The thing about Presidential impeachment is that it has happened so few times. There was Clinton and Andrew Johnson, both of whom managed to keep office after the trial in the Senate. There was also the threat of impeachment against Nixon, which caused him to resign. But now, President G.W. Bush has an opportunity to make history as the second president in a row to face impeachment.
Dennis Kucinich, representative from Ohio, has introduced 35 articles (H. Res. 1258) in the House of Representatives, so President Bush does face miniscule danger that he will be the subject of an impeachment vote in the House of Representatives. Of course, it won't happen. The House of Representatives "tabled" the articles as soon as possible. "Tabled" in this instance being the equivalent of "threw in trash bin."
Perhaps as much as half the American population thinks that Bush has committed an impeachable offence. But, 35? It's hard to believe that President Bush has committed 35 high crimes and misdemeanors. But there it is - Kucinich has thrown in the kitchen sink.
You could read all 35 articles - or you can let CLARINET.WOODWINDS.COM summarize them for you. Each article has a some law that President Bush supposedly violated and the factual basis for the charge of violation. Clarinet Esq. also has commented on why (or more often why not) the allegation is not a "high crime or misdemeanor." Here is part I of II:
Since 1951 Congress has included in appropriations bills (laws that spend money) a specific restriction on the use of the money: "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes with the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress." GAO (the federal watchdog of appropriated money) has declared "propaganda" includes manufactured news that is not attributed to the actual government source.
The Pentagon provided purportedly neutral "military analysts" (retired soldiers) to the news media with talking points. The military analysts were told not to mention the sources of the points they were making. The White House hasn't denied it, the analysts have commented publicly on the program, and Pentagon internal documents support it.
Its not a coincidence that this law was consistently passed since 1951. H. Georing said in 1946 during his trial for war crimes: "[V]oice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. . . . All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked . . ." Note the important assumption here - the leaders must publicize a lie. Propaganda. So Congress has banned it.
Well, not a law so much, more like really bad ethics: "[T]he President has used the highest office to trust to wage of [sic] campaign of deception of such sophistication as to deliberately subvert the national security interests of the United States."
By the end of 2002, the National Intelligence Estimate and half a dozen other sources were telling President Bush that there was slim to none connection between Iraq and al Qaida terrorists. Yet President Bush constantly equated war with Iraq as part of a war on terrorism. For example, in a November 2002 speech Bush said: "[W]e need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind."
Well, it's a crime that there isn't a law against felonious lying politicians. Sorry Dennis, but what crime is this? False advertising? Common Law fraud on the public to induce a stupid war? Fraud on Congress for inducing a stupid vote? Fraud (basically stealing using lies) is a common offense, but President Bush didn't take all that money for the war in Iraq and deposit it into an offshore account. We don't usually punish people for lying for lying sake unless they do their lying under oath in court, in a deposition, or lying to hinder a criminal investigation. President Bush does not swear on a stack of bibles before he gives a speech. His statements show bad morals, not criminal conduct.
Again, not so much a violation of law as a violation of common decency: "The President has subverted the national security interest of the United States . . . [the President] has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government . . ."
The Defense Intelligence Agency (and a bunch of other intelligence officials) were telling Bush, in 2002, that there were not chemical weapons in Iraq, nor credible evidence of chemical weapons. Same for nuclear weapons. But, in 2003 Bush was issuing statements and making speeches implying that Iraq was stockpiling and working to make both.
Again, not sure how this is a crime. "Liar, liar pants on fire" is really not a crime found in the United States Code or Constitution. Not even when the lies get us into a war in Iraq.
In "Kucinich land" this law must be: "Felonious lying to get his way." For the rest of us, Kucinich hasn't cited a law at all.
Well, Kucinich cites the fact that President Bush and members of his administration told everybody that Iraq was dangerous. Lots of times. Kucinich also points out that no intelligence supported the claim, and in retrospect Congress has concluded that Bush ignored the people inside his intelligence agencies who told him so.
It would be difficult, nay impossible, to convict someone for stupidity, ambition, bad ethics, or poor judgment in statements made to sell an idea. Sorry, not every injury rises to legal sanction - this one decidedly not.
