Executive Accountability Act of 2009

[Moonlight Graham]

I just stumbled across this. Rep. Walter B. Jones, Republican of North Carolina, introduced a bill in Jan. 2009 called the "Executive Accountability Act of 2009". Here's the bill: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h743ih.txt.pdf

The official summary of the bill is as follows:

1/28/2009--Introduced.Executive Accountability Act of 2009 - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit the President or any officer or employee of the executive branch from knowingly and willfully misleading Congress for the purpose of gaining Congress's support for the use of the Armed Forces of the United States by:

(1) falsifying, concealing, or covering up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) making any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) making or using any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry. Makes such offense punishable by a fine and up to 10 years' imprisonment. Suspends the running of any statute of limitations applicable to such offense until the end of the term of the President in office at the time the offense is committed. Requires a referral to the Attorney General of any resolution passed by either house of Congress finding that a violation of this Act has occurred.

Sounds great to me! Maybe the B.S. that was the run-up to Iraq would never have happened if this bill was law, or at least some lowlifes would be in jail. From all i can find, this bill is currently still under judicial committee review, where it will likely die unless my American friends call your Congressmen!

[bush_cheney2004]

Sounds great to me! Maybe the B.S. that was the run-up to Iraq would never have happened if this bill was law, or at least some lowlifes would be in jail. From all i can find, this bill is currently still under judicial committee review, where it will likely die unless my American friends call your Congressmen!

Why do you care? This bill is unnecessary and unconstitutional, as it is already illegal to make false statements to the US Congress (under oath). The US Congress was kicking Iraq's ass long before your favorite president was elected.

Edited February 19, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

Why doesn't the Geneva Convention have enough moral weight or legal ability to do what this Act intends to prevent?

[bush_cheney2004]

Why doesn't the Geneva Convention have enough moral weight or legal ability to do what this Act intends to prevent?

Because the Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with prior restraint on war making decisions. See "Crimes Against the Peace" instead for true love.

[Moonlight Graham]

Why do you care? This bill is unnecessary and unconstitutional, as it is already illegal to make false statements to the US Congress (under oath). The US Congress was kicking Iraq's ass long before your favorite president was elected.

The question should be, why shouldn't i care? I'm not a fan when the executives and people at the top of the world's only military superpower make false, deceitful, and concocted statements in the media, to its legislature, and to the world in an effort to start a war. Especially when it results in 100,000+ civilian lives dead.

This isn't an ideological issue, or a partisan issue, it's an issue of right and wrong. The actions of the Bush admin , and Congress's unwillingness to call anyone on it after the fact, is one of the greatest disgraces in American history. Americans should be busting the doors down in Washington over this B.S. The fact that they aren't just shows how effective Bush's propaganda campaign was, and how ignorant people in all of western society are, since i'm quite sure a large portion of the U.S. public is still believes Saddam had links with al-Qaeda/Bin Laden.

So let me ask you, why do you not care?

[bush_cheney2004]

The question should be, why shouldn't i care? I'm not a fan when the executives and people at the top of the world's only military superpower make false, deceitful, and concocted statements in the media, to its legislature, and to the world in an effort to start a war. Especially when it results in 100,000+ civilian lives dead.

Well hell, if it's wars and dead people that has you so concerned, why are you obsessed with just the "military superpower"? The media doesn't count, and neither does the "world". So what kind of chance do you think you have?

This isn't an ideological issue, or a partisan issue, it's an issue of right and wrong. The actions of the Bush admin , and Congress's unwillingness to call anyone on it after the fact, is one of the greatest disgraces in American history. Americans should be busting the doors down in Washington over this B.S. The fact that they aren't just shows how effective Bush's propaganda campaign was, and how ignorant people in all of western society are, since i'm quite sure a large portion of the U.S. public is still believes Saddam had links with al-Qaeda/Bin Laden.

Sure, just as soon as you do the same for PM Chretien and PM Martin....Harper too. The United States and United Kingdom were killing Saddam's Iraq one day at a time for over 12 years....don't be so naive.

