Where'd I put my ter'ism manule? Can't uh....uh....uh...friction no...uh...FUNCTION without it.?

Answer 1

Good to see libs are afraid to admit Bush is doing 100x better than Clinton ever did.

Your "question" proves it!

Answer 2

Other than singing Kum-by-ya the Dems have no plan for dealing with terrorism... Guess the manual is working since its been 4 1/2 years since 9-11 and there have been no domestic attacks on the US...

Answer 3

lol. yeah, GW is wonderful at finding the nucular weapons for the war on ter'r.

and he's doing such a better job than clinton, i mean, i'd much rather have the biggest debt in history than the biggest surplus. we've also go the entire world mad at us, we havent found Osama, the economy is in the toilet, and more and more ppl affilitated with the current cabinet are coming forward and admitting that we went in to iraq under false pretenses.

i dont care how many presidents get as many BJ's as possible from whoever wants to give them, as long as they dont push their religion on me, and keep the country running smoothly. i dont consider shovelling money into a bottomless war fund a good idea.

Answer 4

reported for a bogus question and impersonation. Bush isn't a dumb person, if you think so, you obviously have never met the person.

Answer 5

Did u look between ur legs

Answer 6

now who said yahoo answer freaks are blind and stufed with nuts?

Answer 7

good one; sounds just like him

Answer 8

lol

Answer 9

oh, here, let me replace that old crusty manual with this new one.
--------------
The article mirror
Proponents of the impeachment, (Specifically, several different legal efforts, and a very large internet community) of current President of the United States, George W. Bush, assert that one or more of President Bush's actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitutionally be impeached.[1][2]

This article presents a list of suggested rationales to impeach Bush, which have been offered by commentators, legal analysts, Democrat politicians and others. The points raised in this article are not to be viewed as a monolithic list, but as an assembly of discrete rationales which favour impeaching Bush that have been gathered from multiple sources. (This article is simply and only a report of those rationales to impeach generated by those who favor impeachment, and, in order to conform to Wikipedias NPOV standards, a rebutal by those who are opposed to impeachment.)For example, The Center for Constitutional Rights, a civil rights legal advocacy non-profit organization based in New York,[3] discusses some arguments in Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush.[4]

[edit]

Suggested reasons to impeach
Several individuals and organisations have alleged that President Bush has been guilty of transgressions that amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors." Some voices in the media and legal analysts have made a case for impeachment based on multiple allegedly impeachable offenses. The following discussion explains in more detail the arguments that are used.

[edit]

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
Main article: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
In the context of the "war on terror", President Bush ordered wiretapping of certain international calls to and from U.S. without a warrant. Whether this is legal is currently debated, since the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy supposedly similar actions in the past (i.e. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church Committee). Additionally, it allegedly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures - this includes electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles published in The Christian Science Monitor and The Nation.[5] In its defense, the administration has asserted that FISA does not apply as the President was authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief inherent in the Constitution (unitary executive theory), to bypass FISA.[6] (See also: Separation of powers and rule of law.)

In January 2006, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service released two legal analyses concluding that "...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law."[7] On February 13, 2006, the American Bar Association issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. Their analysis observes that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration are not compatible with the law.[8] Also five former FISA judges voiced their doubts as to the legallity of the program. [9]

Some commentators, responding to the Bush administration's justification of the program, say that its interpretation of presidential power overthrows the Constitutional system of checks and balances and ignores other provisions of the Constitution mandating that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and vesting Congress with the sole authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Elizabeth Holtzman, John Conyers, John Dean and Jennifer van Bergen from FindLaw assert that FISA has been violated and the claimed legal authority is invalid, constituting a felony and as such an impeachable offense.[1][10][11][12][13]A detailed investigation into the matter seems to be averted.[14]

[edit]

Invasion of Iraq
[edit]

Consitutionality of Invasion
Main article: Invasion of Iraq
The case put forward by John Bonifaz in the book Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush is the same as the grounds for his John Doe I v. President Bush lawsuit; namely, that Bush invaded Iraq without a clear Congressional declaration of war. The argument is that the Congressional resolution to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq was unconstitutional because it "confers discretion upon the President to wage war", contrary to the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.[10][15]

[edit]

Justification for Invasion
Main articles: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, Downing Street memo, Bush-Blair memo.
Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq — the possession and development of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda — have been found to be false, according to all official reports.[16] [17]. The Bush administration advocated that this was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it has become clear that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed,[18] which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. Until today, an in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies has been frustrated. Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war.[19][20] The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.[21] Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry.[22] A report by the Washington Post on April 12, 2006, corroborates that view. It states that the Bush administration advocated that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "biological laboratories," despite evidence to the contrary.

