Well ...there it is

flavio

Banned
27 members of the House of Representatives are supporting a bill, H. Res 635, calling for "a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before Congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."

"Our principles are enshrined in our Constitution and a system of duly enacted laws, and in a government where all are accountable and no one is above the law," stated Rep. Barbara Lee of California, one of the co-sponsors of the impeachment inquiry. "Our Constitution gives us a system of checks and balances and divided power because our founders were bitterly familiar with dealing with an unaccountable executive and were determined that our nation should not have a king," said Congresswoman Lee.

At the same time the Congressional inquiry moves forward, recent polls reveal that the majority of the country now favors impeachment if the President either lied about the reasons for going to war or broke federal law with his illegal wire-tapping program.

Summary

PDFs
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/hres635.PDF
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/hres636.PDF
 

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
It took a little work to find out who the 27 sponsors are.

The list is here.

Interestingly enough, every single sponsor has a D next to his or her name. I couldn't find an I, let alone an R. (The sponsor that rescinded her sponsorship is also a D.)

Partisan politics and nothing more. KennedyCo Propaganda?
 

flavio

Banned
If it's determined that Bush and Cheney have broke the law do you support impeachment?

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans say that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 8-9.....

..... 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.
 

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
I'm not so sure they broke the law. If they did, under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard the impeachment matter would have to be considered for consistency's sake. But considering the majority in the House, I don't think he would be impeached, and even if so I think it would be awfully hard to get the necessary votes in the senate for removal from office. Also, keep in mind that if Bush is removed from office, Cheney becomes president. How would you like that?

I should also point out that it was actually proven that Clinton did break the law.
 

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
I should also mention that "polls" are a misnomer because they don't really support anything. If they did, Kerry would be president right now. Who were the 1,001 people asked? Who is the research firm highly-regarded by?
 

flavio

Banned
Inkara1 said:
I'm not so sure they broke the law. If they did, under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard the impeachment matter would have to be considered for consistency's sake. But considering the majority in the House, I don't think he would be impeached, and even if so I think it would be awfully hard to get the necessary votes in the senate for removal from office. Also, keep in mind that if Bush is removed from office, Cheney becomes president. How would you like that?
I think they're after Cheney too. Where would that put us? Dennis Hastert?

I should also mention that "polls" are a misnomer because they don't really support anything. If they did, Kerry would be president right now. Who were the 1,001 people asked? Who is the research firm highly-regarded by?
They're an reasonable indicator not an absolute.
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
Man, don't get me started on polls again.
It depends on Who's is giving it, and how reputable they are.
You can in deed ask a question, and it means the same thing no matter how you answer.
All polls are not created equally.
Some are no more than a mear propaganda tool.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
HJ 114 RH

Union Calendar No. 451

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

[Report No. 107-721] To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 2, 2002

Mr. HASTERT (for himself and Mr. Gephardt) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

October 7, 2002

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the part printed in italic]

[Strike out the preamble and insert the part printed in italic]

[For text and preamble of introduced joint resolution, see copy of joint resolution as introduced on October 2, 2002]

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution. Union Calendar No. 451

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

[Report No. 107-721]

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Investigation CLOSED.
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
flavio said:
I think they're after Cheney too. Where would that put us? Dennis Hastert?

It goes to the current Speaker of the House, so, yes...Dennis Hastert.

flavio said:
They're an reasonable indicator not an absolute.

Nope. They are a tool to achieve desired results. Nothing more.
 

flavio

Banned
Gonz said:
Investigation CLOSED.
The bit you posted really doesn't have much to do with "Administration's intent to go to war before Congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture".
 

SouthernN'Proud

Southern Discomfort
Inkara1 said:
It took a little work to find out who the 27 sponsors are.

Interestingly enough, every single sponsor has a D next to his or her name. I couldn't find an I, let alone an R. (The sponsor that rescinded her sponsorship is also a D.)

You had to look to figure that out?

Eight years of outright scandal, followed by the election of someone who despite his shortcomings has yet to sell military secrets to the Cinese much less get caught with his pecker in an intern. The Ds are scrambling for any conceivable shred of impropriety, and when it can't be found they'll create some.
 

flavio

Banned
SouthernN'Proud said:
The Ds are scrambling for any conceivable shred of impropriety, and when it can't be found they'll create some.
Shred? ....You don't pay attention to the news much do you?
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
SouthernN'Proud said:
You had to look to figure that out?

Eight years of outright scandal, followed by the election of someone who despite his shortcomings has yet to sell military secrets to the Cinese much less get caught with his pecker in an intern. The Ds are scrambling for any conceivable shred of impropriety, and when it can't be found they'll create some.

Which is the irony of this entire administration.

The (D)s think that he's an evil oil baron who is as dumb as a rock yet try as they might, he keeps beating them. The definition of insane is....
 

flavio

Banned
Say you were talking about Clinton. It would read....

"The irony of this entire administration.

The (R)s think that he's an evil sex maniac who is horny as a toad yet try as they might, he keeps beating them."


The difference hear is that Clinton got a BJ and BushCo cost the taxpayer trillions, killed hundreds of thousands, took away our civil liberties, tortured people, screwed the environment, set a new record deficit, etc, etc...and yet brain dead masses think he's infallible.

The definition of insane is....
 

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
SouthernN'Proud said:
You had to look to figure that out?
I knew it from the start... I had to look for proof. I instantly saw it for what it is, a partisan political ploy and nothing more, and by hyping it up flav is playing into the Democrats' hands just as much as he accuses others of playing into the Republicans' hands.
 

flavio

Banned
It's investigation into lies and crimes committed by the administration....Republicans aren't into that sort of thing?
 
Top