Impeach Bush? YES say half, "if he lied"....

[Karlin]

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101205O.shtml

Note that about half of American's are saying this, that they would impeach Bush2, but only IF he lied about the reasons for invading Iraq.

Oddly, it is now obvious that there were lies about the WMD, and more than half of Americans KNOW THIS. If it were the same half that "want to impeach if he lied", well, then he would/could be impeached.

The reasons for invading Iraq were, at first, that WMD dangers that needed to be dealt with "before they can be used". {which is lousy reasoning, as any nation could invade another on that basis].

Bush has said that the real reason for invading Iraq was that "god told him to do it". Seriously. He keeps saying it too.

It has been suggested that "the reasons" dont need to be the actual reasons, because he can't tell us everything he knows, for security reasons, of course.

Americans want impeachment to happen if 'the reasons' were misconstrued, and if there were no other reasons [that could not be spoken of] that could justify it. There is more!!
I bet they would want impeachment if they knew the whole story - about the torture, about the Iraq invasion set-up before hand including 9-11, about how corporate America is getting such huge windfalls at the taxpayers expense in Iraq. Those are all on the internet, backed up with good facts.


----------media's role:

Media: main story "not told" :
quote: "The strong support for impeachment found in this poll is especially surprising because the views of impeachment supporters are entirely absent from the broadcast and print media, and can only be found on the Internet and in street protests, including the large anti-war rally in Washington on September 24." [same link]\\

K - So if the our mass media was doing its job, Bush2 would be impeached. ThePeople would know that their concerns are valid. BushCo could never have moved so far and so fast in his evil agenda without first getting the media onside, and keeping them solidly on his side ," whatever it takes".

 

[p106_peppy]

Well, how are we to prove he lied? We know now that what he said was not true. but at the time he said it, it was not a flat out lie, because we didn't know for sure.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

CIA review faults prewar plans
By John Diamond, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — A newly released report published by the CIA rebukes the Bush administration for not paying enough attention to prewar intelligence that predicted the factional rivalries now threatening to split Iraq.
Policymakers worried more about making the case for the war, particularly the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, than planning for the aftermath, the report says. The report was written by a team of four former CIA analysts led by former deputy CIA director Richard Kerr.

"In an ironic twist, the policy community was receptive to technical intelligence (the weapons program), where the analysis was wrong, but apparently paid little attention to intelligence on cultural and political issues (post-Saddam Iraq), where the analysis was right," they write.

White House spokesman Fred Jones said Tuesday that the administration considered many scenarios involving postwar instability in Iraq. The report's assertion "has been vehemently disputed," he said.

Then-CIA director George Tenet commissioned the report after the invasion of Iraq. The authors had access to highly classified intelligence data and produced three reports concerning Iraq intelligence.

Only the third has been released in declassified form. It is published in the current issue of Studies in Intelligence, a CIA quarterly written primarily for intelligence professionals. The report was finished in July 2004 just as Tenet was ending his tenure as CIA director.

The report determined that beyond the errors in assessing Iraqi weaponry, "intelligence produced prior to the war on a wide range of other issues accurately addressed such topics as how the war would develop and how Iraqi forces would or would not fight."

The intelligence "also provided perceptive analysis on Iraq's links to al-Qaeda; calculated the impact of the war on oil markets; and accurately forecast the reactions of ethnic and tribal factions in Iraq."

The postwar struggle pitting Sunni Arabs against Shiite and Kurdish factions has led some analysts, including Saud al-Faisal, foreign minister of neighboring Saudi Arabia, to conclude Iraq is at risk of splitting into three pieces.

Kerr's report agrees with other government reviews in concluding that prewar intelligence on Iraqi weapons was faulty. Costly U.S. spy satellites were of little help, providing "accurate information on relatively few critical issues."

Intelligence analysts, the report says, failed to question their assumptions that Iraq had maintained chemical and biological weapons and had reactivated nuclear weapons development. Doubts about the intelligence received little attention, "hastening the conversion of heavily qualified judgments into accepted fact."

