Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
With prominent Republican Senators speaking out against a scandal-plagued White House, talk of impeachment has moved from the margins to the mainstream. That may seem politically far-fetched, but in fact, there is a strong case to be made.
The latest Bush administration scandal—the firing of eight U.S. attorneys under highly questionable circumstances—has Washington abuzz with talk of a new Watergate. The question on everyone’s mind is: Could this be the president’s Saturday night massacre—the obstruction of justice that triggers impeachment?
Unless there is a sea change in Congress, talk of impeachment is largely a hypothetical exercise. That does not mean there’s no legal case against the president. If a California prosecutor were fired to end an investigation of a Republican congressman, that might be a crime. If the others were fired for failing to prosecute Democrats without evidence, that would be a gross abuse of power. If President George W. Bush played any role, impeachment is a legal possibility.
We need not wait for the outcome of investigations of this scandal, however, to conclude that President Bush has so abused the powers of his office that he could be impeached and removed from office. There are already other substantial grounds.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution knew that despite powerful checks, presidents might still abuse their powers and damage the country’s democracy, so they created impeachment as the ultimate safeguard. Constitutional grounds for impeachment are “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” During Nixon’s impeachment, the House Judiciary Committee determined that abuses did not have to violate the criminal code to meet this test. They simply needed to be, as the framers said in constitutional debates, “great and dangerous offenses that subvert the Constitution.” Several of the president’s actions already qualify.
The strongest legal argument for impeachment—because it is based on the Watergate precedent—arises out of the fact that President Bush refused for years to seek court approval required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for a special wiretapping program in the United States. After revelations that President Nixon illegally wiretapped journalists and White House staffers, Congress enacted FISA to prevent future such abuses, making them a federal crime. Illegal wiretapping was one of the grounds for articles of impeachment against Nixon.
But 30 years later, President Bush asserted that FISA hampered intelligence gathering in the war on terror, so as commander in chief he could ignore it. Actually, the FISA court overwhelmingly grants presidential requests (19,000 approvals since 1978 versus 5 rejections) and can grant approvals after wiretaps commence. But if President Bush still thought FISA too burdensome, he should have asked Congress to amend it. Since he didn’t, he must obey it. After the 2006 elections, he reversed himself, announcing he would comply with FISA, but what about all the years he flouted it?
The Constitution plainly states the president shall “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The president must obey and uphold the law, not take it into his own hands. Case law on this is clear. When during the Korean War President Truman wanted to seize U.S. steel mills to keep them running despite a strike, the Supreme Court said no, noting in its decision that the president was commander in chief of the Army and Navy, not the country.
But the truth is, impeaching a president is not just about checking off legal boxes. There must be solid evidence of wrongdoing, but impeachment is an inherently political act. The legal case must resonate with the public, not just lawyers.
That’s why the strongest political ground for impeachment isn’t Bush’s illegal wiretapping program, but the fact that the country was driven into war in Iraq—which most Americans now view as a disastrous mistake—under false pretenses. The framers deliberately gave Congress war-making powers because the momentous decision to go to war should be reached only after the fullest consideration. They believed Congress would curb the historical tendency of executives to make war needlessly. If a president lies or deceives Congress about going to war, he negates its critical constitutional role.
President Bush and his team falsely implied that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were in cahoots, reiterating this suggestion so often that by the time of the invasion, most Americans thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and U.S. soldiers saw their deployment in Baghdad as “payback.” Yet shortly after 9/11 occurred, former White House counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke told the president that Saddam had nothing to do with it. President Bush undoubtedly also knew that U.S. intelligence agencies gave little credence to the possibility that Saddam Hussein would provide weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda.
Moreover, the president either lied or was aware that something was seriously wrong when he told Congress in his 2003 State of the Union address that the British government discovered that Saddam tried to buy uranium in Africa, supposedly proof that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons capacity. But U.S. intelligence knew that claim was bogus at the time, and months after the invasion, the president acknowledged this.