Article I sec. 9 of the Constitution. And the War Powers Act of 1973.
Bob Woodward documented that in the summer of 2002 President Bush was spending money set aside for Afghanistan to develop air bases that President Bush intended to use (and did use) for the Iraq invasion.
First, under the Constitution, Congress sets the priorities for spending. The Executive Branch is supposedly prevented from spending appropriated funds in a manner that is contrary to Congress' wishes. If anyone cares to recall, this was part of the reason the Iran-Contra affair happened: selling arms to Iran gave the executive branch money that wasn't appropriated so that the executive could spend that money on the Contras - which Congress had specifically disapproved of.
Second, under the War Powers Act the President is not allowed to spend money on a war making effort without Congressional approval. This very nearly fits.
(1) diplomacy would not adequately "protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat pose by Iraq" or the UN security counsel resolutions were not likely to be enforced.
(2) acting militarily "is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations . . . ."
President Bush made the determination that both factors were true, and wrote as much to the House of Representatives. But in January 2003, Bush admitted in an interview that there wasn't really a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. And in February there were published reports that the FBI didn't think so either.
When the Congress told President Bush to make a determination, it expected that President Bush would actually care to decide this on facts. That might be a violation of the law, but the law didn't really require facts - it required a Presidential determination. It also didn't say which terrorist groups that Iraq needed to support. Sorry, Congress, write what you mean next time. Maybe this was part of the reason Mr. Kucinich voted against the resolution.
Art. 1, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war.
Congress didn't declare war. President Bush went to war in Iraq.
When Congress passed the resolution in October 2002 authorizing President Bush's use of force against Iraq, it gave President Bush the power to "defend that national security of the United States against the continuing threat pose by Iraq." If Congress thought this was good enough, don't blame President Bush for using the power Congress gave him.
The Constitution (Article VI) treats ratified treaties as the "supreme law of the land." The UN Charter is a ratified treaty, as is the Geneva Connection of 1949. As part of the UN Charter, the use of force in the absence of an attack can only be justified if the UN Security Council approves. And "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." Moreover, to the extent civilians are targeted in a war, this violates the Geneva Conventions.
President Bush attacked Iraq without the permission of the UN security council, and during the attack the US military blocked roads, cut electricity and water, destroyed fuel stations, planted bombs in farm fields, demolished houses, and plowed over orchards.
There's a case to be made that the breach of the U.N. charter was "illegal" but not much of case to be made that the U.S. military set out to harm Iraqi civilians. War always harms civilians. The difference is that there is a type of war that is waged for the purpose of destroying a civilian population (i.e. Darfur or the Holocaust).
So the only real issue here is - did the war in Iraq violate the U.N. Charter? That may be a close call - because it involves a question of purpose. What does it mean to start a war "inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations?"
Apparently the law of common sense.
Everybody knew that military troops did not have the body and vehicle armor that they desired.
Idiocy is not a criminal offense. President Bush could have armed the troops with spears and bows and arrows - but that does not make poor armament a crime. Clearly, people die when this sort of mistake is made - but it is not against the law. By the way - in the last allegation Dennis complained about all the high tech gizmos, like cluster bombs, that the military used and injured civilians. In this one, he's upset that they didn't have enough low-tech tech armor.
The law against lying about the heroism of military personnel. Wait, you have never heard about that law? Neither have I.
The military made heroes out of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. And they are heroes, but not the kind of heroes that went down swinging.
Because it isn't a crime to lie in the abstract.
In H.R. 4986, which President Bush signed into law, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (an appropriations bill) limited the use of the money - specifically prohibiting the development of permanent military bases in Iraq.
President Bush is seeking an agreement with the Iraqi government that would include long-term bases built in Iraq.
First, you have to show that he's spending the money for permanent bases. Good luck with that. There is a Quonset hut put up in a parking lot not far from where I grew up. Its not "permanent" - except that its been there for 30+ years. Permanent has to do with whether you expect to tear it down. Can that question be answered? Second, how do you know that those long term bases won't be built with some future appropriation?
Being greedy. Or, possibly, helping American oil companies be greedy.
