Bush's high crimes against the nation

George W. Bush has knowingly deceived the American people on the two overriding policy issues of his presidency � the invasion of Iraq and the deep tax cuts.

Other presidents have lied. Only Bush has repeatedly duped Congress and the public to thwart their exercise of informed consent.

He is the first president to use propaganda as the main weapon in selling his policies. Bush's unprecedented pattern of deception may constitute an impeachable offense.

To date, only the deception in Iraq has brought forth the "I" word. The case for impeachment is materially strengthened, however, when Iraq is combined with Bush's 2001 and 2003 propaganda campaigns to convince the public that tax filers with lower levels of income benefited more from his tax cuts than the nation's richest families.

Hoodwinking the public that Saddam posed a perilous immediate danger to the United States is Bush's greatest treachery. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman observed: "If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American history."

John Dean, counsel to the president during Watergate, wrote in mid-June: "Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be a 'high crime' under the Constitution's impeachment clause."

Before the U.S. invasion, the strong consensus based on intelligence community information held that there were only negligible Iraqi ties with al-Qaida, no nuclear weapons program of any consequence, and limited chemical and biological weapons programs at most.

Lacking hard facts, as evidenced by his now much-discussed deception in his State of the Union address that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa, Bush mixed misinformation, distorted allegations and unsubstantiated rumors to persuade the public of the imminent danger posed by Saddam Hussein.

The experience with the massive tax cuts for families and individuals in both 2001 and 2003 makes patently clear how Bush used the same unscrupulous tactics over time. Moreover, the level of the deception is staggering, as indicated by Bush's 2003 proposal to eliminate taxes on taxable corporate dividends.

Joel Friedman and Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out: "The group with incomes over $1 million � which consists of about 226,000 tax filers in 2003 � would receive roughly as much in benefits as the 127 million tax filers with income below $140,000. Stated another way, the top 0.2 percent of tax filers would receive nearly as much from the tax cut as the bottom 95 percent of filers combined."

Claiming that the 127 million tax filers with incomes of under $140,000 are the big winners when 226,000 of the richest tax filers benefit nearly as much is surely world-class policy deception.

But is it a high crime that warrants impeachment, as was the case with Watergate?

Republican operatives breaking into the Democratic Party's national committee headquarters and President Nixon's covering it up clearly constituted crimes. Bush's propaganda campaign to hide how much the tax cuts benefited the rich is more likely to be viewed by the public as the stuff of politics in which politicians make inflated claims about the importance of a proposed policy and its likely benefits and ignore potential problems.

In actuality, the president's purposeful duping of the public on the nation's most critical policy issues strikes at the heart of American constitutional democracy when it robs the electorate of informed consent. This fraudulent act makes a mockery of Abraham Lincoln's immortal words in the Gettysburg Address, "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."

Deeming presidential deception a high crime under the impeachment clause can open a Pandora's box of problems. Yet, President Bush's actions appear to be a far more serious assault on the Constitution than Watergate. I hold that interpreting Bush's pattern of deception on his most important policy proposals as a high crime against the nation is a necessary step in rescuing American democracy.

Walter Williams is a professor emeritus at the Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, and author of the forthcoming book, "Reaganism and the Death of Representative Democracy."

seattletimes.nwsource.com...

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye

He is the first president to use propaganda as the main weapon in selling his policies.

this right here made me stop reading the rest of the thread.

this line right here is the funniest thing i have ever seen.

he is far from the first president to use propaganda. of course that can depend on what you're definition of what propaganda is. and we can half a good old fashioned "what is the definition of is" debate but i prefer not to.

they all use propaganda. they're politicians for crying out loud! what do you expect?!?!?!

of course after reading this line i stopped reading the post and concluded that any and all assertions made after that statement are biased and is not worth reading IMO.

I think what it meant was, he was the first to pervert the media, completly. No, he wasnt the first to use propaganda.

Can we cut the small talk, and get to the impeachment. He will have all the time he needs to defend himself.........

All that and .50c will get you a bus ride downtown-New York Times???! Moron Dowd was just busted deliberately misquoting the President!! Credibility??

Hmm. Why is it the Democratic Left have nothing to offer in the way of a viable candidate or ideas?

BashBash- like BamBam on the Flintstones..

Blah, Blah, Blah........spurious accusations and what ifs?

BillHil............

www.fas.org...

www.fas.org...

Big T

An exemplary response in the "Republican vs Democrat I don't like that you're saying something that I can't analyze before I respond" style of argument.

This kind of response is what damages ATS and leads to hundreds of insults, stupid retorts, escalation to Moderators and demands that everything to do with the corrupt, deceitful, heinous Bush administration be constrained to one post.

The actual processes of how the lies are constructed, the languaging, the fake intelligence applied, and the control of certain complicit media, are all unique tools of this administration which deserve accurate and comprehensive deconstruction at ATS, for the information of readers and for those supporting the goal of 'Deny Ignorance'.

1. The article posted by All-Seeing Eye posits some important issues and comparisons:

* the known lies promulgating the Iraqi War
* questions about the tax cuts program and an allegation that its promises were equally mendacious
* the relative significance of both of these relative to what brought about Watergate and Nixon's resignation
* which parts are cause for impeachment.

2. You do nothing to dismiss any points at all. You just knee-jerk, and use a typical (irrelevant) response of Democrat candidates offering no alternative.

3. This detracts from the overall quality of ATS, especially if people can generally regard you as a quality poster from your experience and 'stripes'.

4. I disagree that Democrat candidates offer no alternative. They are very alternative to the mess that the incumbent administration has dug itself into. But I am not a Republican or a Democrat, and party politics are not relevant to the issues at hand.

5. Try to establish your position on at least these things in your response:

* the known lies promulgating the Iraqi War
* questions about the tax cuts program and an allegation that its promises were equally mendacious
* the relative significance of both of these relative to what brought about Watergate and Nixon's resignation
* which parts are cause for impeachment.

At the very least, state where you believe the author of the article misquoted the 'president' and damged his personal credibility.

Otherwise, your post is so mindless that it ought to be removed.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Big T

An exemplary response in the "Republican vs Democrat I don't like that you're saying something that I can't analyze before I respond" style of argument.

This kind of response is what damages ATS and leads to hundreds of insults, stupid retorts, escalation to Moderators and demands that everything to do with the corrupt, deceitful, heinous Bush administration be constrained to one post.

The actual processes of how the lies are constructed, the languaging, the fake intelligence applied, and the control of certain complicit media, are all unique tools of this administration which deserve accurate and comprehensive deconstruction at ATS, for the information of readers and for those supporting the goal of 'Deny Ignorance'.

1. The article posted by All-Seeing Eye posits some important issues and comparisons:

* the known lies promulgating the Iraqi War
* questions about the tax cuts program and an allegation that its promises were equally mendacious
* the relative significance of both of these relative to what brought about Watergate and Nixon's resignation
* which parts are cause for impeachment.

2. You do nothing to dismiss any points at all. You just knee-jerk, and use a typical (irrelevant) response of Democrat candidates offering no alternative.

3. This detracts from the overall quality of ATS, especially if people can generally regard you as a quality poster from your experience and 'stripes'.

4. I disagree that Democrat candidates offer no alternative. They are very alternative to the mess that the incumbent administration has dug itself into. But I am not a Republican or a Democrat, and party politics are not relevant to the issues at hand.

5. Try to establish your position on at least these things in your response:

* the known lies promulgating the Iraqi War
* questions about the tax cuts program and an allegation that its promises were equally mendacious
* the relative significance of both of these relative to what brought about Watergate and Nixon's resignation
* which parts are cause for impeachment.

At the very least, state where you believe the author of the article misquoted the 'president' and damged his personal credibility.

Otherwise, your post is so mindless that it ought to be removed.

Oh MA, climb down off your high horse for a second ok?
1. It is repititive article postings like these that need responding to. Nothing new, nothing cogent and nothing proven. NYT ref: Maureen Dowd...

2. You call reasons for a war lies, I call them reasons. You can harp about Niger from here to next year and get no traction. I don't bother responding to sideshow issues.

3. Allegations........ Tax cuts. I got more money in my paycheck last week and I am middle class. Thanks!

4. I know. You can't even vote. Knee jerk? Look down.

5. Irrelevant. Hmm. Must not be, I see your knee jerking still.

6. The fact that no one person has articulated a Dem candidate's cogent, unified and NEW idea here amoungst the Bush Bashers leads me to believe my statement is not so irrelevant after all.
See: Gephardt, Edwards etc.

...and back to #2. All you do is repeat the same old hateful language filled with virulent adjectives describing mere allegations that are dying on the vine. This activity leaves me thinking less of posting in this bastion of "I hate Bush land" blah blah blah ...if I had a dollar for all the snide, witticisms you've posted, I could retire now. Don't try and pull that TBATS crud in my wagon.

P.S. I always appreciate your personal attacks. Just shows you have a nerve after all!

Gore/ Dean in '04

Big T

Frank admission:

I haven't read the above yet. I am rushed.

I expected a raspberry noise. I am impressed.

Big T

I don't have a vote in the US (don't need one), and neither do you have one. The election system and counting hardware have seen to that while you haven't been looking.

We are in the same boat that way, at least when mine sails into American territory.

Just by the by, tell me confidently that you see no problem in Bush's creation of a new agency with the specific purpose of manipulating other agencies' intelligence data, and the Whitehouse's own manipulation of the same to take the US to WAR, and I will leave you alone on the issue of Bush's impending impeachment and sacking, as you will be burying your head when it happens.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Big T

I don't have a vote in the US (don't need one), and neither do you have one. The election system and counting hardware have seen to that while you haven't been looking.

We are in the same boat that way, at least when mine sails into American territory.

Just by the by, tell me confidently that you see no problem in Bush's creation of a new agency with the specific purpose of manipulating other agencies' intelligence data, and the Whitehouse's own manipulation of the same to take the US to WAR, and I will leave you alone on the issue of Bush's impending impeachment and sacking, as you will be burying your head when it happens.

MA, after re-reading the article....this is the only true statement I could find...

John Dean, counsel to the president during Watergate, wrote in mid-June: "Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be a 'high crime' under the Constitution's impeachment clause."

...I suppose we will have to see. I just paired down my posts in the seemingly multitudinal topics re: BUSH because they all blend together into one melange of hateful venting. If facts come out and are proven in a court of law, I will not shirk my duty by not saying- Go To Jail Mr. Bush!!

Until then, I demur to others the railing and so forth.