WAR: Weapons Inspector Ends WMD Search in Iraq: 'Nothing'

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the term 'Impeach' means that he was found guilty under charges and forced to leave office? Clinton was brought under an impeachment hearing, but he wasn't convicted.

Impeachment is meaningless. It is just like being heavily censured on the public record, but it has no direct corollary of removal from office.

What is impeachment?

* a formal document charging a public official with misconduct in office
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it comprises only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and thus is only the first step towards possible removal. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

(1) The process of calling something into question, as in "impeaching the testimony of a witness." (2) The constitutional process whereby the House of Representatives may "impeach" (accuse of misconduct) high officers of the federal government for trial in the Senate.
usinfo.state.gov/dhr/democracy/u.s._legal_system/legal_glossary.html

A formal accusation issued by a legislature against a public official charged with crime or other serious misconduct.
bensguide.gpo.gov/6-8/glossary.html

The act of accusing a public official of misconduct in office by presenting formal charges against him or her by the lower house, with a trial to be held before the upper house.
www.nmlites.org/standards/socialstudies/glossary.html

formal charges of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" brought against the President, the Vice President, a Supreme Court justice, or any executive and judicial official. Members of Congress and military officers are not subject to impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee investigates the situation and makes a recommendation to the rest of the House on whether the official should be impeached. The rest of the House votes on the issue and, if the official is impeached, the Senate tries the case. If the official is convicted, he or she is removed from office. Since the ratification of the
www.multied.com/Civics/I.html

The bringing of charges against an official of the Government that question his or her right or qualifications to hold office. Maladministration or misconduct while in office is usually the basis of the charges. Impeachment charges are made by the House of Representatives. The trial of an impeached officer is conducted before the Senate. The Chief Justice of the United States presides when the President of the United States is being tried.
www.archives.gov/records_of_congress/house_guide/appendix_e.html

Impeachment generally means to bring charges against a public official for misbehavior in office. The House of Representatives impeached President Johnson in 1867 for violating the Tenure of Office Act, but a Senate trial failed to convict him of the impeachment charges.
www.ushistoryplace.com/glossary/i.html

During a trial, the process of trying to undermine the testimony of a witness. This is sometimes called "impeaching the testimony of a witness." For example, a witness credibility may be called into question by showing they are biased, inaccurate, unreliable, dishonest, or incorrect in some manner.
www.larrykinglaw.com/glossary.htm

A technique used during cross-examination to discredit a witness's testimony. Impeachment can be accomplished in a number of ways: by demonstrating and emphasizing the difference between the witness's testimony at trial and a prior statement, showing bias, showing erroneous assumptions made by the witness in drawing conclusions, etc. The intent of impeachment is to show the jury that the witness cannot be believed.
www.adlergiersch.com/legal.cfm

An impeachment is a formal charge of treason or criminality raised against an elected federal official. Only the House may bring an impeachment, and only the Senate may try and convict the accused. Conviction requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate and results in removal of the accused from office.
www.lib.umd.edu/GOV/leg_gloss.html

the formal process of accusing a president of serious wrong-doing that would merit removal from office. Many people think impeachment means "conviction." It does not. After the House of Representatives votes for impeachment, a trial is held by the Senate. President Andrew Johnson was impeached and tried in 1868, but not convicted.
www.fasttrackteaching.com/termscivil.html

To charge an official before a hearing panel with misconduct in office, which could result in removal from office.
www.aapa.org/manual/judicial/glossary.html

a special defence accusing another named person of committing the crime charged
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/scotland/2002/lockerbie_appeal/1773699.stm

An accusation made by a legislature, or part of legislature, against an executive or judicial officer. The Impeachment is only the accusation and does not indicate guilt, which is determined at a trial in the other part of the legislature.
en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Civics_Glossary

Power of Congress to remove a public official, such as president, vice president, federal judge, and other federal officers from office, usually by proving that he/she committed illegal acts while acting for public duty, did not tell the truth, or misrepresented the truth. For instance, an infamous case in this country concerns the former President Richard Nixon. He resigned in 1974 rather than face impeachment for his involvement in the Watergate affair, in which he was accused of obstructing the investigation and lying to Congress about his participation.
www.abateofcolo.org/Tips%20&%20Info/Civics%20Glossary.htm


And on topic...

On the topic of Syria, which many pro-war Bush sycophants have set up as a recipient of WMD stockpiles (sometimes explaining that the weapons were shipped out under the noses of the US military after Iraq occupation)...

story.news.yahoo.com.../nm/20050426/pl_nm/iraq_wmd_syria_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) The U.S.-led group that scoured Iraq for weapons of mass destruction has found no evidence Iraq hid such weapons in Syria before the U.S. invasion in March 2003, according to a final report on the investigation.

The 1,700-member Iraq Survey Team, responsible for the weapons hunt, also said in a report released late on Monday it found no Iraqi officials with direct knowledge of a transfer of weapons of mass destruction developed by former President Saddam Hussein.

President Bush and other U.S. officials cited a grave threat posed by Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and Baghdad's efforts to acquire a nuclear arms capability as a justification for war. No such weapons were found but U.S. officials said it was possible Saddam sent them to Syria for safekeeping...

The new report posted on the CIA Web site said: "Based on evidence available ... it is unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."

It said investigators "found no senior policy, program or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD."

"Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that have been secreted to Syria," the report said.





Yes, Bush is fit for impeachment and a lot more.


[edit on 26-4-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

It wasnt poor Bush's fault. He was given unreliable intelligence by Russia and other countries. Remember?

I tell you, it makes my heart bleed to see the suffering Mr Bush has endured- He was set up. Remember? How can we possibly blame him?

The question remains, why will this man never be impeached?

If you typecast Bush as a somewhat likable but pathetic idiot, rather than as the puppet POTUS of a criminal gang, then you excuse a lot of criminality and corruption. Another nail in the coffin of US democracy when you do.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Impeachment is meaningless. It is just like being heavily censured on the public record, but it has no direct corollary of removal from office.

...

Power of Congress to remove a public official, such as president, vice president, federal judge, and other federal officers from office, usually by proving that he/she committed illegal acts while acting for public duty

How can impeachment be meaningless when it can remove a sitting President?

DUDE, where's my WMD?




Geez man thats all I had going for me. I mean all this time I been waitng and waiting and waiting AND still I wait just one damn monster I beg for, a monster, and alien, a freaking wmd c'mon antichrist something throw us a friggin bone here!


Well Iraq has been ate up. So... whats next on the menu? Colombia, NK? Iran, youran they ran, sudan, minivans?


[edit on 27-4-2005 by Lysergic]

Originally posted by Muaddib
When are people going to learn that there is a difference between not finding stockpiles of WMD, which i am certain they were moved unofficially from Iraq, and not finding any proof that Saddam was dealing in WMD programs.....

Oddly enough, this report deals specifically with the disposition of Iraqi NBC programs after the Gulf War. In other words, it concluded not merely that no stockpiles or evidence of activity were found in Iraq after the invasion, but that such activities had ceased post-91. It is proof that Saddam was not working on NBC programs.

I am reminded of the classic delusional paranoiac personality. Any evidence against their belief is just proof of a cover up. It's all intricate and logically sound and completely unfalsifiable.

Originally posted by Lysergic
DUDE, where's my WMD?


Well Iraq has been ate up. So... whats next on the menu? Colombia, NK? Iran, youran they ran, sudan, minivans?


[edit on 27-4-2005 by Lysergic]

I like him he's silly.

but seriously though there's nothing funny about this. I mean god what did I ever do to be born in this era. I must have really pissed someone off in a past life. I mean you vote you write your congressman you protest and still you've got these goons running the country all because a certain portion of this country that shall remain nameless (looks sharply toward middle america) believed this guy was the lesser of two evils. I mean come on whats the worst thing Kerry could have done? Granted he's the hugeist ( is that even a word?) loser on the face of the planet in my opinion right now but it would have been physically impossible for him to F up as badly as our current chump in chief has.

This is all because the people in this country least likely to come under terror attack all bought into the terror nonsense campaign hook line and sinker. Funny how the people actually in danger voted against his ass faster then you can say "Where's osama?". By the way whatever happened to our weekly color coded terroism advisory? It just kinda disappeared after the election was over.... Oh well guess it outlived its usefulness.

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Impeachment is meaningless. It is just like being heavily censured on the public record, but it has no direct corollary of removal from office.

...

Power of Congress to remove a public official, such as president, vice president, federal judge, and other federal officers from office, usually by proving that he/she committed illegal acts while acting for public duty

How can impeachment be meaningless when it can remove a sitting President?

Well... when you put it that way... it does point out some discrepancies in the lexicology and what people given the authority to make bombastic pronouncements connote by "impeachment".

Still, IMHO, it's a wet bus ticket, in the antipodean vernacular.

Here. Have another thesaurus.