Bush is criminal
Last week I read an amusing letter to the editor that claimed people who wanted the President impeached were confused. The letter writer continued, that to be impeached a crime has to be committed by the President and since he hasn't, shouldn't be impeached.
Wrong on both counts. I don't blame the writer for being ignorant. Reagan's desire to rid our public schools of civics no doubt helped this person come to their conclusion on what warrants impeachment. Fox News and other loyalists to Bush have done the rest to confuse the issues.
Impeachment is a tool to remove public officials from their position if they have broken the law or if they are grossly inept in their duty. Bush has exhibited both. The list of crimes that deserve to be looked into are:
Lying to Congress of the threat Iraq posed and ignoring key points in the resolution they passed before invading Iraq. He did not go back to the UN Security Council as mandated nor did he go to war as a last resort.
Authorizing the illegal spying of American citizens before and after the attacks on 9/11/2001. This act was so blatantly illegal he was forced to demand Congress give him retroactive immunity in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Something he is pushing for the telecom companies that illegally complied right now.
Ignoring the Geneva Conventions, allowing for the illegal rendition and torture of detainees, many of which have been released after discovering they had the wrong people. The Geneva Conventions are as legal as our own Constitution, violating them violates the oath Bush swore when taking office.
Violating the Hatch act and using the entire Executive Branch as an arm of the Republican Party. Including using state's prosecutors to go after Democrats and ignore Republicans.
Violating propaganda laws. According the General Accountability Office the Bush Administration has illegally paid journalists to pimp their agenda.
Bush has violated the Presidential Records Act by deleting possibly millions of emails he was required to keep. Clinton was roundly criticized for an infraction on a smaller scale and rightfully so.
These are but a few instances that have ample evidence already available, through Freedom of Information Act requests, Congressional Testimony and other information the White house has turned over. Let's look at some of the misdemeanors or questionable acts shall we?
The President has instructed former subordinates to ignore congressional subpoenas on Executive Privilege grounds and has repeatedly used the State's Secrets privilege to avoid turning over information to Congress. On a scale never seen before, constitutional scholars agree, this administration is the most secretive, much more than the Constitution allows. At the very least Congress should be permitted to do there job, over sight of the executive branch. If they have nothing to hide then why do they hide absolutely everything?
Bush has used "Signing Statements" to ignore legislation he doesn't like. Signing Statement shave never been used in this manner, to explicitly absolve him self from laws he signs when he sees fit.
Bush was warned by outgoing President Bill Clinton that al Qaeda was our biggest threat abroad. Despite specific warnings and red alerts from the intelligence community including the infamous memo titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S" he ignored all of these threats. Instead focused on Iraq, who posed little or no immediate threat. No meetings were held, no task force assigned. In fact any organized effort to monitor and take bin Laden out were scuttled. When the second plane hit the tower and Bush was told that we were under attack, he sat like a deer in the head lights for seven minutes in a second grade class room. This giant lapse of judgement is reason enough to impeach the President.
Despite more credible intelligence to the contrary, Bush continued to lie about the threat Iraq posed us. During a State of the Union Speech he knowingly told us that British Intelligence had learned that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials from Africa despite knowing full well the evidence used to justify this statement was based on a bad forgery and had been dismissed in the intelligence community as being dubious. Bush used specific numbers to describe "stockpiles" of chemical weapons he had no reason to believe existed. In short he rushed to war, knowing his case was beyond weak. He ignored experts who disagreed with his fear mongering predictions, he ignored experts who warned this would turn out exactly as it has. Another giant lapse of judgement or calculated decision that has us in more danger, more in debt, and less secure.
He has suspended habeas corpus without meeting the Constitutional criteria of insurrection or rebellion. Sadly Congress has granted him the authority to do so legally after he'd been doing it for years.
Through Executive Order, Bush has granted himself the authority to determine who is labeled an "enemy combatant." An enemy combatant can be denied habeas corpus, can be picked up and locked up without charge and held indefinitely. In the course of that internment the combatant can be tortured by the standards laid out in the Geneva Conventions. The President can seize the government's operations at his whim. Any terror attack or economic catastrophe, according to him, and it's all his. He can suspend elections. Sound like a conspiracy nut don't I? But these are facts. Laws are written with very specific wording for a reason. So they can not be abused. The reality is if the President wanted to he could begin locking up political opponents. He could suspend elections. I don't care if Bush would or not, the President isn't supposed to have that kind of un-checked power, EVER.
The Subversive Liberal
Contributed by: Bing Van Gorden on 12/3/2007
Last week I read an amusing letter to the editor that claimed people who wanted the President impeached were confused. The letter writer continued, that to be impeached a crime has to be committed by the President and since he hasn't, shouldn't be impeached.
