Impeach Bush
The Dems don’t have a case, and here’s why:
The Iraq War was Originally Declared in 1991
On November 29, 1990 the UN Security Council passed a resolution to allow member states to "use all necessary means" to force Iraq from Kuwait if Iraq remained in the country after January 15, 1991. The Iraqis rejected the ultimatum. On January 12, 1991, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution authorizing the president to use force.
UN Security Council resolution 687 of April 3, 1991 established the terms and conditions for a formal cease-fire between Iraq and the coalition of Member States co-operating with Kuwait. Section C of this resolution called for the elimination, under international supervision, of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers (km), together with related items and production facilities. It also required Iraq to make a declaration, within 15 days, of the location, amounts and types of all such items.
Iraq never complied with the conditions of the cease-fire. No further resolution from the U.S. Congress or the United Nations was required for the resumption of the Iraq war. Nothing illegal was done and proving the President "lied" will be impossible, because he didn’t. It’s was common knowledge among intelligent people that Hussein had WMD…
Orlando at Ft. Hard Knox has more on impeachment here.
The Iraq War was Originally Declared in 1991
On November 29, 1990 the UN Security Council passed a resolution to allow member states to "use all necessary means" to force Iraq from Kuwait if Iraq remained in the country after January 15, 1991. The Iraqis rejected the ultimatum. On January 12, 1991, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution authorizing the president to use force.
UN Security Council resolution 687 of April 3, 1991 established the terms and conditions for a formal cease-fire between Iraq and the coalition of Member States co-operating with Kuwait. Section C of this resolution called for the elimination, under international supervision, of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers (km), together with related items and production facilities. It also required Iraq to make a declaration, within 15 days, of the location, amounts and types of all such items.
Iraq never complied with the conditions of the cease-fire. No further resolution from the U.S. Congress or the United Nations was required for the resumption of the Iraq war. Nothing illegal was done and proving the President "lied" will be impossible, because he didn’t. It’s was common knowledge among intelligent people that Hussein had WMD…
"Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act. But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow, simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.I’m not quoting President Clinton’s 1998 speech to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to embarrass him (as if that’s possible). I agree with him. I think President Clinton best affirmed the reasons to go back to Iraq and finish the job. And congress agreed...
Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and, when necessary, action.
In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals, who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity -- even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton's February 1998 Statement on Iraq to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. [full text here]
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." Hillary Clinton, October 2002 senate joint resolution 46 authorizing military force against Iraq.The Democrats in Congress know they don’t have a case; they’re lawyers. They’re using talk of impeachment as a way mobilize their left wing base and win in ’08. They’re playing politics, again.
"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region." Senator John Kerry, October 2002 senate joint resolution 46 authorizing military force against Iraq.
Orlando at Ft. Hard Knox has more on impeachment here.




1 Comments:
You Want to Impeach Bush? For What?
Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show yesterday, pulled one of his usual tongue-in-cheek news alerts when he announced that there was a new shortage in Washington-a shortage of subpoena forms. Seems the Democrats in Congress have used them all up during the course of their various investigations and hearings into government wrongdoing in the Bush Administration. Seriously though, the Democrats seem to be determined to dog Bush to the end of his presidency if not find enough dirt to start impeachment proceedings against him and most certainly, Dick Cheney. That they are doing this in a time of war strikes me as disgraceful. Yet, I must concede that a war would not suffice to protect a truly criminal president from removal. However, let's look at the so-called scandals that the Dems are investigating.
As for the charge that Bush lied us into a war on Iraq based on false claims of WMD, I say this: If Bush lied about WMD, then a lot of other people lied as well. That long list would include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Madelyn Albright, Sandy Berger, William Cohen, John Kerry, the inteligence agencies of the Brits, French, Israelis, as well as the CIA. Were they all lying? No, actually. For starters, Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran in his war against that nation. He also used them against his own people after the first Gulf War, killing thousands of innocent men, women and children in one village alone. Bush, in the wake of 9-11, simply was not prepared to wait until Saddam started passing off WMD to terrorists to use against the US and Israel. You can disagree with his reasoning and decision, but there was nothing devious and criminal about it.
Another "scandal" is the NSA wiretapping program that Bush authorized after 9-11 to monitor conversations between Al-Quaida suspects overseas and their contacts in the US. I can't believe the opposition that the Democrats have to this program in the first place. If Bush hadn't done it, he should have been impeached for gross negligence. Do you have any doubt that during World War II, wiretaps were going on all over the country? Besides, what was the reason? So Bush could spy on his political enemies like Nixon did in Watergate? No. It was done to prevent attacks-to save lives.
Now there is the big deal over the firings of eight US Attorneys. So what? It was done for political purposes you say? Of course. So what? US Attorneys are political appointees. They are usually appointed by incoming presidents as political plums. A US Attorney serves at the pleasure of the President. Bill Clinton, when he came into office, replaced 93 US Attorneys with his own people, including the US Attorney in Chicago, who was nearing an indictment of Democrat member of Congress, Dan Rostenkowski for corruption, as well the US Attorney in Little Rock who was investigating Whitewater, replacing him with a former law school student of his. No one said a peep when Clinton canned these 93 people and put his own people in. Now, the Democrats want explanations. The first scalp they are going for is that if Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez, who has been raked over the coals and all but called a perjuror by the likes of Schumer. Advice to Gonzalez-tell the truth about the firings. You fired them-tough! Don't become the next Scooter Libby.
The Democrats also want to subpoena Bush's top advisors to testify as to what they ever told Bush about anything at anytime. Bush is claiming "Executive Privilege", and the Democrats (principally Chucky Schumer, John Conyers and Henry Waxman) are waxing indignant over the issue that seems to arise in every administration. Now, Russ Feingold wants to start Censure proceedings against Bush.
My only advice for the Administration is to tell the Democrats to go pound sand. But if anyone does have to testify, just tell the damn truth. If the Democrats really want to push these issues, in the end, they will alienate the public. Bush's approval ratings may be low, but they are head and shoulders above those for Congress. What most people really want to see Congress do is get to work on something constructive, like shutting down the border and supporting our troops who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
gary fouse
fousesquawk
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home