Enid Goldstein
  Democratic Talk Radio
  Erin Hart
  Meria Heller
  Guy James
  Joey Joe Joe Show!
  KBOO
  KPFA
  KPFK
  Mike Malloy
  John McMullen
  Shann Nix
  Radio Left
  Randi Rhodes
  John Rothmann
  Ski & Skinner
  Ray Taliaferro
  Bernie Ward
  WBAI
  Mike Webb
  Johnny Wendell
  Peter Werbe
  WMNF
  WKTS

WEB SITES

  AdBusters
  Alternet
  American Politics Journal
  American Prospect
  BartCop!
  BuzzFlash
  BushWatch
  Common Dreams
  Consortium News
  ConWebWatch
  Daily Howler
  Democrats.com
  Dem Underground
  FAIR
  From The Wilderness
  IndyMedia
  Liberal Resurgent
  Media Horse Online
  Media Channel
  Mother Jones
  Nation
  New Republic
  Onion
  Online Journal
  Political Strikes
  RackJite
  Ted Rall
  Tom Tomorrow
  Tom Paine
  Truthout
  Village Voice

Bush is IMPEACHABLE because He's UNDER OATH.
TBTM Commentary by a Symbolman

While cruising one of my favorite, up to date and insightful websites I came across an interesting exchange. The thread was about the "Retraction" made by the White House over the bald faced lie to both Congress and the American people that helped to launch thousands of deaths in Iraq. Specifically the Niger Forgeries Bush presented as fact tho many knew then and it's coming out that HE knew as well they were faked.

So he lied. Knowingly.

Here's the exchange I read today that I think is VERY Useful:

*************************************************

Making statements about sexual affairs in sleazeball investigations is not a duty of the President. Yet, when President Clinton lied about a sexual affair, he was impeached
.
On the other hand, the State of the Union IS a presidential duty. In fact, it says so in the Constitution
:
Article 2, Section 3
Duties of the President
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union...

Bush blatantly lied while performing this duty.

So now we'll see...is lying to Paula Jones' attorneys an impeachable offense, but lying to Congress and the American people, while performing one of the few explicitly enumerated duties of the president, in order to build support for a war on false pretenses is NOT an impeachable offense?

But he wasn't under oath...

unless you count the "I do solemly swear to faithfully execute the duties..." part of the swearing in ceremony...)

Yes, he was under oath

As you noted, it was the Oath of Office.

If it had been any OTHER speech, perhaps you'd have a point, but the State of the Union is an officially assigned constitutional duty of the President. Given that fact, I'd say it has as much weight as any affidavit or sworn testimony.

They issue the retraction like "it was only the state of the union address, not something important..." when this address is one of the few MANDATED duties of the office that is specifically laid out in the constitution!

*********************************************

We're not lawyers but this sure looks like a reasonable legal rationale for IMPEACHMENT.

While we're at it CHENEY made pretty much the same OATH.

Now, remember that there's a whole lot of WAR PROFITEERING, Nepotism and Shady Business deals involved - a big shot here for any Actual Journalist to get a Pulitzer or better.

Let's hear from some legal scholars on this. Remember what the Drumbeat was by the right wing during their Impeachment of President Clinton?

"It's not about the Sex, it's about the LYING."

Well, then - Let's Update that mantra and use it. "It's not about the WAR - It's about the LYING."

In the Meantime write/call/email your Congressman or Senator and/or any Media outlet you can and tell them that BUSH LIED UNDER OATH.

He did. He swore an OATH and LIED to CONGRESS During an OFFICIAL DUTY.

It's just that simple. Pass the Word.

UPDATE: A LAWYER BRINGS MEAT TO THE TABLE:

The Case for Impeachment

The wheels are really coming off Bush & Co.'s case for the Iraqi war. In particular, little reasonable doubt can remain that Mr. Bush did not know the following statement, made during his 2003 State of the Union Address, was a lie:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. ... Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

The administration claims that the statement was not a lie, because it was "technically" correct. In other words, the statement supposedly gave a truthful accounting of the British position. The administration's hyper-technical approach to lying is still lying: The American intelligence community, along with the White House, had long known the information was false. As such, Mr. Bush could not truthfully maintain the British had "learned" information he knew was false -- particularly in light of the fact that he intended to mislead Congress into believing the information.

Did Mr. Bush commit an impeachable offense when he knowingly used false information to convince Congress and the American people to support a war with Iraq"

The President can be removed only upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment and trial can rest only on "Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4.)

Since Mr. Bush seems to have lied to Congress, then he apparently violated at least two federal statutes. Each violation is a felony, a "High Crime" punishable by impeachment.

18 USC section 1001 provides that in matters within federal jurisdiction, any person who "knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

In matters involving Congress, the statute applies to any "document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch . . . ."

The State of the Union address is "a document required by law . . .to be submitted to the Congress." Article II, Section III of the U.S. Constitution states: "The President . . . shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

If Mr. Bush lied in his State of the Union address to convince Congress to support him in war, he may have violated 18 USC 1001 several ways. For instance, lying about non-existent uranium purchases would falsify, conceal or cover up a material fact " that the purchase never occurred. Lying also obviously violates section 2 of the statute: "makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation". Knowing reliance upon the forged documents would violate section 3 of the statute: "uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry".

