Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: If Bush wne into Afghanistan before 9/11

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    From Gregg Easterbrook-


    AN ALTERNATIVE HISTORY: washington, april 9, 2004. A hush fell over the city as George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. Meeting late into the night, the Senate unanimously voted to convict Bush following a trial on his bill of impeachment from the House.

    Moments after being sworn in as the 44th president, Dick Cheney said that disgraced former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice would be turned over to the Hague for trial in the International Court of Justice as a war criminal. Cheney said Washington would "firmly resist" international demands that Bush be extradited for prosecution as well.

    On August 7, 2001, Bush had ordered the United States military to stage an all-out attack on alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Thousands of U.S. special forces units parachuted into this neutral country, while air strikes targeted the Afghan government and its supporting military. Pentagon units seized abandoned Soviet air bases throughout Afghanistan, while establishing support bases in nearby nations such as Uzbekistan. Simultaneously, FBI agents throughout the United States staged raids in which dozens of men accused of terrorism were taken prisoner.

    Reaction was swift and furious. Florida Senator Bob Graham said Bush had "brought shame to the United States with his paranoid delusions about so-called terror networks." British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused the United States of "an inexcusable act of conquest in plain violation of international law." White House chief counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke immediately resigned in protest of "a disgusting exercise in over-kill."

    When dozens of U.S. soldiers were slain in gun battles with fighters in the Afghan mountains, public opinion polls showed the nation overwhelmingly opposed to Bush's action. Political leaders of both parties called on Bush to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan immediately. "We are supposed to believe that attacking people in caves in some place called Tora Bora is worth the life of even one single U.S. soldier?" former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey asked.

    When an off-target U.S. bomb killed scores of Afghan civilians who had taken refuge in a mosque, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar announced a global boycott of American products. The United Nations General Assembly voted to condemn the United States, and Washington was forced into the humiliating position of vetoing a Security Council resolution declaring America guilty of "criminal acts of aggression."

    Bush justified his attack on Afghanistan, and the detention of 19 men of Arab descent who had entered the country legally, on grounds of intelligence reports suggesting an imminent, devastating attack on the United States. But no such attack ever occurred, leading to widespread ridicule of Bush's claims. Speaking before a special commission created by Congress to investigate Bush's anti-terrorism actions, former national security adviser Rice shocked and horrified listeners when she admitted, "We had no actionable warnings of any specific threat, just good reason to believe something really bad was about to happen."

    The president fired Rice immediately after her admission, but this did little to quell public anger regarding the war in Afghanistan. When it was revealed that U.S. special forces were also carrying out attacks against suspected terrorist bases in Indonesia and Pakistan, fury against the United States became universal, with even Israel condemning American action as "totally unjustified."

    Speaking briefly to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before a helicopter carried him out of Washington as the first-ever president removed by impeachment, Bush seemed bitter. "I was given bad advice," he insisted. "My advisers told me that unless we took decisive action, thousands of innocent Americans might die. Obviously I should not have listened."

    Announcing his candidacy for the 2004 Republican presidential nomination, Senator John McCain said today that "George W. Bush was very foolish and naïve; he didn't realize he was being pushed into this needless conflict by oil interests that wanted to seize Afghanistan to run a pipeline across it." McCain spoke at a campaign rally at the World Trade Center in New York City.

    posted 10:57 a.m.

    E-mail Easterblogg

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    i don't get it

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,342
    Post Thanks / Like
    it means you liberals would still be crucifying Bush if he invaded Afghanistan and prevented 9/11 from ever happening.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    yeah but why does anyone think invading afghanistan and/or killing OBL would have stopped 9-11

    the suicide bombers were in this country for years.

    thats the problem with this whole situation, most people don't understand that its not an Army - its not a country - its not like if you kill the general or the president everyone goes home... these guys are committed and they are deep sleepers -

    killing OBL just makes him a martyr, it doesn't stop terrorism.

  5. #5
    All League
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    4,255
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Bugg[/i]@Apr 9 2004, 10:20 PM
    [b] George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. [/b][/quote]
    Those are some of the sweetest words I have ever read. If only...

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Louis Freeh tried unscuccessfully to change the culture of the FBI and as per the italics, to change immigration policies within the Clinton Administration. But after he and President Clinton clashed perosnally, he and his common-sense recommendations were ignored. Jante Reno has zero use for Freeh.

