High Crimes and misdemeanors
U.S. Constitution Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 and Article II, Section 4 discuss the grounds for impeachment for U.S. Officers as follows: "The President, Vice-President and all Civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from office for impeachment of for and conviction of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors." Abuse of power and services is considered to fit into this category.
Many of you have been following the Downing Street Memo. See my post below for more detailed information. Here is the link: http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/. Essentially, this memo finds that the U.S. had information about Iraq and its lack of WMD prior to its actual invasion.
Here is the question of the day: If Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had intelligence information about there not being WMD in Iraq, and misled this country into war, is this the type of serious offense that would fall within the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors in the above-definition? Would this, in your opinion, be grounds for impeachment of both Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney? With the Senate and House stacked with Republicans, what likelihood is there that such an impeachment would occur?
Thank you for your minds.
Many of you have been following the Downing Street Memo. See my post below for more detailed information. Here is the link: http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/. Essentially, this memo finds that the U.S. had information about Iraq and its lack of WMD prior to its actual invasion.
Here is the question of the day: If Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had intelligence information about there not being WMD in Iraq, and misled this country into war, is this the type of serious offense that would fall within the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors in the above-definition? Would this, in your opinion, be grounds for impeachment of both Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney? With the Senate and House stacked with Republicans, what likelihood is there that such an impeachment would occur?
Thank you for your minds.
51 Comments:
There is no chance that Bush will be brought up on any charges.
Even if the republicans loose the congress in 2006, if democrats even think about trying the white house will claim it is "payback for the very real crimes committed by Clinton", and that the obstructionists are just giving aid and comfort to the terrorists.
Should there be an investigsation? Probably. Should Bush be tried in the Senate if the investigation uncovers anything? Yes.
But there is a better chance of finding the mythical city of El Dorado under the ice sheet of Greenland.
I've been composing a post of my own on this very subject.
Lazy Iguana makes some really good points and he definitely may be correct, however there are a couple of things that make me think this whole thing may go further than just a bout of blogger complaining.
First, the Bush administration is losing some of it's credibility even among it's staunch supporters. The public opinion polls reflect this. Cheney's recent comments about the insurgency being in the last throes have been greeted with wry skepticism.
Second, as the Bush poll numbers get lower more and more Republicans seem to be jumping ship on some of the more extreme ideas of the administration. If the evidence of the memo pans out we may see even more people trying to distance themselves.
Perhaps these two things, a switch of power in 2006 and unrelenting attention from bloggers and (eventually) the media will result in an impeachment hearing.
I don't know, there are so many factors that go into this sort of thing. All I know is that until I know the truth I'm not going to let it go.
Should the two be held accountable for "fixing" intelligence as to persude the US Gov't to support a war in Iraq? Yes.
Will they be? Only in the hearts of Americans/Statesians. Not by our congress.
To think that Nixon resigned for crimes that didn't kill anyone and Shrub won't be.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Thou Shall Not Kill a Commandment?
I'm guessing that the fact that I just received a personalized/ personally signed photo from President Bush, and my husband just received a US Flag flown in his honor over a US Military installation in Kuwait would disqualify me from participating in any further discussions on the current administration. I'll check in on other topics...
I'm afraid the Lazy Iguana is correct, though I hope Godlessmom is...
Do any of you feel that these acts qualify under the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors?
Godless Mom, you make an excellent argument, but do you not think that in the end, even if Republicans find some impropriety, that qualifying this as an impeachable offense may be an entirely seperate issue? I am looking at how they uncover, cover, and discard.
A few questions:
1.Could someone tell what the memo means by the word "fixed"? I know what I mean as an American when I say 'fixed', whatever the context. What do the British mean when they say that? Anyone know for sure?
2.Hasn't this 'memo' been out for a year or two already? Seems like if the information contained was of Watergate proportions, there would have been numerous calls for impeachment, page one, stop the presses.
3. Why did the original reporter on this story admit that he actually destroyed the original documents and typed up copies to show to government officials? No one in the British government is denying the authenticity, it seems, but why destroy the originals so you can no longer back up the story with physical evidence?
4.Considering all the intelligence agencies from all the countries on either side of the invasion of Iraq issue agreed to the likelyhood of WMDs being in Iraq, is everyone pro and anti Iraq lying, or just Bush?
5.Don't you guys have anything else better to do? :-)
The world believed there was WMD in Iraq, that it was a center for terrorist activity throught the world and, in general, a very bad neighbor.
