From the state that brought you Bush

[Prometheus]

By: Burnam H.C.R. No. 154


? ? ?HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, The elemental source for initiating congressional
? ? ?impeachment proceedings is found in The Constitution, Jefferson's
? ? ?Manual, and Rules of the United States House of Representatives;
? ? ?Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice
? ? ?authorizes federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint
? ? ?resolution of a state or territorial legislature as a matter of
? ? ?privilege; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, Precedent for employing this authority is
? ? ?well-established and documented in Hinds' Precedents of the House
? ? ?of Representatives of the United States; one such entry relates to a
? ? ?1903 joint resolution passed by the Florida state legislature
? ? ?requesting that the U.S. Congress impeach U.S. District Judge
? ? ?Charles Swayne that resulted in a senate trial; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, Invoking this authority, the people of the state of
? ? ?Texas charge that President George W. Bush has violated the United
? ? ?States Constitution and other federal law and abused the power of
? ? ?his office to the extreme detriment of the country and the interests
? ? ?of its citizens, actions that constitute high crimes and
? ? ?misdemeanors; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, President Bush conspired with others to defraud the
? ? ?United States of America by intentionally misleading the congress
? ? ?and the nation regarding an Iraqi threat to the American people to
? ? ?justify a war in direct defiance of the United Nations Security
? ? ?Council and in violation of Section 371, Title 18, United States
? ? ?Code; in so doing, President Bush and members of his
? ? ?administration:? 1) overstated the offensive capabilities of Iraq,
? ? ?including that country's supposed possession of weapons of mass
? ? ?destruction, and manipulated and distorted intelligence relating
? ? ?to Iraq's weapons program during a plenary session of the United
? ? ?Nations and in direct contradiction to evidence gathered by
? ? ?international weapons inspectors; 2) manipulated public opinion by
? ? ?repeatedly and erroneously linking Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi
? ? ?government with the terrorist organization responsible for the
? ? ?attacks of September 11, 2001, al Qaeda; and 3) manipulated public
? ? ?opinion by stating in the State of the Union Address that Saddam
? ? ?Hussein had sought "significant quantities of uranium from Africa,"
? ? ?despite confirmation from the Central Intelligence Agency and
? ? ?officials from foreign governments that the documents supporting
? ? ?these claims were forged; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, The Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq in
? ? ?2003 was an unnecessarily reckless endeavor; while Saddam Hussein
? ? ?was a despotic leader who had used chemical weapons against Iran, as
? ? ?well as the Kurdish and Shia people, and required prudent and
? ? ?efficacious attention by the United States and the international
? ? ?community in order to maintain peace and stability in the Middle
? ? ?East, the invasion of Iraq, in fact, necessitated the removal of
? ? ?United Nations weapons inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq and
? ? ?uninhibited from performing their job of monitoring Iraq's weapons
? ? ?of mass destruction capabilities; in fact, during the 11 years
? ? ?before the invasion, the United States enforced a no-fly zone over
? ? ?60 percent of Iraq's airspace, significantly restricting the
? ? ?country's military movement and activity throughout its territory;
? ? ?and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, Indeed, Iraq posed no threat to the territory or
? ? ?people of the United States, yet the 2003 invasion of Iraq has
? ? ?resulted in the deaths of more than 3,200 American soldiers and a
? ? ?reported 59,000 Iraqi civilians, over 23,000 wounded American
? ? ?soldiers, and severely diminished American military readiness; the
? ? ?fiscal cost of the war will reach $500 billion by the end of 2007;
? ? ?and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, In addition, to meet the needed manpower to execute
? ? ?the invasion, President Bush has federalized and deployed members
? ? ?of the Texas National Guard overseas, thereby subverting the power
? ? ?granted to congress under Section 8, Article 1, United States
? ? ?Constitution, to call "forth the militia to execute the laws of the
? ? ?Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions"; regrettably,
? ? ?the illegal deployment of the Texas National Guard deprives the
? ? ?state of its primary mechanism for defense and emergency response,
? ? ?needlessly jeopardizing the safety of Texans; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, Under the guise of the war on terror, the Bush
? ? ?Administration has held American citizens and citizens of other
? ? ?sovereign nations without charge or trial; despite these secretive
? ? ?detentions, the United States has been embarrassed by revelations
? ? ?of torture and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and evidence
? ? ?suggests that President Bush has authorized the use of similar acts
? ? ?of torture in the interrogation of detainees in American facilities
? ? ?around the world; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, These detentions are clear violations of
? ? ?international and federal law; as a signatory to the Geneva
? ? ?Conventions, the United States is bound to provisions of Article
13
? ? ?requiring that "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely
? ? ?treated . . ." and Article 17 stating that "no physical or mental
? ? ?torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on
? ? ?prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind
? ? ?whatever"; and

