Bush administration misconduct hearings: Liveblog Part 3

By GottaLaff

Tammy Baldwin: The next president and v.p. take an oath. That oath is not taken in a vacuum. Past presidents establish precedents. This hearing will impact future presidents. It is not frivolous. There is no task more important than seeing if our leaders violated their oaths of office.

Keith Ellison: Powers unused are lost. We could end up with an imperial presidency, no matter whether Dem or Republican.

DENNIS KUCINICH: Our country has been at war in Iraq for 5 years... 4, 127 American deaths, and as many as 1 million Iraqis. Costs billions, destroying our economy. Ask for consent to enter resolutions into the record... articles of impeachment. Iraq was not a threat... [paraphrasing]... or seeking nukes capability... or attack US... could not launch a surprise attack on us... so no extreme harm to US. That did not justify force by US to defend itself. No connection to 9/11, no WMD, no capability to attach us or provide WMD to terrorists... BUT... many in Congress relied on White House representations. And said if they knew then what they know now, they wouldn't have authorized. The question is: What responsibility does the president have for unjustified war? We can put 2 and 2 together. Read my 3 bills. I am confident you'll reach the same conclusions I have. So what to do about it?

Stand up for checks and balances to prevent excessive power grabs by any branch... restore faith in gov't., justice... endorse with silence these methods, or demand accountability? Tell future presidents that we've seen the last of this, not the first... Think, and then act, NOW, to right a wrong.. hold them accountable. Thank you.

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY): Sitting here listening has been interesting. We need checks and balances... check power... We've seen corruption and incompetence, and this govt. has been dominated by those 2 words. Must address that, for future presidents. Iraq, terrorist operation: 2 mos. before 2000 elections, there was a meeting with Bush and director of intel about Bin Laden/Al Qaeda were going to attack. And there were briefings about their determination to attack (pdb, August 6), so obvious. Warnings were consistent and should have promoted actions, but they didn't. Why they didn't is a major question. Richard Clarke sent consistent warnings to Condi Rice during that same time. After 9/11, we attacked the Taliban and Al Qaeda, successful in Afghanistan. But it also failed to follow up on Bin Laden, allowing him to escape... Rumsfeld's decision. Why? They didn't want to capture him, because if we had, they couldn't justify an attack on Iraq. They manipulated the intel. They claimed WMD in Iraq were threatening us and that we had to act against that. But there was no clear evidence. All of that was ignored. Then, there were warnings that stated that the uranium claim was baseless. All claims were designed to get authority to invade. All this needs to be examined, so much damage has been done here at home. This opens the door for future presidents to do the same, eliminating basic Constitutional provisions. This situation is difficult. Impeachment has been mentioned over and over again, and based on all these things, it's the most impeachable administration in the history of America. In the SOTU, Bush knew what he was saying... This committee needs to focus on this.