    TARGETING AL QAEDA

    Before 9/11--and After
    Only a nation at war can properly confront terrorism.

    BY LOUIS J. FREEH
    Monday, April 12, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

    Al Qaeda was at war with the U.S. even before Sept. 11, 2001. In August 1998, it attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In December 1999, one of al Qaeda's soldiers, Ahmed Ressam, entered the U.S. to bomb Los Angeles airport. In October 2000, al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in the port of Aden.

    The question before the 9/11 Commission is why our political leadership declared war back on al Qaeda only after Sept. 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden had been indicted years before for blowing up American soldiers and embassies and was known as a clear and present danger to the U.S. So what would have happened had the U.S. declared war on al Qaeda before Sept. 11? Endless and ultimately useless speculation about "various threads and pieces of information," which are certainly "relevant and significant," at least in retrospect, will not take us very far in answering this central question.





    On Jan. 26, 2001, at 8:45 a.m., I had my first meeting with President Bush and Vice President Cheney. They had been in office four days. We discussed terrorism, and in particular al Qaeda, the African embassy bombings, the Cole attack and the June 1996 Khobar bombing in Saudi Arabia. When I advised the president that Hezbollah and Iran were responsible for Khobar, he directed me to follow-up with Condoleezza Rice. I did so at 2:30 p.m. that day and she told me to pursue our investigation with the attorney general and to bring whatever charges possible. Within weeks, a new prosecutor was put in charge of the case and on June 21 an indictment was returned against 13 Hezbollah men who had been directed to bomb Khobar by senior officials of the Iranian government. I know that the families of the 19 murdered airmen were deeply grateful to President Bush and Ms. Rice for their prompt response and focus on terrorism.
    I believe that any president and Congress faced with the reality of Sept. 11 would have acted swiftly and overwhelmingly as did President Bush and the 107th Congress. They are to be commended. However, those who came before President Bush can only be faulted if they had had the political means and the will of the nation to declare a war back then, but failed to do so. The fact that terrorism and the war being waged by al Qaeda was not even an issue in the 2000 presidential campaign strongly suggests that the political will to declare and fight this war didn't exist before Sept. 11.

    All of this is not to say that the intelligence and law enforcement communities couldn't have done more to protect the nation from a Sept. 11. As FBI director I share in that responsibility. And I don't know of any FBI agents who would not have given their lives--two did--to prevent Sept. 11 from happening. The Joint Intelligence Committee and now the 9/11 Commission are properly seeking to understand how Sept. 11 was able to happen. But the grand failure to comprehend the contrast between the pre-9/11 fight against terrorism with the total war being waged since Sept. 11 blinds us to an immensely significant historical and political dialectic.

    The 1993 attack on the World Trade Center by foreign-trained terrorists focused the FBI on homeland security and prevention as its counterterrorism priority. Excellent investigation and skillful prosecution effectively identified the terrorists involved. Those who were quickly captured were tried and convicted. Ramzi Yousef, a terrorist mastermind, fled to Pakistan along with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, now believed to be one of the architects of Sept. 11. The FBI's 1993 criminal investigation identified and stopped another plan by Sheik Rahman to blow up New York City tunnels, bridges and buildings (dubbed "Terrstop"). Important lesson learned: Good investigation is also good prevention. Two years later, FBI agents surprised Yousef at a guest house in Pakistan and brought him back to Foley Square, where he was convicted for two terrorist attacks. Besides the 1993 WTC murders, he was also convicted for his plot to blow up 11 U.S. airliners. His arrest and return to face justice was the result of long and painstaking investigation. Important lesson repeated: Investigation is prevention, and it also saves lives.

    Yousef's arrest taught another valuable lesson. His apprehension was enabled by the fact that an FBI legal attaché, or "legat," was assigned to Islamabad in 1996. A legat is a "declared" FBI agent who serves as our liaison with the host country's law enforcement services. The expansion of our Legat Offices from 19 to 44 (from 1993-2001) was an integral part of the FBI's counterterrorism strategy. We determined in 1993 that the FBI needed legats in Tel Aviv, Cairo, Ankara, Riyadh, Amman, Tashkent and Almaty--to deter terrorists from murdering Americans. We later proposed legats in Tunis, Kuala Lampur, Jakarta, Rabat, Sana, Tbilisi and Abu Dhabi. The FBI and CIA narrowly missed grabbing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in 1996 as he was about to travel from Doha to the UAE. Only because we had an arrest warrant was capture an option. Legats in those countries would have improved our chances of success.