I know my position isn't popular, but I supported going into Iraq, and I still support our efforts there, and in Afghanistan.
Say what you will, but, there was no 'second wave' of terrorist attacks here.
Interesting post as usual.
Bush will never have to pay for any of his sins.
I seriously doubt the Bush administration will be held accountable for what's gone on in Iraq just as other leaders haven't been held accountable for what they did (or did not) do during their administrations.
Without a doubt there should be an investigation, perhaps in time we will learn to not be swayed by what's told to us and seek out the truth for ourselves.
The AP article you are referring us to is spinning the info in the memo. The Downing Street Memo is an observation by a British operative, not a statement of fact. The AP is making it a statement of fact, that it was a Bush admininistration policy to wrap their intention to topple Saddam with faulty intelligence.
This is going to turn ugly, for there is a lot of Bush hatred out there. It will be next to impossible to find the necessary particulars to support the impeachment agenda. And finding huge support for the Bush impeachment is not a validation of the movement. It only validates that the left wing inflammatory rhetoric pursuades, the truth will sadly be left out.
Don't fall for the passion of the movement. Look for facts; I mean real ones, and look inside yourselves. If you hate the man so much, you will swallow anything you think looks like a fact.
Underground,
You talk about the AP spinning the information referredt to here. Where do you get your facts on that point, I am curious? I am wondering if this is a spin by the current administration, just as saying that we might be confused rather than efforts made by them to cover up anything? If you have more specific facts, I invite you to share them here.
Thank you for your comments.
b.s.
shame on you barbara enough of this baloney.
i guess genocide does not matter to liberals but it does to me. Don't ever say NEVER AGAIN because you don't mean it. Saddams mass murder of the kurds is enough of a reason for this jew to support this war.
GENOCIDE IS EVIL
HAVE YOU NOTICED BUT IT IS AL QUADA IN IRAQ THAT IS DOING THE TERRORISM YOU LIBERALS SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN SEPT 11 IF I AM NOT MISTEAKEN IT WAS AL QUADA THEN TOO BUT YOUR HATE FOR BUSH MEANS MORE TO YOU THAN ALL OF THAT GOOD BYE YOU WILL NOT SEE ME ON YOUR BLOG AGAIN
I must be a pessimist; I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that Bush will ever suffer any consequences.
Also, WHIT, if you come back, no, I don't think that being a Bush supporter disqualifies you from the discussion. I am sure Barbara wouldn't think so either. Based on your responses to the post over the weekend, you have a lot of intelligent and interesting things to say. I, for one, am interersted in your point of view.
Absolutely I agree with Meegen, Whit!
We can agree to disagree, and feeling one way on a subject is not grounds for failing to post.
The only requirement is to be kind to one another, no-mean spiritness, which I have not ever seen in your well thought out, intelligent posts.
If you want to impeach Bush, you should throw out the congress, the senate, and sue the UN... They ALL said Saddam DEFINITELY HAD WMD'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...or is this fact simply overlooked by anti-bush sentiments?
The questions I ask here are rather specific. First of all it is whether the representation that Iraq had WMD, which has turned out to be an untrue claim, backed by Colin Powell, whether this false representation would qualify under the definition of High Crimes and Misdemeanors? Next, assuming it does, or does not, depending upon your definition and argument, do you believe that these would be impeachable offenses?
I know emotions run high when the impeachment word is used, and I was very interested in the answer to this question. Many have an opinion, one way or another, on the result, i.e. whether Mr. Bush or Cheney should or should not be impeached.
Thank you for your minds.
Just because it's not likely doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we can. It wasn't likely that women or blacks would get the vote, but it happened.
Thanks for your kind words. My tip-toeing out of this conversation was just meant to point out that this is one of those topics where I do get emotional...I know that I am not objective, and I know that I don't have all the facts...nor will I ever have all the facts. When I start out on a fact-finding mission, I get dizzy just trying to decipher it for myself, and there is no way where I will jump in with my opinion on something so huge and so charged when I am still taking it all in. There are so many "absolute assertions" posted here, and I do find it ironic that assumptions and conclusions are being spewn forth as absolute, immutable fact, when there is a lot of credible and noteworthy points for both sides.
Anyway, that is my non-response. But I do have an opinion...and that is all it is, an opinion. And I've learned to think twice about jumping in a pissing match because it just winds up with everyone getting pee'd on! (or pee'd off, as the case may be)
I'm puzzled. Didn't you have a link to the AP story? Well, anyway, your link to the Downing Street Memo will suffice.
