There is a decent chance that within the next month or two the New Mexico State Legislature will ask the U.S. House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. And there is the definite possibility that a Congress Member from New Mexico will take up the matter when it gets to Washington. The Jefferson Manual, rules used by the U.S. House, allows for impeachment to be begun in this manner. It only takes one state legislature. No governor is needed. One Congress Member, from the same state or any other, is needed to essentially acknowledge receipt of the state's petition. Then impeachment begins.

Last year the state legislatures of California, Minnesota, Illinois, and Vermont introduced but did not pass resolutions to send impeachment to the U.S. House. The State Senator who introduced the bill in Minnesota is now a member of Congress, Keith Ellison. He is one of many Congress Members waiting for the right moment to impeach Bush and Cheney. The state of New Jersey has a strong activist movement working to introduce and pass impeachment this year. There's a race now to see which state can do it first, which state can redeem these United States in the eyes of the world. New Mexico is jumping into the contest in a big way, with a terrific leading sponsor of the bill, strong Democatic majorities in both houses, and a citizens' movement ready to hold its government to account.

Of course, it is cities, not states, that have really taken the lead on impeachment, as on ending the war. Dozens of cities have already passed resolutions for impeachment. Dozens more have introduced them, and they are pending. [ http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/resourcecenter ] A handful have introduced them and voted them down. On March 6th about 100 towns in Vermont will vote at public meetings for impeachment. But by March 6th, impeachment may already be underway.

There is a conflict brewing between Congress and the White House over the war and over the division of powers created by the U.S. Constitution and eliminated by this administration. If Bush attacks Iran and/or Syria without approval from Congress, or escalates the war in Iraq without approval from Congress, we may finally see Congress fight back. This President has rendered Congress almost meaningless. He reverses laws with "signing statements." He disregards laws at his whim, openly bragging about doing so. And he makes many operations secret, hidden even from Congress, refusing requests for information, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act. When this President does communicate with Congress, he often provides false or misleading information, most notably in making the case for the current war.

Vice President Cheney has already said that he will likely refuse to appear before Congress if subpoenaed. The White House will likely refuse subpoenas of any sort, and openly professes to believe the President is a "unitary executive." White House spokesperson Tony Snow said on January 8th:

"The President has the ability to exercise his own authority if he thinks Congress has voted the wrong way."

Americans voted in November for Congress to stand up to this assault on our democracy. We voted against the war, but we even voted out Republicans who were opposing the war. We threw out candidates who allowed Bush to campaign for them, and left in office those who refused.

While it is public knowledge that Bush launched the opening stages of the Iraq War in secret, without Congress's approval or awareness, illegally using funds appropriated for Afghanistan and elsewhere, it has not always been as clear as it is at this moment that Bush will not end the war even if required by Congress to do so. Growing awareness of this fact is leading the peace movement to join the impeachment movement.

Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers so many years ago, recently argued that it was only the pressure of the peace movement that allowed the impeachment of President Nixon to proceed, and that it was only the exposures and threat of impeachment that persuaded Nixon not to veto the bill that finally cut off the funding for the Vietnam War. As Congress exposes the crimes of Bush and Cheney to public view, it will move us closer to impeachment. As Congress Members begin to object to their powerless role of court jesters, they will move us closer to impeachment and also to bringing our troops home.

We should be encouraging our Congress Members to proceed immediately with key investigations [ http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/investigations ] and to not be afraid to use subpoenas. We should also be encouraging state legislators in our own and other states who take up the cause of democracy. We need them to do so from their positions as elected officials closer to the people and further from the big dollars.

In New Mexico, a leading light of that state's politics, State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino of Albuquerque, will be leading the way on impeachment. He deserves the support of all the world, and you can thank him at jortizyp@aol.com or 505-986-4380. Let's help him make New Mexico the land of enchantment and impeachment.

Edit:

Have to post that here. It shows very much how GW has lost contact with reality. Better have his medication readjusted, it looks like he´s somewhat missing reality by an inch or two...

Quote[/b] ]Bush: 'Iraq should be grateful'

10.29, Mon Jan 15 2007

US President George W Bush said Iraqi people should be grateful to the US for the 2003 invasion and the removal of Saddam Hussein.

He accepted that the conflict, which has cost tens of thousands of lives, had destabilised Iraq but insisted getting rid of Saddam was essential.

"We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude," he said.

Mr Bush announced last week he will send 21,500 more troops to Iraq to halt violence, mainly around Baghdad, as an essential step toward stabilising the country's government.