"The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories."[23]
Activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, both by withholding information which he ought to have communicated, and by supplying information, in his States of the Union speeches, that he should have known to be incorrect. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath.[citation needed]

John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- asserts that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime.[1][10][12][24]

[edit]

Geneva Conventions controversy
Main articles: Unlawful combatant, Combatant Status Review Tribunal.
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration advocated that suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members would be designated as unlawful combatants. They suggested that, as such, they were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. To address the mandatory review by a "competent tribunal" as defined by article five of the Third Geneva Convention, Combatant Status Review Tribunals were established. The American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, the Council on Foreign Relations and Joanne Mariner from FindLaw have dismissed the use of the unlawful combatant status as not compatible with U.S. and international law.[25]

Representative John Conyers has advocated investigating the abuses to see if they violate the Geneva Conventions and are thus cause for impeachment, while Francis A. Boyle and Veterans For Peace hold that impeachment proceedings should be started.[1][10][11][12][26]

[edit]

Extraordinary rendition
Main articles: Extraordinary rendition, United Nations Convention Against Torture.
Critics have accused the CIA of rendering suspected terrorists to other countries in order to avoid U.S. laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture, calling this "torture by proxy" and "torture flights".[27] Alberto Gonzales explicitly testified to Congress that the administration's position was to extradite detainees to other nations as long as it was not "more likely than not" that they would be tortured, although he later modified that statement.[28] However, the Convention against torture states:

No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
Commentators, including the United Nations and Louise Arbour, have stated that, under international law, rendition as practiced by the U.S. government is illegal.[1][29]

[edit]

Treatment of detainees
Main articles: Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Bagram torture and prisoner abuse, United Nations Convention Against Torture, Command responsibility.


Reply
Recommend Delete Message 8 of 12 in Discussion

From: prometheuspan Sent: 5/10/2006 11:45 AM
several memos[30] were written analyzing the legal position and possibilities in the treatment of prisoners. The memos, known today as the "torture memos," advocate enhanced interrogation techniques, but point out that refuting the Geneva Conventions would reduce the possibility of prosecution for war crimes.[31] In addition, a new definition of torture was issued. Most actions that fall under the international definition do not fall within this new definition advocated by the U.S.[32]
Several top military lawyers including Alberto J. Mora reported that policies equivalent to torture were officially handed down from the highest levels of the administration, and led an effort within the Department of Defense to put a stop to those policies and instead mandate non-coercive interrogation standards.[33]

Notwithstanding the suggestion of official policy, the administration repeatedly assured critics that the publicised cases were incidents, and President Bush later stated that:

"The United States of America does not torture. And that's important for people around the world to understand."[34]
To address the multitude of incidents of prisoner abuse the McCain Detainee Amendment was adopted. However, in his signing statement President Bush made clear that he reserved the right to waive this bill if he thought that was needed.[35]

Over the years numerous incidents have been made public and a UN report denounced the abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture.[36] Several legal analysts -such as Marjorie Cohn, Elizabeth Holtzman, Human Rights First- have advocated that writing these memos, not preventing or stopping the abuse could result in legal challenges involving war crimes[10] under the command responsibility.[1][37] These violations of US and international law could be an impeachable offense.[12]

[edit]

Allegedly leaking classified information
Main articles: Yellowcake forgery, Plame affair, CIA leak grand jury investigation.
In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush cited British government sources in saying that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium. He referred to what ultimately turned out to be falsified documents. After Ambassador Wilson wrote an OpEd article in the New York Times denouncing the yellowcake basis and other justifications for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, the identity of his wife as CIA employee appeared in media reports for the 1st time. Wilson later made the allegation her identity was leaked in personal retaliation against him for his. An investigation into this by Patrick Fitzgerald is ongoing. It has led so far to the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, though not for releasing any Plame information. At one point, Libby's indictment contends:

"Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."[38]
The litigation surrounding Libby has yielded court papers showing that Libby was authorized and instructed to disseminate formerly classified information by his superiors. [39] To date, no court papers have alledged that Bush or Cheney authorized the release of Plame's name. On April 13th, 2006, Bloomberg.com reported Libby has testified that Bush and Cheney did not authorize the release of Plame's name [1]. Libby's position is that he did not leak Plame's name. The actual 1st source of Plame's name to the media is in dispute.

