TOWARD DISRESPECTFUL AUTHORITY: The case for impeachment

A few weeks ago I authored a column in favor of the impeachment of President George Bush. While the column received some strong support, the primary voice of criticism was there are no crimes for which to impeach Bush.

In my excitement and fervor of the moment, I have to admit I wrote the column on broad generalities with no specific mention of crimes.

I hope this is not redundant, but please, allow me to try again.

One of the components of obstruction of justice is having knowledge of an investigation and attempting to influence the outcome.

When the case for war in Iraq was brought before the United Nations and the Senate, there were several facts that were misconstrued or exaggerated to fit the agenda of the Bush administration. The main point was the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons and the pursuit of nuclear weapons. The evidence of these weapons was the result of data mining - the art of culling through intelligence to find facts and fitting them to a perception created prior to analysis.

It is usually at this junction when the supporters of the war in Iraq begin to clamor about the conspiracy of the leftists.

Bush was advised that Saddam Hussein did not possess these weapons by such notable people as Robert Baer, a CIA operative who worked out of Iraq for 25 years; Dr. David MacMichael, a former CIA analyst who resigned his post rather than falsify his reports for political reasons; and Scott Ritter, a former Marine captain and the UN's top weapons inspector in Iraq.

These are generally not the type of people associated with the radical left or even moderate liberals.

Bush's second call to war - consequently the flag he continues to wave in favor of justification - is Hussein's association with al Qaeda. Because of the attacks of Sept. 11 and the ongoing war in Afghanistan, this was an easier pill for America to swallow. It was easy for Bush to find al Qaeda hiding behind every frightening occurrence since the 9/11 attacks.

When Bush asked for the intelligence, he was told there was no connection between Hussein and al Qaeda by such notables as Graham Fuller, a high level CIA administrator who served most of the 20 years in the foreign service in the Muslim world; Larry Johnson, a terrorism expert who has worked with the CIA and Office of Counter-Terrorism; and Patrick Lang, a former U.S. Army officer who served in terrorism study groups sponsored by the federal government. The link between Iraq and al Qaeda is very strong and is due to the war perpetrated by Bush.

Article of Impeachment I: Obstruction of justice.

Even before the Senate approved the Iraq War, the administration was planning the offensive, calling on the expertise of countless military experts. One expert was Marine General Anthony Zinni, a veteran of both Vietnam and the Gulf War. Between the Gulf War and the Iraq War, Zinni spent his time planning for the ground invasion of Iraq, constantly updating as the situation changed and new intelligence became available. The plan was thorough and included the men, machines and logistics involved in all phases of the war, from invasion, security and stabilization to rebuilding.

Zinni's plan was immediately discarded.

The ground invasion was shocking and awing to buy into the mainstream media hype. The deaths that occurred were unfortunate, but the cold reality is this is the cost of doing war.

When we moved into occupation, cooperative military might started to break down, and the lack of solid planning began to take its toll on American lives.

Since the declaration of major combat operations, there have been more than 3,000 troops killed in Iraq. This leads to the most important justification for impeachment.

Article of Impeachment II: Negligent Homicide - 3000 plus counts.

Write to Jason at jlhodson@bsu.edu


Comments

More from The Daily






This Week's Digital Issue


Loading Recent Classifieds...