    FBI terrorist "cases" are designed to collect maximum information, evidence and intelligence in order to prosecute and pre-empt such activities. U.S. v. bin Laden, et al., tried successfully in New York from January through May 2001, was just one byproduct of an international program that targeted bin Laden/al Qaeda, ongoing since the 1993 WTC bombing when his name first surfaced as an organizer and financier of military training camps in Afghanistan.

    FBI investigators seek to pursue all leads to their logical end, and follow those leads wherever they take us. Leads are unfortunately developed in the wake of terrorist attacks; but more often they are developed proactively, through sources and cooperators. In multiple instances, FBI investigations have disrupted planned attacks in the U.S. Moreover, FBI investigation has significantly contributed to the identification of al Qaeda's leadership, organization, methods, training, finances, geographical reach and intent. Through the pursuit of leads, the FBI's investigation of bin Laden and al Qaeda can be credited with having "jump-started" investigations in other parts of the world, Europe in particular. The FBI is extremely effective in conducting interviews, and putting together both criminal and intelligence cases. Information obtained through law-enforcement channels--whether testimony, documents, records, photographs, forensic evidence or the results of interviews--provides the purest form of intelligence.

    Short of total war, the FBI relentlessly did its job of pursuing terrorists, always with the goal of preventing their attacks. But the FBI's pre-9/11 Counter-Terrorism (CT) resources were finite and insufficient--3.5% of the entire government's CT budget. In 1993, we had fewer than 600 special agents and 500 support positions funded for CT. By 1999, we'd more than doubled our personnel and trebled the FBI's CT budget to $301 million. We knew it wasn't enough. For Fiscal Years 2000, 2001 and 2002 the FBI asked for 1,895 special agents, analysts and linguists to enhance our CT program. We got 76 people for those three critical years. FY 2000 was typical: 864 CT positions at a cost of $380.8 million requested--five people funded for $7.4 million. This isn't a criticism of the DoJ, White House or Congress--that's how Washington makes its budgets, balancing competing needs against limited resources. The point is: The FBI was intensely focused on its CT needs but antebellum politics was not yet there. By contrast, after Sept. 11, the FBI's FY 2002 Emergency Supplemental CT budget was increased overnight by 823 positions for $745 million. The al Qaeda threat was the same on Sept. 10 and Sept. 12. Nothing focuses a government quicker than a war.

    Before Sept. 11, the FBI relentlessly pursued criminal investigations, renditions and prosecutions of terrorists, particularly bin Laden and al Qaeda. This was an integral part of two administrations' CT strategy. This course wasn't pursued because we believed indicting bin Laden and issuing warrants for al Qaeda leaders would stop their war against us. In fact, we always viewed this law-enforcement action as limited in scope and completely secondary in terms of national security. Yet aside from cruise missiles, armed Predators and invading countries which harbored terrorists, this was our chosen path.

    Sometimes it worked. Yousef's arrest didn't happen without an active warrant. After Mir Aimal Kansi's murders of CIA personnel in Langley, Va., it was his indictment that led to his arrest by FBI agents in Pakistan and murder convictions back in Fairfax County. We continue to pursue the arrest of Hezbollah's military commander for the murders of our Marines in Lebanon and Navy diver Robert Stethem. His capture may rest on an FBI arrest warrant. The al Qaeda terrorists who destroyed our African embassies and almost sunk the Cole have all been indicted and are now hounded by FBI agents as well as by CIA officers and our armed services. Even the administrators in Iraq have gone after Muqtada al-Sadr with an arrest warrant.

    The FBI was relentless in indicting and pursuing the terrorist agents of Iran who blew up Khobar Towers. Why were we pursuing this case? Certainly not because we thought that arrest warrants for 13 fugitives protected by Iran was the best way to stop that country from sponsoring terrorist attacks. A poll of FBI agents would show a preference for a military operation against Iran as the more effective action. But short of "warring back," there's a fundamental but misunderstood notion about why it's a good thing to at least have an arrest warrant. Experience has taught the FBI that we never know the place and time--it's not of our choosing--when one of these terrorists is suddenly found traversing an airport, or is within-the-grab of a country that will remit him to us or to a "friendly" place only because we have a warrant. Hence the FBI always wanted to be in a position where--as with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed--we could capture a high-value target in a rare chance because we'd taken the trouble to get an indictment and a warrant. We don't think the American judicial process is always the best defense against terrorism--it's not; but it does give terror victims another means for justice.