So let me ask you, why do you not care?

Because the foreign policies of the United States are not beholden to one man, even if your attention span is.

If the Americans want war, then there shall be war....pick up a history book sometime.

Edited February 19, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[ToadBrother]

Sounds great to me! Maybe the B.S. that was the run-up to Iraq would never have happened if this bill was law, or at least some lowlifes would be in jail. From all i can find, this bill is currently still under judicial committee review, where it will likely die unless my American friends call your Congressmen!

I'm not sure why this would even be necessary. If Congress had had the backbone, they could have impeached Bush.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not sure why this would even be necessary. If Congress had had the backbone, they could have impeached Bush.

True...but he would have been found not-guilty in the Senate....just like Bill Clinton.

Instead of impeachment, he was elected to a second term as President of the United States.

[Moonlight Graham]

Well hell, if it's wars and dead people that has you so concerned, why are you obsessed with just the "military superpower"? The media doesn't count, and neither does the "world". So what kind of chance do you think you have?

Sure, just as soon as you do the same for PM Chretien and PM Martin....Harper too. The United States and United Kingdom were killing Saddam's Iraq one day at a time for over 12 years....don't be so naive.

I don't think you get what i'm saying. This isn't about "anti-war". Wars are sometimes necessary. Here's some trivia that might surprise you: Back in 2003, i was for the invasion of Iraq. In fact, since i live in Ottawa, i almost went down to Parliament Hill in early 2009 to join protests for Canada to join the "coalition" too (however, I very likely wouldn't have supported the war if the situation had occurred today just given that my views/knowledge have grown since then).

But i supported the war back then based on what the Bush admin were saying, the key factor for me being that Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" (which we now know was based on a very unreliable intelligence source), and Rice etc. were saying that Iraq had the capability to have a nuke within 18 months. The nukes were a significant factor for me.

Now, had i known that all of this was a pile of B.S., i wouldn't have supported the war. So this isn't about pro vs anti-war. as i said, sometimes wars are unfortunately unavoidable. It's about the people in government being accountable if they are feeding the public bogus intel in order to sell a war. Congress was given an NIE full of crap (which most of them never actually read) to base their decision to give Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq. What that admin did completely undermines democracy, since it is the people (through their Congress reps) who decide when to go to war. How are they supposed to make an informed decision when the information they are receiving is knowingly wrong?

If the Americans want war, then there shall be war....pick up a history book sometime.

And what if they want war based on information that is fed to them by their gov't that is known by the gov't to be false, wishful, concocted bullpoop?

Because the foreign policies of the United States are not beholden to one man, even if your attention span is.

I'm well aware that the push for that war went beyond Dubbya. Rummy, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Tenet etc., all responsible.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think you get what i'm saying. This isn't about "anti-war". Wars are sometimes necessary. Here's some trivia that might surprise you: Back in 2003, i was for the invasion of Iraq. In fact, since i live in Ottawa, i almost went down to Parliament Hill in early 2009 to join protests for Canada to join the "coalition" too (however, I very likely wouldn't have supported the war if the situation had occurred today just given that my views/knowledge have grown since then).

...and I don't think you get what I'm saying....the invasion of Iraq was an inevitable and logical continuation of US/UK policy going back many years. There is a continuum of hostile policy and military actions that "killed" many more "thousands"...you seem to have dismissed these entirely.

But i supported the war back then based on what the Bush admin were saying, the key factor for me being that Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" (which we now know was based on a very unreliable intelligence source), and Rice etc. were saying that Iraq had the capability to have a nuke within 18 months. The nukes were a significant factor for me.

The alleged "nukes" were only a subset in a larger and purposeful pretext designed for war. Bush and Blair gave the world its UN circus knowing full well that either Saddam would capitulate or be forcibly removed. Regime change was a matter of US Public Law, not just a Congressional resolution, long before Bush showed up. Blair and Clinton promptly bombed Iraq at over 100 sites (Operation Desert Fox).