"Recounting a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair's national security team, the memo says the Bush administration believed that war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam."
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
This was the crux of my statement. Matthew Rycroft is making commentary about his meeting in Washington. This is not a statement of policy from the Bush administration. It is his comment. I say big deal.
The solution to this entire event of mass hysteria begins with identifying who has the burden of proof. Any allegation can be made about anyone; the bureden of proof rests on those who bring the charge. When they with such bravado, demand that Pres. Bush answer charges, it's because they don't have anything but allegations! This is so reminiscent of the Clarence Thomas crucifixion, where Anita Hill made the assertion that C. Thomas put a pubic hair on her can of coke. Joe Biden demanded that Clarence Thomas disprove this allegation. Justice Thomas said, "How can I disprove that which never happened?" Something Sen. Biden knew full well, being a lawyer himself.
So, make all the allegations you want, call it a troubled Presidency, call him a liar, emote all that you can, the burden of proof still rests on you.
I would say that misleading the country on going to war, if that in fact happened, is neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor.
I think there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes that we may or may not know about. For example, when Clinton bombed the medical drug facility in the Sudan, was it really just Wag The Dog, or was there something there that they idn't mention to the regulkar Americans.
Don't forget the Senate Arms Committee had all the same information as the President. Most of the Democrats agreed to go to invade Iraq as well. You can't assume that they were taking the President's words at face value.
In any case, Iraq was a rogue nation. You can look at their recent history and see the glaring need for change. It could be that the reason why they publicized they were going to war was to get public opinion on their side, while there was a real reason, and there will definitely be a real benefit to the US if Iraq turns into a "good neighbor"
guitanguran - The idea that British people mean something different by "fix" than we Americans do was an early and lame attempt by the right to diffuse this story. My husband is British, and we have two guests from Britain staying with us, and all three of them said that idea was "bollocks."
rockofgalilee said: "I would say that misleading the country on going to war, if that in fact happened, is neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor."
WOW. So the President of the United States of America willfully lying to Congress and the American people is OK?
Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.
yochanan, I'm sorry to inform you that your logic is severely flawed, and apparently you have swallowed a lot of bull and accepted it as truth.
Jeez louise, where do I start?
No one has forgotten 9/11. If the Bush Administration were really concerned about destroying al Qaeda and finding bin Laden, they would not have diverted so much of our resources (money, troops, etc) away from Afghanistan and into Iraq.
If you think we went to Iraq to save people, you are sorely mistaken. We went based on a lie that there were WMDs. When none were found, Bush attempted to rewrite history and claim that we were there to save the Iraqi people. Bull. If that were true, why didn't he say that in the first place? And why were we saving Iraqis? Why weren't we liberating N. Koreans, the Chinese, or all of those people dying in the Sudan???
And what are you talking about, al Qaeda is committing all the terrorist acts in Iraq? That is simply not true. These are Iraqi insurgents - for ex, Hussein supporters - who are pissed off that we invaded their country.
Please, please, please educate yourself on this topic. Your ire is aimed at the wrong people.
bill, the whole world did NOT believe there were still WMDs in Iraq. That is patently false.
bohica, Congress believed it because the Bush Administration TOLD them that.
underground logitian,
You seem to want feel that the actual memo says something other than represented here by the AP. For your identification, here it is:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
as reprinted by the NY Times.
Would you like to respond? Do these points make a viable difference to you?
bohica, Congress believed it because the Bush Administration TOLD them that.
WRONG!
the information that saddam had wmd's goes back WELL before the Bush administration.
The bush administration had ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on the UN's information that saddam had wmd's
Ask the Kurds if Saddam had WMD's...
Bush CANNOT be blamed for this, no matter how much anyone wants it to be.
Craig,
Do you honestly believe that with so many Iraq people dying each and every day by suicide bomb or other means that they feel liberated?
If anything, this President is trying to close the gap on the seperation between church and state. Look at his initiatives about faith based programs, prayer in school, and his desire to make a constitutional amendment regarding the defintion of marriage. In my read, this is far from separation but blending.
Your Bush hatred matters more than genocide directed against the kurds, saddam's payment to murder jews and other crimes.