American oil companies have always been a part of the planning concerning the distribution of Iraqi oil in the "aftermath" of the invasion. The efforts included: giving an American oil company a greater than one hundred million dollar contract to draft a hydrocarbon law that benefits mostly American oil companies; having a secret energy task force work on the acquisition of Iraqi oil; planning the by including plans for production sharing agreements between American oil & the Iraqi state oil company.
Imperial conquest perhaps is one of the worst examples of greed on the international stage. Greed, despite the rhetoric of certain groups, is not good - it remains a chief evil in our relationships with each other as individuals and the relationships between governments. But greed is not a crime. And there are innocent reasons for this sort of planning - this behavior fits into a effort to encourage oil companies to enter a war zone and develop a financial stake in the stability of oil production. President Bush and his people may have hoped that this would give the Iraqi government a source of income without having to empty the American coffers to do it.
The law against secretive government. If you can find that law somewhere, let me know - I'd like to see it.
Let see - for a secret task force, it wasn't very secret. In August of 2003, the GAO reported on the task force (which was widely reported on since its creation in 2001) and described meeting between senior oil executives and task force members (including VP Dick Cheney). The meetings were not open to the public, and a number of the oil executives didn't recall the meetings.
When government officials meet in non-public forums and discuss policy with interested individuals - for the most part - this is called lobbying. The conversations are usually held confidential, mostly for courtesy, and other people are excluded from the meeting. Now, it's a shame - the task force was obviously a huge political blunder. It didn't actually care about energy - only oil - and the task force didn't really address demand, alternatives, or environmental impacts. And, the President has resisted Congressional requests for information on the task force. But . . . there is no crime in allowing the rich and powerful to verbally persuade government to give them more money and resources to become even more rich and powerful.
If you can call it unlawful: Suppressing the truth, retaliation, and falsely commuting a sentence.
Bush did seem to allow Plame to be exposed, and he did post-date his declassification. He also commuted Scooter Libby's sentence.
Presidents can commute sentences, for any reason. That's ok, its part of being president. The post-dating of a declassification looks pretty bad. And Plame was conviently exposed at a time when President Bush wanted to reduce or nullify the dissent over the Iraqi build-up. But broken laws are no where to be found in Kucinich's impeachment resolution.
The Fourth Geneva Convention (incorporated into U.S. Law by Article VI of the Constitution) which requires the occupying force to protect the human rights of the civilians in the occupied areas.
Its a stretch, but, the argument goes that, by providing immunity to contractors, President Bush encouraged lawlessness that harmed the civilian populations. But. There are financial and moral reasons for the contractors to do exactly as the Geneva convention requires. Removing punishment isn't the same as encouragement.
Reckless wasting of taxpayer dollars, covering it up, and punishing whistle- blowers.
"[T]he Administration opted to award no-bid, cost-plus contracts to politically connected contractors." It was done in Iraq, TSA, and other contracts. Many of the contracts were wasteful, or even fraudulently aquired.
Bad policy is not the same as criminal actions. There is not (yet) any evidence that President Bush intended to allow others to defraud the government. Nor is there evidence of a criminal cover-up (a la Nixon). Although this shows why government should avoid no-bid contracts.
Recently, Dennis Kucinich managed to get a hearing on one article, H. Res. 1345. The article's allegation is: "Deceiving Congress with Fabricated Threats of Iraq WMDS to Fraudulently Obtain Support for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force against Iraq" which does not reference a criminal statute at all. Fraud is a loose category of crimes in 18 U.S.C. Chapter 47. Common law fraud was when the criminal obtained something valuable through a material misrepresentation of fact on which the listener reasonably relied. Criminal fraud is grounded in theft. What, pray tell, did President Bush steal?
Unfortunately, there isn't a statute against lying to the American public to entice us to go to war. (Although there is a statute against lying under oath - e.g. Bill Clinton.) President Bush didn't take money from Congress and put it in an offshore bank account. His lies are clearly distinguishable from fraud. We impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors - not lies that induce bad decisions. This is a pervasive problem in Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment.
That's why its strange that the articles that really could be crimes - see allegations 1 & 5 - aren't the ones that Congress was willing to hold hearings on. Clarinet Esq. supposes that illegal propaganda campaigns and illegal expendatures lack the flash to impeach President Bush.