[edit]

Allegedly declassifying for political purposes
Main articles: Invasion of Iraq, Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Downing Street memo, Bush-Blair memo.
Main articles: Yellowcake forgery, Plame affair, CIA leak grand jury investigation.
On April 06, 2006, court papers were filed in the CIA leak grand jury investigation, stating that Libby had testified that President Bush authorized the disclosure of select portions of the then classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq.[19][40] The position of the Bush administration is that a Presidentally authorized release of material is not a "leak" in the sense that Presidents are authorized to de-classiffy material and the release of de-classified material is not leaking.[19][41] Some argue that this contradicts previous statements by Bush in which he made clear that leaking information is unacceptable.[19][42] According to the court filings by Fitzgerald:

“Defendant (Libby) testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President’s authorization that it be declassified.” [43]
Elizabeth de la Vega, Ray McGovern and Greg Mitchell have noted that the Bush Administration's asserted motivation — that this declassification was needed to counter misinformation spread by opponents of the Bush administration's casus belli — is odd, since only an obscure part of the NIE, which supports the claims advanced by the US government, has been released, while the rest of the report, in which the CIA in 2002 allegedly dismissed that claim as unlikely, is still classified.[18][43][44] Bush's alleged misrepresentations on this point and his declassifying of information for allegedly a political purpose, is seen by some as impeachable offense.[44][45]

[edit]

Hurricane Katrina
Main articles: Hurricane Katrina, Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina, Political effects of Hurricane Katrina.
The alleged responsibility of the George W. Bush administration in the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina has been used by Ramsey Clark, Francis Boyle, PopMatters, Green Party of Humboldt County and the Sunday Independent to suggest failure by the administration to adequately provide for the need of its citizens.[10][46] Aside from these allegations of incompetence, how any Katrina related complaints rise to the level of an impeachable offense, has not been explained.

The administration, and its supporters, contend that the principal responsibility lies with the local authorities.[47] Therefore any accusation of inadequate handling of the disaster should be addressed at the Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco.[48]

[edit]

Alleged abuse of power
Main article: Unitary executive theory
As Commander-in-Chief in the war on terror, President Bush has asserted broad war powers to protect the American people. These have been used to justify policies connected with the war. Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean, Elizabeth de la Vega, AlterNet, the St. Petersburg Times and the Santiago Times have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional or other legal limitations on such war powers. [1][49]

The Bush administration denies this allegation by explaining that the President is only asserting his Constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the country.

[edit]

Criticism
Although John Conyers introduced a motion to investigate the possible grounds for impeachment, this has been met with little support by Democrats and Republicans alike. In response Feingold introduced a motion to censure, which is also unlikely to pass.

It has been suggested that the entire movement to impeach President Bush is nothing more than partisan politics.

[edit]

See also
George W. Bush
Impeachment in the United States
Movement to impeach George W. Bush
[edit]