I the left had its way Saddam would still be putting Kurdish people in mass graves (so far they have found 300,000+ men, women, children and even little babies) and Saddam would still be paying Hamas 25,000$ to murder jews in Israel I think this is the real reason the radical left supported Saddam could be his human rights record could it be.
Only a fool or one who is totally ignorant of what Joe Stalins golag, Hitler death camps, Pol Pots killing fields or for that matter Saddam's Mass graves would compare these death camps to Getmo were not one terrorist has died.
The terrorist in Getmo are not boy scouts some that have been released have gone on and murdered others after there release.
yochannan,
I know this is you posting anonymously, based upon the nature of your comments and the style of your writing. Please try to refrain yourself from hurling insulting remarks at people.
This post is not about the Kurdish people, or Sadam, etc., but deals specifically with the defintion of high crimes and misdemeanors. I would appreciate your staying on point please and trying to be respectful when you post on my blog. Thank you.
Absolutely, Craig. No one should be insulted, demeaned, nor berated, for anything, especially relgion.
Thank you for bring this to my attention.
We can all agree to disagree in a civl, calm way.
Bohica, my dear, I am not wrong. The UN had weapons inspectors in place in Iraq. The Bush Administration got Congress to agree to attack Iraq by telling them that Iraq still had WMDs that they were hiding from the UN. This information was false, and by no means did the the rest of the world buy into it.
craig and "anonymous": You have swallowed Bush's attempt to rewrite history to say that the reason we are in Iraq was to free the Iraqi people from tyranny. It's a ridiculous notion that insults the intelligence of the American people - Do they think we forgot about his false claims of WMDs that quickly?
As I wrote to yochanan: If you think we went to Iraq to save people, you are sorely mistaken. We went based on a lie that there were WMDs. When none were found, Bush attempted to rewrite history and claim that we were there to save the Iraqi people. Bull. If that were true, why didn't he say that in the first place? And why were we saving Iraqis? Why weren't we liberating N. Koreans, the Chinese, or all of those people dying in the Sudan???
Craig says, "To say President Bush should be impeached is based on either hatred or a memo that will turn out to be not exactly accurate is simply a case of sour grapes."
So how exactly is the memo "not exactly accurate?" Where is your evidence for that? And sour grapes? Extremely lame attempt to diffuse the issue. As a citizen of America, and indeed the world, I want to hold our leaders accountable when 1700+ of our young men and women - and thousands of innocent Iraqis - have died. War profiteering is a sick, sick thing, and if our leaders are guilty of it, they must be punished.
Scott: You are aware, I assume, that the Downing St memo does not stand alone? There are seven other memos that go along with it.
Take a look at these articles:
NBC verfies memos:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731
Material was confirmed as authentic by British sources:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000955273
There is "no despute" about the authenticity:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/02/DI2005060201359.html
British officials don't dispute authenticity:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/
British Foreign Office doesn't dispute memos:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/politics/13downing.html?
So as much as you right-wingers are trying to brush these off as falsified, you're just not doing so well.
To say that I hate Bush, does not really address the issue faced.
Actually, what I dislike is what has happened and is happening to this country. Billions of dollars have been spent on a war, that in my opiinon, we had real business fighting. What does it have to do with us? If it is terrorism that the Bush administration wants, why did it abandon ship in Afganastian? Combine that with all innocent lives of Americans that have been lost, and Iraquis as well, and it is a staggering loss that we have undertaken. In the name of what? "Freedom for the rest of the world?" We have no busineness being there, in my opinion. Why not help China, N. Korea or other countries if this is the true motive? One word: Oil.
And to compound matters, gas prices are sky rocketed here, unenployment is at a high. It makes me ill. But as my husband said, we elected this President and this Congress so we must live with it. But at a huge price and loss, in my opinion, one which this country should not have to bear.
Erinberry: Thank you for your citations and elegant, empassioned voice.
ONE MORE POINT, PLEASE:
To all of you who assume question the truth of this Downing Street Memo, and are spining it for form and content, let me ask you a question. Assume that the facts contained therein turn out to be true, that is to say, that Mr. Bush did in fact know that Iraq did not possess WMD, but went in and attacked anyway. Do you think the President mislead the country? Do you think he was being honest? Would you still defend him??
I want to see how far you will take this thing.
erinberry
do you mean the inspectors who were thrown out of the country? hte bush administration was not the first to say they had wmd's and they were not the the only ones, you're having a hard time understanding that?
...suicide bombers are iraqis killing iraqis, our fault?
