CONGRESS SHOULD BEGIN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF BUSH AND CHENEY

Nader: Iraq an Unconstitutional, Illegal War

Based on Five Falsehoods:
CONGRESS SHOULD BEGIN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF BUSH AND CHENEY

"All public policy should revolve around the principle that individuals
are responsible for what they say and do." -- George W. Bush, 1994.

Washington, DC:
Building on his call for the impeachment of President
Bush and Vice President Cheney, Independent Presidential candidate Ralph
Nader today is calling on Members of the House of Representatives to
begin an impeachment inquiry to investigate two distinct impeachable
offenses.

An Impeachment Inquiry is the first step toward considering Articles of
Impeachment. During an Impeachment Inquiry the House would investigate
whether there are potential impeachable offenses.

Impeachment Inquiry and the Process of Impeachment

While the Constitution is clear in granting the impeachment power to the
House, it leaves the development of mechanisms for exercising the power
to the House. As noted by the Association of the Bar of the City of New
York in "The Law of Presidential Impeachment By the Committee on Federal
Legislation" (see: http://www.abcny.org/presimpt.htm):

"A variety of methods have been employed to institute impeachment
proceedings: Charges may be made orally on the floor by a Member of the
House; a Member may submit a written statement of charges; one or more
Members of the House may offer a resolution and place it in the
legislative hopper; a presidential message to the House may initiate
proceedings. The House has also received charges from a state
legislature, from a territory, and from a grand jury. Finally, there may
be a report of a committee of the House which may submit facts or
charges that will lead to impeachment. Under the rules governing the
order of business in the House a direct proposition to impeach is a
matter of highest privilege and supersedes other business. Similar
privileged treatment is given to propositions relating to a pending
impeachment."

The purpose of the Impeachment Inquiry is to have a Committee develop a
report for the House which then can be considered for the purpose of
determining whether to proceed with impeachment proceedings. The House
determines whether to impeach based on a majority vote. It is important
to remember that impeachment does not mean conviction - that is left to
the Senate. Impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment, making
formal charges, which the Senate then considers. Conviction requires
two-thirds of the Members present in the Senate to vote for conviction.

Two Potential Articles of Impeachment that Should be Part of an Impeachment Inquiry

The Impeachment Inquiry should focus on two areas involving President
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The unconstitutional war in Iraq.

"The Inquiry should examine whether President Bush and Vice President
Cheney have gone beyond the bounds of the Constitution, defied the rule
of law, and if so, whether impeachment is the appropriate constitutional
punishment," said Nader. The United States Congress never voted for the
Iraq war. Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which
unlawfully transferred to the President the decision-making power of
whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States
Constitution's War Powers Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11) vests
the power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the
United States Congress. This can only be changed by a constitutional
amendment.

"Our founders had seen what could occur when the power to declare war
was vested in one person, a King or a Queen, so they took clear steps to
ensure no one person could declare war for the United States. As James
Madison wrote: "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be
found, than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department," noted Nader.

Five Falsehoods that Led to the Iraq Quagmi

Making matters worse in this situation, the illegal first-strike
invasion and occupation of Iraq was justified by five falsehoods. Nader
calls for a second area for Impeachment Inquiry to examine: the "five
falsehoods that led to war." In 1994 George W. Bush said: "All public
policy should revolve around the principle that individuals are
responsible for what they say and do." In 2000, he ran as the
"responsibility " candidate. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of
national security intelligence data, if proven, would be "a high crime"
under the Constitution's impeachment clause. Article II, Section 4 of
the Constitution provides: "The President, Vice President and all civil
Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors."

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

The weapons have still not been found. Nader emphasized, "Until the 1991
Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was our government's anti-communist ally in the
Middle East. We also used him to keep Iran at bay. In so doing, in the
1980s under Reagan and the first Bush, corporations were licensed by the
Department of Commerce to export the materials for chemical and
biological weapons that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick
Cheney later accused him of having." Those weapons were destroyed after
the Gulf War. President Bush's favorite chief weapons inspector, David
Kay, after returning from Iraq and leading a large team of inspectors
and spending nearly half a billion dollars told the president :We were
wrong."

See: David Kay testimony before Senate Armed Services Committee,
January 28, 2004.

IRAQ TIES TO AL QAEDA:

The White House made this claim even though the CIA and FBI repeatedly
told the Administration that there was no tie between Saddam Hussein and
Al Qaeda. They were mortal enemies - one secular, the other
fundamentalist.

SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES:

In fact, Saddam was a tottering dictator, with an antiquated, fractured
army of low morale and with Kurdish enemies in Northern Iraq and Shiite
adversaries in the South of Iraq. He did not even control the air space
over most of Iraq.

SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A THREAT TO HIS NEIGHBORS:

In fact, Iraq was surrounded by countries with far superior military
forces. Turkey, Iran and Israel were all capable of obliterating any
aggressive move by the Iraqi dictator.

THE LIBERATION OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE:

There are brutal dictators throughout the world, many supported over the
years by Washington, whose people need "liberation " from their leaders.
This is not a persuasive argument since for Iraq, it's about oil. In
fact, the occupation of Iraq by the United States is a magnet for
increasing violence, anarchy and insurrection.

Nader urges the Congress to investigate the illegal nature of the war,
and how the five falsehoods became part of the Bush Administration's
drum beat for war, in a formal Inquiry of Impeachment.

--

For further information, contact:
Kevin Zeese
1-202-265-4000

--
well. The non-profit CPRR
exists to "provide legal assistance to Palestinian refugees and their heirs
and to educate the public about the legitimate rights of Palestinians."

