I wonder if the book will mention any of the following?:

THE PRESIDENT’S IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES

President George W. Bush has engaged in acts thatviolate his obligations as president on a range of issues. These offenses include:

Deceiving Congress and the people in taking thecountry to war in Iraq.

Directing an illegal domestic wiretapping programand other surveillance of Americans.

Permitting and condoning the use of torture orcruel treatment of detainees.

Showing reckless indifference to human life in theface of Hurricane Katrina, in inadequately equipping U.S. soldiers, and in insufficiently planning for theoccupation of Iraq.

Covering up his war deceptions with the leak ofmisleading classified information, an act that became entangled with the outingof a CIA agent, a possible crime.
1. ForDeceptions in Taking the Country into War in Iraq:
War, in the view of theframers of the Constitution, would create one of the greatest temptations for apresident to abuse power. Edmund Randolph, a member of the ConstitutionalConvention, noted, “The Executive will have great opportunities for abusing hispower; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in somerespects the public money will be in his hands.”

President Bush used false premises to drive the countryto war, insisting that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons and linking SaddamHussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11. The consequences have been enormous, and there isno end point to the duration or to lives lost in Iraq.

Taking our country into war based on falseinformation is a misuse of presidential war-making power. Deceit nullifies theright and obligation of Congress to understand the issues at stake and todecide whether to support the war. The right of the American people toparticipate in the decision is cast aside. The actions “subvert theConstitution,” under founder George Mason’s definition of impeachable offenses.

James Iredell, a Justice on the first Supreme Courtand a participant in the North Carolina ratification debates on theConstitution, commented that “the President must certainly be punishable forgiving false information to the Senate.” In responding to a complaint that theSenate would be too cozy with the president to vote for impeachment, Iredelldisagreed, insisting that the Senate would not react kindly if a president“concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and bythat means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country.”

Unless a clear message is sent, there is no way toensure that the use of deceptions to lead the country to war will not berepeated by this president or another.

2. For Violating the Law on Wiretapping:
PresidentBush admitted that he has not complied with the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Act of 1978 and is engaging in domestic surveillance withoutseeking court orders. He said he plans to continue this conduct, even thoughhis actions may invade the privacy and constitutional rights of thousands ofAmerican citizens. The president’s refusal to obey the wiretapping statute,which carries a criminal penalty, violates his duty to take care that the lawsare faithfully executed. It contravenes his oath of office, which requires himto obey the laws, and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Over the years, the president has publiclymisrepresented the wiretapping programs, stating that no surveillance was beingundertaken without a court order. President Nixon’s repeated lying to thepublic formed the basis of one of the grounds for impeachment against him.President Bush’s deceptions may form the grounds for impeachment, as well.

A second secret domestic-surveillance program,exposed in May 2006, is engaged in collecting and tracking the telephone callsof millions of Americans under the guise of foreign-intelligence surveillance.This program, begun without the approval of Congress or the courts, poses manypotential violations of the law, and as details are uncovered, further groundsfor impeachment also may be identified.

President Bush has attempted to justify his illegalsurveillance as falling within his power as commander in chief. The president’sfailure to recognize that he is bound by a constitutional system in which he isonly one of three players and his abuse of his role as commander in chiefthreaten our democracy to its core, and are grounds for impeachment and removalfrom office.

3. For Permitting and Condoning the Mistreatment ofU.S. Detainees:
Congress has enactedlaws prohibiting the mistreatment or torture of prisoners in U.S. hands. The War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a crimeto violate the ban in the Geneva Conventions regarding torture and cruel ordegrading treatment. Ratified by the United States in 1955, the GenevaConventions are the law of the land, as is the Convention against Torture. The U.S. government has long adhered to the laws andtreaties that prevent mistreatment of prisoners.

President Bush unilaterally changed U.S. practice and policy by a 2002 memo rejecting theapplication of the Geneva Conventions and enabling U.S. personnel to conduct brutal interrogations withoutfear of prosecution. In so doing, the president voided a U.S. law and permitted others to break it. Thepresident may not violate treaties or interpret them in ways designed tonullify their essential purpose.