[Prometheus]

? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, Furthermore, the War Crimes Act of 1996 provides
? ? ?that a person who acts in breach of the Geneva Conventions has
? ? ?committed a war crime and is subject to punishment under federal
? ? ?law; similarly, Article VI of the United States Constitution
? ? ?provides that ". . . all treaties made, or which shall be made,
? ? ?under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law
? ? ?of the land . . . ."; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, The Bush Administration's defiance of the Geneva
? ? ?Conventions has potentially threatened the lives and well-being of
? ? ?American soldiers captured as prisoners of war in future conflicts;
? ? ?likewise, the Bush Administration's defiance of international law
? ? ?has tarnished the United States' reputation as a country founded on
? ? ?principles of human rights and diminished America's integrity and
? ? ?influence in the international community; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, In an effort to further manipulate public opinion
? ? ?relating to the justification for the Iraq war, the Bush
? ? ?Administration leaked classified information, knowingly revealing
? ? ?the identities of covert U.S. intelligence agents and exposing them
? ? ?to potential harm and retribution; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, The Bush Administration's breaches of law are not
? ? ?limited to international affairs, having similarly violated the
? ? ?public trust by suppressing scientific information and altering
? ? ?government documents relating to the causes and effects of global
? ? ?warming with the intention of deceiving the American public; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, President Bush's illegal actions have also
? ? ?undermined the balance of power between the branches of government;
? ? ?in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, President Bush has
? ? ?publicly admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to
? ? ?contravene provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
? ? ?of 1978, specifically authorizing the agency to spy on American
? ? ?citizens without securing a search warrant; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, President Bush has also subverted congressional
? ? ?authority with regard to domestic policy by filing hundreds of
? ? ?signing statements that declare the administration's official
? ? ?legal interpretation of legislation passed by congress; in more
? ? ?than 750 instances, the president has asserted an authority to
? ? ?ignore numerous sections of the bills he has signed into law,
? ? ?including legislation relating to military rules and regulations,
? ? ?affirmative-action provisions, requirements that congress be told
? ? ?about immigration services problems, "whistle-blower" protections
? ? ?for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political
? ? ?interference in federally funded research; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, Moreover, President Bush has overtly undermined the
? ? ?authority of congress; the Bush Administration has undermined
? ? ?specific provisions of the Clean Air Act by changing Environmental
? ? ?Protection Agency rules to allow older power plants, refineries,
? ? ?and factories to upgrade their facilities without installing newer,
? ? ?more advanced pollution control technologies, thereby increasing
? ? ?the amount of pollution and threatening the health of all
? ? ?Americans; and
? ? ? ? ? ? WHEREAS, In order to secure passage of the Medicare
? ? ?Prescription Drug, Modernization, and Improvement Act of 2003, the
? ? ?Bush Administration knowingly misled congress regarding the cost of
? ? ?the bill by providing a $400 billion cost estimate to lawmakers
? ? ?while government documents revealed the true cost was calculated by
? ? ?administration officials to exceed $500 billion; be it
? ? ? ? ? ? RESOLVED, That the 80th Legislature of the State of Texas
? ? ?submit the charges contained herein to the United States House of
? ? ?Representatives under the authority of Section 603 of The
? ? ?Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and Rules of the United States
? ? ?House of Representatives; and, be it further
? ? ? ? ? ? RESOLVED, That the charges contained herein constitute proof
? ? ?that the president of the United States has wilfully violated his
? ? ?oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of
? ? ?the United States; and, be it further
? ? ? ? ? ? RESOLVED, That George W. Bush, if found guilty of the charges
? ? ?contained herein, should be removed from office and disqualified to
? ? ?hold any other office in the United States.

