 sj |
||
|
||
BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 29 Sep 06 - 11:07 AM From mid-Illinois: Letter: It will be worth every dime to impeach Bush By BRAD DARR, Charleston Hugo Chavez has been sniffing out the devil. If he has an aversion to sulfur he had better stay out of Washington, D.C. Besides, our fearless leader has more pressing concerns than any resemblance he may possess to mystical demons of the netherworld, especially if the Democrats win Congress in November. We humble subjects of the regime may find ourselves funding an extensive and expensive impeachment process. It will be worth every dime. The families of nearly 3,000 American service men and women killed in Iraq deserve the truth. We all deserve the truth, especially in times of war. Lie to me about your girlfriend, your real estate deals, or maybe even your two-bit night burglars. But, do not lie to me when you want my son or daughter to put their life on the line for our country . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: katlaughing Date: 28 Sep 06 - 04:55 AM And, if impeachment doesn't happen, let's at least make sure the shrub has a job post-2008 elections: Bush's Next Job By Bill Ferguson, Knight Ridder Newspapers Salt Lake Tribune 6/16/2006 Every great career eventually comes to an end, and when you're the President of these United States , you only get eight years (at most) to accomplish everything you set out to do. Then you're an ex-president for the rest of your life. I'll bet that ex-presidents, like most retired people, find it to be something of a shock to have all that time on their hands when they leave the working world. So they find things to do. They work on their memoirs. They build libraries. They give speeches. They support their favorite charitable causes. But what about our current President? His term will be up before he knows it, and then it's back to private life. I'm afraid the transition will be especially difficult for Dubya. He is a man of action, and I worry about how he'll adjust to a life out of the spotlight. I think that we, as a nation, owe Bush more than the customary parting gifts of an enormous pension and round-the-clock Secret Service protection when he leaves office. I think we can do better for him. I think we should put him to work, and I know just where he ought to go. Iraq There is no question that Iraq will be the legacy of President Bush's tenure, and there is also no doubt that there will still be a lot of work to do there when he leaves office. I believe we should allow Bush an opportunity to stick with the job even after his term expires. The next president should appoint George W. Bush to be a special envoy to Iraq and charge him with the responsibility to oversee all American interests there, advise the new Iraqi government, and maintain the morale of American troops who are carrying out the war effort. The position should be a permanent one, and he would not leave until the "hard work" of helping Iraq to establish a working democratic government has been accomplished. Or until he leaves this mortal soil, whichever comes first. But I do not believe Bush should go to Iraq alone. He needs some trusted advisors by his side at all times, and the first two names that immediately spring to mind are Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. These men have been instrumental in the planning and execution of the Iraq campaign from the beginning, and I can only imagine how much more effective their work could be if they were onsite 24/7, right where the action is, getting their hands dirty in the cause of spreading freedom to that dark corner of the world. I know this assignment would be dangerous. The three senior freedom fighters would be huge targets for the forces of evil in Iraq , and there is a real possibility that one or more of them might meet with an untimely demise in that chaotic environment. But as Bush has reminded us time and again, the price is high, but our cause is just. Freedom is not free. I expect that all three men would be ready and willing to undertake their assignments in the battle zone, despite the extreme danger they would face. This would be a chance to show the world that they are willing to put their own lives, not just the lives of others, on the line for what they know to be right. So let's start a campaign to send the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team to Iraq in 2008. They deserve the opportunity to "finish the job" in Iraq , and the sight of the three of them tooling around the streets of Baghdad in a lightly armored Humvee would do a lot to improve the morale of all Americans. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross" -Sinclair Lewis |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:13 PM Another reason to think hard about impeachment: Salon on Habeas Corpus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 26 Sep 06 - 01:08 PM From http://bridgenews.org/news/092006/morrisseau : Saturday, Septmber 23— Former Army Lieutenant and candidate for Congress in Vermont, Dennis Morrisseau, today called for the arrest of President Bush and Vice President Cheney by the American military "if necessary" to prevent an unauthorized attack upon the nation of Iran. The antiwar Vietnam vet is a Republican, but he has won approval from the State of Vermont to run on the ballot line "Impeach Bush Now," rather than Democrat or Republican. "American forces are apparently already active inside Iran, and Naval forces have received orders to deploy to that country," Morrisseau said. "The President has NO AUTHORITY to attack the nation of Iran whatsoever, in the absence of a full, formal Declaration of War on Iran by the sitting Congress." Morrisseau