Article III: The case for Impeachment of George W. Bush

Article III
MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO BELIEVE IRAQ POSSESSED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, SO AS TO MANUFACTURE A FALSE CASE FOR WAR

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice President, executed instead a calculated and wide-ranging strategy to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States into believing that the nation of Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, thereby interfering with and obstructing
Congress’s lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and declaring war.

The means used to implement this deception were and continue to be personally making, or causing, authorizing and allowing to be made through highly-placed subordinates, including the President’s Chief of Staff, the White House Press Secretary and other White House spokespersons, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the National Security Advisor, and their deputies and spokespersons, false and fraudulent representations to the citizens of the United States and Congress regarding Iraq’s alleged possession of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons that were half-true, literally true but misleading, and/or made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth, as well as omitting to state facts necessary to present an accurate picture of the truth as follows:

Article III(A)
Long before the March 19, 2003 invasion of Iraq, a wealth of intelligence informed the President and those under his direction and control that Iraq’s stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons had been destroyed well before 1998 and that there was little, if any, credible intelligence that showed otherwise. As reported in the Washington Post in March of 2003, in 1995, Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law Hussein Kamel had informed US and British intelligence officers that “all weapons—biological,
chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed.” In September 2002, the Defense
Intelligence Agency issued a report that concluded: “A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM actions…[T]here is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has-or will-establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”

Notwithstanding the absence of evidence proving that such stockpiles existed and in direct contradiction to substantial evidence that showed they did not exist, the President and his subordinates and agents made numerous false representations claiming with certainty that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons that it was developing to use to attack the United States, to wit:

(1) “[T]he notion of a Saddam Hussein with his great oil wealth, with his inventory that he already has of biological and chemical weapons… is, I think, a frightening proposition for anybody who thinks about it.” —Statement of Vice President Cheney on CBS’s Face the Nation, March 24,2002.
(2) “In defiance of the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.” —Speech of President Bush, October 5, 2002.
(3) “All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to spray biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicles with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland.” —Statement by President Bush from the White House, February 6, 2003.
(B) Despite overwhelming intelligence in the form of statements and reports filed by and on behalf of the CIA, the State Department and the IAEA, The 35 Articles of Impeachment among others, which indicated that the claim was untrue, the President,
and those under his direction and control, made numerous representations claiming and implying through misleading language that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger in order to falsely buttress its argument that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, including:

(1) “The regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons, and is seeking the materials needed to do so.” —Statement of President Bush from White House, October 2, 2002.
(2) “The [Iraqi] report also failed to deal with issues which have arisen since 1998, including: . . attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it.” —Letter from President Bush to Vice President Cheney and the Senate, January 20, 2003.
(3) “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” —President Bush Delivers State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003.
(C) Despite overwhelming evidence in the form of reports by nuclear weapons experts from the Energy, the Defense and State Departments, as well from outside and international agencies which assessed that aluminum tubes the Iraqis were purchasing were not suitable for nuclear centrifuge use and were, on the contrary, identical to ones used in rockets already being manufactured by the Iraqis, the President, and those under his direction and control, persisted in making numerous false and fraudulent representations implying and stating explicitly that the Iraqis were purchasing the tubes for use in a nuclear weapons program, to wit:

(1) “We do know that there have been shipments going . . . into Iraq…of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to—high-quality aluminum tools [sic] that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.” —Statement of then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, September 8, 2002.
(2) “Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” —President Bush’s State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003.
(3) “[H]e has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed…. By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most US experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium.” —Speech of Former Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations, February 5, 2003.
(D) The President, both personally and acting through those under his direction and control, suppressed material information, selectively declassified information for the improper purposes of retaliating against a whistleblower and presenting a misleading picture of the alleged threat from Iraq, facilitated the exposure of the identity of a covert CIA operative and thereafter not only failed to investigate the improper leaks of classified information from within his administration, but also failed to cooperate with an investigation into possible federal violations resulting from this activity and, finally, entirely undermined the prosecution by commuting
the sentence of Lewis Libby citing false and insubstantial grounds, all in an effort to prevent Congress and the citizens of the United States from discovering the fraudulent nature of the President’s claimed justifications for the invasion of Iraq.
(E) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By US Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information, which was released on June 5,2008, concluded that:

(1) “Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.”
(2) “The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.”
(3) Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller concluded: “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.” The President has subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 4000 United States service members and the injury to tens of thousands of US soldiers;
the loss of more than 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt with a long term financial cost of between three and five trillion dollars; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, the lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article III notes
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, “Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By US Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information,” June 5, 2008. http://intelligence. senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf
Iraq on the Record, “Bush Administration’s Public Statements about Chemical and Biological Weapons,” March 16, 2004http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/index.asp?viewAll=1&Subject=Chemical+and+Biological
+Weapons&submit=display

Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus, “President Clings to Dubious Allegations about Iraq,” The Washington Post, March 17, 2003. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42517-2003-Mar17?language=printer

Statement of Vice President Cheney on Face the Nation, March 24, 2002. http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/newsspeeches/speeches/vp20020324-1.html

Radio Address of President Bush to the Nation, October 5, 2002. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html

Statement by President Bush from the White House, February 6, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-17.html

Congressman John Conyers, “George W. Bush versus the US Constitution,” 2006. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/constitutionincrisis

Statement of President Bush from White House, October 2, 2002. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

President Bush’s State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Iraq on the Record Report, “The Bush Administration’s Public Statements on Iraq,” by Minority Staff, March 16, 2004, 10-13. http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_
rep.pdf .

Statement of then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, September 8, 2003. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/

President Bush Delivers State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses UN Security Council, February 5, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

Murray Waas, “Bush Directed Cheney To Counter War Critic, National Journal, July 3, 2006. http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0703nj1.htm

Elizabeth de la Vega, “Final Jeopardy,” TomDispatch.com, April 9, 2006. http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/76008de_la_vega_on_the_president_s_final_jeopardy_question

Letter from Representative Henry Waxman to then White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, July 14, 2005. http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20050714122956-30175.pdf

Letter from Representative Henry Waxman to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, March 16, 2007. http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070316154127-11403.pdf

Letter from Representative Henry Waxman to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, December 3, 2007.http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071203103022.pdf

Jon Ponder, “Did Bush Lie to Federal Investigators in the CIA Leak Case?” Pensito Review, November 21,2007. http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/11/21/did-bush-lie-to-fitzgerald-too1 Gilbert Burnham, et al, “Mortality After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq,” October 11, 2006, The Lancet. http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo2.pdf .

Amy Belasco, “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11,”Congressional Research Service, March 14, 2007. http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo3.pdf

Lawrence Korb, “A Troop Readiness Crisis,” Boston Globe, April 11, 2007. http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo4.pdf

The Bailout and What's Next

Yesterday marked a day that will go down in history, when Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike took on full responsibility to protect the interests of taxpaying Americans, and defeated the deceptive bail out bill, defying the dictates of the Administration, the House Majority Leadership, the House Minority Leadership and the special interests on Wall Street.

Obviously Congress must consider quickly another course. There are immediate issues which demand attention and responsible action by the Congress so that the taxpayers, their assets, and their futures are protected.

We MUST do something to protect millions of Americans whose homes, bank deposits, investments, and pensions are at risk in a financial system that has become seriously corrupted. We are told that we must stabilize markets in order for the people to be protected. I think we need to protect peoples' homes, bank deposits, investments, and pensions, to order to stabilize the market.

We cannot delay taking action. But the action must benefit all Americans, not just a privileged few. Otherwise, more plans will fail, and the financial security of everyone will be at risk.

The $700 billion bailout would have added to our existing unbearable load of national debt, trade deficits, and the cost of paying for the war. It would have been a disaster for the American public and the government for decades and maybe even centuries to come.

To be sure, there are many different reasons why people voted against the bailout. The legislation did not regard in any meaningful way the plight of millions of Americans who are about to lose their homes. It did nothing to strengthen existing regulatory structures or impose new ones at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve in order to protect investors. There were no direct protections for bank depositors. There was nothing to stop further speculation, which is what brought us into this mess in the first place.

This was a bailout for some firms (and investors) on Wall Street, with the idea that in doing so there would be certain, unspecified, general benefits to the economy.

This is a perfect time to open a broader discussion about our financial system, especially our monetary system. Such a discussion is like searching for a needle in a haystack, and then, upon finding it, discussing its qualities at great length. Let me briefly describe the haystack instead.