Reply
Recommend Delete Message 9 of 12 in Discussion

From: prometheuspan Sent: 5/10/2006 11:46 AM

^ a b c d e f g The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War Investigative Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff
^ Arguments in general.
Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment originally Web-posted by House Judiciary Committee member Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
The Impeachable Mr. Bush An Aggregation of High Crimes and Misdemeanors By Ralph Nader, CounterPunch, January 28 / 29, 2006
The I-Word is Gaining Ground by Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation, December 27, 2005
Bush's Last, Best Hope: the Democrats A Popular Groundswell for Impeachment By DAVE LINDORFF, CounterPunch, March 7, 2006
Five Vermont Towns Vote to Impeach Bush Associated Press, March 7, 2006
Plenty of opportunities to impeach Bush by Diane E. Dees, Mother Jones, April 05, 2006
Raising the Issue of Impeachment by John Nichols, The Nation, December 20, 2005
^ The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
^ Impeaching George W. Bush By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet, March 6, 2006.
^ Wiretapping possibly illegal
'Specific' info on NSA eavesdropping? A new lawsuit may have what other cases don't: official records about those under surveillance By Brad Knickerbocker, The Christian Science Monitor, March 06, 2006
What the President Ordered in This Case Was a Crime" by John Nichols, The Nation, January 23, 2006
Watching What You Say Tim Shorrock, The Nation, March 2, 2006
^ LEGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY DESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT U.S. Department of Justice, January 19, 2006
^ Congressional Research Service
Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information January 5, 2006
Statutory Procedures Under Which Congress Is To Be Informed of U.S. Intelligence Activities, Including Covert Actions January 18, 2006
^ American Bar Association
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES, February 13, 2006
Lawyers Group Criticizes Surveillance Program Washington Post, February 14, 2006
^ Former FISA judges
Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program By ERIC LICHTBLAU, The New York Times, March 29, 2006
It’s Official… By Christy Hardin Smith, March 28th, 2006
^ a b c d e f Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush, 108nd Congress H.Res.XX, by Francis A. Boyle, professor of law, University of Illinois School of Law, January 17, 2003
^ a b The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
^ a b c d Grounds for Impeachment by Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive,March 8, 2006
^ Wiretapping probably impeachable offense
An Impeachable Offense? Bush Admits Authorizing NSA to Eavesdrop on Americans Without Court Approval Democracy Now, December 19th, 2005
George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachable; Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, December 30, 2005
Is Clinton's history in Bush's future? by Rosa Brooks, Los Angeles Times, December 30, 2005
Time for a Special Prosecutor Bush's NSA Spying Program Violates the Law By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, CounterPunch, March 4 / 5, 2006
Why Should Anyone Worry About Whose Communications Bush and Cheney Are Intercepting, If It Helps To Find Terrorists? By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, February 24, 2006
^ No official inquiry into wiretapping
Senate Panel Blocks Eavesdropping Probe By Walter Pincus, Washington Post, March 8, 2006
Senate Republicans Choose Bush Over Country on Domestic Spying
^ Constitutional challenge to invasion of Iraq
John Doe I v. President Bush
^ Weapons of Mass Destruction
Iraq's WMD Plans Were Preliminary CBS News, January 07, 2004
Kay: No evidence Iraq stockpiled WMDs CNN, January 26, 2004
See also Duelfer Report
WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications By Joseph Cirincione, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, George Perkovich, with Alexis Orton, Carnegie Endowment Report, January 2004
^ Link with Al Qaeda
Levin Releases Newly Declassified Intelligence Documents on Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship Documents show Administration claims were exaggerated, by Carl Levin, April 15, 2005
Another Iraq story gets debunked By Dave Zweifel, The Capital Times
Bush Flatly Declares No Connection Between Saddam and al Qaeda The Memory Hole
^ a b Blowing Cheney's Cover Ray McGovern, April 10, 2006
^ a b c d Selectively disseminating information
Why 'leaker in chief' charge harms the president By Linda Feldmann, The Christian Science Monitor, April 10, 2006
^ Misrepresenting the facts surrounding Iraq
The Impeachment of George W. Bush, by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
A Firm Basis for Impeachment By Robert Scheer, AlterNet, July 18, 2003
The Case for Impeachment By John Dean, FindLaw.com, June 11, 2003
In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat Center for American Progress, January 29, 2004]
Millions Protest Possible War with Iraq February 19, 2003
^ Downing Street memo
Another Iraq Memo Revealed: Colin Powell Opposed War Without Second U.N. Resolution Posted by Think Progress March 28, 2006
The secret Downing Street memo SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY DAVID MANNING, The Times, July 23, 2002
^ FOIA request
Just hearsay, or the new Watergate tapes? By David Paul, Salon, June 06, 2005
52 House members file FOIA request seeking documents related to Downing Street minutes Raw Story, June 30, 2005
^ "Biological laboratories"
Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War By Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, April 12, 2006
^ War of aggression
War Crimes: Goose and Gander By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout, March 13, 2006
Condi, War Crimes & the Press By Robert Parry, Consortiumnews.com, April 3, 2006
^ Violating International Law
TASK FORCE ON TREATMENT OF ENEMY COMBATANTS CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION SECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES RECOMMENDATION by AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
U.S. Officials Misstate Geneva Convention Requirements by Human Rights Watch, January 28, 2002
Findings Report: Enemy Combatants and the Geneva Conventions by the Council on Foreign Relations, December 12, 2002
GUANTANAMERA: The Continuing Debate Over The Legal Status Of Guantanamo Detainees By JOANNE MARINER, FindLaw, March 11, 2002
^ Impeachment for violating the Geneva Conventions
Is There a Case for Impeachment? Harper's Magazine, Edited selections from a forum moderated by Sam Seder and featuring Representative John Conyers Jr., John Dean, Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, Lewis Lapham, and Michael Ratner, held March 2, 2006 at Town Hall in New York City.
The Case for Impeachment - Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush by Lewis H. Lapham, Harper's Magazine, February 27, 2006.
Rally to Support Rep. John Conyers and AfterDowningStreet.org by Mike Ferner, Veterans For Peace, June 16, 2005
^ Torture by proxy