... i couldn't care less where they got the wmd's from... i don't fault a gun shop owner for the murdered who used the gun..
...investigations are showing france and germany were large suppliers to iraq...
the left hates the president do you want photo's of the president being called a Nazi I could find them for you. (but then this is not new on the left besides President Bush the left has called 3 other American presidents nazis)
same old same old
Getmo is not Dachou, or stalin's gulag not one of the terrorist has died there. Dick Derbin to be looks rather foolish as i know what DACHAU was sadly gitmo it wasn't. Where this propaganda is coming from it really does not matter what we do the haters of America will always say we are wrong. Remember those who hate America call Israel a nazi settler state. I would not want to be there bed fellows.
Do I expect anything else from the left no. In fact I am surprised no one hasn't tried to kill him yet. Remember it was President Clinton that put his singnature on the reqiume change in Iraq bill.
the group behind the terrorism in IRAQ is called AL QUADA IN IRAQ.
AL QUADA IS THE SAME GROUP THAT ATTACKED US ON SEPT 11. BETTER TO FIGHT THEM IN ANBAR PROVANCE IN IRAQ THAN TO FIGHT THEM HERE.
yochanan: With all due respect, the lack of punctutation makes it very difficult to make any sense of your posts.
What do you mean you have photos of someone calling somebody Bush a Nazi?
Secondly, the right has made a tremendous effort to spin Sen. Durbin's comments. The truth of the matter is, he has demonstrated patriotism by calling out the monstrosities that run counter to American values.
What he said was the following:
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime _ Pol Pot or others _ that had no concern for human beings."
What part of that do you disagree with? Do you think it's ok for prisoners - WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF NOTHING - to be tortured? To be chained up by their hands and feet for days at a time, having to urinate and defacate on themselves? Do you have such low expectations of the United States that you view this as appropriate or acceptable? I don't. We are supposed to be a good example.
bohica, you're making some leaps in logic that are not warranted. Who is saying that Iraq never had WMDs? No one here. We all know they had them at one point, and that's why weapons inspectors had been in the country for so many years - to ensure they had all been eliminated. In 2002, the Bush Administration made the decision to attack Iraq, fully knowing that there were no WMDs left, and that Iraq was not capable of attacking the US.
Craig: Obviously, if these memos were falsified, then we don't have evidence. But as you can see by the links I provided above, they have been verified.
What do you propose we do by giving the memo "a little time"? If we had sat back and done nothing, the main-stream media would never have covered it. They only began real coverage after pressure built up from the blogs, and people started to ask in great volumes why the MSM was not showing up in the standard media. The American people deserve the truth.
And you're absolutely right - Bush heavily pushed the false notion that a strong relationship existed between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. It was very important that they craete a link between 9/11 and Iraq in the American people's minds. And despite the fact that it is a false link, many people still believe in it. Case in point: Look at yochanan's post. The ignorance is being perpetuated even today.
DACKOU, JOE STALIN GOLUG, POL POTS KILLING FIELDS, SADDAMS MASS GRAVES MILLIONS OF CIVILIANS BUTCHERED (INCLUDING 95% OF MY WIFES FAMILY)
Terrorist captured on the battlefield keep in GETMO none have been killed.
But I guess they are the same.
Am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing something. There HAVE been deaths in US captivity, along with rapes and torture.
One example: The NY Times reported in May that two Afghan prisoners were tortured to death.
Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.
He "He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days". The guards squirted water at him as he gagged.
Then:
"At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.
"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.
Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead."
The United States is supposed to be better than that. If you can defend that kind of behavior, then I don't know what to say to you.
doug had me following him until he turned mean and started in on the name calling and taunting. it's that blind hatred that negates the message of the left. you lose any meaningful points you may have because all anyone can see is your rage, and any logic or rational argument can't surface above it.
Anonymous, that's nothing more than a convenient way for you to dismiss our arguments without actually rebutting them.
uh, actually i was trying to say that you're actually making some good points, and you would get even more mileage if you could leave the acerbic tone to the wayside. perhaps if you actually read what i said insted of just assuming i was patently disagreeing with you, you would have realized that. geesh...
Why is it assumed that any discourse, question or dissatisfaction one may have with this administration and the direction the country goes, deserves the conlusionry label of 'thinking of the left?' As far as I know, most Americans, regardless of labels or political affiliations, dislike being misled.
Please tell me if I am incorrect.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home