 

[no1important]

RE: Impeach Bush? YES say

Impeaching would be a start. Being tried, convicted of war crimes and spending the rest of his life in jail is what he really needs.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: Impeach Bush? YES say half, "if he lied"..

Well, how are we to prove he lied? We know now that what he said was not true. but at the time he said it, it was not a flat out lie, because we didn't know for sure.

how does one prove a negative??? Tough, but can be done...

The thing is that his statements were SUSPECT from the onset. Nations asked him for PROOF of his statements about his WMD claims and he REFUSED to provide it.........expecting other nations to go on his "word".......which was already proving to be faulty.

If one is going to MILITARILY INVADE a nation .....particularly one far away ..........one had better have a damned good reason for it and the PROOF of same. He manipulated , and lied and it was apparent to most .......right from the onset. ( a deductive process in this case)

 

[neocon-hunter]

RE: Impeach Bush? YES say

Note that about half of American's are saying this, that they would impeach Bush2, but only IF he lied about the reasons for invading Iraq.

That is disturbing.

Bush is a miscreant and should be sharing a cell with Slobodan Milosevic for the autrocities and crimes against humanity that have been committed by US troops in Iraq and elsewhere.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: Impeach Bush? YES say

Impeaching would be a start. Being tried, convicted of war crimes and spending the rest of his life in jail is what he really needs.

absolutely !! War crimes tribunal..... land the manipulative con man/mass murderer. in jail and throw away the key.

as by definition he IS a mass murderer. ( using the military to disguise it under the war flag does not negate the fact ) Any good lawyer worth his weight in legal gold......knows this. Loopholes be damned.

(anyone who supports him...........is complicit in these murderous acts. and now has the blood of all those Iraqis , and their own troops on their hands (conscience---) think Lady McBeth syndrome.

 

[no1important]

RE: Impeach Bush? YES say

He has threatened N. Korea, Iran, Syria to name a few and any of those countries would be justified in invading amerika.

"W" is just a snot nose, coke head cowboy wannabe from Texas, a place that has never had fair justice.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

He has threatened N. Korea, Iran, Syria to name a few and any of those countries would be justified in invading amerika.

absolutely..... as he / the USR is the biggest THREAT to the world and peace. And no one has to LIE about it......as it is there in front of everyone.

(well, maybe the exception is the amerikans ......as they are not the most informed population on this planet. Woe to them)

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2005-10-11 12:46. Media

NOTE WELL: The After Downing Street Coalition hired Ipsos Public Affairs to do this poll. Ipsos did not sponsor the poll, but was very helpful, cooperative, and professional. Please do NOT complain to them that they did not do the poll for free. If you feel you must communicate with them, please thank them for being helpful.

For Immediate Release: October 11, 2005

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.

Among those who felt strongly either way, 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.

"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."

Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups

Responses varied by political party affiliation: 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.

Responses also varied by age and income. Solid majorities of those under age 55 (54%), as well as those with household incomes below $50,000 (57%), support impeachment.

Majorities favored impeachment in the Northeast (53%), West (51%), and even the South (50%).

Support for Impeachment Surged Since June

The Ipsos poll shows a dramatic transformation in support for Bush's impeachment since late June. (This is only the second poll that has asked Americans about their support for impeaching Bush in 2005, despite his record-low approval ratings.) The Zogby poll conducted June 27-29 of 905 likely voters found that 42% agreed and 50% disagreed with a statement virtually identical to the one used by Ipsos Public Affairs. (see footnote below)


Ipsos 10/8-9
Zogby 6/27-29
Net Change

Support Impeachment
50% 42% +8%
Oppose Impeachment
44% 50% +6%
Impeachment Margin
+6% -8% +14%

After the June poll, pollster John Zogby told the Washington Post that support for impeachment "was much higher than I expected." At the time, impeachment supporters trailed opponents by 8%. Now supporters outnumber opponents by 6%, a remarkable shift of 14%.