Reply
Recommend Delete Message 10 of 12 in Discussion

From: prometheuspan Sent: 5/10/2006 11:46 AM


Pentagon Memo on Torture-Motivated Transfer Cited By Ken Silverstein, The Los Angeles Times, December 08, 2005]
Torture by Proxy The New Yorker, February 14, 2005
^ Gonzales Defends Transfer of Detainees By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, March 8, 2005
^ Legal position of rendition
U.N. Blasts Practice of Outsourcing Torture by Thalif Deen, Inter Press Service
No Exceptions to the Ban on Torture By Louise Arbour, The San Diego Union Tribune, December 07, 2005
^ The Interrogation Documents: Debating U.S. Policy and Methods the memos written as part of the war on terror
^ War crimes warning
Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings By Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, May 19, 2004
Torture and Accountability by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, June 28, 2005
US Lawyers Warn Bush on War Crimes By Grant McCool, Lawyers Against the War, Global Policy Forum, January 28, 2003
^ US definition of torture
Judge's anger at US torture by Richard Norton-Taylor and Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, February 17, 2006
Torture as National Policy By Dahr Jamail, Tomdispatch.com, March 9, 2006
^ Torture as policy?
Memorandum for Inspector General, Department of the Navy July 07, 2004
THE MEMO -How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted by JANE MAYER, The New Yorker, February 20, 2006
How the Pentagon Came to Adopt Criminal Abuse as Official Policy by Marty Lederman, February 20, 2006
^ We don't torture
The President says "We do not torture." We look at what has surfaced so far FactCheck.org, December 19, 2005
The US has used torture for decades. All that's new is the openness about it Naomi Klein, The Guardian, December 10, 2005
Fun Bits About American Torture In many ways, the U.S. is now just as inhumane and brutal as any Third World regime. Oh well? By Mark Morford, SF Gate, December 16, 2005
^ U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison, By Josh White and Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post, March 3, 2006
^ UN calls for Guantanamo closure BBC, Read the full UN report into Guantanamo Bay, February 16, 2006
^ Accountability
Fmr. NY Congresswoman Holtzman Calls For President Bush and His Senior Staff To Be Held Accountable for Abu Ghraib Torture Democracy Now, June 30th, 2005
The Gonzales Indictment By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout, January 19, 2005
The Quaint Mr. Gonzales By Marjorie Cohn, La Prensa San Diego Bilingual Newspaper, November 19, 2004
The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
Command's Responsibility: Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan Human Rights First
Who is accountable for Army's descent into torture? By David R. Irvine and Deborah Pearlstein, Salt Lake Tribune, March 04, 2006
Dahr Jamail Follows the Trail of Torture
^ Plame's identity not known
Office of Special Counsel all the material made public by Fitzgerald
(It has since been shown that in fact Carl Rove and Bush were both directly involved with the leak.)