Here is a very quick explanation of the $700 billion bailout within the context of the mechanics of our monetary and banking system:

The taxpayers loan money to the banks. But the taxpayers do not have the money. So we have to borrow it from the banks to give it back to the banks. But the banks do not have the money to loan to the government. So they create it into existence (through a mechanism called fractional reserve) and then loan it to us, at interest, so we can then give it back to them.

Confused?

This is the system. This is the standard mechanism used to expand the money supply on a daily basis not a special one designed only for the "$700 billion" transaction. People will explain this to you in many different ways, but this is what it comes down to.

The banks needed Congress' approval. Of course in this topsy turvy world, it is the banks which set the terms of the money they are borrowing from the taxpayers. And what do we get for this transaction? Long term debt enslavement of our country. We get to pay back to the banks trillions of dollars ($700 billion with compounded interest) and the banks give us their bad debt which they cull from everywhere in the world.

Who could turn down a deal like this? I did.

The globalization of the debt puts the United States in the position that in order to repay the money that we borrow from the banks (for the banks) we could be forced to accept International Monetary Fund dictates which involve cutting health, social security benefits and all other social spending in addition to reducing wages and exploiting our natural resources. This inevitably leads to a loss of economic, social and political freedom.

Under the failed $700 billion bailout plan, Wall Street's profits are Wall Street's profits and Wall Street's losses are the taxpayers' losses. Profits are capitalized. Losses are socialized.

We are at a teachable moment on matters of money and finance. In the coming days and weeks, I will share with you thoughts about what can be done to take us not just in a new direction, but in a new direction which is just.


Dennis Kucinich
www.Kucinich.us
216-252-9000 877-933-6647

PS Watch the 47 minute 'Money as Debt' animated documentary in http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279. This is a useful, though by no means definitive, introduction to the topic of debt and the monetary system. Let me know what you think.

A BIPARTISAN NEED FOR LIBERTY

By: thebeerdoctor

The reaction was to be expected from those accustomed to the daily cat and mouse game called politics. The experts always know. That is why Representative Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment were ridiculed as worthless, "a waste of time" from a "annoying gnat". While the movers and shakers of his own political party have more important matters to attend to than defending the Constitution and the rule of law.

Something ironically similar was happening across the pond, in the United Kingdom.
That is where Gordon Brown's Labour party government is trying to enact a law that enables the government to hold terror suspects, or as they say, persons of interest, for 42 days without any redress. Tory Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, resigned from the House of Commons in disgust.

"I had always viewed membership of this House as a noble endeavor," said David Davis. "Not least because we and our forebears defended the fundamental freedoms of our citizens. Or we did, up until yesterday."

"This Sunday is the anniversary of Magna Carta --the document that guarantees that most fundamental of British freedoms-- Habeus Corpus."

Here in the United States, I begin to wonder how many people still remember that the Magna Carta is the root document of the United States Constitution. It is where it was officially established that no one is to be above the law. As Winston Churchill said in 1956: "here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break."

Evidently, this is not the case for President Bush, who attempts to shrug off the Supreme Court ruling on the rights of detainees, simply because it was a 5-4 decision. Senator Barack Obama said the Supreme Court ruling refutes "the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole in Guantanamo." But that legal black hole most certainly exists, simply by making the false claim that human legal standards do not apply to military tribunals. Yes, it is what it is: a breathtaking argument for legalized torture.

Meanwhile, over in England, David Davis has remarked that the British have "the most intrusive identity card system in the world. A CCTV camera for every 14 citizens, a DNA database bigger than any dictatorship has, with thousands of innocent children and a million innocent citizens on it... the creation of a database state opening our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers..."

It is wise to remember that these objections to the Orwellian order, come from a conservative Tory member. That is also why Dennis Kucinich said his articles of impeachment were not about politics, but the rule of Constitutional law. How strange that a few persons in high powerful positions think it is perfectly acceptable to ignore the law upon which all of western civilization is based: the liberty of its citizens. A state sponsored abolition of basic freedoms becomes a final victory for terror. To say you are defending freedom by destroying it, using the cafard of security, is to be sure, very strange indeed.