CONGRESS DEBATES WHAT ACTIONS IT WILL TAKE AGAINST BUSH

Submitted by:
Badger
Badger



Subscribe to this Author

Paste this code into your site to promote this story!


http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/congress_debates_145.html
Type of Content: 
Article

rss202

It was a dramatic non-impeachment impeachment hearing July 26 featuring many stars of the movement: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), author of the pending Articles of Impeachment, former federal prosecutor-turned-author Vincent Bugliosi and others.

Bugliosi said it is “already beyond a reasonable doubt” that “under the law [the Bush administration] are guilty of murder for the deaths of over 4,000 young American soldiers . . . and let’s not forget the over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children, and babies who have died horrible, violent deaths.”

Bob Barr, former Republican congressman from Georgia and now the Libertarian Party candidate for president, called for impeaching President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on grounds that they are using the so-called “war on terror” to violate the constitutional rights of individuals. Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and conservative who writes a syndicated column, made the same argument.

Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was determined that it not be called an “impeachment hearing.” Instead, he titled the hearing “Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations.”

Democratic leaders said there will be no impeachment effort because there is not enough time left in the Bush administration and it would disrupt an election environment that heavily favors Democrats. This led to a bit of levity.

“It seems we are hosting an anger management class,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.). “We are here having impeachment proceedings,” said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa. “whether it’s called the power to remove, these are impeachment hearings.” But “this is not an impeachment hearing,” Conyers interjected.

“Maybe,” said Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), “what we’re here for is something called ‘impeachment lite’. . . . We’re sort of in that Never-neverland of accusing the president of impeachable offenses but not taking actions to impeach him. Which I guess impugns but does not impeach him, but maybe it has the same effect in the court of public opinion.”

“This committee should immediately begin impeachment hearings,” said Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla,), a key backer of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. “If lying about consensual sexual activity fits the bill for impeachment, then certainly lying to the American people about the reason for invading Iraq . . . qualifies as an official—excuse me—as an impeachable offense,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). He was referring to former President Bill Clinton’s sexcapades, for which the House impeached him but the Senate refused to convict.

Kucinich, the first witness, never used the word “impeachment.”

(Issue # 32, August 11, 2008)

Please make a donation to American Free Press

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

Read »

Created 21 weeks 5 days ago
Made popular 21 weeks 5 days ago

Comments

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
All this shit the least of our problems now

Its time to spread the information far and wide what is NOW TAKING PLACE with Russia and the US: http://www.infowars.com/?p=3848

rea1001.blogspot.com Posted by rea1001.blogspot.com on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 7:23pm
Saddam is not the topic here

The topic is "Did the president lie to the people and congress in order to take us to war with Iraq?"

If so, he must be impreached

Dr Drumright Posted by Dr Drumright on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 6:29pm
If so?

It is a known fact he lied, many times.

rea1001.blogspot.com Posted by rea1001.blogspot.com on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 7:24pm
1,200,000 ++ dead in Iraq

The Iraqi death toll including those whom are maimed and dead from sanctions is greater than 1 million two hundred thousand. Total official numbers for all US dead and maimed in Iraq is greater than 17,000 as of early 2007.

-Kenny
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Kennywn Posted by Kennywn on Thu, 08/07/2008 - 11:21pm
Saddam murdered those who died from sanction

Saddam deliberately caused those deaths in an attempt to embarrass those who tried to stop the genocidal bastard through non-violent means.

To suggest fault with those nations is immoral. You must be very strong.

Posted by JacobW on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 12:02am
Saddam was no saint all

Saddam was no saint all agree. But actually CIA put him in power to begin with. Also, sanctions really did cause over 1 million deaths. The most heavily researched history of this I found was “Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq" by Barry Lando. Excellent journalism and a pretty easy (but sad) read.

Fact is, everything that happens there has been monitored or caused by first Britain, and then the US since it's inception. Hard not to feel sorry for its people.

I, Garland, will knock you all down!

Tehol Posted by Tehol on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 10:54am
No one wants a saint for a leader.

Saddam is directly responsilble for the 1 million deaths that occurred when sanctions were in place.

We want leaders who will stand up for their people, not assholes who stand up for their personal honor.

Posted by JacobW on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 3:23pm
Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.