October 28, 2005 Indictment: US v Libby
^ Libby: 'Superiors' Approved Leak CBS/AP, Feb. 9, 2006
^ Bush authorized disclosure
White House Declines to Counter Leak Claim By PETE YOST, Forbes, April 07, 2006
Libby Says Bush Authorized Leaks By Murray Waas, National Journal, April 6, 2006
Bush: Hands Possibly as Dirty as Scooter Libby's Flashback: Bush Impeachment Not Out of the Question April 6th, 2006
Bush at Center of Intelligence Leak By Jason Leopold, Truthout, April 06, 2006
The deception Bush can't spin Libby's testimony shows that Bush disclosed national secrets for political gain — and makes Bush's statements about finding the leaker ludicrous By Joe Conason, Salon, April 07, 2006
Bush authorized leak of Iraq intelligence estimate, indicted ex-Cheney aide says RAW STORY, April 6, 2006
^ Disclosure legal?
The Truth About Lewis "Scooter" Libby's Statements to the Grand Jury Claiming the President Authorized a Leak of Classified Information The President and Vice President Are Not In the Clear Yet by John Dean, FindLaw, April 7, 2006
Poof! Presidential Magic Turns National Secrets Into Judy Miller "Exclusive" by Arianna Huffington, April 06, 2006
^ Did Bush ly?
Did Bush Lie to Fitzgerald? By Robert Parry, Consortium News, April 07, 2006
Memo to Sunday Talkers: Please Get the Answers the American People Cannot by Representative John Conyers, Jr., April 07, 2006
Another White House is buying silence By Derrick Z. Jackson, The Boston Globe, April 8, 2006
President Bush, 2003: 'Leaks of Classified Information Are a Bad Thing' By E&P Staff, Editor & Publisher April 06, 2006
^ a b Uncommon way of declassifying
The Latest Plame Smear: Does Fred Hiatt Even Read the Washington Post? by Jane Hamsher, Huffington Post, April 10, 2006
'The Washington Post': At War With Itself The newspaper's editorial page on Sunday declared Scooter Libby's notorious 2003 gift to reporters "The Good Leak." On the same paper's front page two reporters thoroughly debunked the notion by Greg Mitchell, Editor & Publisher, April 10, 2006
^ a b Final Jeopardy By Elizabeth de la Vega, TomDispatch.com, April 09, 2006
^ Lying impeachable
Leaking, Lying and Burning Covert Agents from the Oval Office - The Impeachment Clock Just Clicked Forward By DAVE LINDORFF, CounterPunch, April 7--9, 2006
The Leaker-in-Chief By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout, April 07, 2006
^ Hurricane Katrina
Ramsey Clark on Hurricane Katrina Ramsey Clarke, September 6, 2005
POLITICS AND CULTURE/EAST AND WEST: Impeach George W. Bush by Robert R. Thompson, PopMatters, October 03, 2005
Katrina, Bush and Cheney Grounds for Impeachment By FRANCIS BOYLE, September 16, 2005
Greens Call for Impeachment of Bush and Accomplices for Crimes Against Humanity Due to the Preventable Deaths of Thousands in New Orleans Green Party of Humboldt County, August 1, 2005
Hurricane Katrina Huffed and Puffed and Laid President Bush’s Incompetence Bare Sunday Independent, September 4, 2005
Hurricane George
The Impeachment of George W. Bush The Nation, January 30, 2006
^ Responsibility Katrina
THE MISERABLE RESPONSE TO KATRINA - How Emergency Management Failed New Orleans By Farhad Manjoo, Der Spiegel, September 7, 2005
Brown puts blame on Louisiana officials CNN, September 28, 2005
Former FEMA Director Brown Blames 'Dysfunctional Louisiana' for Katrina Response; Lawmakers Mock Him by LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
Reporting on Bush pre-Katrina briefing, NY Times, Wash. Post, USA Today entirely forgot Bush claim that no one anticipated levee breaches Media Matters, March 02, 2006
^ Kathleen Babineaux Blanco
Just days after Bush aide lied about Blanco in Wash. Post article, the Post noted Democrats' "harsh rhetoric," which "could create a backlash" Media Matters, September 08, 2005
Brown blames Gov. Blanco By Stephen Dinan, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, September 28, 2005
^ Abuse of Power
The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, January 13, 2006
The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State? By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, Findlaw, January 09, 2006
How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as "Commander In Chief"? Evaluating President Bush's Claims Against a Key Supreme Court Executive Power Precedent By EDWARD LAZARUS, FindLaw, January 5, 2006
The President Does Not Know Best By Elizabeth de la Vega, Tomdispatch.com. Posted January 19, 2006
Impeaching George W. Bush Alternet, March 6, 2006
If Judges Won't Stand Up to Bush, Who Will? Common Dreams, March 5, 2006
IMPEACH BUSH: NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT IN CHILE, NOT IN THE U.S. The Santiago Times, Dec 21, 2005