Two members of the CPRR, Ishaq Farhan and Abdulateef Arabiyat, are members
of the Islamic Action Front (IAF)-an Islamist party affiliated with the
Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Abdeen Jabara also works closely with another IFCO project called the
Coalition Against the "Counter Terror" Act. He distributes its flyers and
has appeared in a video for the group, which may be purchased for $15 a
copy - from IFCO.

Apparently someone is buying. According to a New York Post report, "the most
recent IRS records available for IFCO, from the year 2000, show that the
foundation took in $1,119,564 in contributions. A Not In Our Name statement
report that they have taken in more than $400,000 in recent months for the
purpose of publishing their statement."

NION and Narco-terrorism

As disturbing as NION's relationships with IFCO and Muslim organizations
are, just as disturbing is its relationship to the Revolutionary Communist
Party (RCP). Not In Our Name's administration cadre comes from the
Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), through such luminaries as C. Clark
Kissinger and Mary Lou Greenberg, both of whom are Directors of NION and
members of the Revolutionary Communi

If PRESIDENT BUSH IS MAN ENOUGH TO BE PRESIDENT,WHY CAN HE NOT BE MAN
ENOUGH TO ADMIT WHEN HE KNOW'S HE HAS MADE A BIG BIG MISTAKE

Am I on the right ng?

Karen
Owings Mills, MD



"Surfer E2468" wrote in message
...
If PRESIDENT BUSH IS MAN ENOUGH TO BE PRESIDENT,WHY CAN HE NOT BE MAN
ENOUGH TO ADMIT WHEN HE KNOW'S HE HAS MADE A BIG BIG MISTAKE

"Surfer E2468" wrote in message
...
If PRESIDENT BUSH IS MAN ENOUGH TO BE PRESIDENT,WHY CAN HE NOT BE MAN
ENOUGH TO ADMIT WHEN HE KNOW'S HE HAS MADE A BIG BIG MISTAKE

The Worst President?

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They
complain about his prosecution of it. They point out that Iraq didn't attack
the U.S. and we shouldn't have went to war with them. One liberal recently
claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Most of these claims come from liberals in the Democratic party. Being an
Independent I decided to take a look at history and see if using that
criteria who else could be called the "worst" president.

FDR ( a democrat) led us into World War II against Germany, Italy, and
Japan. Neither Germany or Italy ever attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945,
450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. That's 1 Democratic
President, 4 years and 450,000 American lives

Harry Truman (a democrat) finished that war and started one in Korea,
North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an
average of 18,333 per year. That's 1 Democratic President, 3 years, and
55,000 American lives.

John F. Kennedy (a democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam
never attacked us. Lyndon B. Johnson (a democrat) turned Vietnam into a
quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per
year. Finally in the 1970's Richard Nixon (a republican) pulled us out of
Vietnam. That's 2 Democratic Presidents, 1 Republican President, 13 years,
and 58,000 American lives.

Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia WITHOUT UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked us. The Clinton administration was offered Osama bin Laden's
head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked
us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear
inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and
captured Sadaam Hussein, who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost about 600 soldiers, an average of 200 a year. Bush did all this
abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. That's 1
Republican President, 2 1/2 years, and about 600 American lives.

Then the Democrats complained about how long the war on terror is taking,
but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it TOOK JANET RENO TO TAKE THE BRANCH
DAVIDIAN C0MPOUND! THAT WAS A 51 DAY OPERATION!

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for LESS TIME
THAN IT TOOK HILLARY CLINTON TO LOCATE THE ROSE LAW FIRM RECORDS IN HER OWN
OFFICE!

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy
the Medina Republican Guard than it took TED KENNEDY TO CALL THE POLICE AND
GIVE HIMSELF UP AFTER HE HAD AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRUNK AND SANK HIS OLDSMOBILE
IN
THE CHAPPAQUIDIK RIVER KILLING THE YOUNG LADY WHO WAS HIS PASSENGER!

And Finally...
IT TOOK LESS TIME FOR THE U.S. MILITARY TO TAKE IRAQ THAN IT DID TO COUNT
THE VOTES IN FLORIDA IN 2000!!!!

But for some reason the Democrats didn't complain about how long any of
that took! Hmmm.....

Very interesting and thoughtful.

From: (Karen=A0Henelde)
Am I on the right ng?
Karen
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

YES. "They" thought "they" were too because in "their" minds: Bush and
Cheney were CRUISIN' for a bruisin". Jim

Let's cruise & throw the left wing liberal over board!

BILL

Bush's actions certainly did not hurt the cruise industry. Prices seem to be
climbing back to pre 9/11 levels. TJ
"HDawson228" wrote in message
...
Very interesting and thoughtful.

wrote in message
...
Let's cruise & throw the left wing liberal over board!

BILL


The country needs input from both sides - whether you like them or not, the
conservative right wing and the liberal left wing both serve a purpose
here - and the majority of citizens have opinions more moderate with
occasional leanings to both sides. What has happened to civil political
discourse, to dissent? What's wrong with working together for the good of
the country, not the primacy of the political party?

Chris

The Worst President?

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They
complain about his prosecution of it. They point out that Iraq didn't
attack
the U.S. and we shouldn't have went to war with them. One liberal recently
claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Most of these claims come from liberals in the Democratic party. Being
an
Independent I decided to take a look at history and see if using that
criteria who else could be called the "worst" president.


Being an independent
Who are you kidding?

I am an independent, I voted for Bush yet feel he pretty close to the worst
president.