If the president had been briefed on U.S. intelligence before his address, then he deliberately deceived Congress and the United States about the war, “a great and dangerous offense that subverts the Constitution.” In the unlikely event he was not briefed, he still took us to war based on British intelligence, without consulting U.S. intelligence, violating his responsibility to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed.” A full investigation would determine to what extent he and Vice President Dick Cheney deliberately deceived Congress and Americans about the war.
Facilitating mistreatment of detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and U.S. statutes (including the War Crimes Act of 1996) is another ground for impeachment. President Bush’s directive effectively removed these protections from al Qaeda and Taliban detainees. After abuses at Abu Ghraib became public, President Bush failed to conduct thorough investigations or to ensure those responsible, including higher-ups, were brought to justice, further violating the Geneva Conventions and his constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the law.
Other potential grounds for impeachment exist, but in my judgment the pattern of this president’s failure to uphold the law and his subversion of the Constitution is sufficiently clear. The question now is, what to do about it?
Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, a member of the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment hearings, is coauthor with Cynthia L. Cooper of The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens. She currently practices law in New York City.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Democratic Committee requests deposition from Secretary of State over Niger forgeries and Iraq John Byrne
Published: Friday March 30, 2007
The House Government Committee today formally requested Secretary Rice to testify before the Oversight Committee on Apr. 18th regarding the Bush administration's claims that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, White House treatment of classified information, the appointment of Ambassador Jones as "special coordinator" for Iraq, and other subjects.
Claims that Iraq were seeking uranium from Niger were based on documents that were later proved to be forgeries, and caused ire among Democrats and others who felt the Administration had provided false information to Congress about Iraq in the lead-up to war.
The following letter, sent to the Secretary of State Friday, was acquired by RAW STORY.
Interesting 40, so if the congressional oversight committees feel that they may have been lied to then they shouldn't ask for an explanation ?
Again, it sounds like they are doing their constitutional duty. That it may be painful for the GOP and conservatives in general and the BUsh administration specifically is just too bad.
All politics aside. I supported GW when the invaded Iraq, since then I have come to believe I was lied to. There are few things more important to me than finding out for sure. If we [you, me, congress, the world] were lied to, then there is a heavy price to pay.
What you have never understood about me is that my distrust of Bush and disgust at his policies are not because he is a republican, or frankly even because he is a religious conservative. It all goes back to being lied to about the Iraq war, I firmly believe he lied to us to get support. Since then I can believe nothing he says
I supported GW when the invaded Iraq, since then I have come to believe I was lied to.
Wow. You stuck around longer than I did. I was behind Afghanistan 150% and I still say that it was the right move and we should be focused there. I never bought ANY of the Iraq crap. I fell off board the minute Iraq became a topic of discussion....
Interesting 40, so if the congressional oversight committees feel that they may have been lied to then they shouldn't ask for an explanation ?
Again, it sounds like they are doing their constitutional duty. That it may be painful for the GOP and conservatives in general and the BUsh administration specifically is just too bad.
All politics aside. I supported GW when the invaded Iraq, since then I have come to believe I was lied to. There are few things more important to me than finding out for sure. If we [you, me, congress, the world] were lied to, then there is a heavy price to pay.
What you have never understood about me is that my distrust of Bush and disgust at his policies are not because he is a republican, or frankly even because he is a religious conservative. It all goes back to being lied to about the Iraq war, I firmly believe he lied to us to get support. Since then I can believe nothing he says
nidan, if it was something important that this country needs, have at it. I just can't stomach politicians (on either side) doing things simply for political points.
nidan, if it was something important that this country needs, have at it. I just can't stomach politicians (on either side) doing things simply for political points.
Is it really just a political point 40?
I don't think it is, that's why Independents deserted the guy in droves, I don't hate Republicans any more than I hate Dems.
I do hate liars and crooks, the dude's administration may have lied to us in a rather systematic way, I don't care if they all do it... then they all need to be in jail.
I was for impeaching Clinton, hated the guy, since then I think I was too hard on him but my point then and now is that what he did .... "I don't care if Dems get mad about this one bit, because IMO it's the truth" is lower the bar of what you can get away with.
He showed everyone that if you're willing to stick to your guns and dig in, no one has the guts to really do much to you, they might try but the country is so split your own side won't desert you and it's a stalemate.
