"My Karma ran over your Dogma"

Friday, March 03, 2006

A Question for Republicans regarding IMPEACHMENT

I am sure you remember the issue about why Clinton was impeached -- even though it was seen as insignificant to about 70% of Americans, according to the polls at the time.

Republicans went through with impeachment anyway, because -- as we were repeatedly told -- it is critical to hold the President to a higher standard, and establish that no President is above the law.

OK, fine.

What makes a wilfull violation of a law important enough to impeach a Republican President?

In this Dubai Ports transaction, at least two provisions of a critical national security law were broken by Bush, and by several members of his administration. They freely and openly admit to the violation, and have offered absolutely no justification for breaking the law.

The Exon-Florio amendment to the Defense Production Act requires a 30-day review of all such transactions by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Then reviewed by the President. If the president agrees the deal should go forward...

A 1993, amendment requires, by law, that a mandatory 45-day investigation be conducted AFTER the 30-day review on any transaction that:
* Involves a corporation owned by a foriegn government
* Involves a national security concern (like, for instance the part of this contract that involves handling 40% of all military hardware and its corresponding classified information).

By a Bush executive order in 2003, codified in 31 CFR, Part 800, the Secretary of Defense sits on the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States. Scott McClellan said that the Defense Department played a major part in the review. The deal was approved by, allegedly, a unanimous vote of the entire committee on February 13th. Yet, the other day, Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace both said they had just learned of the transaction over the past weekend - a week after approval was given. And Bush said he was unaware of it, as well.

These are all violations of an important national security law. Is that impeachable? Or, would Bush have to give a misleading answer to a irrelevant question about sex in a civil suit that got thrown out for lack of merit -- in order to be impeached? Is that what constitutes a "higher standard" and establishing that no President is above the law?

Just asking. You know, trying to figure out where the line is for these things.