Lies contained in the State of the Union address would also violate the federal anti-conspiracy statute, because the lie would come about through the efforts of many people. That statute, 18 USC section 371, criminalizes acts by two or more people who conspire "either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy. . . ." Violations of the federal anti-conspiracy statute are punishable by a fine and imprisonment not to exceed 5 years.

A strong legal case for impeachment exists. However, impeachment is only quasi-legal. Impeachment is really a political act. Therefore, the question arises whether these kinds of crimes " the result of lying " should be the basis for presidential impeachment. Given Republican control of Congress, Republican beliefs regarding presidential lying are of real import.

Here is what several Republicans said to Congress in the context of Mr. Clinton"s impeachment:

Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) , on Friday, said in Congress on December 11, 1998:

"When asked to name the single most important gift America had given the world, Daniel Webster replied, "The integrity of George Washington." How many of us have wondered, as a child, holding a shiny new quarter in our hand, why the profile of George Washington adorns more coin and paper money than any other national figure's Integrity. . . .

"While reverence for parallels with the Nixon impeachment is seductive but inappropriate, there are some points worth noting. In the Nixon case, for example, lying to Congress and to the American people in just such a manner, provoked a separate article of impeachment. Is the danger of such an attack on our constitutional processes any less dangerous today?"

Mr. Barr continued:
"You know, as children, all of us believed certain things with all of our hearts. We knew there was a difference between good and evil.

"We knew it was wrong to lie, and equally important, that if we got caught, we would be punished. We knew that honesty and fairness were as much a part of why we respected our parents, pastors, and teachers, as we assuredly knew they were part of why we pledged allegiance to our flag.

"What happened to these simple things that we all knew in our hearts just a few short years ago? Why do so many adults now find it so hard to call a lie a lie, when as parents, teachers, and employers, we have no such hesitancy? Why do so many now resist the search for the truth and accountability, when we do so day in and day out, in our lives at home, in business, in school, and in our religious institutions?"

Rep. Charles Canady (R-FL), said in Congress on December 10, 1998:

"A constitution is often a most inconvenient thing. A constitution limits us when we would not be limited. It compels us to act when we would not act. But our Constitution, as all of us in this room acknowledge, is the heart and soul of the American experiment. It is the glory of the political world. And we are here today because the Constitution requires that we be here. We are here because the Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. We are here because the impeachment power is the sole constitutional means granted to Congress to deal with the misconduct of the chief executive of the United States.

"In many other countries, a matter such as this involving the head of government would have been quietly swept under the rug. There would, of course, be some advantages to that approach. We would all be spared embarrassment, indignity and discomfort. But there would be a high cost if we followed that course of action. Something would be lost. Respect for the law would be subverted, and the foundation of our Constitution would be eroded.

"The impeachment power is designed to deal with exactly such threats to our system of government. Conduct which undermines the integrity of the president's office, conduct by the chief executive which sets a pernicious example of lawlessness and corruption is exactly the sort of conduct that should subject a president to the impeachment power. Alexander Hamilton himself acknowledged that those who set examples which undermine or subvert the authority of the laws lead us from freedom to slavery. That is what William Jefferson Clinton has done. There must be a constitutional remedy."

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said to Congress on December 11, 1998:

"Should he be impeached" Very quickly; the hardest decision I think I will ever make. Learning that the president lied to the grand jury about sex, I still believe that every president of the United States, regardless of the matter they called to testify about before a grand jury should testify truthfully and if they don't they should be subject to losing their job.

"I believe that about Bill Clinton and I'll believe that about the next president. If it had been a Republican, I would have still believed that and I would hope that if a Republican person had done all this that some of us would've went (sic) over and told him, You need to leave office. I understand that the dilemma that all of us are in about that. His fate is in his own hands."

Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) said to Congress on December 11, 1998:

"This vote says something about us. It answers the question, just who are we, and what do we stand for" Is the president one of us, or is he a sovereign? We vote for our honor, which is the only thing we get to take with us to the grave."

Each of these Republican Congressmen were arguing for Mr. Clinton"s removal from office for purportedly committing perjury in a sexual harassment case. However, the federal court had ruled that Mr. Clinton's testimony regarding his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was not material to that case. In other words, these Congressmen strongly believed that lying under oath to immaterial matters were a proper basis for removing the Chief Executive " and the House of Representatives agreed. If Republicans believe Mr. Clinton's purported misdeeds were the stuff of impeachment and removal from office, then what of Mr. Bush's lies?

Rather than lying about immaterial matters, Mr. Bush lied about the most important matters imaginable, whether to send Americans to their deaths while killing citizens of another country. If Mr. Clinton should have been removed from office for his purported lies, then Mr. Bush " if he really did lie " should be removed from office and subsequently prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Copyright © Frank Bloksberg 2003, All Rights Reserved

Symbolman