He hoped the move would lead to some unity or that the White House would at least get an extended hearing before legislative leaders made up their minds.

But it encountered majority opposition in Congress and a public that rejected the military and political ideas in opinion polls.

"I'm not going to try to be popular and change principles to do so,"said Mr Bush said when asked about his standing with the public.

And he rejected claims that his administration had misled the US public on Iraq.

"I really am not the kind of guy that sits here and says, 'Oh gosh, I'm worried about my legacy'," he said.

Bush: 'Iraq should be grateful'

Let me get it straight, the US bombed the infrastructure beyond repair, killed an unaccounted number of civillians, sacked the iraq i money to hand it over to Halliburton, Brown&Roots and other companies that have best relations to the White House, brought anarchy and terrorism to Iraq, abused prisoners, kidnapped people on the road to be taken to CIA prisons and Gitmo, has no plan how to turn this mess and now says that the Iraqui people have to be gratefull for all that.

Who´s missing the point ?

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]and there dosnt seem anyway to actually stop the dam man

There is aword going around in the US, it´s called Impeachment.

Up to now there should have been enough evidence collected to impeach him.

If he did something wrong do you really think the US congress or the US supreme court would let him stay in office? Looking at the 100H of the democratic congress i heard no mention or agenda to impeach pres Bush. He simply did nothing wrong. If you all think he when on his way and declared war on Iraq on his own know that there is a real document called the "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARYFORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002," or otherwise known as "PUBLIC LAW 107–243 (OCT. 16, 2002)." you all should read it, it will enlighten you go on, read. If you need more evedince to pile up against the alleged impeachment, look no further. just ask me.

[Balschoiw 0]

How about YOU reading first ?

There are already impeachement initiatives on the way.

You can find a part of the legal framework in my post.

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]look no further. just ask me.

Good one, you already shown expertism in so many subjects...

What´s next ? Naming Duke as your spokesman when you´re not here ?

[ralphwiggum 6]

since when was this US politics thread?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

i think it started becuase impeachment was mentioned.

US politics and Iraq are completly linked in my view, but there is another thread for non-directly iraq policies.

[Balschoiw 0]

Ralph it´s just hard to switch threads whenever 2 issues that are related to each other arise and should be separated by pure thread definition. It would be merely impossible to keep track of the debate as it would be split to 2 threads or even 3, if we take the war on terror thread into it aswell.

It´s simply hard to draw the line if the lines are forming the string.

[ralphwiggum 6]

the discussion of Bush's impeachment belongs to US politics thread. just because there is something about Iraq doesn't mean it can goto Iraq thread.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

I can't beleive this debate has been on going since 2003. This seriously has to be the longest internet debate ever. Someone should call guiness.

4 years is nothing, have you any idea how long evolution debates have gone on the internet?

That's true, but what does it solve?

We're just wasting time on a computer instead of writing politicians or protesting..... even though their uses are negligible. The whole matter will play itself out over the next few years. I don't think you'd find many people in the U.S. who still think that Dubya' is a fair, intelligent, level headed leader. (Unless Wobble is allowed to post here now.... lol) Just look at the approval ratings.

[quicksand 0]

25 US soldiers killed in one day

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military on Sunday reported six more American troops killed in fighting the day before, raising the toll to 25 in the deadliest day for U.S. forces in

Iraq in two years.

Four U.S. soldiers and a Marine were killed Saturday during combat in Anbar, the Sunni insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad, the military said. A roadside bomb also struck a security patrol northeast of Baghdad, killing one soldier.

Saturday's carnage also included 12 soldiers killed in a Blackhawk helicopter crash northeast of Baghdad, five killed in a militant attack in the holy Shiite city of Karbala and two others slain elsewhere in roadside bombings.

I was reading an interesting comentary that in Iraq a critical mass of violence has been reached that can auto-sustain itself,from where there is no going back.

I think the assesment is spot on.The Iraqi resistance is simply too determined right now for it to just break apart.

They proved they are willing to drag the Shias into a civil war for the violence to continue.After 5 years they can still wipe out a quarter of a hundread US soldiers in one day if they put their mind to it,while also keeping a steady average of 2-3 kills per day.

There is also the insurgents mindset to take into consideration.They are now battle hardened for five years and they're resolve hasn`t been shaken not by the fall of Baghdad,ellections,Zarqawis death,Fallujah siege nor by Saddam`s hanging.

All this render any kind of military strategies or political concessions useless at best.For them it`s either win it all or kill us all,with the latter being impossible to achieve.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

mirror of vietnam really.