This is extremely dangerous IMO, we need to periodically band together and hit these bums over the head when they screw up, it's our job and failing to do it just means that the next batch will get bolder.
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
This is extremely dangerous IMO, we need to periodically band together and hit these bums over the head when they screw up, it's our job and failing to do it just means that the next batch will get bolder.
Didn't Ben Franklin say that this country needs a Revolution every 20 years, or something like that?
40 a lot of people really mean this 40 and it isn't all about making political points. It's gotten so bad that this desire to hear the truth have infected part's of congress.
I really, really want to know if we were taken into Iraq on trumped up evidence. Personally I believe that to be true as does most of the world. Were this to be proven to be true then impeachment is not sufficient punishment for mass murder. Often our judicial system makes examples of criminals to prevent others trying the same thing, this could be such a case.
Wow. You stuck around longer than I did. I was behind Afghanistan 150% and I still say that it was the right move and we should be focused there. I never bought ANY of the Iraq crap. I fell off board the minute Iraq became a topic of discussion....
April 1, 2007
Ex-Aide Details a Loss of Faith in the President
By JIM RUTENBERG
AUSTIN, Tex., March 29 — In 1999, Matthew Dowd became a symbol of George W. Bush’s early success at positioning himself as a Republican with Democratic appeal.
A top strategist for the Texas Democrats who was disappointed by the Bill Clinton years, Mr. Dowd was impressed by the pledge of Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, to bring a spirit of cooperation to Washington. He switched parties, joined Mr. Bush’s political brain trust and dedicated the next six years to getting him to the Oval Office and keeping him there. In 2004, he was appointed the president’s chief campaign strategist.
Looking back, Mr. Dowd now says his faith in Mr. Bush was misplaced.
In a wide-ranging interview here, Mr. Dowd called for a withdrawal from Iraq and expressed his disappointment in Mr. Bush’s leadership.
He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.
“I really like him, which is probably why I’m so disappointed in things,” he said. He added, “I think he’s become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in.”
In speaking out, Mr. Dowd became the first member of Mr. Bush’s inner circle to break so publicly with him.
He said his decision to step forward had not come easily. But, he said, his disappointment in Mr. Bush’s presidency is so great that he feels a sense of duty to go public given his role in helping Mr. Bush gain and keep power.
Mr. Dowd, a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime, said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled “Kerry Was Right,” arguing that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.
“I’m a big believer that in part what we’re called to do — to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have,” Mr. Dowd said. “Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.”
Mr. Dowd’s journey from true believer to critic in some ways tracks the public arc of Mr. Bush’s political fortunes. But it is also an intensely personal story of a political operative who at times, by his account, suppressed his doubts about his professional role but then confronted them as he dealt with loss and sorrow in his own life.
In the last several years, as he has gradually broken his ties with the Bush camp, one of Mr. Dowd’s premature twin daughters died, he was divorced, and he watched his oldest son prepare for deployment to Iraq as an Army intelligence specialist fluent in Arabic. Mr. Dowd said he had become so disillusioned with the war that he had considered joining street demonstrations against it, but that his continued personal affection for the president had kept him from joining protests whose anti-Bush fervor is so central.
Mr. Dowd, 45, said he hoped in part that by coming forward he would be able to get a message through to a presidential inner sanctum that he views as increasingly isolated. But, he said, he holds out no great hope. He acknowledges that he has not had a conversation with the president.
Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor, said Mr. Dowd’s criticism is reflective of the national debate over the war.
“It’s an issue that divides people,” Mr. Bartlett said. “Even people that supported the president aren’t immune from having their own feelings and emotions.”
He said he disagreed with Mr. Dowd’s description of the president as isolated and with his position on withdrawal. But he said he was not surprised. Mr. Dowd has relayed the same sentiments to Mr. Bartlett in private conversations; they are friends.
During the interview with Mr. Dowd on a slightly overcast afternoon in downtown Austin, he was a far quieter man than the cigar chomping general that he was during Mr. Bush’s 2004 campaign.
Soft spoken and somewhat melancholy, he wore jeans, a T-shirt and sandals in an office devoid of Bush memorabilia save for a campaign coffee mug and a photograph of the first couple with his oldest son, Daniel. The photograph was taken one week before the 2004 election, and one day before Daniel was to go to boot camp.