This is not a resolution that has passed, but the fact that it is even being discussed in what is arguably the "most" pro-Bush state is remarkable.
It is certain to fail without "much" discussion though.


There are currently 10 other States With Similar Resolutions on the table.

Here is the link.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Too much shit to read.

Same old shit.

Maybe we should focus our scrutiny on Mr. Ahmadinejad rather than Mr. Bush.

[Booker Floyd]

This is not a resolution that has passed, but the fact that it is even being discussed in what is arguably the "most" pro-Bush state is remarkable.
It is certain to fail without "much" discussion though.

Texas is decidedly pro-Bush, but Utah is by far the most pro-Bush state in the nation.

Too much shit to read.

No disrespect, but this isnt a terribly surprising statement for a Bush supporter to make.

Maybe we should focus our scrutiny on Mr. Ahmadinejad rather than Mr. Bush.

Funny...I dont think youve ever responded this way (like a New York Times writer, ironically) to criticism of a Democrat.  Nevertheless, it is possible for Americans to pay attention to more than one issue.  Do you sincerely believe that we should abandon oversight because of some tension with another country? 

With that said, I dont support impeachment; its ultimately a waste of time.  I do support vigorous oversight, including thorough congressional hearings.

[Robman?]

Booker, are you a supporter of not allowing the appropriate funds and supplies to reach troops in Iraq?

[Bodhi]

Funny...I dont think youve ever responded this way (like a New York Times writer, ironically) to criticism of a Democrat.? Nevertheless, it is possible for Americans to pay attention to more than one issue.? Do you sincerely believe that we should abandon oversight because of some tension with another country??

"Some tension" with another country?....yeah I think that Iran wanting to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth would definitely fall under the category of "some tension."  I wish i lived in the democrat/liberal fantasy world where 911 is forgotten and we really dont understand the times we live in.....instead of being worried about global warming people need to wake up and see that at the rate we are going we could only be so lucky to last long enough to see the world destroyed by global warming....

[Gordon Gekko]

I think that Iran wanting to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth would definitely fall under the category of "some tension."

You are simply ignorant of neo-con genius aren't you? We will deal with Iran by invading Indonesia.

Maybe we should focus our scrutiny on Mr. Ahmadinejad rather than Mr. Bush.

What is exactly the big deal with Iran's nuclear program? NK has it, Pakistan has it, India has it, China has it. Israel has it.

We have no intention to do business in the ME peacefully. We determined to dominate the oil fields after WWII. Setting up the nation of Israel was to ensure we have a proxy in that region.

[Gordon Gekko]

..instead of being worried about global warming people need to wake up and see that at the rate we are going we could only be so lucky to last long enough to see the world destroyed by global warming....

Iran has done absolutely nothing to threaten us, except their "nuclear program". Which, it is only this Administration's opinion that they will eventually be developed into weapon grade. Another lesson learned from the lies and deceits of Iraqi invasion, I don't believe a word from this Administration. To me, their creditability is zero. Meanwhile, it is all tough talk by one fanatic. To invade a country because someone talks tough makes no sense to me. Otherwise, Chavez and Kim should be our subsequent targets. NK has real nuclear weapons, and what do we do? Nothing.

Will the Iranians develop nuclear grade weaponries? Maybe. Are they going to be a threat to us? Maybe. Many countries are potential threat to us. Should we go and wipe them all out? You should answer that.

China is more of a threat, militarily and financially. Should we wage war with them because we have a perceived notion that they may be competing with us as a super power? You decide.

So is India, so is Pakistan. And the list goes on.

You tell me when we should stop.

[Bodhi]

..instead of being worried about global warming people need to wake up and see that at the rate we are going we could only be so lucky to last long enough to see the world destroyed by global warming....

Iran has done absolutely nothing to threaten us, except their "nuclear program". Which, it is only this Administration's opinion that they will eventually be developed into weapon grade. Another lesson learned from the lies and deceits of Iraqi invasion, I don't believe a word from this Administration. To me, their creditability is zero. Meanwhile, it is all tough talk by one fanatic. To invade a country because someone talks tough makes no sense to me. Otherwise, Chavez and Kim should be our subsequent targets. NK has real nuclear weapons, and what do we do? Nothing.