Wrong on both counts. I don't blame the writer for being ignorant. Reagan's desire to rid our public schools of civics no doubt helped this person come to their conclusion on what warrants impeachment. Fox News and other loyalists to Bush have done the rest to confuse the issues.
Impeachment is a tool to remove public officials from their position if they have broken the law or if they are grossly inept in their duty. Bush has exhibited both. The list of crimes that deserve to be looked into are:
Lying to Congress of the threat Iraq posed and ignoring key points in the resolution they passed before invading Iraq. He did not go back to the UN Security Council as mandated nor did he go to war as a last resort.
Authorizing the illegal spying of American citizens before and after the attacks on 9/11/2001. This act was so blatantly illegal he was forced to demand Congress give him retroactive immunity in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Something he is pushing for the telecom companies that illegally complied right now.
Ignoring the Geneva Conventions, allowing for the illegal rendition and torture of detainees, many of which have been released after discovering they had the wrong people. The Geneva Conventions are as legal as our own Constitution, violating them violates the oath Bush swore when taking office.
Violating the Hatch act and using the entire Executive Branch as an arm of the Republican Party. Including using state's prosecutors to go after Democrats and ignore Republicans.
Violating propaganda laws. According the General Accountability Office the Bush Administration has illegally paid journalists to pimp their agenda.
Bush has violated the Presidential Records Act by deleting possibly millions of emails he was required to keep. Clinton was roundly criticized for an infraction on a smaller scale and rightfully so.
These are but a few instances that have ample evidence already available, through Freedom of Information Act requests, Congressional Testimony and other information the White house has turned over. Let's look at some of the misdemeanors or questionable acts shall we?
The President has instructed former subordinates to ignore congressional subpoenas on Executive Privilege grounds and has repeatedly used the State's Secrets privilege to avoid turning over information to Congress. On a scale never seen before, constitutional scholars agree, this administration is the most secretive, much more than the Constitution allows. At the very least Congress should be permitted to do there job, over sight of the executive branch. If they have nothing to hide then why do they hide absolutely everything?
Bush has used "Signing Statements" to ignore legislation he doesn't like. Signing Statement shave never been used in this manner, to explicitly absolve him self from laws he signs when he sees fit.
Bush was warned by outgoing President Bill Clinton that al Qaeda was our biggest threat abroad. Despite specific warnings and red alerts from the intelligence community including the infamous memo titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S" he ignored all of these threats. Instead focused on Iraq, who posed little or no immediate threat. No meetings were held, no task force assigned. In fact any organized effort to monitor and take bin Laden out were scuttled. When the second plane hit the tower and Bush was told that we were under attack, he sat like a deer in the head lights for seven minutes in a second grade class room. This giant lapse of judgement is reason enough to impeach the President.
Despite more credible intelligence to the contrary, Bush continued to lie about the threat Iraq posed us. During a State of the Union Speech he knowingly told us that British Intelligence had learned that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials from Africa despite knowing full well the evidence used to justify this statement was based on a bad forgery and had been dismissed in the intelligence community as being dubious. Bush used specific numbers to describe "stockpiles" of chemical weapons he had no reason to believe existed. In short he rushed to war, knowing his case was beyond weak. He ignored experts who disagreed with his fear mongering predictions, he ignored experts who warned this would turn out exactly as it has. Another giant lapse of judgement or calculated decision that has us in more danger, more in debt, and less secure.
He has suspended habeas corpus without meeting the Constitutional criteria of insurrection or rebellion. Sadly Congress has granted him the authority to do so legally after he'd been doing it for years.
Through Executive Order, Bush has granted himself the authority to determine who is labeled an "enemy combatant." An enemy combatant can be denied habeas corpus, can be picked up and locked up without charge and held indefinitely. In the course of that internment the combatant can be tortured by the standards laid out in the Geneva Conventions. The President can seize the government's operations at his whim. Any terror attack or economic catastrophe, according to him, and it's all his. He can suspend elections. Sound like a conspiracy nut don't I? But these are facts. Laws are written with very specific wording for a reason. So they can not be abused. The reality is if the President wanted to he could begin locking up political opponents. He could suspend elections. I don't care if Bush would or not, the President isn't supposed to have that kind of un-checked power, EVER.
The Subversive Liberal
"If by a "liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "liberal." – President John F. Kennedy...................... Some people find me and that sentiment subversive. I'm here to set the record straight and offer the real typical liberal point of view. Some call it subversive, I call it patriotic.
No comments:
Post a Comment