Now, had i known that all of this was a pile of B.S., i wouldn't have supported the war. So this isn't about pro vs anti-war. as i said, sometimes wars are unfortunately unavoidable. It's about the people in government being accountable if they are feeding the public bogus intel in order to sell a war. Congress was given an NIE full of crap (which most of them never actually read) to base their decision to give Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq. What that admin did completely undermines democracy, since it is the people (through their Congress reps) who decide when to go to war. How are they supposed to make an informed decision when the information they are receiving is knowingly wrong?

Nonsense....the US Congress has the responsibility to understand and vote on such issues regardless of the administration's stance. The Constitution was followed and there were more yays than nays. Your assumptions from afar are not applicable...your "support" irrelevant.

And what if they want war based on information that is fed to them by their gov't that is known by the gov't to be false, wishful, concocted bullpoop?

Then there shall be war. Why is this concept so hard to understand? America was born of war, and has become the lone superpower through many additional wars and invasions. Why do you think this should change because of your perspective in Canada, which is currently killing the locals in Afghanistan as part of NATO ?

I'm well aware that the push for that war went beyond Dubbya. Rummy, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Tenet etc., all responsible.

This is what I mean....your myopia can't get past the Bush administration. If you must be critical of American foreign policy in Iraq, at least get your story and history straight. Your own nation helped to strangle and kill Iraqis as a matter of policy.

Edited February 19, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[BubberMiley]

Instead of impeachment, he was elected to a second term as President of the United States.

But his lies weren't revealed yet when he was reelected. Once they were, his approval dropped to practically nothing and allowed the Dems to take over the House, the Senate, and the Executive Office.

He was left humiliated and is now nothing but a joke on a billboard.

[bush_cheney2004]

But his lies weren't revealed yet when he was reelected. Once they were, his approval dropped to practically nothing and allowed the Dems to take over the House, the Senate, and the Executive Office.

He was left humiliated and is now nothing but a joke on a billboard.

More nonsense...the US presidential election was in November 2004....Scott Ritter and a host of others were advertising "lies" long before that. Nice try.....

If the Americans want war...then there shall be war. We don't even bother to call it "peacekillin'" !!

Edited February 19, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[BubberMiley]

More nonsense.

You mean he wasn't reduced to a joke on a billboard and the GOP is still in power?

[bush_cheney2004]

You mean he wasn't reduced to a joke on a billboard and the GOP is still in power?

Nope...he served a full second term, limited as such by the US Constitution. Stick around for the next election cycle...Iraq is now a big success story for Obama/Biden.

In November 2004, Bush's party gained seats in the House and Senate. Duh!

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/

Edited February 19, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[BubberMiley]

Still hanging on to those ancient victories from before the great humiliation. It's sad when you're on on the wrong side of history.

[bush_cheney2004]

Still hanging on to those ancient victories from before the great humiliation. It's sad when you're on on the wrong side of history.

It's even sadder when you're on the wrong side of the border and can't vote either way!

Edited February 20, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

Why do you care? This bill is unnecessary and unconstitutional, as it is already illegal to make false statements to the US Congress (under oath). The US Congress was kicking Iraq's ass long before your favorite president was elected.

I did not have sex with that woman...and as the Joesphe also said regarding the virginal Mary " I did not have sex with that woman" It looks like the begining of a religion and a holy empire.

[BubberMiley]

It's even sadder when you're on the wrong side of the border and can't vote either way!

I know you're obsessed with Canadian politics by the time you spend here, but don't worry. Voting in a Canadian federal election is probably not any more exciting than voting in a U.S. one. You're not missing out on much.

[bush_cheney2004]

I know you're obsessed with Canadian politics by the time you spend here, but don't worry. Voting in a Canadian federal election is probably not any more exciting than voting in a U.S. one. You're not missing out on much.

The only reason I am here is because America and American politics is so pervasive in this forum. Nobody even knows when the next Canadian election will happen. But apparently many Canadians are keenly aware of the US election cycle, major issues, and prominent players all the way down to dog catcher in Moscow, Ohio!

[eyeball]

The only reason I am here is because America and American politics is so pervasive in this forum.