Over Mexican food at a restaurant that was only feet from the 2000 campaign headquarters, and later at his office just up the street, Mr. Dowd recounted his political and personal journey. “It’s amazing,” he said. “In five years, I’ve only traveled 300 feet, but it feels like I’ve gone around the world, where my head is.”
Mr. Dowd said he decided to become a Republican in 1999 and joined Mr. Bush after watching him work closely with Bob Bullock, the Democratic lieutenant governor of Texas, who was a political client of Mr. Dowd and a mentor to Mr. Bush.
“It’s almost like you fall in love,” he said. “I was frustrated about Washington, the inability for people to get stuff done and bridge divides. And this guy’s personality — he cared about education and taking a different stand on immigration.”
Mr. Dowd established himself as an expert at interpreting polls, giving Karl Rove, the president’s closest political adviser, and the rest of the Bush team guidance as they set out to woo voters, slash opponents and exploit divisions between Democratic-leaning states and Republican-leaning ones.
In television interviews in 2004, Mr. Dowd said that Mr. Kerry’s campaign was proposing “a weak defense,” and that the voters “trust this president more than they trust Senator Kerry on Iraq.”
But he was starting to have his own doubts by then, he said.
He said he thought Mr. Bush handled the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks well but “missed a real opportunity to call the country to a shared sense of sacrifice.”
He was dumbfounded when Mr. Bush did not fire Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld after revelations that American soldiers had tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Several associates said Mr. Dowd chafed under Mr. Rove’s leadership. Mr. Dowd said he had not spoken to Mr. Rove in months but would not discuss their relationship in detail.
Mr. Dowd said, in retrospect, he was in denial.
“When you fall in love like that,” he said, “and then you notice some things that don’t exactly go the way you thought, what do you do? Like in a relationship, you say ‘No no, no, it’ll be different.’ ”
He said he clung to the hope that Mr. Bush would get back to his Texas style of governing if he won. But he saw no change after the 2004 victory.
He describes the administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina, and the president’s refusal in the summer of 2005 to meet with the war protester Cindy Sheehan, whose son died fighting in Iraq, around the same time that Mr. Bush entertained the bicyclist Lance Armstrong at his Crawford ranch as further cause for doubt.
“I had finally come to the conclusion that maybe all these things along do add up,” he said. “That it’s not the same, it’s not the person I thought.”
He said that during his work on the 2006 re-election campaign of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, which had a bipartisan appeal, he began to rethink his approach to elections.
“I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people,” he said, “but bring the country together as a whole.”
He said that he still believed campaigns must do what it takes to win, but that he was never comfortable with the most hard-charging tactics. He is now calling for “gentleness” in politics. He said that while he tried to keep his own conduct respectful during political combat, he wanted to “do my part in fixing fissures that I may have been part of.”
His views against the war began to harden last spring when, in a personal exercise, he wrote a draft opinion article and found himself agreeing with Mr. Kerry’s call for withdrawal from Iraq. He acknowledged that the expected deployment of his son Daniel was an important factor.
He said the president’s announcement last fall that he was re-nominating the former United Nations ambassador John R. Bolton, whose confirmation Democrats had already refused, was further proof to him that Mr. Bush was not seeking consensus with Democrats.
He said he came to believe Mr. Bush’s views were hardening, with the reinforcement of his inner circle. But, he said, the person “who is ultimately responsible is the president.” And he gradually ventured out with criticism, going so far as declaring last month in a short essay in Texas Monthly magazine that Mr. Bush was losing “his gut-level bond with the American people,” and breaking more fully in this week’s interview.
“If the American public says they’re done with something, our leaders have to understand what they want,” Mr. Dowd said. “They’re saying ‘Get out of Iraq.’ ”
Mr. Dowd’s friends from Mr. Bush’s orbit said they understood his need to speak out. “Everyone is going to reflect on the good and the bad, and everything in between, in their own way,” said Nicolle Wallace, communications director of Mr. Bush’s 2004 campaign, a post she also held at the White House until last summer. “And I certainly respect the way he’s doing it — these are his true thoughts from a deeply personal place.” Ms. Wallace said she continued to have “enormous gratitude” for her years with Mr. Bush.
