Articles of Impeachment read today in US Congress

Here are the first 10 Articles of Impeachment from Kucinich's resolution of June 9 in the US House of Representatives. See link for a list of all of them:

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSin...ocumentID=93581

Article I

Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.

Article II

Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.

Article III

Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.

Article IV

Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.

Article V

Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.

Article VI

Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of H. J. Res114.

Article VII

Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

Article VIII

Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.

Article IX

Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor.

Article X

Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes.

Faustus, the Iraqi goverment does not have to be a democracy or a rogue state (good or bad) it can be a dictatorship like before etc.

The storyline goes something like this. President Bush was warned by Secretary of State Colin Powell that

The legislative should not hold responsible the executive for executive decisions but for abuse of power.

.

Aside from impeachment, a couple of things enter into the separation of powers which complicate things and open the door to impeachment or threats of impeachment.

The President administers the Executive branch of government and all it

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

Moonlapse, this is a very useful resource. Thanks!

Faustus,

In an earlier post you mention that the US cause in invading Iraq was a "noble effort." It's widely recognized that the invasion of Iraq was planned before 9/11 and that a stack of lies (smoking gun will become a mushroom cloud; that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda; yellow cake from Niger, etc.) was sold to the US populace to justify a pre-emptive strike. Then, after the invasion, with no evidence of weapons of mass destruction found, a new excuse for the occupation of the country was revealed: the democratization of the Iraq.

To get back to the Articles of Impeachment, in my opinion, the pre and post war lies of the Bush Administration alone justify the call to impeachment. Over 4,000 US troops are dead, tens of thousands US wounded, 150,000 dead Iraqi's, and four million Iraqi refugees. And no end in sight. Where's the nobility?

To boot, the government of Iraq is in the hands of religious fundamentalists. In 2007, over 130 women were murdered in Basra alone for "violations of Islamic Law." The "effort" seems more like an international tragedy, really.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/08/...omen/index.html

Faustus,

In an earlier post you mention that the US cause in invading Iraq was a "noble effort."..........

To get back to the Articles of Impeachment, in my opinion.......... http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/08/...omen/index.html

Salve L.

Your link sheds a lot of unsavory light on what happens in an unlawful section of a country Like Iraq, but supports my case as well as it does yours. All the other links, yours and mine stand on their own. I hope everyone takes a look at them and makes an informed decision; for mine go here, scroll down, and read or listen

As for the Articles of Impeachment, of course you or anyone else is entitled to their opinion; as is someone who believes that proposed impeachment to be a mistake and political. We also all know, including Mr. Kucinich, that there is not enough time for an impeachment of the president, and it will not go forward. If it did though, we would find out why the whole Congress

Salve, Amici. Only for the record:

Since 1789, 17 federal officers have been impeached in the United States (from 62 cases initiated):

Two Presidents, Andrew Johnson (for violation of the tenure in office Act, 1868) and Bill Clinton (for perjury and justice obstruction, 1998), both acquitted.

One cabinet officer (a Secretary of Marine) acquitted after his resignation.

One case was dismissed (a Senator) as he was expelled before his trial.

13 federal judges: eight were acquitted, five were removed: main charges of the latter were bribery (2), Tax evasion, Secession support, perjury, disrepute and drunkenness.

Salve, Amici. Only for the record:

 

Two Presidents, Andrew Johnson (for violation of the tenure in office Act, 1868) and Bill Clinton (for perjury and justice obstruction, 1998), both acquitted.

And for the record, Impeachment is brought by the U.S. House and the Trial to remove is by the US Senate. The Senate in Clinton's case, could not find the pesident guilty without removal or serious damage to the balance of his administration, thus he was aquitted, and not found innocent.

Clinton, though, was found guilty in a court of law, and paid a large fine, and was disbarred from the practice of law:

In a biting, 32-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright of Arkansas said Clinton gave "false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process" in Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit.

(April 13, 1999 Washington Post) "A federal judge yesterday held President Clinton in contempt of court for giving "intentionally false" testimony about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky in the Paula Jones lawsuit, marking the first time that a sitting president has been sanctioned for disobeying a court order....