Reply
Recommend Delete Message 11 of 12 in Discussion

From: prometheuspan Sent: 5/10/2006 11:47 AM
"Rationale to Impeach George Bush"
http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/ http://www.apfn.org/APFN/impeach_bush.htm http://orangetoimpeach.blogspot.com/2006/03/rationale-for-campaign_23.html

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/33329/ http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/09/impeach_george__1.html http://zzpat.bravehost.com/impeach107.html http://zzpat.bravehost.com/ http://www.metrodenvergreens.org/2006/04/impeach_bush.html http://uniorb.com/RCHECK/Rimpeach.htm http://www.impeachnow.org/pages/jump/front_jump1.html http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/29/204330/03 http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0629-FtBragg.html

Results 1 - 10 of about 352,000 for rationale to impeach george bush. (0.67 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 977 for "rationale to impeach george bush". (0.66 seconds)

[edit]

compilation process
[edit]

1.1 NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
1.1 NSA warrantless surveillance controversy http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=19593&s2=14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy http://www.answers.com/topic/nsa-warrantless-surveillance-controversy http://www.experiencefestival.com/blog http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/01/AR2006010100391.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-18-nsa-70s_x.htm?csp=N009 http://www.coxwashington.com/reporters/content/reporters/stories/BC_NSA_SPY06_COX.html http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014240.html http://www.soros.org/initiatives/washington/news/nsa_20060106/nsasurveill_20060106.pdf http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2006/01/the_nsa_wiretap.html http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976733326 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060309/index.htm http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013624.html http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/08/surveillance_controversy_puts_nsa_back_into_harsh_spotlight/ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/14/95724/1640

[edit]

1.2 Invasion of Iraq
http://www.harpers.org/TheCaseForImpeachment.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3933-2004Oct27.html http://democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-1 http://impeachpac.org/ http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_id=8846 http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle07252003.html http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/iraq_lies.html http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr011=mfjzf46q22.app5b&page=NewsArticle&id=5129&news_iv_ctrl=0

[edit]

1.2.1 Consitutionality of Invasion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/24307/ http://lefti.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_lefti_archive.html http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0128-08.htm http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Jayne-Kramer0920.htm http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1070-2093847,00.html http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/10/wrong-again-about-iraq/

[edit]

1.2.2 Justification for Invasion
1.2.2 Justification for Invasion + devote to arguing and belaboring the point with the rest of us. The evidence was cooked up over a period of several months, and anybody paying attention knew even at the time that the WMD was a bald faced lie. This has now been proven as fact. Not only were no WMD found, but there was never any real evidence that there was any WMD, and the CIA report was that those weapons which Saddam had were destroyed or inoperable. The Bush administration lied to justify the war.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=67020 + http://smh.com.au/news/World/White-House-knew-there-were-no-WMD-

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/sanc-a21.shtml http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/wmd-j21.shtml http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WMDlies.html http://www.notinourname.net/war/wmd_text.htm http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/ http://www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id79.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html http://www.wmdthefilm.com/mambo/index.php

[edit]

1.3 Geneva Conventions controversy
Torture, illegal detention, failure to abide by geneva conventions, no lawyers, no press, murder by means of torture, murder by means of starvation, etc. http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=19580&s2=14 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4415132.stm http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/18/157206 http://www.blogd.com/archives/000618.html http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/11/07/bush-torture051107.html http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/07/national/w070802S23.DTL http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7524.htm http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/

[edit]

1.4 Extraordinary rendition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6 http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2004/09/legalizing_tort.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/18/opinion/courtwatch/main674973.shtml http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/16/Columns/Delivering_people_int.shtml http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18709-2005Mar8.html http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html http://terrorism.about.com/od/civillibertiesissues/a/extrarendition.htm

[edit]

1.5 Treatment of detainees
[edit]

1.6 Allegedly leaking classified information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=823 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Valerie_Plame http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801172.html http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/ http://impeachpac.org/?q=node/892 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/09/politics/main1302808.shtml http://www.alternet.org/story/34752/?comments=view&cID=106796&pID=106655

[edit]

depots.


