Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

Impeach Bush

There are four impeachable offences, misdemeanor, treason, bribery, and high crimes. In our nation’s history 2 presidents have been impeached, and neither was removed from office. That is because to impeach isn’t to remove, it is to formally accuse. Only after the House of Representatives accuses or impeaches an official, the senate than holds an impeachment trial, requiring a 2/3 majority for removal.

Our president has committed impeachable acts, but just being formally accused will not lead to his ousting. The republican majority would never vote against him on an impeachment trial. Being the majority, the republicans could rest easy during an impeachment trial, knowing that without their votes, the president would not be removed.

The purpose of doing this would be for accountability, and consistency. Accountability in that it will send a clear message, to our present and future officials, If you commit impeachable acts, you will be impeached, even if you are a member of the majority party. For this will bring public attention to what you have done. Doing this is also about Consistency in that if we will impeach one president for lying, than we will impeach the next for his lies.

President Bush has committed many impeachable acts, from illegal funding of propaganda videos paraded as news reports to deceptions about his tax cuts of which 87% went to the top 2% earners.
Today the three cases I bring forward I chose for a combination of their abundance of evidence and severity.

I open with the breaking of the UN and Nuremberg charters.
He broke the UN charter when he invaded Iraq in defiance of a vote from the UN Security Council. His actions inflamed the Arab world and set forth a dangerous precedent for any other country that wants to defy the UN and start their own war.
Planning and committing a war of aggression is a violation of the Nuremberg Charter. It is evident that such action has been taken. Although some would sugar coat it, no one denies it.

What should it matter if America breaks a few treaties? It goes against our constitution. Article 4 of the constitution of the United States reads
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
Thusly, Bush broke the supreme law of the land, making him guilty of high crimes.

George, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of president, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend this land, had defaulted in his vigilance, allowing 9-11 to occur despite numerous warnings from many sources.

The Bush administration ignored the issue of terrorism from day one. The Clinton administration had left them with a comprehensive plan to attack and eradicate al-Qaeda, which as near as anyone call tell was completely ignored. Both potential threats, and concerns about up grading anti terrorism programs went completely overlooked in the pre 9-11 days of the Bush White House. From the Hart Rudman commission, which voiced deep concern over our ability to protect ourselves from terrorism, to former White House staff warning them about al-Qaeda, Bush’s White House did nothing to help. In fact, They had cut funding for the antiterrorism task forces.

As early as June the National Security Agency’s spy network learned Middle Eastern terrorists planed to hijack commercial planes to us as weapons against symbols of American and Israeli culture. (Washington post)

In July they ignored warnings from a FBI agent about Arab pilots with ties to Al Qaeda at flight schools in Phoenix. (Washington post)

In the month of August they received warnings from intelligence agencies all over the world. The first of which came from the CIA director George Tenet who personally presented president Bush a report titled “Bin laden determined to strike within the United States” which warned of terrorists hijacking airplanes. (Washington Post).

That summer, Jordanian intelligence warned them of a large-scale attack planed to occur in America using airplanes. (Herald Tribune)

Israeli intelligence informed them of a large impending attack on highly visible targets on the American mainland. (News.telegraph)

Russian intelligence told them about a terrorist cell in Afghanistan and Pakistan trained to attack American targets, with future plans to strike financial, nuclear, and space facilities.
(Fromthewilderness.com)

Moroccan intelligence claimed that Bin Laden was disappointed with the 1993 WTC bombing, and planed large-scale operations in New York for the autumn of 2001. (Herald Tribune)

And they ignored all of these warnings in August as well as a warning from the president of Egypt of an impending attack on America. (Associated press)

They even ignored intercepted phone calls from Abu Zubaida, Bin laden’s chief of operations, shortly prior to 9-11. (ABC NEWS)

All of this warning, yet nothing was done about it. His administration lied to try and cover it up. At first Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary claimed there were no warnings. When it was revealed that the CIA personally briefed the president, they tried to down play it. However you look at it, the president was very warned, he did nothing, and 3000 Americans died because of it. For failing his oath of office, the president is again guilty of high crimes.


And finally, the fixing of intelligence and lying to scare the public into support of an illegal war of aggression.

Bush claimed Iraq had purchased uranium for nuclear weapons from Nigeria in his State of the Union Address. Even though he had been informed by intelligence officials long before his speech that the evidence was forged. (CNN)

Bush Misled America to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11. At one point 70% of Americans believed this. However he has since admitted there to be no evidence of such. (BBC)

Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Despite that the 9/11 Commission released a report stating there was no "collaborative relationship" found between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Their only interaction seems to be that Al-Qaeda asked Iraq for help and was turned down. (CSMonitor)

Iraq had no air force before the invasion. Most of their military had been destroyed in gulf war 1. How quickly Iraq was over taken by American forces is evident of how little threat they were to us.

Bush insisted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. His “evidence” consisted of forged documents (CNN), plagiarized student papers (Harper’s Magazine), and vague satellite photos. The UN was on the ground inspecting Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was forced to admit that Iraq had no WMD (the Guardian).

Bush said that aluminum tubes imported by Iraq were intended to be used as a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. Except this evidence had been rejected by the Energy Department and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. (New York Times)

On may first of this year the London times released the Downing Street Memo. The Downing Street Memo details how our government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations such as Iran, Liberia, or North Korea. It describes how intelligence was "fixed" to sell the case for war to the American public, and how the Bush Administration’s public assurances of "war as a last resort" were at odds with their privately stated intentions.

Such deceptions are also high crimes. So I propose that the House of Representatives impeach the president on at least three counts of high crimes.