[Baff1 0]

The Iraqi resistance is simply too determined right now for it to just break apart.

They proved they are willing to drag the Shias into a civil war for the violence to continue.

They haven't dragged the Shia's into anything.

The Shia's have a long history of starting civil wars themelves. At every opportunity in fact.

It's not the resistance that provoked them, it was the lack of centralised power. The removal of Saddam.

[Tovarish 0]

Quote[/b] ]The widow of a British soldier killed by a US warplane in a "friendly-fire" incident in Iraq has welcomed the emergence of the cockpit video.

Susan Hull said it was "vital evidence and must be shown" at the inquest into the death of Lance Corporal Matty Hull.

The Pentagon, which has agreed to release the video to the Oxfordshire coroner conducting the inquest, called the incident "quite regrettable and unfortunate".

The footage is now set to be used at the hearing. The Sun newspaper had earlier obtained a copy and then handed it over to an Oxfordshire coroner.

The 25-year-old soldier was killed near Basra in March 2003 when the airstrike hit his military convoy.

A friend Sky News Online the US must pay for what it did.

Identified only as Tom, the friend said: "They murdered a very good friend of mine and should be made to pay a price.

"I'm not surprised the Americans are trying to worm their way out of this.

"The US admit nothing because they live in their own world and don't care about anyone but themselves."

The Sun claims the two US pilots of the A-10 warplanes realised immediately what they had done and one, using the call sign POPOV36, shouted "God dammit!".

Another, POPOV35, yelled: "We're in jail, dude!"

The paper, which has released a full transcript, reported POPOV35 also said "I'm going to be sick", while POPOV36 wept as they returned to base.

The tape has not been played at the inquest yet because the Ministry of Defence has said it did not have permission from the US.

Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman has now demanded that all information about the death of the soldier be released.

Geoff Webb, the Oxford coroner's officer, had said if The Sun gave the coroner a copy of the tape, it could be used in court because it is now in the public domain.

The inquest into L/Cpl Hull's death was adjourned last week because the US government refused to release the classified evidence.

And a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence said it needs special permission before releasing the recording.

The spokeswoman added: "There has never been any intention to deliberately deceive or mislead L/Cpl of Horse Hull's family."

The soldier's widow Susan claimed she was told "categorically" by the MoD that the recording did not exist.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1250298,00.html

You can watch the video here (No killing visible, image is blurry and the camera shakes a great deal while the gun is firing).

My summary:

- Looks like the ground controller is most responsible for this one, the pilots repeatedly mention orange markers on top of the vehicles and ask if there are any friendlies in the area. They are told there are none.

- One of the pilots then states that the orange markers look like orange rockets, they apparently decide that the trucks are Katyusha style rocket launchers and attack.

- They make a couple of strafing runs before they are told by the controller that there ARE friendlies in the area, they break off the attack and ask for the condition of the friendlies. They are told one killed, one wounded.

- Both pilots become very emotional at this point and state they are returning to base.

-A few minutes after they break off the attack, two new voices come on the air, one of them British, stating that A10's are running against friendlies, and to abort.

My question - how feasible/expensive would be to implement some sort of data link/ ground to air IFF?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

hmm

the British troops on the ground insists both a british flag preceding, and smoke grenades fired following the first run, indication of a friendly fire incident.  Looks like all the evidence needs to be fully collected.  i think the pilots must take some of the blame.   just because radio operators report no friendlies in the area dose not mean no initive or common scence should be used.

also the USA refused permission for the board of enquiry to speak with the US piltots. Very dubious in my opinion.

[Tovarish 0]

also the USA refused permission for the board of enquiry to speak with the US piltots. Very dubious in my opinion.

That has been the norm for all the recent friendly fire incidents.

As for the pilots taking some of the blame, they did attack while there was reasonable doubt that the targets were friendly. After the first strafing run one says "he's hauling ass, doesn't look friendly to me. haha". However, I do understand the difficulty of visually ID'ing targets from the air, they were not certain what type of vehicles they were but they said they looked like ZIL's. I'm not sure a flag would have been easy to see or identify.

At the end of the tape one of the pilots says they are screwed because the vehicles did have orange markers.

Which again brings me to believe some sort of ground to air IFF is needed to prevent this sort of thing.

*edit* Smoke could also be used to mask yourself from aerial attack could it not? On the video the pilots also stated seeing smoke after the first run.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

I must agree with Tovarish... any OPFOR could attempt "wolf in lambskin" tactics to deceive any patrols, convincing they were friendlies... I mean, that's what ground controllers are for anyway: To know where the friendlies are and to convey that info to any enquiring friendly... I think ground-to-air IFF is a must!!!  