Reply
Recommend Delete Message 12 of 12 in Discussion

From: prometheuspan Sent: 5/10/2006 11:50 AM
"
[edit]

1.6.1 Allegedly declassifying for political purposes
[edit]

1.7 Hurricane Katrina
1.7 Hurricane Katrina "FEMA" was technically disbanded and its resources given to the Department of homeland security. The agency was slow to respond because domestic emergencies were not in its original mission statement. Evidence suggests that the flooding could have been stopped easilly by sufficient deployment of US resources. Further evidence suggests that the US military actually destroyed the Levees. Detainment and abuse of Katrina victims as if they were prisoners of war. Despicable refusal to allow rescue operations by other parties. Funneling of funds away from the victims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/03/katrina.chertoff/ http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/katrina.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_theories_regarding_Hurricane_Katrina http://www.alternet.org/katrina/30044/ http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:f-W7ZKfO7FcJ:www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/images/katrina_report.doc+Hurricane+katrina+us+government+destroyed+levees&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=14 http://www.socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=478 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701818_pf.html

[edit]

1.8 Abuse of power

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[edit]

Additional rationales to impeach include;
[edit]

1.9 Involvement in and complicity regarding 911.
http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html http://www.sumeria.net/ http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/Bush/ http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911short.htm http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/ http://www.mikehersh.com/article_65.shtml http://www.911forthetruth.com/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ioerror.us/2005/11/11/explosives-may-have-been-used-to-demolish-towers-in-911-cover-up/ http://samizdat.gnn.tv/blogs/10647/BYU_Professor_Says_Bombs_Not_Planes_Toppled_Twin_Towers http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=82418 http://www.reopen911.org/BYU-Physics.htm http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2005/04/14975_comment.php http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051111074847512 http://www.seekinglight.net/911vis/rwtcpdf.pdf http://www.911review.com/911review/markup/TwinTowers.shtml

[edit]

*1.10 Failure to act to defend the country on 911.
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20050908&articleId=907 http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/911failure.html http://www.radio4all.net/podcast.php/program_9081.xml?program_id=9081&version=1&session= http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=75&contentid=2307&page=2 http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/

[edit]

*1.11 Rigged elections issues
http://www.votescam.com/==
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/voting.html
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/bush_votescam.htm
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1060
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=182&row=2
http://www.votefraud.org/
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue8/Diane_Perlman.cfm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE412A.html
http://revspork.blogs.com/revspork/2004/10/more_fun_with_e.html *http://www.oilempire.us/stolenelection2004.html
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/04votefraud.html
http://voteraction.org/
[edit]

1.12 The no child left behind act
Is actually another example of "Ushering in an ownsership society"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Usher in an Ownership Era...because a vibrant entrepreneurial spirit will keep our economy strong and provide more opportunities for workers and families." https://www.donationreport.com/init/controller/ProcessEntryCmd?key=V3T5C7I2X4 Movement to impeach George W. Bush


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ie; Corporatization and privatization. The act is meant to make public schools incapable of living up to the new higher bar, and is enacted while simultaneously cutting funding to education. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0807004596/002-4140156-0504039?v=glance&n=283155 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/12/1534250 http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/nclb181.shtml http://www.rppi.org/nochild.html http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4683278 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act http://www.america-tomorrow.com/bracey/EDDRA/EDDRA28.htm http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/12/1708610.php

[edit]

1.13 The imigration act
passed last year or so is actually who is by any logical analysis an act authorizing indentured servitude or slavery in the US. http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-17-05/discussion.cgi.84.html http://apstudent.com/ushistory/cards/cards17.html http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2004/2004_40-49/2004-47/pdf/57-61_46_eco.pdf http://www.alipac.us/article702.html http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history?rnd=1146018227453&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1040 http://mostlycajun.com/wordpress/?p=1730 http://www.floc.com/immigrantrights.html

[edit]

1.14 The USA patriot act
mirrored the Natzi enabling act and was written by some of the same Authors.


http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10165 http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/000139.php http://www.askquestions.org/details.php?id=23 http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/7182/How_the_Patriot_Act_Compares_to_Hitler_s_Enabling_Act http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/7182/How_the_Patriot_Act_Compares_to_Hitler_s_Enabling_Act

[edit]

1.15 The handling of the Iraq invasion forces
demonstrated to the Iraqis that despite the rhetoric, the Bush administration was only interested in oil. Oil resources were protected above civilians, and even above serious military targets, including weapons depots.

Answer 10

Thanks for the laughs!!