They're probably just as pervasive in every forum.

[bush_cheney2004]

They're probably just as pervasive in every forum.

I know...you can't get enough of us! (tee-hee-hee)

[Moonlight Graham]

The alleged "nukes" were only a subset in a larger and purposeful pretext designed for war. Bush and Blair gave the world its UN circus knowing full well that either Saddam would capitulate or be forcibly removed. Regime change was a matter of US Public Law, not just a Congressional resolution, long before Bush showed up. Blair and Clinton promptly bombed Iraq at over 100 sites (Operation Desert Fox).

Ok, i see where you're coming from now. Yes regime change was law. But the military aspect of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is strange to me. Wiki says "The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act." That section says: "(A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations."

What the heck does that mean? Obviously the act allowed Clinton to execute Desert Fox, but why? That section isn't written in very clear language (at least to me).

....the invasion of Iraq was an inevitable and logical continuation of US/UK policy going back many years.

Inevitable? Hardly. Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Doubtful. His cabinet/staff wouldn't have been filled with neocons like Cheney and Wolfowitz who were already bent on the strategy of preemption. The invasion was only able to be waged because of 9/11.

Nonsense....the US Congress has the responsibility to understand and vote on such issues regardless of the administration's stance. The Constitution was followed and there were more yays than nays.

The info Congress had at its access to understand the issue was not much different than you or I had at the time. The only major difference i see is the NIE presented to Congress, which most of them never read anyways. Most of Congress' understanding came from the Bush admin, and sure i'll include Clinton as well (not saying that admin is any clan of saints either). The National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's WMD's that was presented to Congress in Oct. 2002 was a piece of crap. Several former CIA members have spoken candidly about how flawed a document it was, and how they were pressured by Cheney and the Bush admin to include certain info etc. in the NIE in order to increase the perceived threat of WMD's in Iraq: PBS Frontline

The above is actually a pretty amazing piece of journalism in a great series on the war by PBS, and should be required viewing by all.

America was born of war, and has become the lone superpower through many additional wars and invasions.

Different debate, but much of what led to America's current position as lone superpower also has to do with geography. If the U.S. were located in Europe during WWII, it may have lost much of its power as Britain and France etc. did after getting pummeled. But whatever.

[bush_cheney2004]

...What the heck does that mean? Obviously the act allowed Clinton to execute Desert Fox, but why? That section isn't written in very clear language (at least to me).

It means business as usual, as in the forward deployment and utilization of war materials by US and Iraqi (mostly Kurdish) forces. US special forces operated routinely inside Iraq after 1991.

Inevitable? Hardly. Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Doubtful. His cabinet/staff wouldn't have been filled with neocons like Cheney and Wolfowitz who were already bent on the strategy of preemption. The invasion was only able to be waged because of 9/11.

Had Gore been president, you cannot say with certainty either way, especially given his term in the previous administration (which bombed, sanctioned, strangled, and isolated Iraq). His rhetoric was the same as Clinton's (or Bush's)...and many other Democrats:

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

The info Congress had at its access to understand the issue was not much different than you or I had at the time. The only major difference i see is the NIE presented to Congress, which most of them never read anyways.

Too bad....they don't like to read much of anything it would seem. Does not relieve them of their rsponsibilities. Also, various committees have access to various funding and intel sources, that together, tell more of the story.

The above is actually a pretty amazing piece of journalism in a great series on the war by PBS, and should be required viewing by all.

Avatar is more popular.

Different debate, but much of what led to America's current position as lone superpower also has to do with geography. If the U.S. were located in Europe during WWII, it may have lost much of its power as Britain and France etc. did after getting pummeled. But whatever.

Exactly...whatever. Canada also enjoys a geographical advantage, but has not become a superpower or hegemon.

[GostHacked]

Moonlight Graham. I suggest checking out another documentary "Why We Fight" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/ covers some of the same material.

[Moonlight Graham]

Moonlight Graham. I suggest checking out another documentary "Why We Fight" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/ covers some of the same material.

Seen it already. It's pretty good.