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

well, the pilots were reservists who had no veicle recognition training.  Therefor i blame the US government and USAAF.  The ground controller misentrepted the pilots and thought they ment targerts nearer the village apperently (according to BBC news).  anywhom not training pilots veicle recognition is a disaster waiting to happen.  its like a boss at work telling somone to use machinery hes not trained to use, and the employee cutting his own hand off with it.  They relised there mistake after a Lightning34 informed them there were friendlys in the area.

they were in Skorpion light armord tanks.  plus if you had a10's coming at you friendly or not wouldnt you haul ass?

@buzzard : you must remeber this is pre-terrorist stages of the war in iraq.  This was early invasion.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Oh... well, I corrected my post to state OPFOR then... Although I think even the iraqi army was using guerrilla-type tactics that could well encompass such use of deceit...

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

a iraqi army getting hold of british tanks??? ill believe it when i see it. no personal offence but i think your argumant is flawed.

[HotShot 0]

I think Buzzard was refering more to OpFor painting big orange chevrons on their tanks, rather than using British tanks.

And I too side more with Tovarish after seeing that video. The pilots asked the ground controller twice (I belive) if there were friendly forces in the area, and they were contemplating the orange markings for some time before they actually went for it.

Also, I saw that BBC report too, and AFAIK they were only saying National Guard units are not trained in vehicle recognition because of that defence analyst they had on half way through who just seemed to be talking educated guesses rather than informed answers, but thats just because I have not heard that said on other sites, not that I know either way. They also appeared to miss out the video where the pilots are asking the ground control people to check if there are friendlys in the area. I normally really like BBC but this time bad BBC, bad! I would of got the wrong impression of what had happened had I not seen the full video before hand, looked on BBC that it was the pilots fault.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

well one of the pilots assumes that there rockets.  even the other pilot seems sceptical on the tape.  That assumption was fatal.  And the pilots should have definatly reported the orange marking to the controller, who had the ability to make the appropraiate calls to find out if they were friendly.  For me there just seems a massive lack of confirmation either way.  The orange markings , that were noticed,  for me means the pilots MUST be 100% sure there hostile targets, which simply wasnt the case.  They attacked on pure assumption.

the Pilots were national guard units from Georgia.  ITV had a military expert comparing the training of US and British forces in veicle recognition (RAF pilots have yearly tests to guarantie combat efficieny, the USAAF does not)

:Update:

just watched 10 o clock news.  pilots were reservists from Idaho, not georgia, my mistake.

Vidio only from one of the A10's, the other ran out of tape before the incident.  If you listen to the vidio (which they showed all of) youll notice a abort run call comes when the pilot isnt engaging.  This is becuase the other pilot has continued to engage, despite the British now firing of red smoke (sign of friendly fire).  The BBC also reports that the US forward observer (in the same column as the british tanks) is reporting a completly differnet location to the tanks positions as having no friendly armor, so there appears to be some confusion between the US observer and A10's.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

a iraqi army getting hold of british tanks??? ill believe it when i see it.  no personal offence but i think your argumant is flawed.

I don't think the pilots ever mentioned tanks... they only mentioned riveted vehicles, green vehicles and what appeared to them as to be ZIL-157 trucks, so if they indeed were iraqi army vehicles trying to pose as british vehicles with orange chevrons on top, you would let them pass even if your ground controller would tell you there were no friendlies in the area, right?  

I've just watched the video again of youtube and it's got audio comments stating the A-10s were flying at 10,000 feet and then dropped to 4,000 feet to engage - which I find odd because normal A-10 flight altitude should be lower than either - and I don't know if I'd recognize any vehicles nor orange chevrons from an altitude of 10,000 feet, but alas, I'm no aviator...

Though why the iraqi army would have green-painted vehicles and orange-painted rocket launchers would intrigue me alot - wouldn't think that to be normal...

And here I thought that in the 21st century with GPS etc at least the ground controllers should know what the battlefield looks like... Wouldn't want to think what would have happened if the ground controller had ordered an MRLS strike on said "targets"...  

Edit: I wonder why the local FAC's accompanying the british units didn't get on the radio and checked in their positions and told the pilots exactly where all the friendly forces were before the A-10's made their run...

[Baff1 0]

It's better to use air support and artillery support from your own forces.

British forces should not operate in the American sectors, and vice versa.