Impeachment: Congress didn't give the President the authority to wage illegal war

The President continues to live in the land of fantasy and denial. He points to the Congress to share the blame.

Yet, Congress wasn't the commander in Chief in 2003. President Bush was: We have photos of him taking the oath of office; and of him making misleading statements about the reasons for using force.

It appears the President knows he is in trouble, and is lying and misrepresenting history to avoid accountability. Things are getting worse for the Commander in Chief. The longer he stays in office, the more evidence can be gathered to make the impeachable offenses self-evident.

* * *

Useful References to consider while reading this blog:

How the President organized the propaganda: Document used to organize the deception over war crimes.

Evidence of conspiracy to deceive Congress: Downing Street Memo.

What a war crimes indictment looks like: Nuremburg Indictment against Goering.

How the President and co-conspirators continue to engage in deception: Flawed Strategy for Victory -- Denial, more of the same.

* * *

WaPo discusses the President's misleading statements in his recent speech.

The Washington Post correctly points out that the President is misrepresenting the Congress' access to intelligence. The available intelligence shows the President is lying: The CIA said there was no basis to believe Saddam still had WMD.

However, the more troubling issue is what Congress actually voted for: It didn't vote for war. Congress voted to authorize the president to use whatever means necessary to enforce the agreements with Saddam. Ref

* * *

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.

This Congressional vote wasn't a vote to create immunity for war crimes. The President failed to demonstrate that [a] Saddam was violating the agreements, or [b] Iraq was not in compliance; or [c] Iraq had failed to disclose the required materials. It is irrelevant that allies have joined the United States; this is simply evidence of a wider conspiracy with a broader number of victims of the alleged fraud and deception.

But the Congressional approval required the President to confirm, which he did using misleading information, that he had exhausted all diplomatic efforts, which he did not:

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

We now know these conditions were not met:

A. The intelligence was fudged, and the President knew this;

B. Not all the options were exhausted, and the President knew this;

C. Iraq did not pose a threat, and the President knew this;

D. The President and his staff met with Blair and others in Downing Street to fabricate a story, and the President knew this;

E. There was no continuing or imminent threat, and the President knew this;

F. The President falsely asserted there was a connection between 9-11 and Iraq, in violation of the second paragraph above.

* * *

Let us also consider the convoluted argument related to what did or didn't happen after the Gulf War is over, or with Bush-41, the current President's father.

One argument is that Iraq in 2003 was not living up to its obligations. If that is true, then the President also, under American law, did have obligations to the Congress.

Even if we were to dig back into the "governing law" that was applicable for Bush-41, with the hopes of stretching it to apply to 2003, the current President Bush 43 still has a problem -- he hasn't met the conditions from the era he says were applicable.


Namely, if we accept the absurd argument that "we must focus on what was going on in Iraq in 1991 in re WMD" [and ignore what happened between 1991 and 2002: The WMD was accounted for], then we would also have to apply the governing law that the President in 1991 was subject to.

Specifically, in 1991, the President was required to do the following [ See PL-102-1]:

b) REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION THAT USE OF MILITARY FORCE IS NECESSARY- Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) The United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with the United Nations Security Council resolutions cited in subsection (a); and

We now know:

Not all options were exhausted, and the President knew this;

There was no reason to use military force, as there was no threat, and the President knew this;

Not all appropriate diplomatic means were used, and the President knew this;

The President contributed to and led an effort to create the illusion that all efforts were ineffectual, when in fact, the efforts were designed to fail, and were thwarted by White House-led efforts;

Iraq was in compliance, and the President knew this, and contributed to a deception campaign to create the illusion that Iraq was not in compliance

If we go back to 1991 as the basis for the evidence to justify action in Iraq in 2003, then we must also see whether the statutes that were in place in 1991 were being followed in 2003. From the above discussion, it is clear the President fails this test.

The President cannot pick and choose his evidence that is inconvenient; then also pick and choose the statutes that show he committed war crimes.

* * *

Thus, because the President knew what the law was, and substantially contributed to a deception campaign for Congress, and Congress relied on that, the President can be charged with a crime of

A. making misleading statements to Congress related to official business;

violating public law 102-1; and

engaging in unlawful war.

All three counts are the basis for the President to be charged with a crime, or impeached, by the House of Representatives.

It remains to be seen whether more evidence is required to justify conviction by the Senate to remove him from office; or whether more people will be smeared, threatened, and falsely accused to divert attention from the President's alleged war crimes.

* * *

Whether the American government does or does not take action is irrelevant.

There are other nations who are also conducting investigations and have the lawful authority to indict war criminals.

Either America can solve this problem, or other nations can step in.

There are two options, neither of them is a green light for the President. Either

A. The House of Representatives will take action on what is known now; or

B. The required crimes and conspiracy to avoid accountability will yield more evidence of the wider conspiracy.

The rule of law will ultimately prevail, either from within or without.

If America wishes to retain sovereignty, and avoid outside and lawful interference because it refuses to assert the rule of law, the Congress must act.

* * *

Yet, the thrust of the President's speech suggests that Congress, because it had access to the same intelligence, voted for war. This argument is incorrect, misleading, and additional evidence of an Executive Branch conspiracy to avoid consequences for war crimes.

The 2003 CIA report contradicts what the Presidents asserts. The CIA is clear -- there is no basis to state that Iraq has WMD, but the President ignores this inconvenient report.

What appears more likely is the President agreed to a set of conditions which were subsequently changed and adjusted once Iraq met the new standard. No matter what happened or what Iraq did, it appears the President intended to [a] wage unlawful war and [b] remove a head of state.

Fitzgerald and others are competent fact finders. The truth can be understood. And the facts compared to the laws. It remains a matter of law for the Congress and House Judiciary Committee to review what happened. History cannot be changed, no matter how much the President may wish.

* * *

The key question before the nation isn't simply whether the President lied, but what he did when authorized to use force: He wasn't authorized to lie to Congress; nor misrepresent facts; nor violate the laws of war.

Congress gave the President the authority to use lawful force. It remains a matter of law whether that force was used illegally.

At this juncture, it appears the Congress was mislead; the President knew Congress was relying on the misrepresentations; and the President used force in violation of the laws of war.

This is not Congress's problem that the President can throw to the political winds, but one that lands squarely on the Executive Branch's feet.

* * *

Central to the inquiry will be whether the entire ruse, intelligence, and apparent unlawful war was related to unlawfully removing a head of state.

The Downing Street Memo suggests that the real objective was to remove Saddam, which would be another violation of the laws of war. One cannot simply assert that one has committed a wrong; take action; then find no evidence; and then expect the blame to get spread around to everyone else.

The President was in charge. He knew he was in charge. He took an oath. We have pictures of him taking that oath.

That oath was not to revenge the attempted murder of his father. His oath remains to the US Constitution.

* * *

Bush's speech does more to confirm he has a problem and knows it. But is doing what he's always done: Find someone to blame for his problems.

This time, Fitzgerald knows the responsibility rests with the President, and nobody else. If you live by the lie, you will get removed from office for the lie.

* * *

It's irrelevant what Clinton did or didn't do in 1998. Bush was in charge in 2003, the year the President chose to launch an unlawful war based on lies to Congress.

It is 2005, time for the RNC to wake up: The leadership continues to play games with the law. The RNC can either cooperate and remedy what is wrong; or it can remain on the wrong side of history.

The public will know who is not cooperating. The longer the RNC takes to assert the rule of law over this tyrant, the longer it will be before the RNC can justify it is trustworthy to hold and exercise power.