Mr. Bartlett, the White House counselor, said he understood, too, though he said he strongly disagreed with Mr. Dowd’s assessment. “Do we know our critics will try to use this to their advantage? Yes,” he said. “Is that perfect? No. But you can respectfully disagree with someone who has been supportive of you.”
Mr. Dowd does not seem prepared to put his views to work in 2008. The only candidate who appeals to him, he said, is Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, because of what Mr. Dowd called his message of unity. But, he said, “I wouldn’t be surprised if I wasn’t walking around in Africa or South America doing something that was like mission work.”
He added, “I do feel a calling of trying to re-establish a level of gentleness in the world.”
Fearn to Rep. Elllison
Submitted by danielifearn on Sun, 2007-04-22 22:36. IFPJ
This is the sharply critical letter mentioned in the previous post "Impeachment should be on the table": Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN).
-----------
20 April 2007
Rep. Keith Ellison
2100 Plymouth Ave. N.
Minneapolis, MN 55411
Mr. Ellison:
"The reason we are here is because we don't want to be good Germans, and we don't want you to be good Germans either," said Fletcher Dean of Calais, to wild applause from the packed room. The exchange drew enough bystanders, including legislators and media, to render the scheduled press conference unnecessary.” - April 17, 2007; Montpelier, VT; by Mary Elizabeth Fratini, Vermont Guardian.
I refuse to be a Good German. I don't want you to be a Good German either. I believe impeachment is the quickest and surest way of ending Unitary Executive Bush's state of perpetual war and bring our troops home. I believe it will go far to rectify the havoc the Bush administration has wrecked on this country and the world. The proofs of Bush's crimes are obvious and abundant. To doubt the self-evidence of theses truths is bootless. People are dying right now because of Bush's actions.
People are dying because of others' inaction. You do know that don't you? Do you want to be made responsible for this carnage by your inaction? Whatever your motives, you will be responsible. After the fact, before the fact, perpetrator, accessory; what does it matter? Your inaction will condemn you.
Representatives of Impeach for Peace, a group that I belong to and work hard for, will meet with you. I will tell you a truth you may not hear. They are meeting with you because you have failed to represent us. As a candidate you supported both peace and impeachment. Once elected you choose not to pursue the goals mandated by your constituents. And, you have yet to provide an adequate reason.
But your reasoning hardly matters. It is my reasoning that does. The reasons of one who spent nine years thanklessly serving the Constitution. Serving at a time, just after Vietnam, when native born Americans wouldn’t serve. Here are some of my reasons. They are quotes from Mahatma Gandhi.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody will see it.
Agitation against every form of injustice is the breath of political life.
To think in terms of the political goal in every matter and at every step is to raise unnecessary dust.
I have sacrificed no principle to gain a political advantage.
The time for expedience is past, Mr. Ellison. There is no time for prevarication or uncertainly. The stakes are too high. Whatever good you hope to achieve by means other than impeachment will never be realized. George Bush will veto any objectionable legislation. And, in this case that means any reasonable legislation aimed to provide for the common good. But, even if doesn't kill your dream with a veto he; will pervert it with a signing statement. This slow process will continue until there is no hope left.
Therefore, George Bush and Dick Cheney must be impeached while impeachment is still constitutional. They must be impeached because they are the figurehead and brain of an enterprise that is antithetical to democracy, freedom and humanity.
I took an oath when I joined the military. You took a similar oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States when you assumed office. It’s been over thirty years since I took that oath. I haven’t forgotten it, nor have I forsworn myself. What about you?
As a member of Impeach for Peace, as a constituent, as a voter who put you in this office and as a simple fellow human being; I demand that you fulfill your oath to the utmost of your ability.
Semper pacificus,
Daniel I. Fearn
Former Sergeant of Marine Infantry
Hey, I'm German. What kind of slam is this guy making about my ancestors? Is he saying we are followers with no original thoughts of our own? Talk about racism at it's finest. This guy should be horsewhipped and then drawn and quartered.
