[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1258 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
H. RES. 1258

  Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high 
                        crimes and misdemeanors.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 2008

            Mr. Kucinich submitted the following resolution

                             June 11, 2008

   By motion of the House, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
  Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high 
                        crimes and misdemeanors.

    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 articles 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:
            (1) 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.
            (2) 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''.
            (3) 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.''.
            (4) 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-Qa'ida: Interpreting a 
        Murky Relationship'' dated June 21, 2002, was that Iraq had had 
        ``sporadic, wary contacts with al-Qa'ida since the mid-1990s 
        rather than a relationship with al-Qa'ida that has developed 
        over time''.
            (5) 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.
            (6) 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 9/11. This was 
        accomplished through well-publicized statements by the Bush 
        Administration which contrived to continually tie Iraq and 9/11 
        in the same statements of grave concern without making an 
        explicit charge:
                    (A) ``[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.
                    (B) ``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.
                    (C) ``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.
                    (D) ``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.
            (7) 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:
                    (A) ``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.
                    (B) ``[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.
                    (C) ``We know he's got ties with al Qaeda.'' 
                November 1, 2002, Speech of President Bush in New 
                Hampshire.
                    (D) ``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.
                    (E) ``[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.
                    (F) ``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.
            (8) 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:
                    (A) ``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.''.
                    (B) ``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 a 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 4,000 United States 
servicemembers; 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:
            (1) 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:
                    (A) ``[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.
                    (B) ``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.
                    (C) ``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.
            (2) 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:
                    (A) ``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.
                    (B) ``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.
                    (C) ``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.
            (3) 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:
                    (A) ``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.
                    (B) ``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.
                    (C) ``[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 U.S. 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.
            (4) 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.
            (5) 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:
                    (A) ``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.''.
                    (B) ``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.''.
                    (C) 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 4,000 
United States servicemembers and the injury to tens of thousands of 
U.S. 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:
            (1) 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:
                    (A) ``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.
                    (B) ``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.
                    (C) ``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.
                    (D) ``[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.
                    (E) ``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.
                    (F) ``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.
                    (G) ``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.
                    (H) ``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.
            (2) 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 reported 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.
            (3) 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: ``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 4,000 United States servicemembers; the 
injuries to tens of thousands of U.S. 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 H.J. Res. 
                                  114