Support for Clinton Impeachment Was Much Lower

In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (http://democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition.

Impeachment Support is Closely Related to Belief that Bush Lied about Iraq

Both the Ipsos and Zogby polls asked about support for impeachment if Bush lied about the reasons for war, rather than asking simply about support for impeachment. Pollsters predict that asking simply about impeachment without any context would produce a large number of "I don't know" responses. However, this may understate the percentage of Americans who favor Bush's impeachment for other reasons, such as his slow response to Hurricane Katrina, his policy on torture, soaring gasoline prices, or other concerns.

Other polls show a majority of U.S. adults believe that Bush did in fact lie about the reasons for war. A June 23-26 ABC/Washington Post poll found 52% of Americans believe the Bush administration "deliberately misled the public before the war," and 57% say the Bush administration "intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."

Support for the war has dropped significantly since June, which suggests that the percentage of Americans who believe Bush lied about the war has increased.

Passion for Impeachment is Major Unreported Story

The strong support for impeachment found in this poll is especially surprising because the views of impeachment supporters are entirely absent from the broadcast and print media, and can only be found on the Internet and in street protests, including the large anti-war rally in Washington on September 24.

The lack of coverage of impeachment support is due in part to the fact that not a single Democrat in Congress has called for impeachment, despite considerable grassroots activism by groups like Democrats.com (http://democrats.com/impeach).

"We will, no doubt, see an increase in activism following this poll," said David Swanson, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org. "But will we see an increase in media coverage? The media are waiting for action in Congress. Apparently it's easier to find and interview one of the 535 members of Congress than it is to locate a representative of the half of the country that wants the President impeached if he lied about the war. The media already accepts that Bush did lie about the war. We know this because so many editors and pundits told us that the Downing Street Memo was 'old news.' What we need now is journalism befitting a democracy, journalism that goes out and asks people what they really think about their government, especially George Bush."

The passion of impeachment supporters is directly responsible for the new poll commissioned by After Downing Street. After the Zogby poll in June, activists led by Democrats.com urged all of the major polling organizations to include an impeachment question in their upcoming polls. But none of the polling organizations were willing to do so for free, so on September 30, AfterDowningStreet.org posted a request for donations to fund paid polls (http://afterdowningstreet.org/polling). As of October 10, 330 individuals had contributed $8,919 in small donations averaging $27 each.

AfterDowningStreet.org has commissioned a second poll which is expected soon, and will continue to urge all polling organizations to include the impeachment question in their regular polls. If they do not, AfterDowningStreet.org will continue to commission regular impeachment polls.

Footnotes:

1. AfterDowningStreet.org is a rapidly growing coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups that was created on May 26, 2005, following the publication of the Downing Street Memos in London's Sunday Times on May 1. The coalition is urging Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war.

2.Here are the complete tables from the Ipsos Public Affairs poll, plus the definitions of regions used by Ipsos and the U.S. Census Bureau.

3. Zogby asked: "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him through impeachment." Here are (complete tables from Zogby)

4. Pollsters have offered various reasons for refusing to poll on impeachment. For example, Gallup said it would do so "if, and when, there is some discussion of that possibility by congressional leaders, and/or if commentators begin discussing it in the news media."

seems they are still caught on the word "if". Do they need diagrams???? :roll:

 

[Ocean Breeze]

October 14, 2005

On 19 March 2003 President Bush Jr. commenced his criminal war against Iraq by ordering a so-called decapitation strike against the President of Iraq in violation of a 48-hour ultimatum he had given publicly to the Iraqi President and his sons to leave the country. This duplicitous behavior violated the customary international laws of war set forth in the 1907 Hague Convention on the Opening of Hostilities to which the United States is still a contracting party, as evidenced by paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). Furthermore, President Bush Jr.'s attempt to assassinate the President of Iraq was an international crime in its own right. Of course the Bush Jr. administration's war of aggression against Iraq constituted a Crime against Peace as defined by the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950) as well as by paragraph 498 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).