In a biting, 32-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright of Arkansas said Clinton gave "false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process" in Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit. She specifically cited Clinton's assertions that he was never alone with Lewinsky and that he did not have a sexual relationship with the former White House intern.....

Wright, who personally (also had) presided over Clinton's January 1998 deposition in the Jones case, acknowledged that no court had ever taken such action against a president but said it was important to act to "protect the integrity" of the judicial process....

"Sanctions must be imposed, not only to redress the president's misconduct, but to deter others who might themselves consider emulating the president of the United States by engaging in misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system," she wrote.

Wright ordered Clinton to pay "any reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, caused by his willful failure to obey this court's discovery orders." Wright also said Clinton should repay the $1,202 she incurred in traveling to Washington at Clinton's request to oversee the deposition and said she was referring the matter to state judicial authorities in Arkansas who could disbar Clinton for violating the legal profession's rules of conduct.....Clinton settled the lawsuit for $850,000 last November, just as Congress began impeachment proceedings.

Furthermore) Wright held the president in contempt: "The court takes no pleasure whatsoever in holding this nation's president in contempt of court," Wright said. However, Wright warned the president that if he challenged any aspect of the contempt order he would not be able to avoid the "turmoil of evidentiary hearings" and that such hearings would involve "all matters concerning the president's conduct in this lawsuit which may warrant a finding of civil contempt."

It has been strangely quiet on this front for the last year, or have I missed something ?

I think that if the USA and the UK want to export 'freedom & justice' - nothing wrong with that - they should in the first place bring Bush and Blair before the court. To give them justice, it should be a serious court : not the kind of kangaroo court that condemned Saddam or the one that just failed to condemn Milosevic (because he got himself beyond the reach of justice in time), which had their minds made up about the verdict long before the proceedings opened.

That would go a long way in convincing the rest of the world that they are serious about what they claim and not just cynical bullies who invade other countries 'because they can' and because they see some real or imaginary advantages in doing so which have nothing to do with bringing freedom and justice.

To be fair to the American & British people : most of them do now condemn the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Few of them however seem of the opinion that the laws on war crimes and torture should not just apply to the losers in the war but to the victors just as well.

Out of curiosity I googled 'impeach bush' : 452 000 results.

Then I googled 'impeach obama' : 978 000 results.

impeach obama

Formosus

Now that President O has extended a gracious but perhaps naive olive branch to the Islamic world, I doub't you'll see any prosecutions of Bush. If every little thing that Bush and Cheney did was brought by a trial to the world press it would probably cause world outrage and in particular be a recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda. And so, Bush has been left to retire to his Texas ranch while history writes his condemnation. Meanwhile, Cheney doesn't seem to understand that former vice presidents are supposed to fade away. His big mouth is burying what's left of the Republican party at this point.

It has been strangely quiet on this front for the last year, or have I missed something ?

 

Out of curiosity I googled 'impeach bush' : 452 000 results.

 

Then I googled 'impeach obama' : 978 000 results.

 

impeach obama

 

 

Formosus

How curious!

If you google "impeach Eisenhower," you'll get 97 hits. Clinton gets 22,800.

Try as you might, you just can't impeach a President who's out of office.

That's the difference between Bush's hits and Obama's on that score.

Believe it or not, but 'impeach William Henry Harrison' gives 24 100 results !

Yeah, he was pretty worthless as a president, wasn't he ?

Too bad you can't impeach him anymore.

I got some different results though for Eisenhower and Clinton : 64 600 & 154 000 respectively.

F rmosus

To be fair to the American & British people : most of them do now condemn the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Few of them however seem of the opinion that the laws on war crimes and torture should not just apply to the losers in the war but to the victors just as well.

Condemnation is a bit strong. I can't speak for the UK, but in the States its still largely split along political party lines. A vocal number condemns it outright and always have, with an equal small number giving it zealous support. Somewhere in the middle are those who think it was just a bad idea overall and those who weren't overly supportive but think it has at least worked out ok. How those numbers balance out either for or against, I have no idea, but I bet that ultimately it would be a fairly even mix.