    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 H.J. 
Res. 114, the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 
Resolution of 2002'' to wit:
            (1) H.J. Res. 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) H.J. Res. 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) H.J. Res. 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) H.J. Res. 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 H.J. Res. 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:
                            ``(i) 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
                            ``(ii) 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 articles 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 H.J. Res 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 H.J. Res. 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 
              U.N. 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 U.N. 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 U.N. 
        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 U.N. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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's 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 associated with that 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 U.S. 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 at 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 percent) 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 of 
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 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 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 U.S. Constitution by 
illegally detaining indefinitely and without charge persons both U.S. 
citizens and foreign captives.
    In a statement on February 7, 2002, President Bush declared that in 
the U.S. 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 U.S.-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 
U.S. 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 U.S., on orders of the president, began capturing 
and detaining without charge alleged terror suspects in other countries 
and detaining them abroad and at the U.S. 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 U.S., by an investigation conducted by the 
Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General.
    In violation of U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions, the Bush 
Administration instructed the Department of Justice and the U.S. 
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 U.S. 
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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 
U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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, U.S. law, the Geneva Conventions 
(to which the U.S. 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 
U.S. 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 
U.S. and in the U.S. 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 U.S. military forces and the 
CIA, the president has defied Congress and has lied to the American 
people, repeatedly claiming that the U.S. ``does not torture''.
    In all of these actions and decisions in violation of U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. has been kidnapping and transporting against the will of 
the subject (renditioning) in its so-called ``war'' on terror--even 
people captured by U.S. 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 U.S. authorities.
    Such a policy is in clear violation of U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. and U.K. 
embassies, were captured, bound and gagged by U.S. 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 Guantanamo 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 U.S., 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 2,500 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 U.S. in 2002. To wit:
    In May 2008, the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 and were leading Iran 
to support its allies against the United States occupation force in 
Iraq. 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 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.
    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--
            (1) has used military forces for law enforcement purposes 
        on U.S. border patrol;
            (2) has established a program to use military personnel for 
        surveillance and information on criminal activities;
            (3) is using military espionage equipment to collect 
        intelligence information for law enforcement use on civilians 
        within the United States; and
            (4) 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 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 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. [H.J. Res. 114]
                    (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 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 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 U.S. 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 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 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 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 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:
            A House Judiciary Committee subpoena for Justice Department 
        papers and Emails, issued April 10, 2007;
            A House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoena 
        for the testimony of the Secretary of State, issued April 25, 
        2007;
            A House Judiciary Committee subpoena for the testimony of 
        former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and documents, issued 
        June 13, 2007;
            A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and 
        testimony of White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, issued 
        June 13, 2007;
            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);
            A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and 
        testimony of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, 
        issued June 26, 2007;
            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);
            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; and
            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 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 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; and
            Threaten to terminate the employment of the following 
        United States Attorneys who refused to comply with such 
        directives and purposes;
                    David C. Iglesias as U.S. Attorney for the District 
                of New Mexico;
                    Kevin V. Ryan as U.S. Attorney for the Northern 
                District of California;
                    John L. McKay as U.S. Attorney for the Western 
                District of Washington;
                    Paul K. Charlton as U.S. Attorney for the District 
                of Arizona;
                    Carol C. Lam as U.S. Attorney for the Southern 
                District of California;
                    Daniel G. Bogden as U.S. Attorney for the District 
                of Nevada;
                    Margaret M. Chiara as U.S. Attorney for the Western 
                District of Michigan;
                    Todd Graves as U.S. Attorney for the Western 
                District of Missouri;
                    Harry E. ``Bud'' Cummins, III as U.S. Attorney for 
                the Eastern District of Arkansas;
                    Thomas M. DiBiagio as U.S. Attorney for the 
                District of Maryland; and
                    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 U.S.C. 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 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 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, has 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; has 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 
has impeded the right of the people to vote and have their vote 
properly and accurately counted, in that--
            (1) 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;
            (2) 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'';
            (3) 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--
                    (A) 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;
                            (i) 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;
                            (ii) forty-two African-American precincts 
                        in Columbus were each missing one voting 
                        machine that had been present in the 2004 
                        primary; and
                            (iii) African-American voters in the city 
                        of Columbus were forced to wait three to seven 
                        hours to vote in the 2004 presidential 
                        election;
                    (B) 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;
                    (C) 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;
                            (i) between the 2000 and 2004 Ohio 
                        presidential elections, 24.93 percent of the 
                        voters in the city of Cleveland, a city with a 
                        majority of African-American citizens, were 
                        purged from the voting rolls;
                            (ii) in that same period, the Ohio county 
                        of Miami, with census data indicating a 98 
                        percent 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; and
                            (iii) 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;
                    (D) 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;
                    (E) 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;
                    (F) 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;
                            (i) in Ohio's Lucas County, which includes 
                        Toledo, 3,122 or 41.13 percent 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;
                            (ii) in Ohio's Cuyahoga County, which 
                        includes Cleveland, 8,559 or 32.82 percent of 
                        the provisional ballots went uncounted;
                            (iii) in Ohio's Hamilton County, which 
                        includes Cincinnati, 3,529 or 24.23 percent of 
                        the provisional ballots went uncounted; and
                            (iv) Statewide, the provisional ballot 
                        rejection rate was 9 percent as compared to the 
                        greater figures in the urban areas;
            (4) 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;
            (5) 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;
            (6) 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;
            (7) 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;
            (8) 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;
            (9) 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; and
            (10) 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;
                    (A) 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;
                    (B) 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; and
                    (C) 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 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 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 5 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 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 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 percent 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 2,000 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 
percent 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 a.m. on Sunday, August 28, 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 August 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 September 
1, 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 August 28, 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 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 XXXII--Misleading Congress and the American People, 
  Systematically 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 
        percent 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 March of 2008, Representative Henry Waxman wrote to 
        EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson: ``In August 2003, the Bush 
        Administration denied a petition to regulate CO<INF>2</INF> 
        emissions from motor vehicles by deciding that CO<INF>2</INF> 
        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 
        `CO<INF>2</INF> 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's 
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 U.S., Prior 
                                to 9/11

    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 U.S. citizens--have resided 
in or traveled to the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 September 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 U.S.'' 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 l Qaeda, and had 
been told falsely by a top CIA 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 9/11 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. . . . [T]he 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)<SUP>3</SUP> 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 effected 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.
                                 <all>