In addition, when evidence emerged of abusivetreatment of persons in U.S. military detention facilities,the president had a duty to institute a thorough investigation of everyone inthe chain of command, from top to bottom. He has not done so. Thisresponsibility is spelled out in the Geneva Conventions. The president is alsorequired to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, including the WarCrimes Act and the Anti-Torture Act. President Bush failed to ensure a fullinvestigation and to see that the responsible parties, including higher-ups,were held accountable. These failures are impeachable offenses.

When Congress reaffirmed its opposition to tortureand cruel or degrading treatment of detainees in a statute passed in 2005, thepresident added a statement when he signed the bill, signaling that he intendedto violate it. Impeachment is the only way to prevent a president fromcontinuing to disregard his obligations to enforce the law, not to break it.

4. For Reckless Indifference to Human Life duringHurricane Katrina:
President Bush showed a reckless indifference to human lifein failing to marshal emergency resources in response to Katrina. This type ofgross negligence is also apparent in his decision to invade Iraq withoutproviding protective equipment to soldiers and without having an adequatepost-invasion plan. If the president’s actions were simple negligence, theymight not amount to impeachable offenses. During the debates at theConstitutional Convention, one of the grounds initially raised for impeachmentwas “neglect of duty.” At the convention, the Committee on Detail changed thatlanguage to “treason and bribery,” which was in turn expanded by adding theterm “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The framers were undoubtedly familiar with thehistory of that British term. At least two noteworthy impeachments for neglecthad occurred in Britain: one involved the neglect of the commissioner of theNavy to prepare adequately against an invasion; the other related to neglect byan admiral who had failed to safeguard the seas. In a classicnineteenth-century text on constitutional interpretation, Thomas M. Cooley ofthe Michigan Supreme Court states that impeachment can result from “inexcusableneglects of duty, which are dangerous and criminal because of the immenseinterests involved and the greatness of the trust which has not been kept.”

Bush’s actions during Katrina and in regard to Iraqare “inexcusable neglects.” When Hurricane Katrina threatened New Orleans,President Bush was personally informed of an impending catastrophe, but did nottake the necessary actions to protect human lives. Under law, he alone wasempowered to mobilize additional federal resources. He did not take care thatthe laws were faithfully executed.

In addition, the president’s failure to providesufficient body armor and protective equipment for our troops in Iraq or todevelop a proper plan for the occupation of Iraq after the invasion areviolations of his obligation to “take care.” U.S. soldiers and the American people trusted the president toexercise special care in making thorough preparations.

The president neglected his duty over matters ofvast consequence and in situations where the trust placed in him was great.This conjunction of his failure to take care and his reckless indifference tohuman life provides the basis for impeachment.

5. For Leaking Classified Information:
After the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bush authorized a top White Houseaide to leak passages of a classified document to key reporters. The leak camein response to criticism that the president had deceived the country aboutIraq’s nuclear weapons capability in his State of the Union address. Thecriticism was accurate, but the leak had the effect of distorting the truth.

The leak was intertwined with the “outing” of acovert CIA agent married to the Bush critic.Declassifying information to mislead the public and cover up presidentialdeceptions about war making is an abuse of power. If the facts, as yet unknown,show that President Bush had any role in releasing the identity of the CIA agent, a potential violation of federal law, thatwould be an impeachable offense.

President Bush has committed a great many grave anddangerous offenses, and subverted the Constitution. The evidence is clear andstrong. Congress cannot shirk its responsibility to protect the nation fromtyranny. This is what the founders of this country intended when they addedpresidential impeachment to the Constitution.”

Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman is one wise legalthinker who says that, whether or not it would be a political liability for theDemocrats, impeaching Bush is their constitutional duty. Holtzman served fourterms in Congress, where she played a key role in House impeachment proceedingsagainst President Richard Nixon. Holtzman’s full brief on this subject can befound in The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for ConcernedCitizens

Some of us actually care about the duty of citizensand Congress to “defend and protect the Constitution”. And in moral andInternational laws, not to mention the laws of this country. And not thesupercilliousness of voting by gender.

Lying theUS into a phony war and causing thedeaths of over one million innocent people ISan impeachable offense and both Bush and Cheney would have been impeached bythe Founding Fathers.