Next came the Pentagon's military strategy of inflicting "shock and awe" upon the city of Baghdad. To the contrary, article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defined the term "War crimes" to include: ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. . ." The Bush Jr. administration's infliction of "shock and awe" upon Baghdad and its inhabitants constituted the wanton destruction of that city, and it was certainly not justified by "military necessity," which is always defined by and includes the laws of war. Such terror bombings of cities have been criminal behavior under international law since before the Second World War: Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Tokyo, Dresden, London, Guernica.

On 1 May 2003 President Bush Jr. theatrically landed on a U.S. aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego to declare: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." He spoke before a large banner proclaiming: "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." As of that date, the United States government became the belligerent occupant of Iraq under international law and practice.

This legal status was formally recognized by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003. For the purpose of this analysis here, the relevant portions of that Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003) are as follows:



. . . .


Noting the letter of 8 May 2003 from the Permanent Representatives of the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the President of the Security Council (S/2003/538) and recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of these states as occupying powers under unified command (the "Authority"),


. . . .


5. Calls upon all concerned to comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907;


. . . .


In that aforementioned 8 May 2003 letter from the United States and the United Kingdom to the President of the Security Council, both countries pledged to the Security Council that: "The States participating in the Coalition will strictly abide by their obligations under international law, including those relating to the essential humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq." No point would be served here by attempting to document the gross and repeated violations of that solemn and legally binding pledge by the United States and the United Kingdom from that date until today since it would require a separate book to catalog all of the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and grave human rights violations inflicted by the United States and the United Kingdom in Iraq and against its people. Suffice it to say here that no earlier than President Bush's 1 May 2003 Declaration of the end of hostilities in Iraq, and certainly no later than U.N. Security Resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003, both the United States and the United Kingdom have been the belligerent occupants of Iraq subject to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) or respectively its British equivalent, the humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol One of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international laws of war.

I do not take the position that the United States is the belligerent occupant of the entire state of Afghanistan. But certainly the laws of war and international humanitarian law apply to the United States in its conduct of hostilities in Afghanistan as well as to its presence there. It is not generally believed that the United States is the belligerent occupant of Guantanamo, Cuba. But those detainees held there by United States armed forces who were apprehended in or near the theaters of hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq are protected by either the Third Geneva Convention protecting prisoners of war or the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting civilians. In any event every detainee held by the United States government in Guantanamo is protected by the International Covenant on a Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a contracting party. A similar analysis likewise applies /pari passu/ to those numerous but unknown torture and detention facilities operated around the world by the Central Intelligence Agency. America's own "Gulag Archipelago." No wonder the Bush Jr. administration has done everything humanly possible to sabotage the International Criminal Court!

The United States government's installation of the so-called Interim Government of Iraq during the summer of 2004 did not materially alter this legal situation. Under the laws of war, this so-called Interim Government of Iraq is nothing more than a "puppet government." As the belligerent occupant of Iraq the United States government is free to establish a puppet government if it so desires. But under the laws of war, the United States government remains fully accountable for the behavior of its puppet government.

These conclusions are made quite clear by paragraph 366 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956):

366. Local Governments Under Duress and Puppet Governments

The restrictions placed upon the authority of a belligerent government cannot be avoided by a system of using a puppet government, central or local, to carry out acts which would be unlawful if performed directly by the occupant. Acts induced or compelled by the occupant are nonetheless its acts.

As the belligerent occupant of Iraq, the United States government is obligated to ensure that its puppet Interim Government of Iraq obeys the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), the humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol One of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international laws of war. Any violation of the laws of war, international humanitarian law, and human rights committed by its puppet Interim Government of Iraq are legally imputable to the United States government. As the belligerent occupant of Iraq, both the United States government itself as well as its concerned civilian officials and military officers are fully and personally responsible under international criminal law for all violations of the laws of war, international humanitarian law, and human rights committed by its puppet Interim Government of Iraq such as, for example, reported death squads operating under its auspicies.