Will the Iranians develop nuclear grade weaponries? Maybe. Are they going to be a threat to us? Maybe. Many countries are potential threat to us. Should we go and wipe them all out? You should answer that.

China is more of a threat, militarily and financially. Should we wage war with them because we have a perceived notion that they may be competing with us as a super power? You decide.

So is India, so is Pakistan. And the list goes on.

You tell me when we should stop.

We should stop after we have invaded every country, killed their leaders and converted them to Christianity....

[Gordon Gekko]

We should stop after we have invaded every country, killed their leaders and converted them to Christianity....

Straight out of the mouth of Ann Coulter, why am I not surprised? Cheap slogans you learned from Fox news doesn't cut it anymore with the American public.

Link to Ann Coulter quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/524982/posts

[Bodhi]

We should stop after we have invaded every country, killed their leaders and converted them to Christianity....

Straight out of the mouth of Ann Coulter, why am I not surprised? Cheap slogans you learned from Fox news doesn't cut it anymore with the American public.

The best part was how you took me seriously with that quote...you are way too easy to aggravate.....look if you want to sit around and defend Iran while at the same time rip your own leaders in this country...thats cool...i mean it doesnt make much sense....but its cool.....

[Gordon Gekko]

The best part was how you took me seriously with that quote...you are way too easy to aggravate.....look if you want to sit around and defend Iran while at the same time rip your own leaders in this country...thats cool...i mean it doesnt make much sense....but its cool.....

Nice back pedal, and still no answer.

[Bodhi]

The best part was how you took me seriously with that quote...you are way too easy to aggravate.....look if you want to sit around and defend Iran while at the same time rip your own leaders in this country...thats cool...i mean it doesnt make much sense....but its cool.....

Nice back pedal, and still no answer.

Back pedal? I already gave you my answer...invade, kill, convert....try to stay with me here.....i have a question for you..do you feel like a better person by defending Iran?  A country whose leader wants to wipe Jews off the face of the planet?  Does that feel good to defend them because they havent done anything to US yet...?

[Booker Floyd]

Booker, are you a supporter of not allowing the appropriate funds and supplies to reach troops in Iraq?

Are you a Fox News pollster?

Im a supporter of bringing them home.  If they dont get the appropriate funds, thats on the president.  Hell be the one forcing them to fight without them. 

"Some tension" with another country?....yeah I think that Iran wanting to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth would definitely fall under the category of "some tension."

I think youre confusing Israel with America.  As a nation thats supportive of Israel, we have some tension. 

I wish i lived in the democrat/liberal fantasy world where 911 is forgotten and we really dont understand the times we live in

Wish no more, you live in the Republican fantasy world in which Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and is an imminent threat to America.  The fantasy world in which stubbornly refusing to engage in diplomacy is positive.  And the fantasy world in which we fight the terrorists over there so they dont come over here. 

 

[Bodhi]

Booker, are you a supporter of not allowing the appropriate funds and supplies to reach troops in Iraq?

Are you a Fox News pollster?

Im a supporter of bringing them home.? If they dont get the appropriate funds, thats on the president.? Hell be the one forcing them to fight without them.?

"Some tension" with another country?....yeah I think that Iran wanting to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth would definitely fall under the category of "some tension."

I think youre confusing Israel with America.? As a nation thats supportive of Israel, we have some tension.?

I wish i lived in the democrat/liberal fantasy world where 911 is forgotten and we really dont understand the times we live in

Wish no more, you live in the Republican fantasy world in which Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and is an imminent threat to America.? The fantasy world in which stubbornly refusing to engage in diplomacy is positive.? And the fantasy world in which we fight the terrorists over there so they dont come over here.?

 

You're right...I do love my fantasy world....I would just like to check out the liberal one..just for a day...and see if my penis actually DOES shrink as a result of it.....

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

The best part was how you took me seriously with that quote...you are way too easy to aggravate.....look if you want to sit around and defend Iran while at the same time rip your own leaders in this country...thats cool...i mean it doesnt make much sense....but its cool.....

Nice back pedal, and still no answer.

Back pedal? I already gave you my answer...invade, kill, convert....try to stay with me here.....i have a question for you..do you feel like a better person by defending Iran?  A country whose leader wants to wipe Jews off the face of the planet?  Does that feel good to defend them because they havent done anything to US yet...?

i think he feels better defending freedom, justice, fraternity and peace. yes.
he feels better not being a sheep loooooving his country no matter what even when they do wrong things after wrong things.
i think he feels better yeah.

[Robman?]

Booker, are you a supporter of not allowing the appropriate funds and supplies to reach troops in Iraq?

Are you a Fox News pollster?

Im a supporter of bringing them home.  If they dont get the appropriate funds, thats on the president.  Hell be the one forcing them to fight without them. 
 

It's a war, it takes as long as it takes. American troops have been in Germany since the 40s.

From what you said it seems you'd rather see all the troop massacred because they don't have any bullets than stay for another couple of years and complete the operation.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Booker, are you a supporter of not allowing the appropriate funds and supplies to reach troops in Iraq?

Are you a Fox News pollster?

Im a supporter of bringing them home.  If they dont get the appropriate funds, thats on the president.  Hell be the one forcing them to fight without them. 
 

It's a war, it takes as long as it takes. American troops have been in Germany since the 40s.

From what you said it seems you'd rather see all the troop massacred because they don't have any bullets than stay for another couple of years and complete the operation.

please lets not get to the Hitler point.
this *war* is not legit.

altho, i do have to disagree with the americans just " wanting to bring the boys home"
im sorry you don't go around the world, make a mess, and wanna leave after failing.

the USA have to stay and slowly transfer the security mission to a legit international force led by the UN and other regional countries.

there is only ONE thing to do : the USA must change their behavior. worldwide.

[Robman?]

Booker, are you a supporter of not allowing the appropriate funds and supplies to reach troops in Iraq?

Are you a Fox News pollster?

Im a supporter of bringing them home.  If they dont get the appropriate funds, thats on the president.  Hell be the one forcing them to fight without them. 
 

It's a war, it takes as long as it takes. American troops have been in Germany since the 40s.

From what you said it seems you'd rather see all the troop massacred because they don't have any bullets than stay for another couple of years and complete the operation.

please lets not get to the Hitler point.
this *war* is not legit.

altho, i do have to disagree with the americans just " wanting to bring the boys home"
im sorry you don't go around the world, make a mess, and wanna leave after failing.

the USA have to stay and slowly transfer the security mission to a legit international force led by the UN and other regional countries.

there is only ONE thing to do : the USA must change their behavior. worldwide.

I agree,  thats my point. If the US left Iraq today the insurgents would take power and continue to be funded by neighboring Iran. If the US sets a dead line, the insurgents can make plans to overthrow the current gov. after the US leaves.

Face it, US troops are there for good.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Booker, are you a supporter of not allowing the appropriate funds and supplies to reach troops in Iraq?

Are you a Fox News pollster?

Im a supporter of bringing them home.  If they dont get the appropriate funds, thats on the president.  Hell be the one forcing them to fight without them. 
 

It's a war, it takes as long as it takes. American troops have been in Germany since the 40s.

From what you said it seems you'd rather see all the troop massacred because they don't have any bullets than stay for another couple of years and complete the operation.

please lets not get to the Hitler point.
this *war* is not legit.

altho, i do have to disagree with the americans just " wanting to bring the boys home"
im sorry you don't go around the world, make a mess, and wanna leave after failing.

the USA have to stay and slowly transfer the security mission to a legit international force led by the UN and other regional countries.

there is only ONE thing to do : the USA must change their behavior. worldwide.

I agree,  thats my point. If the US left Iraq today the insurgents would take power and continue to be funded by neighboring Iran. If the US sets a dead line, the insurgents can make plans to overthrow the current gov. after the US leaves.

Face it, US troops are there for good.

Agree with you Robman. Except that I think there will be a time when US troops leave. This may happen when the Iraq Army gets to a point where they can take our role over. Or if Hillary or Obama get in in 08 & pull out the troops. If that happens, I sure hope the Iraqi Govt is ready. We'll have a bigger problem if they are not.