    Pre-9/11, the FBI used all the means at its disposal to capture bin Laden and to prevent future attacks against America. The FBI and CIA actively targeted al Qaeda and bin Laden beginning one year before the East Africa embassy attacks on Aug. 7, 1998. Together, they were able to indict bin Laden prior to Aug. 7 for a plot to murder U.S. soldiers in Yemen. In November 1998, he was indicted a second time for the embassy bombings and put on the FBI's Top 10 list in April 1999. In 1999, a dedicated "bin Laden Unit" was established at FBIHQ and the CIA-FBI "bin Laden station" began to operate covertly on an international basis. Of course, our arrest warrants, by themselves, were pieces of paper. The U.S. armed forces provided a means to execute a warrant to the FBI and DEA in 1988 by invading Panama in order to allow agents to arrest Manuel Noriega. Similar means to capture bin Laden did not become available until October 2001, when Afghanistan was so successfully invaded by our forces.

    Before then, diplomacy and other means were tried. The U.S. brought political pressure on the Taliban to turn over bin Laden--but to no avail. The CIA and FBI sorted through a series of proposed, covert actions designed to capture bin Laden in Afghanistan and bring him to justice. None of the plans appeared to have any chance of success and were not approved. Finally, on April 6, 2000, after consultation with the national security adviser and the State Department, I traveled to meet Pervez Musharraf and requested his personal assistance in capturing bin Laden. Gen. Musharraf was polite but unhelpful. He explained that he had personal assurances from Mullah Omar of the Taliban that bin Laden was innocent of the East African bombings and had abandoned terrorism. We gave Gen. Musharraf and his military leaders an extensive briefing of our evidence against bin Laden and al Qaeda and followed up our meeting by sending FBI agents and an assistant U.S. attorney from New York to Pakistan to make the case for arresting bin Laden. It was clear that short of the U.S. declaring war against bin Laden and his Taliban accessories, Pakistan was not going to help us get this terrorist out of Afghanistan.

    [i]Protecting our homeland from attacks by foreign terrorists had long been the FBI's priority. Back in September 1994, I recommended to Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick that the DoJ strengthen investigative powers against suspected "undesirable aliens," accelerating deportation appeal proceedings and limiting U.S. participation in a visa waiver pilot program under which 9.5 million foreigners entered the U.S. in 1994. I also recommended that we include provisions for the detention and removal of undesirable aliens, under a special, closed-court procedure. I also criticized alien deportation appeal procedures which often took years to conclude. Finally, I recommended legislation to provide the FBI with roving wiretap authority to investigate terrorist activities in the U.S. President Clinton requested that authority in 1996.[/I[b]](Note- and Reno and the DoJ did NOTHING!)[/b]

    The FBI was also active in focusing on the terrorist threat to Americans overseas, our first line of defense. This was the centerpiece of the dramatic expansion of legat offices. The FBI must have this foreign capability to carry out effective CT, especially prevention. When I left the FBI, I'd proposed that we establish an FBI training facility in Central Asia, as we'd done in Budapest in 1995, and had begun in Dubai, to enhance our ability to establish liaison and critical points of contact in those important regions. There is absolutely no substitute for these liaisons. Without them we risk being blind.

    The FBI's expansion overseas paid immense dividends. The U.S.'s rapid response after Sept. 11 was based in part on this infrastructure. And during our examination of the forensic evidence from the Cole case, it was discovered that the explosive used was possibly manufactured in Russia. Because the FBI had been working in Russia since 1994, I was able to call the FSB (Russian intelligence) director and ask for assistance. His response was immediate. Russian experts provided us with all the information requested, helping immensely.

    Everyone understands why and how some of our basic rules, beginning with provisions of the Patriot Act, changed after Sept. 11. America declared war on al Qaeda and bin Laden, and the Congress and president put the country on a war footing. It's important to remember that war changed these rules and the FBI, CIA and the rest of the government can only be judged prior to Sept. 11 by the pre-existing rules.

    The FBI and CIA working together have accomplished much in fighting terrorism, but it is a continuing battle. These agencies should remain the primary counterterrorism agencies. [I]But al Qaeda-type organizations, state sponsors of terrorism like Iran, and the threats they pose to America, are ultimately beyond the competence of the FBI and the CIA to address. America must maintain the will to use its political, military and economic power when acts of war are threatened or committed against our nation by terrorists or their state sponsors. We have now seen how war is declared and waged against terrorists who attack our nation. The painful lesson is that fighting terrorism without such a declaration of war is unlikely to be successful. [/i]

    Mr. Freeh, a former FBI director, is scheduled to testify before the 9/11 Commission tomorrow.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    Post Thanks / Like
    In a parallel universe called 'What if . . . '
    Published April 11, 2004


    [url=http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edpparker11041104apr11,1,5191262.column?coll=orl-opinion-headlines]Link[/url]

    NEW YORK -- President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's highest office came as little surprise following almost four years of remonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.

    Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it now seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that Saudi Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on the United States.

    Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10 bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and, in all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, appearing last night on Larry King Live, said the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal likely would bring charges of genocide against Bush.

    Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of 19 foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and seizure.

    Kerry's campaign mantra -- "You go to war because you have to, not because you want to" -- clearly resonated with Americans as they tried to make sense of Bush's Sept. 10 attack on Afghanistan. Neither the president, nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rice convincingly defended their actions during the recent "9-10 Commission" hearings, which Congress ordered in response to public outcry.

    The commission's purpose was to try to determine what compelled the president to launch a war against Afghanistan. What kind of intelligence suggested that such an act was justified?

    The main target of the attack was bin Laden, friend to Afghanistan's brutal Taliban regime, as well as al-Qaeda training camps in that war-ravaged nation. Al-Qaeda, an international terrorist network, has been blamed for numerous attacks on U.S. interests, including the USS Cole bombing, which killed 17 sailors.

    Even though Bush's military campaign was successful in ending the oppressive Taliban regime, bin Laden apparently escaped and al-Qaeda continues to flourish.

    Some intelligence sources speculate that bin Laden's operatives may be trying to secure weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Even though Saddam continues to send money to the families of Palestinian terrorists and is believed to have programs for developing WMD, Kerry says he is committed to containing Saddam through continued sanctions and the U.N. oil-for-food program.

    In any case, experts say that intelligence about Saddam's WMD program is just as speculative as was the intelligence that prompted Bush to attack Afghanistan. The man credited with sounding the alarm on bin Laden and al-Qaeda was Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism expert who has served four presidents, including Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton.

    In a Jan. 25 memo to Rice, for instance, Clarke urged immediate attention to several items of national security interest: the Northern Alliance, covert aid, a significant new '02 budget authority to help fight al-Qaeda, and a response to the USS Cole.

    At Rice's and Clarke's urging, Bush called a meeting of principals and, after "connecting the dots," decided to wage war against Afghanistan. What did the dots say? Not much, in retrospect. Apparently, the president decided to bomb a benign country on the basis of "chatter" that hinted at "something big."

    With no other details on the "big," and weaving together random bits of information from a variety of questionable sources, Bush and company decided that 19 fundamentalist Muslim fanatics would fly airplanes into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon on 9-11.

    Under questioning by the "9-10 Commission," Clarke denied that his memo was anything more than a historical overview with a "set of ideas and a paper, mostly." The bipartisan commission concluded, therefore, that Bush's "dot-connecting" had destroyed American credibility and subjected the United States to increasing hostility in the Arab-Muslim world.

    Last week, Saddam Hussein and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat joined French and German leaders in condemning Bush and urging the American voters to cast their ballots for regime change in America. Kerry was the clear response to that call.

    In a flourish of irony and the spirit of bon vivant for which the new president is widely known, Kerry gave his acceptance speech from Windows on the World, the elegant restaurant atop the World Trade Center's Tower One.

    Kathleen Parker can be reached at [email]kparker@orlandosentinel.com[/email] or 407-420-5202.

  8. #8
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,238
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Bob the Jets Fan™+Apr 10 2004, 11:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Bob the Jets Fan™ @ Apr 10 2004, 11:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Bugg[/i]@Apr 9 2004, 10:20 PM
    [b] George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. [/b][/quote]
    Those are some of the sweetest words I have ever read. If only... [/b][/quote]
    My memory of US History is failing me right now but wasnt Andrew Johnson impeached.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    Post Thanks / Like
    Andrew Johnson- Steps I and II were skipped in the Johnson impeachment. This was because of Johnson&#39;s vast unpopularity,particularly in Congress, in the bitter year&#39;s following the Civil War.

    Step III: In Spring 1867, committee members conducted an early sortie against Johnson without going to the full House for backing. On their own they sought evidence that would justify impeaching Johnson, but they failed.

    Step IV: Johnson began again after Congress passed a law forbidding a president from dismissing a Cabinet member w/o Senate approval. Johnson considered the law unconstitutional and dismissed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. In February 1868 the House was so inflamed that it voted to impeach Johnson 126-47 even before it adopted any articles of impeachment. A week later the House passed 11 articles, 8 of them relating to the Stanton dismissal. Another, in part, maintained that Johnson had criticized Congress in a "loud voice."



    Step V: from March to May 1868 the trial lasted. Johnson did not attend but was well represented by a team of lawyers. The prosecution was led by 7 House members. After the trial, senators were allowed 15 min. each during one day of debate to speak about the impeachment articles. The Senate then adjourned for a week. [b]The final vote came in a dramatic roll call that lasted more than one hour. The outcome, in doubt until the very end, was 35 guilty votes and 19 not guilty-one short of the two-thirds majority needed. In all, seven Republicans had defected and voted against removal. [/b]



    1. An impeachment can open in many ways in the House- as long as it begins somewhere in the House. Often the House Judiciary Committee becomes involved at an early stage.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Before taking a final vote on whether to impeach a president, the House can vote to authorize its Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment inquiry.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Judiciary Committee may at this stage conduct hearings and draw up the articles of impeachment.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Under the Constitution, the House must vote on articles of impeachment. A simple majority vote can impeach the president-"impeachment" is more of an indictment than a conviction- and send the case to the Senate for trial.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Senate conducts the trial. A prosecution team assembled by the House prsents the evidence for conviction. which requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate. A legal defense team represents the president. The chief justice presides over the trial Normally the vice president presides over the Senate, but he must step aside under the Constitution because he would replace the president if senators vote for conviction. At the end of the trial, the Senate probably would allow senators to debate each article of impeachment before taking a vote.




    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Richard Milhouse Nixon- Step II: In 1974 the House voted 410-4 to authorize the Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry into the Watergate scandal. This vote was largely procedural- the Judiciary Committee had begun its work months before.

    Step III: After the public outcry over the "Saturday Night Massacre," in which Nixon fired Watergate special procecuter Archibald Cox in October 1973, the committee began collecting impeachment evidence. Nixon refused to cooperate, though, and would not honor subpoenas for tapes and documents. At first the committee held closed hearings. In July 1974, the committee opened its debate, which was watched by a huge television audience. The committee approved three articles of impeachment charging Nixon with helping to cover up Watergate, abusing his powers and failing to honor committee subpoenas. While the committee was debating, the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon had to release tapes he had withheld.

    Step IV: Soon after the Supreme Court ruling , Nixon released a tape transcript making clear his role in the Watergate coverup. It quickly became clear that Nixon could not survive an impeachment vote, and he resigned before he reached stage IV.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    William Jefferson Clinton - Step I: When independent counsel Kenneth Starr delivered an 11-count report to Congress in September, the House referred it to the Judiciary Committee. The committee&#39;s chief investigative counsel, David Schippers, repackaged the allegations into 15 counts , ranging from obstruction of justice in the Monica Lewinsky affair to witness tampering. He dropped Starr&#39;s abuse-of-power allegation, however these allegations were resurfaced by committee chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois. On October 5; by a 21-16 vote (following party lines) the committee recommended the full House approve a formal investigation.

    Step II: On Oct. 8, by a vote of 258-176, representatives endorsed a somewhat open-ended inquiry by the Judiciary Committee. A Democratic plan that would have limited the inquiry was defeated. In the final vote, 31 Democrats broke ranks and voted with the Republican majority.

    Step III: The House Judiciary Committee, after hearing about six weeks of testimony, drafted four articles of impeachment all involving the Lewinsky affair. Two of these articles were allegations of purgery, one for obstruction of justice, the other involving abuse of power. The committee voted 21-16, 23-14, 21-16, 20-17 in favor of all four articles of impeachment to be sent to the House for an Impeachment vote.

    Step IV: On December 19 the Full House voted to impeach William Jefferson Clinton on one count of purgery and one count of obstruction of justice. On the previous day the Republican majority of the House rejected a Democratic plan for censure of the President because of the failure of the President to admit he had lied under oath. Later Henry Hyde was heard to say that censure was "unconstitutional"

    Step V: The second impeachment trial for a president in US history started on January 11, 1999. Despite heavy pressure from White House counsel and the American public, The Senate defeated a measure to dismiss all charges against the president. The debate as to call witnesses would be called or not was answered when it was announced that the Senate would depose three witnesses: Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal. On February 12 the Senate voted 55-45 and 50-50 on the two articles of impeachment preventing Clinton from being removed from office.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Lawyers+ Guns and Money,Apr 12 2004, 10:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Lawyers @ Guns and Money,Apr 12 2004, 10:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -Bob the Jets Fan™@Apr 10 2004, 11:51 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin--Bugg[/i]@Apr 9 2004, 10:20 PM
    [b] George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. [/b][/quote]
    Those are some of the sweetest words I have ever read. If only... [/b][/quote]
    My memory of US History is failing me right now but wasnt Andrew Johnson impeached. [/b][/quote]
    Several President have been - Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Nixon would have been, had he not resigned prior.

    Impeachment is generally confused with "removal" by people. Impeachment simply means the process of being brought to trial for removal from office. Johnson was impeached, but like Clinton, he was not removed from office. Johnson was able to remain by virtue of a margin of a single vote that was cast by an independent. Clinton&#39;s margin of victory was much higher.

    Nixon would have been impeached and would have likely been removed, but as of yet, for historical puropses, only two Presidents have even been impeached and none have been removed from office as a result of impeachment.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    so you guys can post links - thats great - but can anyone answer the direct question?

    [b]why does anyone think invading afghanistan and/or killing OBL would have stopped 9-11[/b]

  12. #12
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,238
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks 5 ever, I knew there was a distinction byt wasnt sure what it was. I thought Johnson was removed but I was wrong.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,305
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Bugg[/i]@Apr 12 2004, 09:20 AM
    [b] Protecting our homeland from attacks by foreign terrorists had long been the FBI&#39;s priority. Back in September 1994, I recommended to [b]Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick [/b]that the DoJ strengthen investigative powers against suspected "undesirable aliens," accelerating deportation appeal proceedings and limiting U.S. participation in a visa waiver pilot program under which 9.5 million foreigners entered the U.S. in 1994. [/b][/quote]
    So Gorelick&#39;s position on the 9-11 commission is probably just a coincidence, huh. She probably is perfectly willing to see what happened under her watch ...

    What a joke.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Apr 12 2004, 10:53 AM
    [b] so you guys can post links - thats great - but can anyone answer the direct question?

    [b]why does anyone think invading afghanistan and/or killing OBL would have stopped 9-11[/b] [/b][/quote]
    Invading when, Bitonti? Had we invaded a long time prior to 9-11, who knows? But invading right before 9-11, when the plans were already in place and the perps already on US soil, it is highly unlikely that 9-11 could have been avoided. Had we invaded Afganistan in 1993, after the first WTC attack by AQ, who knows? If not 9-11, then perhaps some other, different but successful attack could have been carried out by AQ. There are trade-offs involved with every decision.

    But, in the sense that I [i]think[/i] you are asking this question, the simple answer in my opinion is no, no, invading Afganistan prior to 9-11 would not have stopped it.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Apr 12 2004, 10:53 AM
    [b] so you guys can post links - thats great - but can anyone answer the direct question?

    [b]why does anyone think invading afghanistan and/or killing OBL would have stopped 9-11[/b] [/b][/quote]
    Why do idiots also believe if we stop driving SUVs, OBL would love us?

  16. #16
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Lawyers, Guns and Money+Apr 12 2004, 10:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Lawyers, Guns and Money @ Apr 12 2004, 10:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -Bob the Jets Fan™@Apr 10 2004, 11:51 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin--Bugg[/i]@Apr 9 2004, 10:20 PM
    [b] George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. [/b][/quote]
    Those are some of the sweetest words I have ever read. If only... [/b][/quote]
    My memory of US History is failing me right now but wasnt Andrew Johnson impeached. [/b][/quote]
    William Jefferson Clinton was also Impeached. The Senate did not indict.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us