Furthermore, it was a total myth, fraud, lie, and outright propaganda for the Bush Jr. administration to maintain that it was somehow magically transferring "sovereignty" to its puppet Interim Government of Iraq during the summer of 2004. Under the laws of war, sovereignty is never transferred from the defeated sovereign such as Iraq to a belligerent occupant such as the United States. This is made quite clear by paragraph 353 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956): "Belligerent occupation in a foreign war, being based upon the possession of enemy territory, necessarily implies that the sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the occupying power. Occupation is essentially provisional."

If there were any doubt about this matter, paragraph 358 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) makes this fact crystal clear:

358. Occupation Does Not Transfer Sovereignty

Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and the occupying force


. . . .


Therefore, the United States government never had any "sovereignty" in the first place to transfer to its puppet Interim Government of Iraq. In Iraq the sovereignty still resides in the hands of the people of Iraq and in the state known as the Republic of Iraq, where it has always been. The legal regime described above will continue so long as the United States remains the belligerent occupant of Iraq. Only when that U.S. belligerent occupation of Iraq is factually terminated can the people of Iraq have the opportunity to exercise their international legal right of sovereignty by means of free, fair, democratic, and uncoerced elections. So as of this writing, the United States and the United Kingdom remain the belligerent occupants of Iraq despite their bogus "transfer" of their non-existent "sovereignty" to their puppet Interim Government of Iraq.

Even U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546 of 8 June 2004 "Welcoming" the installation of the puppet Interim Government of Iraq recognized this undeniable fact of international law. Preambular language in this Resolution referred to "the letter of 5 June 2004 from the United States Secretary of State to the President of the Council, which is annexed to this resolution." In other words, that annexed letter is a legally binding part of Resolution 1546 (2004). Therein U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell pledged to the U.N. Security Council with respect to the so-called Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq: "In addition, the forces that make up the MNF are and will remain committed at all times to act consistently with their obligations under the law of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions." Pursuant thereto, the United States and the United Kingdom still remain the belligerent occupants of Iraq subject to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Hague Regulations of 1907, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) or respectively its British equivalent, the humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international laws of war.

This brings the analysis to the so-called Constitution of Iraq that was allegedly drafted by the puppet Interim Government of Iraq under the impetus of the United States government. Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare flatly prohibits the change in a basic law such as a state's Constitution during the course of a belligerent occupation: "The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." This exact same prohibition has been expressly incorporated in haec verba into paragraph 363 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). To the contrary, the United States has demonstrated gross disrespect toward every law in Iraq that has stood in the way of its imperial designs and petroleum ambitions, including and especially the pre-invasion 1990 Interim Constitution for the Republic of Iraq.

As for any subsequent Security Council Resolutions, the United Nations Security Council has no power or authority to alter one iota of the laws of war since they are peremptory norms of international law. For the Security Council even to purport to authorize U.S. violations of the laws of war in Iraq would render its so-voting Member States aiders and abettors to U.S. war crimes and thus guilty of committing war crimes in their own right. Any Security Council attempt to condone, authorize or approve violations of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the 1907 Hague Regulations, the humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international laws of war by the United States and the United Kingdom in Iraq would be ultra vires, a legal nullity, and void ab initio.

In fact, the United Nations Organization itself has become complicit in U.S. and U.K. international crimes in Iraq in violation of the customary international laws of war set forth in paragraph 500 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956): ". . . complicity in the commission of, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are punishable." The United Nations Organization is walking down the path of the League of Nations toward Trotsky's "ashcan" of history. And George Bush Jr. and Tony Blair are heading towards their own Judgment at Nuremberg whose sixtieth anniversary the rest of the world gratefully but wistfully commemorates this year. Never again!

Francis A. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois,