by Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio
						
						
						Washington, Jun 10, 2008 - Dennis J. Kucinich of 
						Ohio
						In the United States House of Representatives
						Monday, June 9th, 2008
						A Resolution
						
						INDEX
						
						Article I
						Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a 
						False Case for War Against Iraq. 
						
						Article II
						Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent 
						Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With 
						Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part 
						of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.
						
						Article III
						Misleading the American People and Members of Congress 
						to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, 
						to Manufacture a False Case for War.
						
						Article IV
						Misleading the American People and Members of Congress 
						to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United 
						States.
						
						Article V
						Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of 
						Aggression.
						
						Article VI
						Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of H. J. 
						Res114.
						
						Article VII
						Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
						
						Article VIII
						Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the 
						UN Charter.
						
						Article IX
						Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle 
						Armor.
						
						Article X
						Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for 
						Political Purposes. 
						
						Article XI
						Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq.
						
						Article XII
						Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That 
						Nation's Natural Resources.
						
						Article XIIII
						Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and 
						Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other 
						Countries.
						
						Article XIV
						Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of 
						Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the 
						Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the 
						Central Intelligence Agency.
						
						Article XV
						Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal 
						Contractors in Iraq.
						
						Article XVI
						Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in 
						Connection With Iraq and US Contractors.
						
						Article XVII
						Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without 
						Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives.
						
						Article XVIII
						Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use 
						of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and 
						Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy.
						
						Article XIX
						Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against 
						Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, 
						Including Nations Known to Practice Torture.
						
						Article XX
						Imprisoning Children.
						
						Article XXI
						Misleading Congress and the American People About 
						Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist 
						Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing 
						the Iranian Government.
						
						Article XXII 
						Creating Secret Laws.
						
						Article XXIII 
						Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
						
						Article XXIV
						Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered 
						Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth 
						Amendment.
						
						Article XXV 
						Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an 
						Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private 
						Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens.
						
						Article XXVI
						Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing 
						Statements. 
						
						Article XXVII
						Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and 
						Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply.
						
						Article XXVIII
						Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of 
						the Administration of Justice. 
						
						Article XXIX
						Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 
						
						Article  XXX  
						Misleading Congress and the American People in an 
						Attempt to Destroy Medicare.
						
						Article  XXXI   
						Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of 
						Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil 
						Emergency.
						 
						Article XXXII  
						Misleading Congress and the American People, 
						Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global 
						Climate Change.
						
						Article XXXIII   
						Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level 
						Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in 
						the US, Prior to 911.
						 
						Article XXXIV   
						Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of 
						September 11, 2001.
						
						Article XXXV
						Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders.
						
						____________
						
						ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
						
						Resolved, that President George W. Bush be impeached for 
						high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following 
						articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United 
						States Senate:
						
						Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of 
						Representatives of the United States of America in the 
						name of itself and of the people of the United States of 
						America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment 
						against President George W. Bush for high crimes and 
						misdemeanors.
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to 
						take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has 
						committed the following abuses of power.
						
						_____________
						
						ARTICLE I
						
						CREATING A SECRET PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN TO MANUFACTURE A 
						FALSE CASE FOR WAR AGAINST IRAQ
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed," has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, 
						illegally spent public dollars on a secret propaganda 
						program to manufacture a false cause for war against 
						Iraq.
						
						The Department of Defense (DOD) has engaged in a 
						years-long secret domestic propaganda campaign to 
						promote the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This secret 
						program was defended by the White House Press Secretary 
						following its exposure. This program follows the pattern 
						of crimes detailed in Article I, II, IV and VIII. The 
						mission of this program placed it within the field 
						controlled by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a White 
						House task force formed in August 2002 to market an 
						invasion of Iraq to the American people. The group 
						included Karl Rove, I. Lewis Libby, Condoleezza Rice, 
						Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, Stephen Hadley, Nicholas E. 
						Calio, and James R. Wilkinson.
						
						The WHIG produced white papers detailing so-called 
						intelligence of Iraq’s nuclear threat that later proved 
						to be false. This supposed intelligence included the 
						claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger as well as 
						the claim that the high strength aluminum tubes Iraq 
						purchased from China were to be used for the sole 
						purpose of building centrifuges to enrich uranium. 
						Unlike the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, the 
						WHIG's white papers provided "gripping images and 
						stories" and used "literary license" with intelligence. 
						The WHIG's white papers were written at the same time 
						and by the same people as speeches and talking points 
						prepared for President Bush and some of his top 
						officials.
						
						The WHIG also organized a media blitz in which, between 
						September 7-8, 2002, President Bush and his top advisers 
						appeared on numerous interviews and all provided 
						similarly gripping images about the possibility of 
						nuclear attack by Iraq. The timing was no coincidence, 
						as Andrew Card explained in an interview regarding 
						waiting until after Labor Day to try to sell the 
						American people on military action against Iraq, "From a 
						marketing point of view, you don't introduce new 
						products in August."
						
						September 7-8, 2002:
						
						NBC’s “Meet the Press”: Vice President Cheney accused 
						Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons 
						over the past 14 months to add to his stockpile of 
						chemical and biological arms.
						
						CNN: Then-National Security Adviser Rice said, regarding 
						the likelihood of Iraq obtaining a nuclear weapon, "We 
						don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
						
						CBS: President Bush declared that Saddam was "six months 
						away from developing a weapon," and cited satellite 
						photos of construction in Iraq where weapons inspectors 
						once visited as evidence that Saddam was trying to 
						develop nuclear arms.
						
						The Pentagon military analyst propaganda program was 
						revealed in an April 20, 2002, New York Times article. 
						The program illegally involved "covert attempts to mold 
						opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties.” 
						Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recruited 75 
						retired military officers and gave them talking points 
						to deliver on Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC, and 
						according to the New York Times report, which has not 
						been disputed by the Pentagon or the White House, 
						"Participants were instructed not to quote their 
						briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts 
						with the Pentagon."
						
						According to the Pentagon's own internal documents, the 
						military analysts were considered "message force 
						multipliers" or "surrogates" who would deliver 
						administration "themes and messages" to millions of 
						Americans "in the form of their own opinions.” In fact, 
						they did deliver the themes and the messages but did not 
						reveal that the Pentagon had provided them with their 
						talking points. Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green 
						Beret and Fox News military analyst described this as 
						follows: "It was them saying, 'We need to stick our 
						hands up your back and move your mouth for you.'"
						
						Congress has restricted annual appropriations bills 
						since 1951 with this language: "No part of any 
						appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall 
						be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the 
						United States not heretofore authorized by the 
						Congress."
						
						A March 21, 2005, report by the Congressional Research 
						Service states that "publicity or propaganda" is defined 
						by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to 
						mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, 
						(2) purely partisan activity, or (3) "covert 
						propaganda." 
						
						These concerns about "covert propaganda" were also the 
						basis for the GAO's standard for determining when 
						government-funded video news releases are illegal:
						
						"The failure of an agency to identify itself as the 
						source of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing 
						public by encouraging the viewing audience to believe 
						that the broadcasting news organization developed the 
						information. The prepackaged news stories are 
						purposefully designed to be indistinguishable from news 
						segments broadcast to the public. When the television 
						viewing public does not know that the stories they 
						watched on television news programs about the government 
						were in fact prepared by the government, the stories 
						are, in this sense, no longer purely factual -- the 
						essential fact of attribution is missing."
						
						
						The White House's own Office of Legal Council stated in 
						a memorandum written in 2005 following the controversy 
						over the Armstrong Williams scandal:
						
						"Over the years, GAO has interpreted 'publicity or 
						propaganda' restrictions to preclude use of appropriated 
						funds for, among other things, so-called 'covert 
						propaganda.' ... Consistent with that view, the OLC 
						determined in 1988 that a statutory prohibition on using 
						appropriated funds for 'publicity or propaganda' 
						precluded undisclosed agency funding of advocacy by 
						third-party groups. We stated that 'covert attempts to 
						mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third 
						parties' would run afoul of restrictions on using 
						appropriated funds for 'propaganda.'"
						
						Asked about the Pentagon's propaganda program at White 
						House press briefing in April 2008, White House Press 
						Secretary Dana Perino defended it, not by arguing that 
						it was legal but by suggesting that it "should" be: 
						"Look, I didn't know look, I think that you guys should 
						take a step back and look at this look, DOD has made a 
						decision, they've decided to stop this program. But I 
						would say that one of the things that we try to do in 
						the administration is get information out to a variety 
						of people so that everybody else can call them and ask 
						their opinion about something. And I don't think that 
						that should be against the law. And I think that it's 
						absolutely appropriate to provide information to people 
						who are seeking it and are going to be providing their 
						opinions on it. It doesn't necessarily mean that all of 
						those military analysts ever agreed with the 
						administration. I think you can go back and look and 
						think that a lot of their analysis was pretty tough on 
						the administration. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't 
						talk to people."
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of 
						constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
						of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
						people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
						W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
						offense warranting removal from office.
						
						ARTICLE II
						
						FALSELY, SYSTEMATICALLY, AND WITH CRIMINAL INTENT 
						CONFLATING THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WITH 
						MISREPRESENTATION OF IRAQ AS AN IMMINENT SECURITY THREAT 
						AS PART OF A FRAUDULENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A WAR OF 
						AGGRESSION.
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed," has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, executed 
						a calculated and wide-ranging strategy to deceive the 
						citizens and Congress of the United States into 
						believing that there was and is a connection between 
						Iraq and Saddam Hussein on the one hand, and the attacks 
						of September 11, 2001 and al Qaeda, on the other hand, 
						so as to falsely justify the use of the United States 
						Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner that 
						is damaging to the national security interests of the 
						United States, as well as to fraudulently obtain and 
						maintain congressional authorization and funding for the 
						use of such military force against Iraq, thereby 
						interfering with and obstructing Congress's lawful 
						functions of overseeing foreign affairs and declaring 
						war. 
						
						The means used to implement this deception were and 
						continue to be, first, allowing, authorizing and 
						sanctioning the manipulation of intelligence analysis by 
						those under his direction and control, including the 
						Vice President and the Vice President's agents, and 
						second, personally making, or causing, authorizing and 
						allowing to be made through highly-placed subordinates, 
						including the President's Chief of Staff, the White 
						House Press Secretary and other White House 
						spokespersons, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the 
						National Security Advisor, and their deputies and 
						spokespersons, false and fraudulent representations to 
						the citizens of the United States and Congress regarding 
						an alleged connection between Saddam Hussein and Iraq, 
						on the one hand, and the September 11th attacks and al 
						Qaeda, on the other hand, that were half-true, literally 
						true but misleading, and/or made without a reasonable 
						basis and with reckless indifference to their truth, as 
						well as omitting to state facts necessary to present an 
						accurate picture of the truth as follows:   
						
						(A) On or about September 12, 2001, former terrorism 
						advisor Richard Clarke personally informed the President 
						that neither Saddam Hussein nor Iraq was responsible for 
						the September 11th attacks. On September 18, Clarke 
						submitted to the President's National Security Adviser 
						Condoleezza Rice a memo he had written in response to 
						George W. Bush's specific request that stated: (1) the 
						case for linking Hussein to the September 11th attacks 
						was weak; (2) only anecdotal evidence linked Hussein to 
						al Qaeda; (3) Osama Bin Laden resented the secularism of 
						Saddam Hussein; and (4) there was no confirmed reporting 
						of Saddam Hussein cooperating with Bin Laden on 
						unconventional weapons. 
						
						(B) Ten days after the September 11th attacks the 
						President received a President's Daily Briefing which 
						indicated that the U.S. intelligence community had no 
						evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th 
						attacks and that there was "scant credible evidence that 
						Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al 
						Qaeda." 
						
						(C) In Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 
						044-02, issued in February 2002, the United States 
						Defense Intelligence Agency cast significant doubt on 
						the possibility of a Saddam Hussein- Al Qaeda 
						conspiracy: "Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is 
						wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, 
						Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it 
						cannot control." 
						
						(D) The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate gave 
						a "Low Confidence" rating to the notion of whether "in 
						desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological 
						weapons with Al Qaeda.” The CIA never informed the 
						President that there was an operational relationship 
						between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein; on the contrary, 
						its most "aggressive" analysis contained in Iraq and 
						al-Qaeda-Interpreting a Murky Relationship" dated June 
						21, 2002 was that Iraq had had "sporadic, wary contacts 
						with al Qaeda since the mid-1990s rather than a 
						relationship with al Qaeda that has developed over 
						time."   
						
						(E) Notwithstanding his knowledge that neither Saddam 
						Hussein nor Iraq was in any way connected to the 
						September 11th  attacks, the President allowed and  
						authorized those acting under his direction and control, 
						including Vice President Richard B. Cheney and Lewis 
						Libby, who reported directly to both the President and 
						the Vice President,  and Secretary of Defense Donald 
						Rumsfeld, among others, to pressure intelligence 
						analysts to alter their assessments and to create 
						special units outside of, and unknown to, the 
						intelligence community in order to secretly obtain 
						unreliable information, to manufacture intelligence or 
						reinterpret raw data in ways that would further the Bush 
						administration's goal of  fraudulently establishing a 
						relationship not only between Iraq and al Qaeda, but 
						between Iraq and the attacks of September 11th. 
						
						(F) Further, despite his full awareness that Iraq and 
						Saddam Hussein had no relationship to the September 11th 
						attacks, the President, and those acting under his 
						direction and control have, since at least 2002 and 
						continuing to the present, repeatedly issued public 
						statements deliberately worded to mislead, words 
						calculated in  their implication to bring unrelated 
						actors and circumstances into an artificially contrived 
						reality thereby facilitating the systematic deception of 
						Congress and the American people.  Thus the public and 
						some members of Congress came to believe, falsely, that 
						there was a connection between Iraq and the attacks of 
						911. This was accomplished through well-publicized 
						statements by the Bush Administration which contrived to 
						continually tie Iraq and 911 in the same statements of 
						grave concern without making an explicit charge: 
						
						(1) “[If] Iraq regimes [sic] continues to defy us, and 
						the world, we will move deliberately, yet decisively, to 
						hold Iraq to account…It's a new world we're in. We used 
						to think two oceans could separate us from an enemy. On 
						that tragic day, September the 11th, 2001, we found out 
						that's not the case. We found out this great land of 
						liberty and of freedom and of justice is vulnerable. And 
						therefore we must do everything we can -- everything we 
						can -- to secure the homeland, to make us safe." Speech 
						of President Bush in Iowa on September 16, 2002. 
						
						(2) "With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward 
						gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own 
						options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an 
						emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to 
						terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th 
						would be a prelude to far greater horrors.” March 6, 
						2003, Statement of President Bush in National Press 
						Conference.
						
						(3) "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on 
						terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still 
						goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock 
						troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the 
						civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They 
						imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September 
						the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' 
						By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, 
						terrorists and their allies believed that they could 
						destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat 
						from the world. They have failed." May 1, 2003, Speech 
						of President Bush on U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.   
						
						(4) "Now we're in a new and unprecedented war against 
						violent Islamic extremists. This is an ideological 
						conflict we face against murderers and killers who try 
						to impose their will. These are the people that attacked 
						us on September the 11th and killed nearly 3,000 people. 
						The stakes are high, and once again, we have had to 
						change our strategic thinking. The major battleground in 
						this war is Iraq.” June 28, 2007, Speech of President 
						Bush at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island.
						
						
						(G) Notwithstanding his knowledge that there was no 
						credible evidence of a working relationship between 
						Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda and that the intelligence 
						community had specifically assessed that there was no 
						such operational relationship, the President, both 
						personally and through his subordinates and agents, has 
						repeatedly falsely represented, both explicitly and 
						implicitly, and through the misleading use of 
						selectively-chosen facts, to the citizens of the United 
						States and to the Congress that there was and is such an 
						ongoing operational relationship, to wit: 
						
						(1) "We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level 
						contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders 
						who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one 
						very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical 
						treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been 
						associated with planning for chemical and biological 
						attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda 
						members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."  
						September 28, 2002, Weekly Radio Address of President 
						Bush to the Nation. 
						
						(2) "[W]e we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al 
						Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints 
						behind." October 14, 2002, Remarks by President Bush in 
						Michigan. 
						
						(3) "We know he's got ties with al Qaeda.” November 1, 
						2002, Speech of President Bush in New Hampshire. 
						
						(4) "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret 
						communications, and statements by people now in custody 
						reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, 
						including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without 
						fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons 
						to terrorists, or help them develop their own.” January 
						28, 2003, President Bush's State of the Union Address.
						
						
						(5) "[W]hat I want to bring to your attention today is 
						the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq 
						and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that 
						combines classic terrorist organizations and modern 
						methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist 
						network…” February 5, 2003, Speech of Former Secretary 
						of State Colin Powell to the United Nations. 
						
						(6) "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on 
						terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still 
						goes on. . . . [T]he liberation of Iraq . . . removed an 
						ally of al Qaeda.” May 1, 2003, Speech of President Bush 
						on U.S. S. Abraham Lincoln.
						
						(H) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence “Report 
						on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. 
						Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence 
						Information,” which was released on June 5, 2008, 
						concluded that: 
						
						(1) "Statements and implications by the President and 
						Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida 
						had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida 
						with weapons training, were not substantiated by the 
						intelligence." 
						
						(2) "The Intelligence Community did not confirm that 
						Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in 
						Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly 
						claimed." 
						
						Through his participation and instance in the 
						breathtaking scope of this deception, the President has 
						used the highest office of trust to wage of campaign of 
						deception of such sophistication as to deliberately 
						subvert the national security interests of the United 
						States. His dishonesty set the stage for the loss of 
						more than 4000 United States service members; injuries 
						to tens of thousands of soldiers, the loss of more than 
						1,000,000 innocent Iraqi citizens since the United 
						States invasion; the loss of approximately $527 billion 
						in war costs which has increased our Federal debt and 
						the ultimate expenditure of three to five trillion 
						dollars for all costs covering the war; the loss of 
						military readiness within the United States Armed 
						Services due to overextension, the lack of training and 
						lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility 
						in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback 
						created by the invasion of Iraq. 
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of 
						constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
						of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
						people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
						W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
						offense warranting removal from office. 
						
						ARTICLE III
						
						MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 
						TO BELIEVE IRAQ POSSESSED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, 
						SO AS TO MANUFACTURE A FALSE CASE FOR WAR  
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed," has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President,  
						executed instead a calculated and wide-ranging strategy 
						to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United 
						States into believing that the nation of Iraq possessed 
						weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the use 
						of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of 
						Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security 
						interests, thereby interfering with and obstructing 
						Congress's lawful functions of overseeing foreign 
						affairs and declaring war. 
						
						The means used to implement this deception were and 
						continue to be personally making, or causing, 
						authorizing and allowing to be made through 
						highly-placed subordinates, including the President's 
						Chief of Staff, the White House Press Secretary and 
						other White House spokespersons, the Secretaries of 
						State and Defense, the National Security Advisor, and 
						their deputies and spokespersons, false and fraudulent 
						representations to the citizens of the United States and 
						Congress regarding Iraq's alleged possession of 
						biological, chemical and nuclear weapons that were 
						half-true, literally true but misleading, and/or made 
						without a reasonable basis and with reckless 
						indifference to their truth, as well as omitting to 
						state facts necessary to present an accurate picture of 
						the truth as follows:  
						
						(A) Long before the March 19, 2003 invasion of Iraq, a 
						wealth of intelligence informed the President and those 
						under his direction and control that Iraq's stockpiles 
						of chemical and biological weapons had been destroyed 
						well before 1998 and that there was little, if any, 
						credible intelligence that showed otherwise. As reported 
						in the Washington Post in March of 2003, in 1995, Saddam 
						Hussein's son-in-law Hussein Kamel had informed U.S. and 
						British intelligence officers that "all 
						weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were 
						destroyed.” In September 2002, the Defense Intelligence 
						Agency issued a report that concluded:  "A substantial 
						amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, 
						munitions and production equipment were destroyed 
						between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert 
						Storm and UNSCOM actions… [T]here is no reliable 
						information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling 
						chemical weapons or whether Iraq has-or will-establish 
						its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” 
						Notwithstanding the absence of evidence proving that 
						such stockpiles existed and in direct contradiction to 
						substantial evidence that showed they did not exist, the 
						President and his subordinates and agents made numerous 
						false representations claiming with certainty that Iraq 
						possessed chemical and biological weapons that it was 
						developing to use to attack the United States, to wit:
						
						
						(1) "[T]he notion of a Saddam Hussein with his great oil 
						wealth, with his inventory that he already has of 
						biological and chemical weapons . . . is, I think, a 
						frightening proposition for anybody who thinks about 
						it." Statement of Vice President Cheney on CBS's Face 
						the Nation, March 24, 2002. 
						
						(2) "In defiance of the United Nations, Iraq has 
						stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is 
						rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those 
						weapons." Speech of President Bush, October 5, 2002. 
						
						(3) "All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi 
						Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to spray 
						biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has developed 
						spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial 
						vehicles with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the 
						Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the 
						American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland.” 
						Statement by President Bush from the White House, 
						February 6, 2003. 
						
						(B) Despite overwhelming intelligence in the form of 
						statements and reports filed by and on behalf of the 
						CIA, the State Department and the IAEA, among others, 
						which indicated that the claim was untrue, the 
						President, and those under his direction and control, 
						made numerous representations claiming and implying 
						through misleading language that Iraq was attempting to 
						purchase uranium from Niger in order to falsely buttress 
						its argument that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear 
						weapons program, including: 
						
						(1) ""The regime has the scientists and facilities to 
						build nuclear weapons, and is seeking the materials 
						needed to do so." Statement of President Bush from White 
						House, October 2, 2002. 
						
						(2) "The [Iraqi] report also failed to deal with issues 
						which have arisen since 1998, including: . . . attempts 
						to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it." Letter 
						from President Bush to Vice President Cheney and the 
						Senate, January 20, 2003. 
						
						(3) "The British Government has learned that Saddam 
						Hussein recently sought significant quantities of 
						uranium from Africa." President Bush Delivers State of 
						the Union Address, January 28, 2003. 
						
						(C) Despite overwhelming evidence in the form of reports 
						by nuclear weapons experts from the Energy, the Defense 
						and State Departments, as well from outside and 
						international agencies which assessed that aluminum 
						tubes the Iraqis were purchasing were not suitable for 
						nuclear centrifuge use and were, on the contrary, 
						identical to ones used in rockets already being 
						manufactured by the Iraqis, the President, and those 
						under his direction and control, persisted in making 
						numerous false and fraudulent representations implying 
						and stating explicitly that the Iraqis were purchasing 
						the tubes for use in a nuclear weapons program, to wit: 
						
						
						(1) "We do know that there have been shipments going . . 
						. into Iraq . . . of aluminum tubes that really are only 
						suited to -- high-quality aluminum tools [sic] that are 
						only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, 
						centrifuge programs." Statement of then National 
						Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on CNN's Late Edition 
						with Wolf Blitzer, September 8, 2002.  
						
						(2) "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has 
						attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes 
						suitable for nuclear weapons production.” President 
						Bush's State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003. 
						
						(3) "[H]e has made repeated covert attempts to acquire 
						high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different 
						countries, even after inspections resumed. …By now, just 
						about everyone has heard of these tubes and we all know 
						that there are differences of opinion. There is 
						controversy about what these tubes are for. Most US 
						experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in 
						centrifuges used to enrich uranium." Speech of Former 
						Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations, 
						February 5, 2003. 
						
						(D) The President, both personally and acting through 
						those under his direction and control, suppressed 
						material information, selectively declassified 
						information for the improper purposes of retaliating 
						against a whistleblower and presenting a misleading 
						picture of the alleged threat from Iraq, facilitated the 
						exposure of the identity of a covert CIA operative and 
						thereafter not only failed to investigate the improper 
						leaks of classified information from within his 
						administration, but also failed to cooperate with an 
						investigation into possible federal violations resulting 
						from this activity and, finally, entirely undermined the 
						prosecution by commuting the sentence of Lewis Libby 
						citing false and insubstantial grounds, all in an effort 
						to prevent Congress and the citizens of the United 
						States from discovering the  fraudulent nature of the 
						President's claimed justifications for the invasion of 
						Iraq. 
						
						(E) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence “Report 
						on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. 
						Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence 
						Information,” which was released on June 5, 2008, 
						concluded that: 
						
						(1) "Statements by the President and Vice President 
						prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate 
						regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability 
						and activities did not reflect the intelligence 
						community's uncertainties as to whether such production 
						was ongoing." 
						
						(2) "The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi 
						government operated underground WMD facilities that were 
						not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they 
						were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated 
						by available intelligence information." 
						
						(3) Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay 
						Rockefeller concluded: "In making the case for war, the 
						Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact 
						when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or 
						even non-existent. As a result, the American people were 
						led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much 
						greater than actually existed." 
						
						The President has subverted the national security 
						interests of the United States by setting the stage for 
						the loss of more than 4000 United States service members 
						and the injury to tens of thousands of US soldiers; the 
						loss of more than 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi citizens 
						since the United States invasion; the loss of 
						approximately $500 billion in war costs which has 
						increased our Federal debt with a long term financial 
						cost of between three and five trillion dollars; the 
						loss of military readiness within the United States 
						Armed Services due to overextension, the lack of 
						training and lack of equipment; the loss of United 
						States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of 
						likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq. 
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of 
						constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
						of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
						people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
						W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
						offense warranting removal from office. 
						
						ARTICLE IV
						
						MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 
						TO BELIEVE IRAQ POSED AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE UNITED 
						STATES 
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, executed 
						a calculated and wide-ranging strategy to deceive the 
						citizens and Congress of the United States into 
						believing that  the nation of Iraq posed an imminent 
						threat to the United States in order to justify the use 
						of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of 
						Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security 
						interests, thereby interfering with and obstructing 
						Congress's lawful functions of overseeing foreign 
						affairs and declaring war. 
						
						The means used to implement this deception were and 
						continue to be, first, allowing, authorizing and 
						sanctioning the manipulation of intelligence analysis by 
						those under his direction and control, including the 
						Vice President and the Vice President's agents, and 
						second, personally making, or causing, authorizing and 
						allowing to be made through highly-placed subordinates, 
						including the President's Chief of Staff, the White 
						House Press Secretary and other White House 
						spokespersons, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the 
						National Security Advisor, and their deputies and 
						spokespersons, false and fraudulent representations to 
						the citizens of the United States and Congress regarding 
						an alleged urgent threat posed by Iraq, statements that 
						were half-true, literally true but misleading, and/or 
						made without a reasonable basis and with reckless 
						indifference to their truth, as well as omitting to 
						state facts necessary to present an accurate picture of 
						the truth as follows:  
						
						(A) Notwithstanding the complete absence of intelligence 
						analysis to support a claim that Iraq posed an imminent 
						or urgent threat to the United States and the 
						intelligence community's assessment that Iraq was in 
						fact not likely to attack the United States unless it 
						was itself attacked, President Bush, both personally and 
						through his agents and subordinates, made, allowed and 
						caused to be made repeated false representations to the 
						citizens and Congress of the United States implying and 
						explicitly stating that such a dire threat existed, 
						including the following:  
						
						(1) "States such as these [Iraq, Iran and North Korea] 
						and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, 
						arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking 
						weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave 
						and growing danger. They could provide these arms to 
						terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. 
						They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the 
						United States. In any of these cases, the price of 
						indifference would be catastrophic.” President Bush's 
						State of the Union Address, January 29, 2002. 
						
						(2) "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam 
						Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. He is amassing 
						them to use against our friends our enemies and against 
						us.” Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd 
						National Convention, August 26, 2002. 
						
						(3) "The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one 
						conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and 
						gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope 
						against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith 
						is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the 
						world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must 
						not take." Address of President Bush to the United 
						Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002. 
						
						(4) "[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more 
						immediate threat to the security of our people than the 
						regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq." Statement of Former 
						Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Congress, September 
						19, 2002. 
						
						(5) "On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat 
						of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of 
						mass death." Statement of President Bush at White House, 
						October 2, 2002. 
						
						(6) "But the President also believes that this problem 
						has to be dealt with, and if the United Nations won't 
						deal with it, then the United States, with other 
						likeminded nations, may have to deal with it. We would 
						prefer not to go that route, but the danger is so great, 
						with respect to Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass 
						destruction, and perhaps even terrorists getting hold of 
						such weapons, that it is time for the international 
						community to act, and if it doesn't act, the President 
						is prepared to act with likeminded nations." Statement 
						of Former Secretary of State Colin Powell in interview 
						with Ellen Ratner of Talk Radio News, October 30, 2002.
						
						
						(7) "Today the world is also uniting to answer the 
						unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who 
						has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people 
						must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. 
						We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or 
						terrorize nations which love freedom.” Speech by 
						President Bush to Prague Atlantic Student Summit, 
						November 20, 2002. 
						
						(8) "But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the 
						security of this country being jeopardized at the hands 
						of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds 
						the risk of any action we may be forced to take." 
						President Bush Meets with National Economic Council at 
						White House, February 25, 2003. 
						
						(B) In furtherance of his fraudulent effort to deceive 
						Congress and the citizens of the United States into 
						believing that Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed an imminent 
						threat to the United States, the President allowed and  
						authorized those acting under his direction and control, 
						including Vice President Richard B. Cheney, former 
						Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Lewis Libby, 
						who reportedly directly to both the President and the 
						Vice President,  among others, to pressure intelligence 
						analysts to tailor their assessments and to create 
						special units outside of, and unknown to, the 
						intelligence community in order to secretly obtain 
						unreliable information, to manufacture intelligence, or 
						to reinterpret raw data in ways that would support the 
						Bush administration's plan to invade Iraq based on a 
						false claim of urgency despite the lack of justification 
						for such a preemptive action. 
						
						(C) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence “Report 
						on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. 
						Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence 
						Information,” which was released on June 5, 2008, 
						concluded that: 
						
						(1) "Statements by the President and the Vice President 
						indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give 
						weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for 
						attacks against the United States were contradicted by 
						available intelligence information." 
						
						Thus the President willfully and falsely misrepresented 
						Iraq as an urgent threat requiring immediate action 
						thereby subverting the national security interests of 
						the United States by setting the stage for the loss of 
						more than 4000 United States service members; the 
						injuries to tens of thousands of US soldiers; the deaths 
						of more than  1,000,000 Iraqi citizens since the United 
						States invasion; the loss of approximately $527 billion 
						in war costs which has increased our Federal debt and 
						the ultimate costs of the war between three trillion and 
						five trillion dollars; the loss of military readiness 
						within the United States Armed Services due to 
						overextension, the lack of training and lack of 
						equipment; the loss of United States credibility in 
						world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback 
						created by the invasion of Iraq. 
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of 
						constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
						of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
						people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
						W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
						offense warranting removal from office. 
						
						ARTICLE V
						
						ILLEGALLY MISSPENDING FUNDS TO SECRETLY BEGIN A WAR OF 
						AGGRESSION   
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, 
						illegally misspent funds to begin a war in secret prior 
						to any Congressional authorization.
						
						The president used over $2 billion in the summer of 2002 
						to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. First reported in 
						Bob Woodward's book, Plan of Attack,  and later 
						confirmed by the Congressional Research Service, Bush 
						took money appropriated by Congress for Afghanistan and 
						other programs and—with no Congressional notification -- 
						used it to build airfields in Qatar and to make other 
						preparations for the invasion of Iraq. This constituted 
						a violation of Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. 
						Constitution, as well as a violation of the War Powers 
						Act of 1973.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of 
						constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
						of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
						people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
						W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
						offense warranting removal from office.
						
						ARTICLE VI
						
						INVADING IRAQ IN VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF 
						HJRes114. 
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” exceeded his 
						Constitutional authority to wage war by invading Iraq in 
						2003 without meeting the requirements of HJRes 114, the 
						"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 
						Resolution of 2002" to wit:
						
						(1) HJRes 114 contains several 'Whereas' clauses 
						consistent with statements being made by the White House 
						at the time regarding the threat from Iraq as evidenced 
						by the following:
						
						(A) HJRes 114 states "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;"; and
						
						(B) HJRes 114 states, "Whereas members of Al Qaeda, 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;”
						
						(2) HJRes 114 states that the President must provide a 
						determination, the truthfulness of which is implied, 
						that military force is necessary in order to use the 
						authorization, as evidenced by the following:
						
						(A) Section 3 of HJRes 114 states:
						
						"(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."
						
						(3) On March 18, 2003, President George Bush sent a 
						letter to Congress stating that he had made that 
						determination as evidenced by the following:
						
						(A) March 18th, 2003 Letter to Congress stating:
						
						Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for 
						Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 
						(Public Law 107-243), and based on information available 
						to me, including that in the enclosed document, I 
						determine that:
						
						(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic 
						and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) 
						adequately protect the national security of the United 
						States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor 
						(B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United 
						Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
						
						(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 
						107-243 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 terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 
						2001.
						
						(4) President George Bush knew that these statements 
						were false as evidenced by:
						
						(A) Information provided with Article I, II, III, IV and 
						V.
						
						(B) A statement by President George Bush in an interview 
						with Tony Blair on January 31st 2003: [WH]
						
						Reporter: "One question for you both. Do you believe 
						that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct 
						link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?"
						
						President Bush: "I can't make that claim"
						
						(C) An article on February 19th by Terrorism expert 
						Rohan Gunaratna states, "I could find no evidence of 
						links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The documentation and 
						interviews indicated that Al Qaeda regarded Saddam, a 
						secular leader, as an infidel." [International Herald 
						Tribune]
						
						(D) According to a February 2nd, 2003 article in the New 
						York Times: [NYT]
						
						At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some 
						investigators said they were baffled by the Bush 
						administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq 
						and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at 
						this hard for more than a year and you know what, we 
						just don't think it's there," a government official 
						said.
						
						(5) Section 3C of HJRes 114 states that "Nothing in this 
						joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War 
						Powers Resolution."
						
						(6) The War Powers Resolution Section 9(d)(1) states:
						
						(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--
						
						(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of 
						the Congress or of the President, or the provision of 
						existing treaties; or
						
						(7) The United Nations Charter was an existing treaty 
						and, as shown in Article VIII, the invasion of Iraq 
						violated that treaty
						
						(8) President George Bush knowingly failed to meet the 
						requirements of HJRes 114 and violated the requirement 
						of the War Powers Resolution and, thereby, invaded Iraq 
						without the authority of Congress.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of 
						constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
						of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
						people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
						W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
						offense warranting removal from office.
						
						ARTICLE VII
						
						INVADING IRAQ ABSENT A DECLARATION OF WAR 
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has launched 
						a war against Iraq absent any congressional declaration 
						of war or equivalent action.
						
						Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 (the War Powers Clause) 
						makes clear that the United States Congress holds the 
						exclusive power to decide whether or not to send the 
						nation into war. "The Congress," the War Powers Clause 
						states, "shall have power…To declare war…"
						
						The October 2002 congressional resolution on Iraq did 
						not constitute a declaration of war or equivalent 
						action. The resolution stated: "The President is 
						authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States 
						as he deems 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.” The resolution unlawfully 
						sought to delegate to the President the decision of 
						whether or not to initiate a war against Iraq, based on 
						whether he deemed it "necessary and appropriate.” The 
						Constitution does not allow Congress to delegate this 
						exclusive power to the President, nor does it allow the 
						President to seize this power.
						
						In March 2003, the President launched a war against Iraq 
						without any constitutional authority.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of 
						constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
						of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
						people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
						W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
						offense warranting removal from office.
						
						
						ARTICLE VIII
						
						INVADING IRAQ, A SOVEREIGN NATION, IN VIOLATION OF THE 
						UN CHARTER AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” violated 
						United States law by invading the sovereign country of 
						Iraq in violation of the United Nations Charter to wit:
						
						(1) International Laws ratified by Congress are part of 
						United States Law and must be followed as evidenced by 
						the following:
						
						(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution, which 
						states, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United 
						States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all 
						Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the 
						Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law 
						of the Land;"
						
						(2) The UN Charter, which entered into force following 
						ratification by the United States in 1945, requires 
						Security Council approval for the use of force except 
						for self-defense against an armed attack as evidenced by 
						the following:
						
						A) Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter 
						states:
						
						"3.All Members shall settle their international disputes 
						by peaceful means in such a manner that international 
						peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
						
						"4.All Members shall refrain in their international 
						relations from the threat or use of force against the 
						territorial integrity or political independence of any 
						state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the 
						Purposes of the United Nations."
						
						(B) Chapter 7, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter 
						states:
						
						"51. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the 
						inherent right of individual or collective self-defense 
						if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United 
						Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures 
						necessary to maintain international peace and security."
						
						(3) There was no armed attack upon the United States by 
						Iraq.
						
						(4) The Security Council did not vote to approve the use 
						of force against Iraq as evidenced by:
						
						(A) A United Nation Press release which states that the 
						United States had failed to convince the Security 
						Council to approve the use of military force against 
						Iraq. [UN]
						
						(5) President Bush directed the United States military 
						to invade Iraq on March 19th, 2003 in violation of the 
						UN Charter and, therefore, in violation of United States 
						Law as evidenced by the following:
						
						(A) A letter from President Bush to Congress dated March 
						21st, 2003 stating, "I directed U.S. Armed Forces, 
						operating with other coalition forces, to commence 
						combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq." [WH]
						
						(B) On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary 
						General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, 
						said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with 
						the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter 
						point of view, it was illegal." [BBC]
						
						(C) The consequence of the instant and direction of 
						President George W. Bush, in ordering an attack upon 
						Iraq, a sovereign nation is in direct violation of 
						United States Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 118, 
						Section 2441, governing the offense of war crimes.
						
						(6). In the course of invading and occupying Iraq, the 
						President, as Commander in Chief, has taken 
						responsibility for the targeting of civilians, 
						journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, use of 
						antipersonnel weapons including cluster bombs in densely 
						settled urban areas, the use of white phosphorous as a 
						weapon, depleted uranium weapons, and the use of a new 
						version of napalm found in Mark 77 firebombs. Under the 
						direction of President George Bush the United States has 
						engaged in collective punishment of Iraqi civilian 
						populations, including but not limited to blocking 
						roads, cutting electricity and water, destroying fuel 
						stations, planting bombs in farm fields, demolishing 
						houses, and plowing over orchards.
						
						(A) Under the principle of "command responsibility", 
						i.e., that a de jure command can be civilian as well as 
						military, and can apply to the policy command of heads 
						of state, said command brings President George Bush 
						within the reach of international criminal law under the 
						Additional Protocol I of June 8, 1977 to the Geneva 
						Conventions of August 12, 1949, and Relating to the 
						Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 
						Article 86 (2). The United States is a state signatory 
						to Additional Protocol I, on December 12, 1977.
						
						(B) Furthermore, Article 85 (3) of said Protocol I 
						defines as a grave breach making a civilian population 
						or individual civilians the object of attacks. This 
						offense, together with the principle of command 
						responsibility, places President George Bush's conduct 
						under the reach of the same law and principles described 
						as the basis for war crimes prosecution at Nuremburg, 
						under Article 6 of the Charter of the Nuremberg 
						Tribunals: including crimes against peace, violations of 
						the laws and customs of war and crimes against humanity, 
						similarly codified in the Rome Statute of the 
						International Criminal Court, Articles 5 through 8.
						
						(C) The Lancet Report has established massive civilian 
						casualties in Iraq as a result of the United States' 
						invasion and occupation of that country.
						
						(D) International laws governing wars of aggression are 
						completely prohibited under the legal principle of jus 
						cogens, whether or not a nation has signed or ratified a 
						particular international agreement.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of 
						constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
						of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
						people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
						W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
						offense warranting removal from office
						
						ARTICLE IX
						
						FAILING TO PROVIDE TROOPS WITH BODY ARMOR AND VEHICLE 
						ARMOR
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, has been 
						responsible for the deaths of members of the U.S. 
						military  and serious injury and trauma to other 
						soldiers, by failing to provide available body armor and 
						vehicle armor.
						
						While engaging in an invasion and occupation of choice, 
						not fought in self-defense, and not launched in 
						accordance with any timetable other than the President's 
						choosing, President Bush sent U.S. troops into danger 
						without providing them with armor. This shortcoming has 
						been known for years, during which time, the President 
						has chosen to allow soldiers and Marines to continue to 
						face unnecessary risk to life and limb rather then 
						providing them with armor.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of 
						constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
						of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
						people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
						W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
						offense warranting removal from office.
						
						ARTICLE X
						
						FALSIFYING ACCOUNTS OF U.S. TROOP DEATHS AND INJURIES 
						FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, promoted 
						false propaganda stories about members of the United 
						States military, including individuals both dead and 
						injured.
						
						The White House and the Department of Defense (DOD) in 
						2004 promoted a false account of the death of Specialist 
						Pat Tillman, reporting that he had died in a hostile 
						exchange, delaying release of the information that he 
						had died from friendly fire, shot in the forehead three 
						times in a manner that led investigating doctors to 
						believe he had been shot at close range.
						
						A 2005 report by Brig. Gen. Gary M. Jones reported that 
						in the days immediately following Specialist Tillman's 
						death, U.S. Army investigators were aware that 
						Specialist Tillman was killed by friendly fire, shot 
						three times to the head, and that senior Army 
						commanders, including Gen. John Abizaid, knew of this 
						fact within days of the shooting but nevertheless 
						approved the awarding of the Silver Star, Purple Heart, 
						and a posthumous promotion.
						
						On April 24, 2007, Spc. Bryan O'Neal, the last soldier 
						to see Specialist Pat Tillman alive, testified before 
						the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that 
						he was warned by superiors not to divulge information 
						that a fellow soldier killed Specialist Tillman, 
						especially to the Tillman family. The White House 
						refused to provide requested documents to the committee, 
						citing "executive branch confidentiality interests."
						
						The White House and DOD in 2003 promoted a false account 
						of the injury of Jessica Dawn Lynch, reporting that she 
						had been captured in a hostile exchange and had been 
						dramatically rescued. On April 2, 2003, the DOD released 
						a video of the rescue and claimed that Lynch had stab 
						and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about 
						on her hospital bed and interrogated. Iraqi doctors and 
						nurses later interviewed, including Dr. Harith Al-Houssona, 
						a doctor in the Nasirya hospital, described Lynch's 
						injuries as "a broken arm, a broken thigh, and a 
						dislocated ankle.” According to Al-Houssona, there was 
						no sign of gunshot or stab wounds, and Lynch's injuries 
						were consistent with those that would be suffered in a 
						car accident. Al-Houssona's claims were later confirmed 
						in a U.S. Army report leaked on July 10, 2003.
						
						Lynch denied that she fought or was wounded fighting, 
						telling Diane Sawyer that the Pentagon "used me to 
						symbolize all this stuff. It's wrong. I don't know why 
						they filmed [my rescue] or why they say these things.... 
						I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down 
						praying to my knees. And that's the last I remember." 
						She reported excellent treatment in Iraq, and that one 
						person in the hospital even sang to her to help her feel 
						at home.
						
						On April 24, 2007 Lynch testified before the House 
						Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
						
						"[Right after my capture], tales of great heroism were 
						being told. My parent's home in Wirt County was under 
						siege of the media all repeating the story of the little 
						girl Rambo from the hills who went down fighting. It was 
						not true.... I am still confused as to why they chose to 
						lie."
						
						The White House had heavily promoted the false story of 
						Lynch's rescue, including in a speech by President Bush 
						on April 28, 2003. After the fiction was exposed, the 
						president awarded Lynch the Bronze Star.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of 
						constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
						of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
						people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
						W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
						offense warranting removal from office.
						
						ARTICLE XI
						
						ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT U.S. MILITARY BASES IN IRAQ
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has violated 
						an act of Congress that he himself signed into law by 
						using public funds to construct permanent U.S. military 
						bases in Iraq.
						
						On January 28, 2008, President George W. Bush signed 
						into law the National Defense Authorization Act for 
						Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 4986). Noting that the Act 
						"authorizes funding for the defense of the United States 
						and its interests abroad, for military construction, and 
						for national security-related energy programs," the 
						president added the following "signing statement":
						
						"Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 
						1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that 
						could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his 
						constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be 
						faithfully executed, to protect national security, to 
						supervise the executive branch, and to execute his 
						authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch 
						shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent 
						with the constitutional authority of the President."
						
						Section 1222 clearly prohibits the expenditure of money 
						for the purpose of establishing permanent U.S. military 
						bases in Iraq. The construction of over $1 billion in 
						U.S. military bases in Iraq, including runways for 
						aircraft, continues despite Congressional intent, as the 
						Administration intends to force upon the Iraqi 
						government such terms which will assure the bases remain 
						in Iraq.
						
						Iraqi officials have informed members of Congress in May 
						2008 of the strong opposition within the Iraqi 
						parliament and throughout Iraq to the agreement that the 
						administration is trying to negotiate with Iraqi Prime 
						Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The agreement seeks to assure 
						a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq of which military 
						bases are the most obvious, sufficient and necessary 
						construct, thus clearly defying Congressional intent as 
						to the matter and meaning of "permanency.” 
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of 
						constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
						of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
						people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
						W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
						offense warranting removal from office.
						
						ARTICLE XII
						
						INITIATING A WAR AGAINST IRAQ FOR CONTROL OF THAT 
						NATION'S NATURAL RESOURCES
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, invaded 
						and occupied a foreign nation for the purpose, among 
						other purposes, of seizing control of that nation's oil.
						
						The White House and its representatives in Iraq have, 
						since the occupation of Baghdad began, attempted to gain 
						control of Iraqi oil. This effort has included 
						pressuring the new Iraqi government to pass a 
						hydrocarbon law. Within weeks of the fall of Saddam 
						Hussein in 2003, the US Agency for International 
						Development (USAID) awarded a $240 million contract to 
						Bearing Point, a private U.S. company. A Bearing Point 
						employee, based in the US embassy in Baghdad, was hired 
						to advise the Iraqi Ministry of Oil on drawing up the 
						new hydrocarbon law. The draft law places executives of 
						foreign oil companies on a council with the task of 
						approving their own contracts with Iraq; it denies the 
						Iraqi National Oil Company exclusive rights for the 
						exploration, development, production, transportation, 
						and marketing of Iraqi oil, and allows foreign companies 
						to control Iraqi oil fields containing 80 percent of 
						Iraqi oil for up to 35 years through contracts that can 
						remain secret for up to 2 months. The draft law itself 
						contains secret appendices.
						
						President Bush provided unrelated reasons for the 
						invasion of Iraq to the public and Congress, but those 
						reasons have been established to have been categorically 
						fraudulent, as evidenced by the herein mentioned 
						Articles of Impeachment I, II, III, IV, VI, and VII. 
						
						Parallel to the development of plans for war against 
						Iraq, the U.S. State Department's Future of Iraq 
						project, begun as early as April 2002, involved meetings 
						in Washington and London of 17 working groups, each 
						composed of 10 to 20 Iraqi exiles and international 
						experts selected by the State Department. The Oil and 
						Energy working group met four times between December 
						2002 and April 2003. Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, later the 
						Iraqi Oil Minister, was a member of the group, which 
						concluded that Iraq "should be opened to international 
						oil companies as quickly as possible after the war," and 
						that, "the country should establish a conducive business 
						environment to attract investment of oil and gas 
						resources.” The same group recommended 
						production-sharing agreements with foreign oil 
						companies, the same approach found in the draft 
						hydrocarbon law, and control over Iraq's oil resources 
						remains a prime objective of the Bush Administration.
						
						Prior to his election as Vice President, Dick Cheney, 
						then-CEO of Halliburton, in a speech at the Institute of 
						Petroleum in 1999 demonstrated a keen awareness of the 
						sensitive economic and geopolitical role of Middle East 
						oil resources saying: "By 2010, we will need on the 
						order of an additional 50 million barrels a day. So 
						where is the oil going to come from? Governments and 
						national oil companies are obviously controlling about 
						90 percent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a 
						government business. While many regions of the world 
						offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with 
						two-thirds of the world's oil and lowest cost, is still 
						where the prize ultimately lies. Even though companies 
						are anxious for greater access there, progress continues 
						to be slow.''
						
						The Vice President led the work of a secret energy task 
						force, as described in Article XXXII below, a task force 
						that focused on, among other things, the acquisition of 
						Iraqi oil through developing a controlling private 
						corporate interest in said oil.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of 
						constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
						of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
						people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
						W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
						offense warranting removal from office.
						
						ARTICLE XIII
						
						CREATING A SECRET TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP ENERGY AND 
						MILITARY POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO IRAQ AND OTHER 
						COUNTRIES
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to 
						take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, created 
						a secret task force to guide our nation's energy policy 
						and military policy, and undermined Congress' ability to 
						legislate by thwarting attempts to investigate the 
						nature of that policy.
						
						A Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report on the 
						Cheney Energy Task Force, in August 2003, described the 
						creation of this task force as follows:
						
						"In a January 29, 2001, memorandum, the President 
						established NEPDG [the National Energy Policy 
						Development Group]--comprised of the Vice President, 
						nine cabinet-level officials, and four other senior 
						administration officials--to gather information, 
						deliberate, and make recommendations to the President by 
						the end of fiscal year 2001. The President called on the 
						Vice President to chair the group, direct its work and, 
						as necessary, establish subordinate working groups to 
						assist NEPDG."
						
						The four "other senior administration officials were the 
						Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the 
						Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for 
						Policy, the Assistant to the President for Economic 
						Policy, and the Deputy Assistant to the President for 
						Intergovernmental Affairs.
						
						The GAO report found that:
						
						"In developing the National Energy Policy report, the 
						NEPDG Principals, Support Group, and participating 
						agency officials and staff met with, solicited input 
						from, or received information and advice from nonfederal 
						energy stakeholders, principally petroleum, coal, 
						nuclear, natural gas, and electricity industry 
						representatives and lobbyists. The extent to which 
						submissions from any of these stakeholders were 
						solicited, influenced policy deliberations, or were 
						incorporated into the final report cannot be determined 
						based on the limited information made available to GAO. 
						NEPDG met and conducted its work in two distinct phases: 
						the first phase culminated in a March 19, 2001, briefing 
						to the President on challenges relating to energy supply 
						and the resulting economic impact; the second phase 
						ended with the May 16, 2001, presentation of the final 
						report to the President. The Office of the Vice 
						President's (OVP) unwillingness to provide the NEPDG 
						records or other related information precluded GAO from 
						fully achieving its objectives and substantially limited 
						GAO's ability to comprehensively analyze the NEPDG 
						process. 
						
						"None of the key federal entities involved in the NEPDG 
						effort provided GAO with a complete accounting of the 
						costs that they incurred during the development of the 
						National Energy Policy report. The two federal entities 
						responsible for funding the NEPDG effort—OVP and the 
						Department of Energy (DOE)—did not provide the 
						comprehensive cost information that GAO requested. OVP 
						provided GAO with 77 pages of information, two-thirds of 
						which contained no cost information while the remaining 
						one-third contained some miscellaneous information of 
						little to no usefulness. OVP stated that it would not 
						provide any additional information. DOE, the Department 
						of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency 
						(EPA) provided GAO with estimates of certain costs and 
						salaries associated with the NEPDG effort, but these 
						estimates, all calculated in different ways, were not 
						comprehensive."
						
						In 2003, the Commerce Department disclosed a partial 
						collection of materials from the NEPDG, including 
						documents, maps, and charts, dated March 2001, of 
						Iraq's, Saudi Arabia's and the United Arab Emirates' oil 
						fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals, and 
						development projects.
						
						On November 16, 2005, the Washington Post reported on a 
						White House document showing that oil company executives 
						had met with the NEPDG, something that some of those 
						same executives had just that week denied in 
						Congressional testimony. The Bush Administration had not 
						corrected the inaccurate testimony.
						
						On July 18, 2007, the Washington Post reported the full 
						list of names of those who had met with the NEPDG..
						
						In 1998 Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, 
						told a San Francisco audience, "Iraq possesses huge 
						reserves of oil and gas, reserves I'd love Chevron to 
						have access to.” According to the GAO report, Chevron 
						provided detailed advice to the NEPDG.
						
						In March 2001, the NEPDG recommended that the United 
						States Government support initiatives by Middle Eastern 
						countries "to open up areas of their energy sectors to 
						foreign investment.” Following the invasion of Iraq, the 
						United States has pressured the new Iraqi parliament to 
						pass a hydrocarbon law that would do exactly that. The 
						draft law, if passed, would take the majority of Iraq's 
						oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi Government 
						and open it to international oil companies for a 
						generation or more. The Bush administration hired 
						Bearing Point, a U.S. company, to help write the law in 
						2004. It was submitted to the Iraqi Council of 
						Representatives in May 2007.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of 
						constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
						of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
						people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
						W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
						offense warranting removal from office.
						
						ARTICLE XIV
						
						MISPRISION OF A FELONY, MISUSE AND EXPOSURE OF 
						CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE 
						MATTER OF VALERIE PLAME WILSON, CLANDESTINE AGENT OF THE 
						CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President,
						
						(1) suppressed material information; 
						
						(2) selectively declassified information for the 
						improper purposes of retaliating against a whistleblower 
						and presenting a misleading picture of the alleged 
						threat from Iraq; 
						
						(3) facilitated the exposure of the identity of Valerie 
						Plame Wilson who had theretofore been employed as a 
						covert CIA operative; 
						
						(4) failed to investigate the improper leaks of 
						classified information from within his administration;
						
						
						(5) failed to cooperate with an investigation into 
						possible federal violations resulting from this 
						activity; and 
						
						(6) finally, entirely undermined the prosecution by 
						commuting the sentence of Lewis Libby citing false and 
						insubstantial grounds, all in an effort to prevent 
						Congress and the citizens of the United States from 
						discovering the deceitful nature of the President's 
						claimed justifications for the invasion of Iraq.
						
						In facilitating this exposure of classified information 
						and the subsequent cover-up, in all of these actions and 
						decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a 
						manner contrary to his trust as President, and 
						subversive of constitutional government, to the 
						prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the 
						manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.
						
						ARTICLE XV
						
						PROVIDING IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION FOR CRIMINAL 
						CONTRACTORS IN IRAQ
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, 
						established policies granting United States government 
						contractors and their employees in Iraq immunity from 
						Iraqi law, U.S. law, and international law.
						
						Lewis Paul Bremer III, then-Director of Reconstruction 
						and Humanitarian Assistance for post-war Iraq, on June 
						27, 2004, issued Coalition Provisional Authority Order 
						Number 17, which granted members of the U.S. military, 
						U.S. mercenaries, and other U.S. contractor employees 
						immunity from Iraqi law. 
						
						The Bush Administration has chosen not to apply the 
						Uniform Code of Military Justice or United States law to 
						mercenaries and other contractors employed by the United 
						States government in Iraq.
						
						Operating free of Iraqi or U.S. law, mercenaries have 
						killed many Iraqi civilians in a manner that observers 
						have described as aggression and not as self-defense. 
						Many U.S. contractors have also alleged that they have 
						been the victims of aggression (in several cases of 
						rape) by their fellow contract employees in Iraq. These 
						charges have not been brought to trial, and in several 
						cases the contracting companies and the U.S. State 
						Department have worked together in attempting to cover 
						them up.
						
						Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which the United 
						States is party, and which under Article VI of the U.S. 
						Constitution is therefore the supreme law of the United 
						States, it is the responsibility of an occupying force 
						to ensure the protection and human rights of the 
						civilian population. The efforts of President Bush and 
						his subordinates to attempt to establish a lawless zone 
						in Iraq are in violation of the law.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and subversive of constitutional government, 
						to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to 
						the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.
						
						ARTICLE XVI
						
						RECKLESS MISSPENDING AND WASTE OF US TAX DOLLARS IN 
						CONNECTION WITH IRAQ CONTRACTORS
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President,  
						recklessly wasted public funds on contracts awarded to 
						close associates, including companies guilty of 
						defrauding the government in the past, contracts awarded 
						without competitive bidding, "cost-plus" contracts 
						designed to encourage cost overruns, and contracts not 
						requiring satisfactory completion of the work.  These 
						failures have been the rule, not the exception, in the 
						awarding of contracts for work in the United States and 
						abroad over the past seven years. Repeated exposure of 
						fraud and waste has not been met by the president with 
						correction of systemic problems, but rather with 
						retribution against whistleblowers.
						
						The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
						reported on Iraq reconstruction contracting:
						
						"From the beginning, the Administration adopted a flawed 
						contracting approach in Iraq. Instead of maximizing 
						competition, the Administration opted to award no-bid, 
						cost-plus contracts to politically connected 
						contractors. Halliburton's secret $7 billion contract to 
						restore Iraq's oil infrastructure is the prime example. 
						Under this no-bid, cost-plus contract, Halliburton was 
						reimbursed for its costs and then received an additional 
						fee, which was a percentage of its costs. This created 
						an incentive for Halliburton to run up its costs in 
						order to increase its potential profit.
						
						"Even after the Administration claimed it was awarding 
						Iraq contracts competitively in early 2004, real price 
						competition was missing. Iraq was divided geographically 
						and by economic sector into a handful of fiefdoms. 
						Individual contractors were then awarded monopoly 
						contracts for all of the work within given fiefdoms. 
						Because these monopoly contracts were awarded before 
						specific projects were identified, there was no actual 
						price competition for more than 2,000 projects.
						
						"In the absence of price competition, rigorous 
						government oversight becomes essential for 
						accountability. Yet the Administration turned much of 
						the contract oversight work over to private companies 
						with blatant conflicts of interest. Oversight 
						contractors oversaw their business partners and, in some 
						cases, were placed in a position to assist their own 
						construction work under separate monopoly construction 
						contracts. . . . 
						
						"Under Halliburton's two largest Iraq contracts, 
						Pentagon auditors found $1 billion in 'questioned' costs 
						and over $400 million in 'unsupported' costs. Former 
						Halliburton employees testified that the company charged 
						$45 for cases of soda, billed $100 to clean 15- pound 
						bags of laundry, and insisted on housing its staff as 
						the five-star Kempinski hotel in Kuwait. Halliburton 
						truck drivers testified that the company 'torched' brand 
						new $85,000 trucks rather than perform relatively minor 
						repairs and regular maintenance. Halliburton procurement 
						officials described the company's informal motto in Iraq 
						as 'Don't worry about price. It's cost-plus.’ A 
						Halliburton manager was indicted for 'major fraud 
						against the United States' for allegedly billing more 
						than $5.5 billion for work that should have cost only 
						$685,000 in exchange for a $1 million kickback from a 
						Kuwaiti subcontractor....
						
						"The Air Force found that another U.S. government 
						contractor, Custer Battles, set up shell subcontractors 
						to inflate prices. Those overcharges were passed along 
						to the U.S government under the company's cost-plus 
						contract to provide security for Baghdad International 
						Airport. In one case, the company allegedly took 
						Iraqi-owned forklifts, re-painted them, and leased them 
						to the U.S. government.
						
						"Despite the spending of billions of taxpayer dollars, 
						U.S. reconstruction efforts in keys sectors of the Iraqi 
						economy are failing. Over two years after the U.S.-led 
						invasion of Iraq, oil and electricity production has 
						fallen below pre-war levels. The Administration has 
						failed to even measure how many Iraqis lack access to 
						drinkable water."
						
						"Constitution in Crisis," a book by Congressman John 
						Conyers, details the Bush Administration's response when 
						contract abuse is made public:
						
						"Bunnatine Greenhouse was the chief contracting officer 
						at the Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that has 
						managed much of the reconstruction work in Iraq. In 
						October 2004, Ms. Greenhouse came forward and revealed 
						that top Pentagon officials showed improper favoritism 
						to Halliburton when awarding military contracts to 
						Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR). 
						Greenhouse stated that when the Pentagon awarded 
						Halliburton a five-year, $7 billion contract, it 
						pressured her to withdraw her objections, actions which 
						she claimed were unprecedented in her experience.
						
						"On June 27, 2005, Ms. Greenhouse testified before 
						Congress, detailing that the contract award process was 
						compromised by improper influence by political 
						appointees, participation by Halliburton officials in 
						meetings where bidding requirements were discussed, and 
						a lack of competition. She stated that the Halliburton 
						contracts represented "the most blatant and improper 
						contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my 
						professional career.” Days before the hearing, the 
						acting general counsel of the Army Corps of Engineers 
						paid Ms. Greenhouse a visit and reportedly let it be 
						known that it would not be in her best interest to 
						appear voluntarily.
						
						"On August 27, 2005, the Army demoted Ms. Greenhouse, 
						removing her from the elite Senior Executive Service and 
						transferring her to a lesser job in the corps' civil 
						works division. As Frank Rich of The New York Times 
						described the situation, '[H]er crime was not 
						obstructing justice but pursuing it by vehemently 
						questioning irregularities in the awarding of some $7 
						billion worth of no-bid contracts in Iraq to the 
						Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown Root.’ The demotion 
						was in apparent retaliation for her speaking out against 
						the abuses, even though she previously had stellar 
						reviews and over 20 years of experience in military 
						procurement."
						
						The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
						reports on domestic contracting:
						
						"The Administration's domestic contracting record is no 
						better than its record on Iraq. Waste, fraud, and abuse 
						appear to be the rule rather than the exception....
						
						"A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 
						cost-plus contract with NCS Pearson, Inc., to hire 
						federal airport screeners was plagued by poor management 
						and egregious waste. Pentagon auditors challenged $303 
						million (over 40%) of the $741 million spent by Pearson 
						under the contract. The auditors detailed numerous 
						concerns with the charges of Pearson and its 
						subcontractors, such as '$20-an-hour temporary workers 
						billed to the government at $48 per hour, subcontractors 
						who signed out $5,000 in cash at a time with no 
						supporting documents, $377,273.75 in unsubstantiated 
						long distance phone calls, $514,201 to rent tents that 
						flooded in a rainstorm, [and] $4.4 million in "no show" 
						fees for job candidates who did not appear for tests.’ A 
						Pearson employee who supervised Pearson's hiring efforts 
						at 43 sites in the U.S. described the contract as 'a 
						waste a taxpayer's money.’ The CEO of one Pearson 
						subcontractor paid herself $5.4 million for nine months 
						work and provided herself with a $270,000 pension....
						
						"The Administration is spending $239 million on the 
						Integrated Surveillance and Intelligence System, a 
						no-bid contract to provide thousands of cameras and 
						sensors to monitor activity on the Mexican and Canadian 
						borders. Auditors found that the contractor, 
						International Microwave Corp., billed for work it never 
						did and charged for equipment it never provided, 'creat[ing] 
						a potential for overpayments of almost $13 million.’ 
						Moreover, the border monitoring system reportedly does 
						not work....
						
						"After spending more than $4.5 billion on screening 
						equipment for the nation's entry points, the Department 
						of Homeland Security is now 'moving to replace or alter 
						much of' it because 'it is ineffective, unreliable or 
						too expensive to operate.’ For example, radiation 
						monitors at ports and borders reportedly could not 
						'differentiate between radiation emitted by a nuclear 
						bomb and naturally occurring radiation from everyday 
						material like cat litter or ceramic tile . . . .’
						
						"The TSA awarded Boeing a cost-plus contract to install 
						over 1,000 explosive detection systems for airline 
						passenger luggage. After installation, the machines 
						'began to register false alarms' and '[s]creeners were 
						forced to open and hand-check bags.’ To reduce the 
						number of false alarms, the sensitivity of the machines 
						was lowered, which reduced the effectiveness of the 
						detectors. Despite these serious problems, Boeing 
						received an $82 million profit that the Inspector 
						General determined to be 'excessive' . . . .
						
						"The FBI spent $170 million on a 'Virtual Case File' 
						system that does not operate as required. After three 
						years of work under a cost-plus contract failed to 
						produce a functional system, the FBI scrapped the 
						program and began work on the new 'Sentinel' Case File 
						System....
						
						"The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General 
						found that taxpayer dollars were being lavished on perks 
						for agency officials. One IG report found that TSA spent 
						over $400,000 on its first leader's executive office 
						suite. Another found that TSA spent $350,000 on a 
						gold-plated gym....
						
						"According to news reports, Pentagon auditors ... 
						examined a contract between the Transportation Security 
						Administration (TSA) and Unisys, a technology and 
						consulting company, for the upgrade of airport computer 
						networks. Among other irregularities, government 
						auditors found that Unisys may have overbilled for as 
						much as 171,000 hours of labor and overtime by charging 
						for employees at up to twice their actual rate of 
						compensation. While the cost ceiling for the contract 
						was set at $1 billion, Unisys has reportedly billed the 
						government $940 million with more than half of the 
						seven-year contract remaining and more than half of the 
						TSA-monitored airports still lacking upgraded networks."
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President, and subversive of constitutional government, 
						to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to 
						the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.
						
						ARTICLE XVII
						
						ILLEGAL DETENTION: DETAINING INDEFINITELY AND WITHOUT 
						CHARGE PERSONS BOTH U.S. CITIZENS AND FOREIGN CAPTIVES
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, violated 
						United States and International Law and the US 
						Constitution by illegally detaining indefinitely and 
						without charge persons both US citizens and foreign 
						captives.
						
						In a statement on Feb. 7, 2002, President Bush declared 
						that in the US fight against Al Qaeda, "none of the 
						provisions of Geneva apply," thus rejecting the Geneva 
						Conventions that protect captives in wars and other 
						conflicts. By that time, the administration was already 
						transporting captives from the war in Afghanistan, both 
						alleged Al Qaeda members and supporters, and also 
						Afghans accused of being fighters in the army of the 
						Taliban government, to US-run prisons in Afghanistan and 
						to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 
						round-up and detention without charge of Muslim 
						non-citizens inside the US began almost immediately 
						after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade 
						Center and the Pentagon, with some being held as long as 
						nine months. The US, on orders of the president, began  
						capturing and detaining without charge alleged terror 
						suspects in other countries and detaining them abroad 
						and at the US Naval base in Guantanamo.
						
						Many of these detainees have been subjected to 
						systematic abuse, including beatings, which have been 
						subsequently documented by news reports, photographic 
						evidence, testimony in Congress, lawsuits, and in the 
						case of detainees in the US, by an investigation 
						conducted by the Justice Department's Office of the 
						Inspector General.
						
						In violation of US law and the Geneva Conventions, the 
						Bush Administration instructed the Department of Justice 
						and the US Department of Defense to refuse to provide 
						the identities or locations of these detainees, despite 
						requests from Congress and from attorneys for the 
						detainees. The president even declared the right to 
						detain US citizens indefinitely, without charge and 
						without providing them access to counsel or the courts, 
						thus depriving them of their constitutional and basic 
						human rights. Several of those US citizens were held in 
						military brigs in solitary confinement for as long as 
						three years before being either released or transferred 
						to civilian detention.
						
						Detainees in US custody in Iraq and Guantanamo have, in 
						violation of the Geneva Conventions, been hidden from 
						and denied visits by the International Red Cross 
						organization, while thousands of others in Iraq, 
						Guantanamo, Afghanistan, ships in foreign off-shore 
						sites, and an unknown number of so-called "black sites" 
						around the world have been denied any opportunity to 
						challenge their detentions. The president, acting on his 
						own claimed authority, has declared the hundreds of 
						detainees at Guantanamo Bay to be "enemy combatants" not 
						subject to US law and not even subject to military law, 
						but nonetheless potentially liable to the death penalty.
						
						The detention of individuals without due process 
						violates the 5th Amendment. While the Bush 
						administration has been rebuked in several court cases, 
						most recently that of Ali al-Marri, it continues to 
						attempt to exceed constitutional limits.
						
						In all of these actions violating US and International 
						law, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner 
						contrary to his trust as President and Commander in 
						Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to 
						the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the 
						manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.
						
						ARTICLE XVIII
						
						TORTURE: SECRETLY AUTHORIZING, AND ENCOURAGING THE USE 
						OF TORTURE AGAINST CAPTIVES IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, AND 
						OTHER PLACES, AS A MATTER OF OFFICIAL POLICY
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, violated 
						United States and International Law and the US 
						Constitution by secretly authorizing and encouraging the 
						use of torture against captives in Afghanistan, Iraq in 
						connection with the so-called "war" on terror.
						
						In violation of the Constitution, US law, the Geneva 
						Conventions (to which the US is a signatory), and in 
						violation of basic human rights, torture has been 
						authorized by the President and his administration as 
						official policy. Water-boarding, beatings, faked 
						executions, confinement in extreme cold or extreme heat, 
						prolonged enforcement of painful stress positions, sleep 
						deprivation, sexual humiliation, and the defiling of 
						religious articles have been practiced and exposed as 
						routine at Guantanamo, at Abu Ghraib Prison and other US 
						detention sites in Iraq, and at Bagram Air Base in 
						Afghanistan. The president, besides bearing 
						responsibility for authorizing the use of torture, also 
						as Commander in Chief, bears ultimate responsibility for 
						the failure to halt these practices and to punish those 
						responsible once they were exposed.
						
						The administration has sought to claim the abuse of 
						captives is not torture, by redefining torture. An 
						August 1, 2002 memorandum from the Administration's 
						Office of Legal Counsel Jay S. Bybee addressed to White 
						House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales concluded that to 
						constitute torture, any pain inflicted must be akin to 
						that accompanying "serious physical injury, such as 
						organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even 
						death." The memorandum went on to state that even should 
						an act constitute torture under that minimal definition, 
						it might still be permissible if applied to 
						"interrogations undertaken pursuant to the President's 
						Commander-in-Chief powers." The memorandum further 
						asserted that "necessity or self-defense could provide 
						justifications that would eliminate any criminal 
						liability."
						
						This effort to redefine torture by calling certain 
						practices simply "enhanced interrogation techniques" 
						flies in the face of the Third Geneva Convention 
						Relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which 
						states 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. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not 
						be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or 
						disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
						
						Torture is further prohibited by the Universal 
						Declaration of Human Rights, the paramount international 
						human rights statement adopted unanimously by the United 
						Nations General Assembly, including the United States, 
						in 1948. Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading 
						treatment or punishment is also prohibited by 
						international treaties ratified by the United States: 
						the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
						(ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture and Other 
						Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 
						(CAT).
						
						When the Congress, in the Defense Authorization Act of 
						2006, overwhelmingly passed a measure banning torture 
						and sent it to the President's desk for signature, the 
						President, who together with his vice president, had 
						fought hard to block passage of the amendment, signed 
						it, but then quietly appended a signing statement in 
						which he pointedly asserted that as Commander-in-Chief, 
						he was not bound to obey its strictures.
						
						The administration's encouragement of and failure to 
						prevent torture of American captives in the wars in Iraq 
						and Afghanistan, and in the battle against terrorism, 
						has undermined the rule of law in the US and in the US 
						military, and has seriously damaged both the effort to 
						combat global terrorism, and more broadly, America's 
						image abroad. In his effort to hide torture by US 
						military forces and the CIA, the president has defied 
						Congress and has lied to the American people, repeatedly 
						claiming that the US "does not torture."
						
						In all of these actions and decisions in violation of US 
						and International law, President George W. Bush has 
						acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and 
						Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional 
						government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and 
						justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the 
						United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by 
						such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense 
						warranting removal from office.
						
						ARTICLE XIX
						
						RENDITION: KIDNAPPING PEOPLE AND TAKING THEM AGAINST 
						THEIR WILL TO "BLACK SITES" LOCATED IN OTHER NATIONS, 
						INCLUDING NATIONS KNOWN TO PRACTICE TORTURE
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, violated 
						United States and International Law and the US 
						Constitution by kidnapping people and renditioning them 
						to "black sites" located in other nations, including 
						nations known to practice torture.
						
						The president has publicly admitted that since the 9-11 
						attacks in 2001, the US has been kidnapping and 
						transporting against the will of the subject (renditioning) 
						in its so-called "war" on terror—even people captured by 
						US personnel in friendly nations like Sweden, Germany, 
						Macedonia and Italy—and ferrying them to places like 
						Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan, and to prisons operated 
						in Eastern European countries, African Countries and 
						Middle Eastern countries where security forces are known 
						to practice torture.
						
						These people are captured and held indefinitely, without 
						any charges being filed, and are held without being 
						identified to the Red Cross, or to their families. Many 
						are clearly innocent, and several cases, including one 
						in Canada and one in Germany, have demonstrably been 
						shown subsequently to have been in error, because of a 
						similarity of names or because of misinformation 
						provided to US authorities.
						
						Such a policy is in clear violation of US and 
						International Law, and has placed the United States in 
						the position of a pariah state. The CIA has no law 
						enforcement authority, and cannot legally arrest or 
						detain anyone. The program of "extraordinary rendition" 
						authorized by the president is the substantial 
						equivalent of the policies of "disappearing" people, 
						practices widely practiced and universally condemned in 
						the military dictatorships of Latin America during the 
						late 20th Century.
						
						The administration has claimed that prior 
						administrations have practiced extraordinary rendition, 
						but, while this is technically true, earlier renditions 
						were used only to capture people with outstanding arrest 
						warrants or convictions who were outside in order to 
						deliver them to stand trial or serve their sentences in 
						the US. The president has refused to divulge how many 
						people have been subject to extraordinary rendition 
						since September 2001. It is possible that some have died 
						in captivity. As one US official has stated off the 
						record, regarding the program, some of those who were 
						renditioned were later delivered to Guantanamo, while 
						others were sent there directly. An example of this is 
						the case of six Algerian Bosnians who, immediately after 
						being cleared by the Supreme Court of Bosnia Herzegovina 
						in January 2002 of allegedly plotting to attack the US 
						and UK embassies, were captured, bound and gagged by US 
						special forces and renditioned to Guantanamo.
						
						In perhaps the most egregious proven case of rendition, 
						Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, was picked 
						up in September 2002 while transiting through New York's 
						JFK airport on his way home to Canada. Immigration and 
						FBI officials detained and interrogated him for nearly 
						two weeks, illegally denying him his rights to access 
						counsel, the Canadian consulate, and the courts. 
						Executive branch officials asked him if he would 
						volunteer to go to Syria, where he hadn't been in 15 
						years, and Maher refused.
						
						Maher was put on a private jet plane operated by the CIA 
						and sent to Jordan, where he was beaten for 8 hours, and 
						then delivered to Syria, where he was beaten and 
						interrogated for 18 hours a day for a couple of weeks. 
						He was whipped on his back and hands with a 2-inch thick 
						electric cable and asked questions similar to those he 
						had been asked in the United States. For over ten months 
						Maher was held in an underground grave-like cell – 3 x 6 
						x 7 feet – which was damp and cold, and in which the 
						only light came in through a hole in the ceiling. After 
						a year of this, Maher was released without any charges. 
						He is now back home in Canada with his family. Upon his 
						release, the Syrian Government announced he had no links 
						to Al Qaeda, and the Canadian Government has also said 
						they've found no links to Al Qaeda. The Canadian 
						Government launched a Commission of Inquiry into the 
						Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, 
						to investigate the role of Canadian officials, but the 
						Bush Administration has refused to cooperate with the 
						Inquiry.
						
						Hundreds of flights of CIA-chartered planes have been 
						documented as having passed through European countries 
						on extraordinary rendition missions like that involving 
						Maher Arar, but the administration refuses to state how 
						many people have been subjects of this illegal program.
						
						The same U.S. laws prohibiting aiding and abetting 
						torture also prohibit sending someone to a country where 
						there is a substantial likelihood they may be tortured. 
						Article 3 of CAT prohibits forced return where there is 
						a "substantial likelihood" that an individual "may be in 
						danger of" torture, and has been implemented by federal 
						statute. Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits return to 
						country of origin where individuals may be "at risk" of 
						either torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
						
						Under international Human Rights law, transferring a POW 
						to any nation where he or she is likely to be tortured 
						or inhumanely treated violates Article 12 of the Third 
						Geneva Convention, and transferring any civilian who is 
						a protected person under the Fourth Geneva Convention is 
						a grave breach and a criminal act.
						
						In situations of armed conflict, both international 
						human rights law and humanitarian law apply. A person 
						captured in the zone of military hostilities "must have 
						some status under international law; he is either a 
						prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third 
						Convention, [or] a civilian covered by the Fourth 
						Convention….There is no intermediate status; nobody in 
						enemy hands can be outside the law." Although the state 
						is obligated to repatriate Prisoners of War as soon as 
						hostilities cease, the ICRC's commentary on the 1949 
						Conventions states that prisoners should not be 
						repatriated where there are serious reasons for fearing 
						that repatriating the individual would be contrary to 
						general principles of established international law for 
						the protection of human beings Thus, all of the 
						Guantánamo detainees as well as renditioned captives are 
						protected by international human rights protections and 
						humanitarian law.
						
						By his actions as outlined above, the President has 
						abused his power, broken the law, deceived the American 
						people, and placed American military personnel, and 
						indeed all Americans—especially those who may travel or 
						live abroad--at risk of similar treatment. Furthermore, 
						in the eyes of the rest of the world, the President has 
						made the US, once a model of respect for Human Rights 
						and respect for the rule of law, into a state where 
						international law is neither respected nor upheld.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions in violation of 
						United States and International law, President George W. 
						Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of 
						constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
						of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
						people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
						W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
						offense warranting removal from office.
						
						ARTICLE XX
						
						IMPRISONING CHILDREN
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, authorized or permitted the arrest and 
						detention of at least 2500 children under the age of 18 
						as "enemy combatants" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at 
						Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in violation of the Fourth 
						Geneva Convention relating to the treatment of 
						"protected persons" and the Optional Protocol to the 
						Geneva Convention on the Rights of the Child on the 
						Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, signed by the 
						US in 2002 . To wit:
						
						In May 2008, the US government reported to the United 
						Nations that it has been holding upwards of 2,500 
						children under the age of 18 as "enemy combatants" at 
						detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo 
						Bay (where there was a special center, Camp Iguana, 
						established just for holding children). The length of 
						these detentions has frequently exceeded a year, and in 
						some cases has stretched to five years. Some of these 
						detainees have reached adulthood in detention and are 
						now not being reported as child detainees because they 
						are no longer children.
						
						In addition to detaining children as "enemy combatants," 
						it has been widely reported in media reports that the US 
						military in Iraq has, based upon Pentagon rules of 
						engagement, been treating boys as young as 14 years of 
						age as "potential combatants," subject to arrest and 
						even to being killed. In Fallujah, in the days ahead of 
						the November 2004 all-out assault, Marines ringing the 
						city were reported to be turning back into the city men 
						and boys "of combat age" who were trying to flee the 
						impending scene of battle -- an act which in itself is a 
						violation of the Geneva Conventions, which require 
						combatants to permit anyone, combatants as well as 
						civilians, to surrender, and to leave the scene of 
						battle.
						
						Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which the United 
						States has been a signatory since 1949, children under 
						the age of 15 captured in conflicts, even if they have 
						been fighting, are to be considered victims, not 
						prisoners. In 2002, the United States signed the 
						Optional Protocol to the Geneva Convention on the Rights 
						of the Child on the Involvement of children in Armed 
						Conflict, which raised this age for this category of 
						"protected person" to under 18.
						
						The continued detention of such children, some as young 
						as 10, by the US military is a violation of both 
						convention and protocol, and as such constitutes a war 
						crime for which the president, as commander in chief, 
						bears full responsibility.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of 
						constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
						of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
						people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
						W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
						offense warranting removal from office.
						
						ARTICLE XXI
						
						MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT 
						THREATS FROM IRAN, AND SUPPORTING TERRORIST 
						ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN IRAN, WITH THE GOAL OF OVERTHROWING 
						THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to 
						take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates misled the Congress and the citizens of the 
						United States about a threat of nuclear attack from the 
						nation of Iran.
						
						The National Intelligence Estimate released to Congress 
						and the public on December 4, 2007, which confirmed that 
						the government of the nation of Iran had ceased any 
						efforts to develop nuclear weapons, was completed in 
						2006. Yet, the president and his aides continued to 
						suggest during 2007 that such a nuclear threat was 
						developing and might already exist. National Security 
						Adviser Stephen Hadley stated at the time the National 
						Intelligence Estimate regarding Iran was released that 
						the president had been briefed on its findings "in the 
						last few months." Hadley's statement establishes a 
						timeline that shows the president knowingly sought to 
						deceive Congress and the American people about a nuclear 
						threat that did not exist.
						
						Hadley has stated that the president "was basically 
						told: stand down" and, yet, the president and his aides 
						continued to make false claims about the prospect that 
						Iran was trying to "build a nuclear weapon" that could 
						lead to "World War III."
						
						This evidence establishes that the president actively 
						engaged in and had full knowledge of a campaign by his 
						administration to make a false "case" for an attack on 
						Iran, thus warping the national security debate at a 
						critical juncture and creating the prospect of an 
						illegal and unnecessary attack on a sovereign nation.
						
						Even after the National Intelligence Estimate was 
						released to Congress and the American people, the 
						president stated that he did not believe anything had 
						changed and suggested that he and members of his 
						administration would continue to argue that Iran should 
						be seen as posing a threat to the United States. He did 
						this despite the fact that United States intelligence 
						agencies had clearly and officially stated that this was 
						not the case.
						
						Evidence suggests that the Bush Administration's 
						attempts to portray Iran as a threat are part of a 
						broader U.S. policy toward Iran. On September 30, 2001, 
						then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld established an 
						official military objective of overturning the regime in 
						Iran, as well as those in Iraq, Syria, and four other 
						countries in the Middle East, according to a document 
						quoted in then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy 
						Douglas Feith's book, "War and Decision."
						
						General Wesley Clark reports in his book Winning Modern 
						Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 
						2001 that the list of governments that Rumsfeld and 
						Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz planned to 
						overthrow included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and 
						Somalia. Clark writes that the list also included 
						Lebanon.
						
						Journalist Gareth Porter reported in May 2008 asking 
						Feith at a public event which of the six regimes on the 
						Clark list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, to which 
						Feith replied, "All of them."
						
						Rumsfeld's aides also drafted a second version of the 
						paper, as instructions to all military commanders in the 
						development of "campaign plans against terrorism.” The 
						paper called for military commanders to assist other 
						government agencies "as directed" to "encourage 
						populations dominated by terrorist organizations or 
						their supporters to overthrow that domination.”
						
						In January 2005, Seymour Hersh reported in the New 
						Yorker Magazine that the Bush Administration had been 
						conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at 
						least since the summer of 2004.
						
						In June 2005 former United Nations weapons inspector 
						Scott Ritter reported that United States security forces 
						had been sending members of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) 
						into Iranian territory. The MEK has been designated a 
						terrorist organization by the United States, the 
						European Union, Canada, Iraq, and Iran. Ritter reported 
						that the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 
						had used the MEK to carry out remote bombings in Iran.
						
						In April 2006, Hersh reported in the New Yorker Magazine 
						that U.S. combat troops had entered and were operating 
						in Iran, where they were working with minority groups 
						including the Azeris, Baluchis, and Kurds.
						
						Also in April 2006, Larisa Alexandrovna reported on Raw 
						Story that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) was 
						working with and training the MEK, or former members of 
						the MEK, sending them to commit acts of violence in 
						southern Iran in areas where recent attacks had left 
						many dead. Raw Story reported that the Pentagon had 
						adopted the policy of supporting MEK shortly after the 
						2003 invasion of Iraq, and in response to the influence 
						of Vice President Richard B. Cheney's office. Raw Story 
						subsequently reported that no Presidential finding, and 
						no Congressional oversight, existed on MEK operations.
						
						In March 2007, Hersh reported in the New Yorker Magazine 
						that the Bush administration was attempting to stem the 
						growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East 
						(specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in 
						Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni organizations, without 
						any Congressional authorization or oversight. Hersh said 
						funds had been given to "three Sunni jihadist groups ... 
						connected to al Qaeda" that "want to take on Hezbollah."
						
						In April 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported that 
						conflicts with insurgent groups along Iran's borders 
						were understood by the Iranian government as a proxy war 
						with the United States. Among the groups the U.S. DOD is 
						supporting, according to this report, is the Party for 
						Free Life in Kurdistan, known by its Kurdish acronym, 
						PEJAK. The United States has provided "foodstuffs, 
						economic assistance, medical supplies and Russian 
						military equipment, some of it funneled through 
						nonprofit groups."
						
						In May 2008, Andrew Cockburn reported on Counter Punch 
						that President Bush, six weeks earlier had signed a 
						secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against 
						the Iranian regime. President Bush's secret directive 
						covers actions across an area stretching from Lebanon to 
						Afghanistan, and purports to sanction actions up to and 
						including the funding of organizations like the MEK and 
						the assassination of public officials.
						
						All of these actions by the president and his agents and 
						subordinates exhibit a disregard for the truth and a 
						recklessness with regard to national security, nuclear 
						proliferation and the global role of the United States 
						military that is not merely unacceptable but dangerous 
						in a commander-in-chief.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of 
						constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause 
						of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the 
						people of the United States. Wherefore, President George 
						W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable 
						offense warranting removal from office.
						
						ARTICLE XXII
						
						CREATING SECRET LAWS
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, 
						established a body of secret laws through the issuance 
						of legal opinions by the Department of Justice's Office 
						of Legal Counsel (OLC).  
						
						The OLC's March 14, 2003, interrogation memorandum ("Yoo 
						Memorandum") was declassified years after it served as 
						law for the executive branch. On April 29, 2008, House 
						Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and 
						Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil 
						Liberties Chairman Jerrold Nadler wrote in a letter to 
						Attorney General Michael Mukasey:
						
						"It appears to us that there was never any legitimate 
						basis for the purely legal analysis contained in this 
						document to be classified in the first place. The Yoo 
						Memorandum does not describe sources and methods of 
						intelligence gathering, or any specific facts regarding 
						any interrogation activities. Instead, it consists 
						almost entirely of the Department's legal views, which 
						are not properly kept secret from Congress and the 
						American people. J. William Leonard, the Director of the 
						National Archive's Office of Information Security 
						Oversight Office, and a top expert in this field 
						concurs, commenting that '[t]he document in question is 
						purely a legal analysis' that contains 'nothing which 
						would justify classification.’ In addition, the Yoo 
						Memorandum suggests an extraordinary breadth and 
						aggressiveness of OLC's secret legal opinion-making. 
						Much attention has rightly been given to the statement 
						in footnote 10 in the March 14, 2003, memorandum that, 
						in an October 23, 2001, opinion, OLC concluded 'that the 
						Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military 
						operations.' As you know, we have requested a copy of 
						that memorandum on no less than four prior occasions and 
						we continue to demand access to this important document.
						
						"In addition to this opinion, however, the Yoo 
						Memorandum references at least 10 other OLC opinions on 
						weighty matters of great interest to the American people 
						that also do not appear to have been released. These 
						appear to cover matters such as the power of Congress to 
						regulate the conduct of military commissions, legal 
						constraints on the 'military detention of United States 
						citizens,' legal rules applicable to the boarding and 
						searching foreign ships, the President's authority to 
						render U.S. detainees to the custody of foreign 
						governments, and the President's authority to breach or 
						suspend U.S. treaty obligations. Furthermore, it has 
						been more than five years since the Yoo Memorandum was 
						authored, raising the question how many other such 
						memoranda and letters have been secretly authored and 
						utilized by the Administration.
						
						"Indeed, a recent court filing by the Department in FOIA 
						litigation involving the Central Intelligence Agency 
						identifies 8 additional secret OLC opinions, dating from 
						August 6, 2004, to February 18, 2007. Given that these 
						reflect only OLC memoranda identified in the files of 
						the CIA, and based on the sampling procedures under 
						which that listing was generated, it appears that these 
						represent only a small portion of the secret OLC 
						memoranda generated during this time, with the true 
						number almost certainly much higher."
						
						Senator Russ Feingold, in a statement during an April 
						30, 2008, senate hearing stated:
						
						"It is a basic tenet of democracy that the people have a 
						right to know the law. In keeping with this principle, 
						the laws passed by Congress and the case law of our 
						courts have historically been matters of public record. 
						And when it became apparent in the middle of the 20th 
						century that federal agencies were increasingly creating 
						a body of non-public administrative law, Congress passed 
						several statutes requiring this law to be made public, 
						for the express purpose of preventing a regime of 
						'secret law.’ "That purpose today is being thwarted. 
						Congressional enactments and agency regulations are for 
						the most part still public. But the law that applies in 
						this country is determined not only by statutes and 
						regulations, but also by the controlling interpretations 
						of courts and, in some cases, the executive branch. More 
						and more, this body of executive and judicial law is 
						being kept secret from the public, and too often from 
						Congress as well....
						
						"A legal interpretation by the Justice Department's 
						Office of Legal Counsel ... binds the entire executive 
						branch, just like a regulation or the ruling of a court. 
						In the words of former OLC head Jack Goldsmith, “These 
						executive branch precedents are ‘law’ for the executive 
						branch.” The Yoo memorandum was, for a nine-month period 
						in 2003 until it was withdrawn by Mr. Goldsmith, the law 
						that this Administration followed when it came to 
						matters of torture. And of course, that law was 
						essentially a declaration that few if any laws applied . 
						. . .
						
						"Another body of secret law is the controlling 
						interpretations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
						Act that are issued by the Foreign Intelligence 
						Surveillance Court. FISA, of course, is the law that 
						governs the government's ability in intelligence 
						investigations to conduct wiretaps and search the homes 
						of people in the United States. Under that statute, the 
						FISA Court is directed to evaluate wiretap and search 
						warrant applications and decide whether the standard for 
						issuing a warrant has been met – a largely factual 
						evaluation that is properly done behind closed doors. 
						But with the evolution of technology and with this 
						Administration's efforts to get the Court's blessing for 
						its illegal wiretapping activities, we now know that the 
						Court's role is broader, and that it is very much 
						engaged in substantive interpretations of the governing 
						statute. These interpretations are as much a part of 
						this country's surveillance law as the statute itself. 
						Without access to them, it is impossible for Congress or 
						the public to have an informed debate on matters that 
						deeply affect the privacy and civil liberties of all 
						Americans...
						
						"The Administration's shroud of secrecy extends to 
						agency rules and executive pronouncements, such as 
						Executive Orders, that carry the force of law. Through 
						the diligent efforts of my colleague Senator Whitehouse, 
						we have learned that OLC has taken the position that a 
						President can 'waive' or 'modify' a published Executive 
						Order without any notice to the public or Congress – 
						simply by not following it."
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President, and subversive of constitutional government, 
						to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to 
						the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.
						
						ARTICLE XXIII
						
						VIOLATION OF THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates,  repeatedly and illegally established 
						programs to appropriate the power of the military for 
						use in law enforcement.  Specifically, he has 
						contravened U.S.C. Title 18. Section 1385, originally 
						enacted in 1878, subsequently amended as "Use of Army 
						and Air Force as Posse Comitatus" and commonly known as 
						the Posse Comitatus Act.
						
						The Act states:
						
						"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances 
						expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of 
						Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air 
						Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the 
						laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not 
						more than two years, or both."
						
						The Posse Comitatus Act is designed to prevent the 
						military from becoming a national police force. 
						
						The Declaration of Independence states as a specific 
						grievance against the British that the King had "kept 
						among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the 
						consent of our legislatures," had "affected to render 
						the Military independent of and superior to the civil 
						power," and had "quarter[ed] large bodies of armed 
						troops among us . . . protecting them, by a mock trial, 
						from punishment for any murders which they should commit 
						on the inhabitants of these States"
						
						Despite the Posse Comitatus Act's intent, and in 
						contravention of the law, President Bush 
						
						a) has used military forces for law enforcement purposes 
						on U.S. border patrol; 
						
						b) has established a program to use military personnel 
						for surveillance and information on criminal activities;
						
						
						c) is using military espionage equipment to collect 
						intelligence information for law enforcement use on 
						civilians within the United States; and 
						
						d) employs active duty military personnel in 
						surveillance agencies, including the Central 
						Intelligence Agency (CIA).
						
						In June 2006, President Bush ordered National Guard 
						troops deployed to the border shared by Mexico with 
						Arizona, Texas, and California. This deployment, which 
						by 2007 reached a maximum of 6,000 troops, had orders to 
						"conduct surveillance and operate detection equipment, 
						work with border entry identification teams, analyze 
						information, assist with communications and give 
						administrative support to the Border Patrol" and 
						concerned "…providing intelligence….inspecting cargo, 
						and conducting surveillance."
						
						The Air Force's "Eagle Eyes" program encourages Air 
						Force military staff to gather evidence on American 
						citizens. Eagle Eyes instructs Air Force personnel to 
						engage in surveillance and then advises them to "alert 
						local authorities," asking military staff to surveil and 
						gather evidence on public citizens. This contravenes DoD 
						Directive 5525.5 "SUBJECT: DOD Cooperation with Civilian 
						Law Enforcement" which limits such activities.
						
						President Bush has implemented a program to use imagery 
						from military satellites for domestic law enforcement 
						through the National Applications Office.
						
						President Bush has assigned numerous active duty 
						military personnel to civilian institutions such as the 
						CIA and the Department of Homeland Security, both of 
						which have responsibilities for law enforcement and 
						intelligence. 
						
						In addition, on May 9, 2007, President Bush released 
						"National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51," 
						which effectively gives the president unchecked power to 
						control the entire government and to define that 
						government in time of an emergency, as well as the power 
						to determine whether there is an emergency. The document 
						also contains "classified Continuity Annexes.” In July 
						2007 and again in August 2007 Rep. Peter DeFazio, a 
						senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee, 
						sought access to the classified annexes. DeFazio and 
						other leaders of the Homeland Security Committee, 
						including Chairman Bennie Thompson, have been denied a 
						review of the Continuity of Government classified 
						annexes.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President, and subversive of constitutional government, 
						to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to 
						the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office. 
						
						ARTICLE XXIV
						
						SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS, WITHOUT A COURT-ORDERED 
						WARRANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND THE FOURTH 
						AMENDMENT
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, knowingly violated the fourth Amendment to 
						the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Service 
						Act of 1978 (FISA) by authorizing warrantless electronic 
						surveillance of American citizens to wit:
						
						(1) The President was aware of the FISA Law requiring a 
						court order for any wiretap as evidenced by the 
						following:
						
						(A)"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States 
						government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a 
						wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by 
						the way. When we're talking about chasing down 
						terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order 
						before we do so." White House Press conference on April 
						20, 2004 [White House Transcript]
						
						(B) "Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's 
						permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, or to 
						track his calls, or to search his property. Officers 
						must meet strict standards to use any of the tools we're 
						talking about." President Bush's speech in Baltimore 
						Maryland on July 20th 2005 [White House Transcript].
						
						(2) The President repeatedly ordered the NSA to place 
						wiretaps on American citizens without requesting a 
						warrant from FISA as evidenced by the following:
						
						(A) "Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush 
						secretly authorized the National Security Agency to 
						eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United 
						States to search for evidence of terrorist activity 
						without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required 
						for domestic spying, according to government officials." 
						New York Times article by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau 
						on December 12, 2005. [NYTimes].
						
						(B) The President admits to authorizing the program by 
						stating "I have reauthorized this program more than 30 
						times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend 
						to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing 
						threat from al Qaeda and related groups. The NSA's 
						activities under this authorization are thoroughly 
						reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal 
						officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector 
						general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than 
						a dozen times on this authorization and the activities 
						conducted under it." Radio Address from the White House 
						on December 17, 2005 [White House Transcript]
						
						(C) In a December 19th 2005 press conference the 
						President publicly admitted to using a combination of 
						surveillance techniques including some with permission 
						from the FISA courts and some without permission from 
						FISA.
						
						Reporter: It was, why did you skip the basic safeguards 
						of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?
						
						THE PRESIDENT: ... We use FISA still -- you're referring 
						to the FISA court in your question -- of course, we use 
						FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is 
						needed in order to protect the American people is the 
						ability to move quickly to detect. Now, having suggested 
						this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is 
						it legal to do so? I am -- I swore to uphold the laws. 
						Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer 
						is, absolutely. As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal 
						authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as 
						the authorization of force by the United States 
						Congress." [White House Transcript]
						
						(D) Mike McConnell, the Director of National 
						Intelligence, in a letter to Senator Arlen Specter, 
						acknowledged that Bush's Executive Order in 2001 
						authorized a series of secret surveillance activities 
						and included undisclosed activities beyond the 
						warrantless surveillance of e-mails and phone calls that 
						Bush confirmed in December 2005. "NSA Spying Part of 
						Broader Effort" by Dan Eggen, Washington Post, 8/1/07
						
						(3) The President ordered the surveillance to be 
						conducted in a way that would spy upon private 
						communications between American citizens located within 
						the United States borders as evidenced by the following:
						
						(A) Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications 
						technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the 
						Electronic Frontier Foundation's FF's lawsuit against 
						AT&T. He testified that in 2003 he connected a 
						"splitter" that sent a copy of Internet traffic and 
						phone calls to a secure room that was operated by the 
						NSA in the San Francisco office of AT&T. He heard from a 
						co-worker that similar rooms were being constructed in 
						other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles 
						and San Diego. From "Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room,” 
						Wired News, 4/7/06 [Wired] [EFF Case]
						
						(4) The President asserted an inherent authority to 
						conduct electronic surveillance based on the 
						Constitution and the "Authorization to use Military 
						Force in Iraq" (AUMF) that was not legally valid as 
						evidenced by the following:
						
						(A) In a December 19th, 2005 Press Briefing General 
						Alberto Gonzales admitted that the surveillance 
						authorized by the President was not only done without 
						FISA warrants, but that the nature of the surveillance 
						was so far removed from what FISA can approve that FISA 
						could not even be amended to allow it. Gonzales stated 
						"We have had discussions with Congress in the past -- 
						certain members of Congress -- as to whether or not FISA 
						could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with 
						this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would 
						be difficult, if not impossible.”
						
						(B) The fourth amendment to the United States 
						Constitution states "The right of the people to be 
						secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 
						against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be 
						violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable 
						cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and 
						particularly describing the place to be searched, and 
						the persons or things to be seized."
						
						(C) "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 
						unambiguously limits warrantless domestic electronic 
						surveillance, even in a congressionally declared war, to 
						the first 15 days of that war; criminalizes any such 
						electronic surveillance not authorized by statute; and 
						expressly establishes FISA and two chapters of the 
						federal criminal code, governing wiretaps for 
						intelligence purposes and for criminal investigation, 
						respectively, as the "exclusive means by which 
						electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of 
						domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may 
						be conducted." 50 U.S.C. §§ 1811, 1809, 18 U.S.C. § 
						2511(2)(f). Letter from Harvard Law Professor Lawrence 
						Tribe to John Conyers on 1/6/06
						
						(D) In a December 19th, 2005 Press Briefing Attorney 
						General Alberto Gonzales stated "Our position is, is 
						that the authorization to use force, which was passed by 
						the Congress in the days following September 11th, 
						constitutes that other authorization, that other statute 
						by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals 
						intelligence."
						
						(E) The "Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq" 
						does not give any explicit authorization related to 
						electronic surveillance. [HJRes114]
						
						(F) "From the foregoing analysis, it appears unlikely 
						that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or 
						impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance 
						operations here under discussion, and it would likewise 
						appear that, to the extent that those surveillances fall 
						within the definition of "electronic surveillance" 
						within the meaning of FISA or any activity regulated 
						under Title III, Congress intended to cover the entire 
						field with these statutes." From the "Presidential 
						Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance 
						to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information" by the 
						Congressional Research Service on January 5, 2006.
						
						(G) "The inescapable conclusion is that the AUMF did not 
						implicitly authorize what the FISA expressly prohibited. 
						It follows that the presidential program of surveillance 
						at issue here is a violation of the separation of powers 
						— as grave an abuse of executive authority as I can 
						recall ever having studied." Letter from Harvard Law 
						Professor Lawrence Tribe to John Conyers on 1/6/06
						
						(H) On August 17, 2006 Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the 
						United States District Court in Detroit, in ACLU v. NSA, 
						ruled that the "NSA program to wiretap the international 
						communications of some Americans without a court warrant 
						violated the Constitution. ... Judge Taylor ruled that 
						the program violated both the Fourth Amendment and a 
						1978 law that requires warrants from a secret court for 
						intelligence wiretaps involving people in the United 
						States. She rejected the administration's repeated 
						assertions that a 2001 Congressional authorization and 
						the president's constitutional authority allowed the 
						program." From a New York Times article "Judge Finds 
						Wiretap Actions Violate the Law" 8/18/06 and the 
						Memorandum Opinion
						
						(I) In July 2007, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals 
						dismissed the case, ruling the plaintiffs had no 
						standing to sue because, given the secretive nature of 
						the surveillance, they could not state with certainty 
						that they have been wiretapped by the NSA. This ruling 
						did not address the legality of the surveillance so 
						Judge Taylor's decision is the only ruling on that 
						issue. [ACLU Legal Documents]
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President, and subversive of constitutional government, 
						to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to 
						the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.
						
						ARTICLE XXV
						
						DIRECTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES TO CREATE AN 
						ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL DATABASE OF THE PRIVATE 
						TELEPHONE NUMBERS AND EMAILS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, violated the Stored Communications Act of 
						1986 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by creating 
						of a very large database containing information related 
						to the private telephone calls and emails of American 
						citizens, to wit:
						
						The President requested that telecommunication companies 
						release customer phone records to the government 
						illegally as evidenced by the following:
						
						"The Stored Communications Act of 1986 (SCA) prohibits 
						the knowing disclosure of customer telephone records to 
						the government unless pursuant to subpoena, warrant or a 
						National Security Letter (or other Administrative 
						subpoena); with the customers lawful consent; or there 
						is a business necessity; or an emergency involving the 
						danger of death or serious physical injury. None of 
						these exceptions apply to the circumstance described in 
						the USA Today story." From page 169, "George W. Bush 
						versus the US Constitution" Compiled at the direction of 
						Representative John Conyers.
						
						According to a May 11, 2006 article in USA Today by 
						Lesley Cauley, "The National Security Agency has been 
						secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of 
						millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, 
						Verizon and BellSouth." An unidentified source said, 
						"The agency's goal is 'to create a database of every 
						call ever made' within the nation's borders."
						
						In early 2001, Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio rejected a 
						request from the NSA to turn over customers records of 
						phone calls, emails and other Internet activity. Nacchio 
						believed that complying with the request would violate 
						the Telecommunications Act of 1996. From National 
						Journal, November 2, 2007.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President, and subversive of constitutional government, 
						to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to 
						the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.
						
						ARTICLE XXVI
						
						ANNOUNCING THE INTENT TO VIOLATE LAWS WITH SIGNING 
						STATEMENTS, AND VIOLATING THOSE LAWS
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has used 
						signing statements to claim the right to violate acts of 
						Congress even as he signs them into law.
						
						In June 2007, the Government Accountability Office 
						reported that in a sample of Bush signing statements the 
						office had studied, for 30 percent of them the Bush 
						administration had already proceeded to violate the laws 
						the statements claimed the right to violate.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President, and subversive of constitutional government, 
						to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to 
						the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.
						
						ARTICLE XXVII
						
						FAILING TO COMPLY WITH CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS AND 
						INSTRUCTING FORMER EMPLOYEES NOT TO COMPLY
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, refused to comply with Congressional 
						subpoenas, and instructed former employees not to comply 
						with subpoenas.
						
						Subpoenas not complied with include:
						
						1.    A House Judiciary Committee subpoena for Justice 
						Department papers and Emails, issued April 10, 2007;
						2.    A House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
						subpoena for the testimony of the Secretary of State, 
						issued April 25, 2007;
						3.    A House Judiciary Committee subpoena for the 
						testimony of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers 
						and documents , issued June 13, 2007;
						4.    A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for 
						documents and testimony of White House Chief of Staff 
						Joshua Bolten, issued June 13, 2007;
						5.    A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for 
						documents and testimony of White House Political 
						Director Sara Taylor, issued June 13, 2007 (Taylor 
						appeared but refused to answer questions);
						6.    A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for 
						documents and testimony of White House Deputy Chief of 
						Staff Karl Rove, issued June 26, 2007;
						7.    A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for 
						documents and testimony of White House Deputy Political 
						Director J. Scott Jennings, issued June 26, 2007 
						(Jennings appeared but refused to answer questions);
						8.    A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for legal 
						analysis and other documents concerning the NSA 
						warrantless wiretapping program from the White House, 
						Vice President Richard Cheney, The Department of 
						Justice, and the National Security Council. If the 
						documents are not produced, the subpoena requires the 
						testimony of White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, 
						Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Cheney chief of staff 
						David Addington, National Security Council executive 
						director V. Philip Lago, issued June 27, 2007;
						9.    A House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
						subpoena for Lt. General Kensinger.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President, and subversive of constitutional government, 
						to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to 
						the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.
						
						ARTICLE XXVIII
						
						TAMPERING WITH FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS, CORRUPTION OF 
						THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE,
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, conspired to undermine and tamper with the 
						conduct of free and fair elections, and to corrupt the 
						administration of justice by United States Attorneys and 
						other employees of the Department of Justice, through 
						abuse of the appointment power.
						
						Toward this end, the President and Vice President, both 
						personally and through their agents, did:
						
						Engage in a program of manufacturing false allegations 
						of voting fraud in targeted jurisdictions where the 
						Democratic Party enjoyed an advantage in electoral 
						performance or otherwise was problematic for the 
						President's Republican Party, in order that public 
						confidence in election results favorable to the 
						Democratic Party be undermined;
						
						Direct United States Attorneys to launch and announce 
						investigations of certain leaders, candidates and 
						elected officials affiliated with the Democratic Party 
						at times calculated to cause the most political damage 
						and confusion, most often in the weeks immediately 
						preceding an election, in order that public confidence 
						in the suitability for office of Democratic Party 
						leaders, candidates and elected officials be undermined;
						
						Direct United States Attorneys to terminate or scale 
						back existing investigations of certain Republican Party 
						leaders, candidates and elected officials allied with 
						the George W. Bush administration, and to refuse to 
						pursue new or proposed investigations of certain 
						Republican Party leaders, candidates and elected 
						officials allied with the George W. Bush administration, 
						in order that public confidence in the suitability of 
						such Republican Party leaders, candidates and elected 
						officials be bolstered or restored;
						
						Threaten to terminate the employment of the following 
						United States Attorneys who refused to comply with such 
						directives and purposes;
						
						1.    David C. Iglesias as U.S. Attorney for the 
						District of New Mexico;
						2.    Kevin V. Ryan as U.S. Attorney for the Northern 
						District of California;
						3.    John L. McKay as U.S. Attorney for the Western 
						District of Washington;
						4.    Paul K. Charlton as U.S. Attorney for the District 
						of Arizona;
						5.    Carol C. Lam as U.S. Attorney for the Southern 
						District of California;
						6.    Daniel G. Bogden as U.S. Attorney for the District 
						of Nevada;
						7.    Margaret M. Chiara as U.S. Attorney for the 
						Western District of Michigan;
						8.    Todd Graves as U.S. Attorney for the Western 
						District of Missouri;
						9.    Harry E. "Bud" Cummins, III as U.S. Attorney for 
						the Eastern District of Arkansas;
						10.    Thomas M. DiBiagio as U.S. Attorney for the 
						District of Maryland, and;
						11.    Kasey Warner as U.S. Attorney for the Southern 
						District of West Virginia.
						
						Further, George W. Bush has both personally and acting 
						through his agents and subordinates, together with the 
						Vice President conspired to obstruct the lawful 
						Congressional investigation of these dismissals of 
						United States Attorneys and the related scheme to 
						undermine and tamper with the conduct of free and fair 
						elections, and to corrupt the administration of justice.
						
						Contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of 
						President of the United States and, to the best of his 
						ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution 
						of the United States, and in violation of his 
						constitutional duty to take care that the laws be 
						faithfully executed, George W. Bush has without lawful 
						cause or excuse directed not to appear before the 
						Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
						Representatives certain witnesses summoned by duly 
						authorized subpoenas issued by that Committee on June 
						13, 2007.
						
						In refusing to permit the testimony of these witnesses 
						George W. Bush, substituting his judgment as to what 
						testimony was necessary for the inquiry, interposed the 
						powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of 
						the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to 
						himself functions and judgments necessary to the 
						exercise of the checking and balancing power of 
						oversight vested in the House of Representatives.
						
						Further, the President has both personally and acting 
						through his agents and subordinates, together with the 
						Vice President directed the United States Attorney for 
						the District of Columbia to decline to prosecute for 
						contempt of Congress the aforementioned witnesses, 
						Joshua B. Bolten and Harriet E. Miers, despite the 
						obligation to do so as established by statute (2 USC § 
						194) and pursuant to the direction of the United States 
						House of Representatives as embodied in its resolution 
						(H. Res. 982) of February 14, 2008.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President, and subversive of constitutional government, 
						to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to 
						the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.
						
						ARTICLE XXIX
						
						CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, willfully corrupted and manipulated the 
						electoral process of the United States for his personal 
						gain and the personal gain of his co-conspirators and 
						allies; violated the United States Constitution and law 
						by failing to protect the civil rights of 
						African-American voters and others in the 2004 Election, 
						and impeded the right of the people to vote and have 
						their vote properly and accurately counted, in that:
						
						A. On November 5, 2002, and prior thereto, James Tobin, 
						while serving as the regional director of the National 
						Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee and as the New 
						England Chairman of Bush-Cheney '04 Inc., did, at the 
						direction of the White House under the administration of 
						George W. Bush, along with other agents both known and 
						unknown, commit unlawful acts by aiding and abetting a 
						scheme to use computerized hang-up calls to jam phone 
						lines set up by the New Hampshire Democratic Party and 
						the Manchester firefighters' union on Election Day;
						
						B. An investigation by the Democratic staff of the House 
						Judiciary Committee into the voting procedures in Ohio 
						during the 2004 election found "widespread instances of 
						intimidation and misinformation in violation of the 
						Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal 
						Protection, Due Process and the Ohio right to vote;"
						
						C. The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause guarantees 
						that no minority group will suffer disparate treatment 
						in a federal, state, or local election in stating that:  
						"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall 
						abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the 
						United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of 
						life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; 
						nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal 
						protection of the laws.” However, during and at various 
						times of the year 2004, John Kenneth Blackwell, then 
						serving as the Secretary of State for the State of Ohio 
						and also serving simultaneously as Co-Chairman of the 
						Committee to Re-Elect George W. Bush in the State of 
						Ohio, did, at the direction of the White House under the 
						administration of George W. Bush, along with other 
						agents both known and unknown, commit unlawful acts in 
						violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th 
						Amendment to the United States Constitution by failing 
						to protect the voting rights of African-American 
						citizens in Ohio and further, John Kenneth Blackwell did 
						disenfranchise African-American voters under color of 
						law, by
						
						D. Willfully denying certain neighborhoods in the cities 
						of Cleveland, Ohio and Columbus, Ohio, along with other 
						urban areas in the State of Ohio, an adequate number of 
						electronic voting machines and provisional paper 
						ballots, thereby unlawfully impeding duly registered 
						voters from the act of voting and thus violating the 
						civil rights of an unknown number of United States 
						citizens.
						
						E. In Franklin County, George W. Bush and his agent, 
						Ohio Secretary of State John Kenneth Blackwell, Co-Chair 
						of the Bush-Cheney Re-election Campaign, failed to 
						protect the rights of African-American voters by not 
						properly investigating the withholding of 125 electronic 
						voting machines assigned to the city of Columbus.
						
						F. Forty-two African-American precincts in Columbus were 
						each missing one voting machine that had been present in 
						the 2004 primary.
						
						G. African-American voters in the city of Columbus were 
						forced to wait three to seven hours to vote in the 2004 
						presidential election.
						
						H. Willfully issuing unclear and conflicting rules 
						regarding the methods and manner of becoming a legally 
						registered voter in the State of Ohio, and willfully 
						issuing unclear and unnecessary edicts regarding the 
						weight of paper registration forms legally acceptable to 
						the State of Ohio, thereby creating confusion for both 
						voters and voting officials and thus impeding the right 
						of an unknown number of United States citizens to 
						register and vote.
						
						I. Ohio Secretary of State John Kenneth Blackwell 
						directed through Advisory 2004-31 that voter 
						registration forms, which were greatest in urban 
						minority areas, should not be accepted and should be 
						returned unless submitted on 80 bond paper weight. 
						Blackwell's own office was found to be using 60 bond 
						paper weight.
						
						J. Willfully permitted and encouraged election officials 
						in Cleveland, Cincinnati and Toledo to conduct a massive 
						partisan purge of registered voter rolls, eventually 
						expunging more than 300,000 voters, many of whom were 
						duly registered voters, and who were thus deprived of 
						their constitutional right to vote;
						
						K. Between the 2000 and 2004 Ohio presidential 
						elections, 24.93% of the voters in the city of 
						Cleveland, a city with a majority of African American 
						citizens, were purged from the voting rolls.
						
						L. In that same period, the Ohio county of Miami, with 
						census data indicating a 98% Caucasian population, 
						refused to purge any voters from its rolls. Miami County 
						"merged" voters from other surrounding counties into its 
						voting rolls and even allowed voters from other states 
						to vote.
						
						M. In Toledo, Ohio, an urban city with a high 
						African-American concentration, 28,000 voters were 
						purged from the voting rolls in August of 2004, just 
						prior to the presidential election. This purge was 
						conducted under the control and direction of George W. 
						Bush's agent, Ohio Secretary of State John Kenneth 
						Blackwell outside of the regularly established cycle of 
						purging voters in odd-numbered years.
						
						N. Willfully allowing Ohio Secretary of State John 
						Kenneth Blackwell, acting under color of law and as an 
						agent of George W. Bush, to issue a directive that no 
						votes would be counted unless cast in the right 
						precinct, reversing Ohio's long-standing practice of 
						counting votes for president if cast in the right 
						county.
						
						O. Willfully allowing his agent, Ohio Secretary of State 
						John Kenneth Blackwell, the Co-Chair of the Bush-Cheney 
						Re-election Campaign, to do nothing to assure the voting 
						rights of 10,000 people in the city of Cleveland when a 
						computer error by the private vendor Diebold Election 
						Systems, Inc. incorrectly disenfranchised 10,000 voters
						
						P. Willfully allowing his agent, Ohio Secretary of State 
						John Kenneth Blackwell, the Co-Chair of the Bush-Cheney 
						Re-election Campaign, to ensure that uncounted and 
						provisional ballots in Ohio's 2004 presidential election 
						would be disproportionately concentrated in urban 
						African-American districts.
						
						Q. In Ohio's Lucas County, which includes Toledo, 3,122 
						or 41.13% of the provisional ballots went uncounted 
						under the direction of George W. Bush's agent, the 
						Secretary of State of Ohio, John Kenneth Blackwell, 
						Co-Chair of the Committee to Re-Elect Bush/Cheney in 
						Ohio.
						
						R. In Ohio's Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, 
						8,559 or 32.82% of the provisional ballots went 
						uncounted.
						
						S. In Ohio's Hamilton County, which includes Cincinnati, 
						3,529 or 24.23% of the provisional ballots went 
						uncounted.
						
						T. Statewide, the provisional ballot rejection rate was 
						9% as compared to the greater figures in the urban 
						areas.
						
						U. The Department of Justice, charged with enforcing the 
						Voting Rights Act of 1965, the 14th Amendment's Equal 
						Protection Clause, and other voting rights laws in the 
						United States of America, under the direction and 
						Administration of George W. Bush did willfully and 
						purposely obstruct and stonewall legitimate criminal 
						investigations into myriad cases of reported electoral 
						fraud and suppression in the state of Ohio. Such 
						activities, carried out by the department on behalf of 
						George W. Bush in counties such as Franklin and Knox by 
						persons such as John K. Tanner and others, were meant to 
						confound and whitewash legitimate legal criminal 
						investigations into the suppression of massive numbers 
						of legally registered voters and the removal of their 
						right to cast a ballot fairly and freely in the state of 
						Ohio, which was crucial to the certified electoral 
						victory of George W. Bush in 2004.
						
						V. On or about November 1, 2006, members of the United 
						States Department of Justice, under the control and 
						direction of the Administration of George W. Bush, 
						brought indictments for voter registration fraud within 
						days of an election, in order to directly effect the 
						outcome of that election for partisan purposes, and in 
						doing so, thereby violated the Justice Department's own 
						rules against filing election-related indictments close 
						to an election;
						
						X. Emails have been obtained showing that the Republican 
						National Committee and members of Bush-Cheney '04 Inc., 
						did, at the direction of the White House under the 
						administration of George W. Bush, engage in voter 
						suppression in five states by a method know as "vote 
						caging," an illegal voter suppression technique;
						
						Y. Agents of George W. Bush, including Mark F. "Thor" 
						Hearne, the national general counsel of Bush/Cheney '04, 
						Inc., did, at the behest of George W. Bush, as members 
						of a criminal front group, distribute known false 
						information and propaganda in the hopes of forwarding 
						legislation and other actions that would result in the 
						disenfranchisement of Democratic voters for partisan 
						purposes. The scheme, run under the auspices of an 
						organization known as "The American Center for Voting 
						Rights" (ACVR), was funded by agents of George W. Bush 
						in violation of laws governing tax exempt 501(c)3 
						organizations and in violation of federal laws 
						forbidding the distribution of such propaganda by the 
						federal government and agents working on its behalf.
						
						Z. Members of the United States Department of Justice, 
						under the control and direction of the Administration of 
						George W. Bush, did, for partisan reasons, illegally and 
						with malice aforethought block career attorneys and 
						other officials in the Department of Justice from filing 
						three lawsuits charging local and county governments 
						with violating the voting rights of African-Americans 
						and other minorities, according to seven former senior 
						United States Justice Department employees.
						
						AA. Members of the United States Department of Justice, 
						under the control and direction of the Administration of 
						George W. Bush, did illegally and with malice 
						aforethought derail at least two investigations into 
						possible voter discrimination, according to a letter 
						sent to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee 
						and written by former employees of the United States 
						Department of Justice, Voting Rights Section.
						
						BB. Members of the United States Election Assistance 
						Commission (EAC), under the control and direction of the 
						Administration of George W. Bush, have purposefully and 
						willfully misled the public, in violation of several 
						laws, by;
						
						CC. Withholding from the public and then altering a 
						legally mandated report on the true measure and threat 
						of Voter Fraud, as commissioned by the EAC and completed 
						in June 2006, prior to the 2006 mid-term election, but 
						withheld from release prior to that election when its 
						information would have been useful in the administration 
						of elections across the country, because the results of 
						the statutorily required and tax-payer funded report did 
						not conform with the illegal, partisan propaganda 
						efforts and politicized agenda of the Bush 
						Administration;
						
						DD. Withholding from the public a legally mandated 
						report on the disenfranchising effect of Photo 
						Identification laws at the polling place, shown to 
						disproportionately disenfranchise voters not of George 
						W. Bush's political party. The report was commissioned 
						by the EAC and completed in June 2006, prior to the 2006 
						mid-term election, but withheld from release prior to 
						that election when its information would have been 
						useful in the administration of elections across the 
						country
						
						EE. Withholding from the public a legally mandated 
						report on the effectiveness of Provisional Voting as 
						commissioned by the EAC and completed in June 2006, 
						prior to the 2006 mid-term election, but withheld from 
						release prior to that election when its information 
						would have been useful in the administration of 
						elections across the country, and keeping that report 
						unreleased for more than a year until it was revealed by 
						independent media outlets.
						
						For directly harming the rights and manner of suffrage, 
						for suffering to make them secret and unknowable, for 
						overseeing and participating in the disenfranchisement 
						of legal voters, for instituting debates and doubts 
						about the true nature of elections, all against the will 
						and consent of local voters affected, and forced through 
						threats of litigation by agents and agencies overseen by 
						George W. Bush, the actions of Mr. Bush to do the 
						opposite of securing and guaranteeing the right of the 
						people to alter or abolish their government via the 
						electoral process, being a violation of an inalienable 
						right, and an immediate threat to Liberty.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President, and subversive of constitutional government, 
						to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to 
						the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.
						
						ARTICLE XXX
						
						MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN AN 
						ATTEMPT TO DESTROY MEDICARE
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, pursued 
						policies which deliberately drained the fiscal resources 
						of Medicare by forcing it to compete with subsidized 
						private insurance plans which are allowed to arbitrarily 
						select or not select those they will cover; failing to 
						provide reasonable levels of reimbursements to Medicare 
						providers, thereby discouraging providers from 
						participating in the program, and designing a Medicare 
						Part D benefit without cost controls which allowed 
						pharmaceutical companies to gouge the American taxpayers 
						for the price of prescription drugs.
						
						The President created, manipulated, and disseminated 
						information given to the citizens and Congress of the 
						United States in support of his prescription drug plan 
						for Medicare that enriched drug companies while failing 
						to save beneficiaries sufficient money on their 
						prescription drugs. He misled Congress and the American 
						people into thinking the cost of the benefit was $400 
						billion. It was widely understood that if the cost 
						exceeded that amount, the bill would not pass due to 
						concerns about fiscal irresponsibility.
						
						A Medicare Actuary who possessed information regarding 
						the true cost of the plan, $539 billion, was instructed 
						by the Medicare Administrator to deny Congressional 
						requests for it. The Actuary was threatened with 
						sanctions if the information was disclosed to Congress, 
						which, unaware of the information, approved the bill. 
						Despite the fact that official cost estimates far 
						exceeded $400 billion, President Bush offered assurances 
						to Congress that the cost was $400 billion, when his 
						office had information to the contrary. In the House of 
						Representatives, the bill passed by a single vote and 
						the Conference Report passed by only five votes. The 
						White House knew the actual cost of the drug benefit was 
						high enough to prevent its passage. Yet the White House 
						concealed the truth and impeded an investigation into 
						its culpability. 
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President, and subversive of constitutional government, 
						to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to 
						the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.
						
						ARTICLE XXXI
						
						KATRINA: FAILURE TO PLAN FOR THE PREDICTED DISASTER OF 
						HURRICANE KATRINA, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A CIVIL 
						EMERGENCY  
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, failed to take sufficient action to 
						protect life and property prior to and in the face of 
						Hurricane Katrina in 2005, given decades of 
						foreknowledge of the dangers of storms to New Orleans 
						and specific forewarning in the days prior to the 
						storm.  The President failed to prepare for predictable 
						and predicted disasters, failed to respond to an 
						immediate need of which he was informed, and has 
						subsequently failed to rebuild the section of our nation 
						that was destroyed.
						
						Hurricane Katrina killed at least 1,282 people, with 2 
						million more displaced. 302,000 housing units were 
						destroyed or damaged by the hurricane, 71% of these were 
						low-income units. More than 500 sewage plants were 
						destroyed, more than 170 point-source leakages of 
						gasoline, oil, or natural gas, more than 2000 gas 
						stations submerged, several chemical plants, 8 oil 
						refineries, and a superfund site was submerged. 8 
						million gallons of oil were spilled. Toxic materials 
						seeped into floodwaters and spread through much of the 
						city and surrounding areas. 
						
						The predictable increased strength of hurricanes such as 
						Katrina has been identified by scientists for years, and 
						yet the Bush Administration has denied this science and 
						restricted such information from official reports, 
						publications, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
						Agency's website. Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of 
						Science, wrote in 2006 that "hurricane intensity has 
						increased with oceanic surface temperatures over the 
						past 30 years. The physics of hurricane intensity growth 
						… has clarified and explained the thermodynamic basis 
						for these observations. [Kerry] Emanuel has tested this 
						relationship and presented convincing evidence."
						
						FEMA's 2001 list of the top three most likely and most 
						devastating disasters were a San Francisco earthquake, a 
						terrorist attack on New York, and a Category 4 hurricane 
						hitting New Orleans, with New Orleans being the number 
						one item on that list. FEMA conducted a five-day 
						hurricane simulation exercise in 2004, "Hurricane Pam," 
						mimicking a Katrina-like event. This exercise combined 
						the National Weather Service, the U.S. Army Corps of 
						Engineers, the LSU Hurricane Center and other state and 
						federal agencies, resulting in the development of 
						emergency response plans. The exercise demonstrated, 
						among other things, that thousands of mainly indigent 
						New Orleans residents would be unable to evacuate on 
						their own. They would need substantial government 
						assistance. These plans, however, were not implemented 
						in part due to the President's slashing of funds for 
						protection. In the year before Hurricane Katrina hit, 
						the President continued to cut budgets and deny grants 
						to the Gulf Coast. In June of 2004 the Army Corps of 
						Engineers levee budget for New Orleans was cut, and it 
						was cut again in June of 2005, this time by $71.2 
						million or a whopping 44% of the budget. As a result, 
						ACE was forced to suspend any repair work on the levees. 
						In 2004 FEMA denied a Louisiana disaster mitigation 
						grant request. 
						
						The President was given multiple warnings that Hurricane 
						Katrina had a high likelihood of causing serious damage 
						to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. At 10 AM on Sunday 28 
						August 2005, the day before the storm hit, the National 
						Weather Service published an alert titled "DEVASTATING 
						DAMAGE EXPECTED.” Printed in all capital letters, the 
						alert stated that "MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE 
						UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS...PERHAPS LONGER. AT LEAST ONE 
						HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL 
						FAILURE. … POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS. … WATER 
						SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN 
						STANDARDS."
						
						The Homeland Security Department also briefed the 
						President on the scenario, warning of levee breaches and 
						severe flooding. According to the New York Times, "a 
						Homeland Security Department report submitted to the 
						White House at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, hours before the 
						storm hit, said, 'Any storm rated Category 4 or greater 
						will likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee 
						breaching.'" These warnings clearly contradict the 
						statements made by President Bush immediately after the 
						storm that such devastation could not have been 
						predicted. On 1 September 2005 the President said "I 
						don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the 
						levees."  
						
						The President's response to Katrina via FEMA and DHS was 
						criminally delayed, indifferent, and inept. The only 
						FEMA employee posted in New Orleans in the immediate 
						aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Marty Bahamonde, emailed 
						head of FEMA Michael Brown from his Blackberry device on 
						August 31, 2005 regarding the conditions  The email was 
						urgent and detailed and indicated that "The situation is 
						past critical…Estimates are many will die within hours.” 
						Brown's reply was emblematic of the administration's 
						entire response to the catastrophe: "Thanks for the 
						update. Anything specific I need to do or tweak?" The 
						Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, did 
						not declare an emergency, did not mobilize the federal 
						resources, and seemed to not even know what was 
						happening on the ground until reporters told him.
						
						On Friday August 26, 2005, Governor Kathleen Blanco 
						declared a State of Emergency in Louisiana and Governor 
						Haley Barbour of Mississippi followed suit the next day. 
						Also on that Saturday, Governor Blanco asked the 
						President to declare a Federal State of Emergency, and 
						on 28 August 2005, the Sunday before the storm hit, 
						Mayor Nagin declared a State of Emergency in New 
						Orleans. This shows that the local authorities, 
						responding to federal warnings, knew how bad the 
						destruction was going to be and anticipated being 
						overwhelmed. Failure to act under these circumstances 
						demonstrates gross negligence.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President, and subversive of constitutional government, 
						to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to 
						the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.
						
						ARTICLE XXXII
						
						MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, 
						SYTEMATICALLY UNDERMINING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL 
						CLIMATE CHANGE.
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, ignored 
						the peril to life and property posed by global climate 
						change, manipulated scientific information and 
						mishandled protective policy, constituting nonfeasance 
						and malfeasance in office, abuse of power, dereliction 
						of duty, and deception of Congress and the American 
						people.
						
						President Bush knew the expected effects of climate 
						change and the role of human activities in driving 
						climate change. This knowledge preceded his first 
						Presidential term.
						
						1. During his 2000 Presidential campaign, he promised to 
						regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
						
						2. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
						Change, a global body of hundreds of the world's 
						foremost experts on climate change, concluded that "most 
						of observed warming over last 50 years (is) likely due 
						to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations due to 
						human activities." The Third Assessment Report projected 
						several effects of climate change such as continued 
						"widespread retreat" of glaciers, an "increase threats 
						to human health, particularly in lower income 
						populations, predominantly within tropical/subtropical 
						countries," and "water shortages."
						
						3. The grave danger to national security posed by global 
						climate change was recognized by the Pentagon's Defense 
						Advanced Planning Research Projects Agency in October of 
						2003. An agency-commissioned report "explores how such 
						an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially 
						de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to 
						skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource 
						constraints such as: 1) Food shortages due to decreases 
						in net global agricultural production 2) Decreased 
						availability and quality of fresh water in key regions 
						due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more 
						frequent floods and droughts 3) Disrupted access to 
						energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and 
						storminess."
						
						4. A December 2004 paper in Science reviewed 928 studies 
						published in peer reviewed journals to determine the 
						number providing evidence against the existence of a 
						link between anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide 
						and climate change. "Remarkably, none of the papers 
						disagreed with the consensus position."
						
						5. The November 2007 Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate 
						Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report showed that 
						global anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses have 
						increased 70% between 1970 and 2004, and anthropogenic 
						emissions are very likely the cause of global climate 
						change. The report concluded that global climate change 
						could cause the extinction of 20 to 30 percent of 
						species in unique ecosystems such as the polar areas and 
						biodiversity hotspots, increase extreme weather events 
						especially in the developing world, and have adverse 
						effects on food production and fresh water availability.
						
						The President has done little to address this most 
						serious of problems, thus constituting an abuse of power 
						and criminal neglect. He has also actively endeavored to 
						undermine efforts by the federal government, states, and 
						other nations to take action on their own.
						
						1. In March 2001, President Bush announced the U.S. 
						would not be pursuing ratification of the Kyoto 
						Protocol, an international effort to reduce greenhouse 
						gasses. The United States is the only industrialized 
						nation that has failed to ratify the accord.
						
						2. In March0f 2008, Representative Henry Waxman wrote to 
						EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson: "In August 2003, the 
						Bush Administration denied a petition to regulate CO2 
						emissions from motor vehicles by deciding that CO2 was 
						not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In April 2007, 
						the U.S. Supreme Court overruled that determination in 
						Massachusetts v. EPA. The Supreme Court wrote that "If 
						EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act 
						requires the agency to regulate emissions of the 
						deleterious pollutant from new motor vehicles." The EPA 
						then conducted an extensive investigation involving 
						60-70 staff who concluded that “CO2 emissions endanger 
						both human health and welfare.” These findings were 
						submitted to the White House, after which work on the 
						findings and the required regulations was halted."
						
						3. A Memo to Members of the Committee on Oversight and 
						Government Reform on May 19, 2008 stated "The record 
						before the Committee shows: (1) the career staff at EPA 
						unanimously supported granting California's petition (to 
						be allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from 
						cars and trucks, consistent with California state law); 
						(2) Stephen Johnson, the Administrator of EPA, also 
						supported granting California's petition at least in 
						part; and (3) Administrator Johnson reversed his 
						position after communications with officials in the 
						White House."
						
						The President has suppressed the release of scientific 
						information related to global climate change, an action 
						which undermines Congress' ability to legislate and 
						provide oversight, and which has thwarted efforts to 
						prevent global climate change despite the serious threat 
						that it poses.
						
						1. In February, 2001, ExxonMobil wrote a memo to the 
						White House outlining ways to influence the outcome of 
						the Third Assessment report by the Intergovernmental 
						Panel on Climate Change. The memo opposed the reelection 
						of Dr. Robert Watson as the IPCC Chair. The White House 
						then supported an opposition candidate, who was 
						subsequently elected to replace Dr. Watson.
						
						2. The New York Times on January 29, 2006, reported that 
						James Hansen, NASA's senior climate scientist was warned 
						of "dire consequences" if he continued to speak out 
						about global climate change and the need for reducing 
						emissions of associated gasses. The Times also reported 
						that: "At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic 
						and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many 
						scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five 
						years ago can now do so only if the interview is 
						approved by administration officials in Washington, and 
						then only if a public affairs officer is present or on 
						the phone."
						
						3. In December of 2007, the House Committee on Oversight 
						and Government Reform issued a report based on 16 months 
						of investigation and 27,000 pages of documentation. 
						According to the summary: "The evidence before the 
						Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush 
						Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to 
						manipulate climate change science and mislead policy 
						makers and the public about the dangers of global 
						warming." The report described how the White House 
						appointed former petroleum industry lobbyist Phil Cooney 
						as head of the Council on Environmental Quality. The 
						report states "There was a systematic White House effort 
						to minimize the significance of climate change by 
						editing climate change reports. CEQ Chief of Staff Phil 
						Cooney and other CEQ officials made at least 294 edits 
						to the Administration's Strategic Plan of the Climate 
						Change Science Program to exaggerate or emphasize 
						scientific uncertainties or to de-emphasize or diminish 
						the importance of the human role in global warming."
						
						4. On April 23, 2008, Representative Henry Waxman wrote 
						a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen L Johnson. In it 
						he reported: "Almost 1,600 EPA scientists completed the 
						Union of Concerned Scientists survey questionnaire. Over 
						22 percent of these scientists reported that 'selective 
						or incomplete use of data to justify a specific 
						regulatory outcome' occurred 'frequently' or 
						'occasionally' at EPA. Ninety-four EPA scientists 
						reported being frequently or occasionally directed to 
						inappropriately exclude or alter technical information 
						from an EPA scientific document. Nearly 200 EPA 
						scientists said that they have frequently or 
						occasionally been in situations in which scientists have 
						actively objected to, resigned from or removed 
						themselves from a project because of pressure to change 
						scientific findings."
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President and subversive of constitutional government, 
						to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to 
						the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.
						
						ARTICLE XXXIII
						
						REPEATEDLY IGNORED AND FAILED TO RESPOND TO HIGH LEVEL 
						INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS OF PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACKS IN 
						THE US, PRIOR TO 911
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, failed 
						in his Constitutional duties to take proper steps to 
						protect the nation prior to September 11, 2001.
						
						The White House's top counter-terrorism adviser, Richard 
						A. Clarke, has testified that from the beginning of 
						George W. Bush's presidency until September 11, 2001, 
						Clarke attempted unsuccessfully to persuade President 
						Bush to take steps to protect the nation against 
						terrorism. Clarke sent a memorandum to then-National 
						Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on January 24, 2001, 
						"urgently" but unsuccessfully requesting "a 
						Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al 
						Qaeda attack." 
						
						In April 2001, Clarke was finally granted a meeting, but 
						only with second-in-command department representatives, 
						including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, 
						who made light of Clarke's concerns.
						
						Clarke confirms that in June, July, and August, 2001, 
						the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) warned the 
						president in daily briefings of unprecedented 
						indications that a major al Qaeda attack was going to 
						happen against the United States somewhere in the world 
						in the weeks and months ahead. Yet, Clarke was still 
						unable to convene a cabinet-level meeting to address the 
						issue.
						
						Condoleezza Rice has testified that George Tenet met 
						with the president 40 times to warn him that a major 
						al-Qaeda attack was going to take place, and that in 
						response the president did not convene any meetings of 
						top officials. At such meetings, the FBI could have 
						shared information on possible terrorists enrolled at 
						flight schools. Among the many preventive steps that 
						could have been taken, the Federal Aviation 
						Administration, airlines, and airports might have been 
						put on full alert.
						
						According to Condoleezza Rice, the first and only 
						cabinet-level meeting prior to 9/11 to discuss the 
						threat of terrorist attacks took place on September 4, 
						2001, one week before the attacks in New York and 
						Washington. 
						
						On August 6, 2001, President Bush was presented a 
						President's Daily Brief (PDB) article titled "Bin Laden 
						Determined to Strike in U.S.” The lead sentence of that 
						PDB article indicated that Bin Laden and his followers 
						wanted to "follow the example of World Trade Center 
						bomber Ramzi Yousef and 'bring the fighting to 
						America.'” The article warned: "Al-Qa'ida 
						members--including some who are US citizens--have 
						resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the 
						group apparently maintains a support structure that 
						could aid attacks."
						
						The article cited a "more sensational threat reporting 
						that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft," but 
						indicated that the CIA had not been able to corroborate 
						such reporting. The PDB item included information from 
						the FBI indicating "patterns of suspicious activity in 
						this country consistent with preparations for hijackings 
						or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance 
						of federal buildings in New York.” The article also 
						noted that the CIA and FBI were investigating "a call to 
						our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin 
						Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with 
						explosives."
						
						The president spent the rest of August 6, and almost all 
						the rest of August 2001 on vacation. There is no 
						evidence that he called any meetings of his advisers to 
						discuss this alarming report. When the title and 
						substance of this PDB article were later reported in the 
						press, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice 
						began a sustained campaign to play down its 
						significance, until the actual text was eventually 
						released by the White House.
						
						New York Times writer Douglas Jehl put it this way: "In 
						a single 17-sentence document, the intelligence briefing 
						delivered to President Bush in August 2001 spells out 
						the who, hints at the what and points towards the where 
						of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington that 
						followed 36 days later."
						
						Eleanor Hill, Executive Director of the joint 
						congressional committee investigating the performance of 
						the US intelligence community before September 11, 2001, 
						reported in mid-September 2002 that intelligence reports 
						a year earlier "reiterated a consistent and constant 
						theme: Osama bin Laden's intent to launch terrorist 
						attacks inside the United States."
						
						That joint inquiry revealed that just two months before 
						September 11, an intelligence briefing for "senior 
						government officials" predicted a terrorist attack with 
						these words: "The attack will be spectacular and 
						designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. 
						facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been 
						made. Attack will occur with little or no warning."
						
						Given the White House's insistence on secrecy with 
						regard to what intelligence was given to President Bush, 
						the joint-inquiry report does not divulge whether he 
						took part in that briefing. Even if he did not, it 
						strains credulity to suppose that those "senior 
						government officials" would have kept its alarming 
						substance from the president.
						
						Again, there is no evidence that the president held any 
						meetings or took any action to deal with the threats of 
						such attacks.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President, and subversive of constitutional government, 
						to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to 
						the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.
						
						ARTICLE XXXIV
						
						OBSTRUCTION OF INVESTIGATION INTO THE ATTACKS OF 
						SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, 
						obstructed investigations into the attacks on the World 
						Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
						
						Following September 11, 2001, President Bush and Vice 
						President Cheney took strong steps to thwart any and all 
						proposals that the circumstances of the attack be 
						addressed. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell was 
						forced to renege on his public promise on September 23 
						that a "White Paper" would be issued to explain the 
						circumstances. Less than two weeks after that promise, 
						Powell apologized for his "unfortunate choice of words," 
						and explained that Americans would have to rely on 
						"information coming out in the press and in other ways."
						
						On Sept. 26, 2001, President Bush drove to Central 
						Intelligence Agency (CIA) headquarters in Langley, 
						Virginia, stood with Director of Central Intelligence 
						George Tenet and said: "My report to the nation is, 
						we've got the best intelligence we can possibly have 
						thanks to the men and women of the C.I.A.” George Tenet 
						subsequently and falsely claimed not to have visited the 
						president personally between the start of Bush's long 
						Crawford vacation and September 11, 2001.
						
						Testifying before the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004, 
						Tenet answered a question from Commission member Timothy 
						Roemer by referring to the president's vacation (July 
						29-August 30) in Crawford and insisting that he did not 
						see the president at all in August 2001. "You never 
						talked with him?" Roemer asked. "No," Tenet replied, 
						explaining that for much of August he too was "on 
						leave.” An Agency spokesman called reporters that same 
						evening to say Tenet had misspoken, and that Tenet had 
						briefed Bush on August 17 and 31. The spokesman 
						explained that the second briefing took place after the 
						president had returned to Washington, and played down 
						the first one, in Crawford, as uneventful.
						
						In his book, At the Center of the Storm, (2007) Tenet, 
						refers to what is almost certainly his August 17 visit 
						to Crawford as a follow-up to the "Bin Laden Determined 
						to Strike in the US" article in the CIA-prepared 
						President's Daily Brief of August 6. That briefing was 
						immortalized in a Time Magazine photo capturing Harriet 
						Myers holding the PDB open for the president, as two CIA 
						officers sit by. It is the same briefing to which the 
						president reportedly reacted by telling the CIA briefer, 
						"All right, you've covered your ass now." (Ron Suskind, 
						The One-Percent Doctrine, p. 2, 2006). In At the Center 
						of the Storm, Tenet writes:  "A few weeks after the 
						August 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to 
						make sure that the president stayed current on events."
						
						A White House press release suggests Tenet was also 
						there a week later, on August 24. According to the 
						August 25, 2001, release, President Bush, addressing a 
						group of visitors to Crawford on August 25, told them:  
						"George Tenet and I, yesterday, we piled in the new 
						nominees for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice 
						Chairman and their wives and went right up the canyon."
						
						In early February, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney 
						warned then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle that if 
						Congress went ahead with an investigation, 
						administration officials might not show up to testify. 
						As pressure grew for an investigation, the president and 
						vice president agreed to the establishment of a 
						congressional joint committee to conduct a "Joint 
						Inquiry." Eleanor Hill, Executive Director of the 
						Inquiry, opened the Joint Inquiry's final public hearing 
						in mid-September 2002 with the following disclaimer: "I 
						need to report that, according to the White House and 
						the Director of Central Intelligence, the president's 
						knowledge of intelligence information relevant to this 
						inquiry remains classified, even when the substance of 
						the intelligence information has been declassified."
						
						The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, also known 
						as the 9/11 Commission, was created on November 27, 
						2002, following the passage of congressional legislation 
						signed into law by President Bush. The President was 
						asked to testify before the Commission. He refused to 
						testify except for one hour in private with only two 
						Commission members, with no oath administered, with no 
						recording or note taking, and with the Vice President at 
						his side. Commission Co-Chair Lee Hamilton has written 
						that he believes the commission was set up to fail, was 
						underfunded, was rushed, and did not receive proper 
						cooperation and access to information. 
						
						A December 2007 review of classified documents by former 
						members of the Commission found that the commission had 
						made repeated and detailed requests to the CIA in 2003 
						and 2004 for documents and other information about the 
						interrogation of operatives of Al Qaeda, and had been 
						told falsely by a top C.I.A. official that the agency 
						had "produced or made available for review" everything 
						that had been requested.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President, and subversive of constitutional government, 
						to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to 
						the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.
						
						ARTICLE XXXV
						
						ENDANGERING THE HEALTH OF 911 FIRST RESPONDERS
						
						In his conduct while President of the United States, 
						George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath 
						to faithfully execute the office of President of the 
						United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
						protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
						States, and in violation of his constitutional duty 
						under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take 
						care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has both 
						personally and acting through his agents and 
						subordinates, together with the Vice President, 
						recklessly endangered the health of first responders, 
						residents, and workers at and near the former location 
						of the World Trade Center in New York City.
						
						The Inspector General of the Environmental Protection 
						Agency (EPA) August 21, 2003, report numbered 
						2003-P-00012 and entitled "EPA's Response to the World 
						Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas 
						for Improvement," includes the following findings:
						
						"[W]hen EPA made a September 18 announcement that the 
						air was 'safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient 
						data and analyses to make such a blanket statement. At 
						that time, air monitoring data was lacking for several 
						pollutants of concern, including particulate matter and 
						polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Furthermore, The White 
						House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) influenced, 
						through the collaboration process, the information that 
						EPA communicated to the public through its early press 
						releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring 
						statements and delete cautionary ones."
						
						"As a result of the White House CEQ's influence, 
						guidance for cleaning indoor spaces and information 
						about the potential health effects from WTC debris were 
						not included in EPA- issued press releases. In addition, 
						based on CEQ's influence, reassuring information was 
						added to at least one press release and cautionary 
						information was deleted from EPA's draft version of that 
						press release. . . . The White House's role in EPA's 
						public communications about WTC environmental conditions 
						was described in a September 12, 2001, e-mail from the 
						EPA Deputy Administrator's Chief of Staff to senior EPA 
						officials:
						
						"'All statements to the media should be cleared through 
						the NSC [National Security Council] before they are 
						released.'
						
						"According to the EPA Chief of Staff, one particular CEQ 
						official was designated to work with EPA to ensure that 
						clearance was obtained through NSC. The Associate 
						Administrator for the EPA Office of Communications, 
						Education, and Media Relations (OCEMR) said that no 
						press release could be issued for a 3- to 4-week period 
						after September 11 without approval from the CEQ 
						contact."
						
						Acting EPA Administrator Marianne Horinko, who sat in on 
						EPA meetings with the White House has said in an 
						interview that the White House played a coordinating 
						role. The National Security Council played the key role, 
						filtering incoming data on ground zero air and water, 
						Horinko said: "I think that the thinking was, these are 
						experts in WMD (weapons of mass destruction), so they 
						should have the coordinating role."
						
						In the cleanup of the Pentagon following September 11, 
						2001, Occupational Safety and Health Administration laws 
						were enforced, and no workers became ill. At the World 
						Trade Center site, the same laws were not enforced.
						
						In the years since the release of the EPA Inspector 
						General's above-cited report, the Bush Administration 
						has still not affected a clean-up of the indoor air in 
						apartments and workspaces near the site.
						
						Screenings conducted at the Mount Sinai Medical Center 
						and released in the September 10, 2004, Morbidity and 
						Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) of the federal Centers 
						For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), produced the 
						following results:
						
						"Both upper and lower respiratory problems and mental 
						health difficulties are widespread among rescue and 
						recovery workers who dug through the ruins of the World 
						Trade Center in the days following its destruction in 
						the attack of September 11, 2001.
						
						"An analysis of the screenings of 1,138 workers and 
						volunteers who responded to the World Trade Center 
						disaster found that nearly three-quarters of them 
						experienced new or worsened upper respiratory problems 
						at some point while working at Ground Zero. And half of 
						those examined had upper and/or lower respiratory 
						symptoms that persisted up to the time of their 
						examinations, an average of eight months after their WTC 
						efforts ended."
						
						A larger study released in 2006 found that roughly 70 
						percent of nearly 10,000 workers tested at Mount Sinai 
						from 2002 to 2004 reported that they had new or 
						substantially worsened respiratory problems while or 
						after working at ground zero. This study showed that 
						many of the respiratory ailments, including sinusitis 
						and asthma, and gastrointestinal problems related to 
						them, initially reported by ground zero workers 
						persisted or grew worse over time. Most of the ground 
						zero workers in the study who reported trouble breathing 
						while working there were still having those problems two 
						and a half years later, an indication of chronic illness 
						unlikely to improve over time.
						
						In all of these actions and decisions, President George 
						W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as 
						President, and subversive of constitutional government, 
						to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to 
						the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 
						Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is 
						guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from 
						office.