said any order for an attack upon Iran or to deploy naval forces to its coastal waters is illegal, and called upon officers of the American military to "First, refuse to obey such an order. If the president persists and insists on ordering our forces into combat in or over Iran without a formal Declaration of War, then I call upon you, General Pace, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and upon such other military officers as clearly see their duty in these circumstances to detain both the President and Vice President, until such time as the Congress shall act." Letter to General Pace of the Joint ChiefsMorrisseau, who was court-martialled for opposition to the Vietnam War in 1968, said he has written to General Pace to ask for the intervention of the military. "In spite of my opposition to the Vietnam War and the court-martial which we ultimately defeated, I was a good soldier who had the respect of my superior officers throughout the ordeal. And they had mine!" Morrisseau said. "There are many many, very, very decent people in the active duty military. I know this," he said " people who love their country and democracy too, and hate war." Morrisseau wrote that "Iran is no present threat to us or anyone. Their right to enrich uranium under treaties signed by us for the production of nuclear power is clear: and that is all they have so far done. An attack upon that nation now by us, acting alone will constitute an illegal war of aggression under international law. It is illegal under our law as well. I urge you to so advise the President," Morrisseau wrote to Pace, "and urge that he take no such actions. In particular, he must not act in the absense of a full, formal, responsible War Declaration by Congress. That is the Constitutional requirement." If he and Cheney persist, Morrisseau wrote, "than the country must rely upon you, Sir, and our armed forces generally, to resist all illegal orders by Bush or Cheney, and take the gentlemen into custody if necessary." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 19 Sep 06 - 12:33 AM Former Pink Floyd Guitarist Implores NYC Concertgoers to Impeach Bush |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Ebbie Date: 07 Sep 06 - 05:55 PM Thanks, Amos. I just realized that I could do the same. Pete Seeger Here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 07 Sep 06 - 04:12 PM That is to say, I dunno...but if you email it to me I'll post it with a link here. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 07 Sep 06 - 04:11 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Ebbie Date: 07 Sep 06 - 03:54 PM This morning a Mudcatter sent me a clip of Pete Seeger calling for Bush's impeachment. How long has it been out? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 07 Sep 06 - 02:45 PM Impeach Bush- Letter For the Monitor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- September 06. 2006 8:00AM Re the story about the two professors desiring the impeachment of Mr. Bush, I suggest you read two books that expand on that theme and back it up with lots of documentation: • Inside Job: Un-Masking the 9/11 Conspiracy by Jim Marrs. • The War on Freedom by Nafeez Mosdeddeq Ahmed. I have read the first and am halfway through the second and find it even more convincing. Mr. Bush should be impeached for malfeasance, conspiracy to commit murder, murder, conspiracy to violate his oath of office, and for foreknowledge of criminal acts that he had a part in planning and funding. HOWARD L. WILSON Andover |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 01 Sep 06 - 08:58 PM "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954. "We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular." And so good night, and good luck." Edward R. Murrow |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 30 Aug 06 - 11:08 PM Monday 22 August 2005 With the message that people can protest a war while supporting troops and veterans, a handful of speakers -including a Gold Star mom - addressed an anti-war rally in Salt Lake City Monday, the same day President Bush was in town. Bush spoke to more than 6,000 people at the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, while three blocks away about 2,000 people gathered to protest Bush administration policies and the war in Iraq. Barbara Wright, 56, drove five hours from her home in St. George to attend the rally at Pioneer Park. "There's a lot of reasons I'm unhappy. Predominantly due to the war, but also about the economy, Social Security," Wright said. Her father, a World War II veteran, was unable to come with her, but she said he would have come along for the same reasons. "So I'm here for him too," she said. Several people attending the protest boasted that they were from military families or had served in the armed forces. Salt Lake resident Hugh Musser, 74, said he was a Korean War veteran who came to the protest because of "the lies about this war and the reasons we went into it." "I'm so opposed to our administration. I'm not politically motivated, I'm an independent. I think we have really lost our democracy," Musser said. The featured speaker was Celeste Zappala, a co-founder of Gold Star Mothers for Peace with Cindy Sheehan, who made news camping outside Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch in hopes of meeting with the president. Zappala's son, Spc. Sherwood Baker, 30, was killed in Baghdad on April 26, 2004. He was a member of the Pennsylvania National Guard which was deployed to help provide security for a survey group looking for evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, she said. Zappala said she was overwhelmed by the number of people who showed up at Pioneer Park. "I expected and hoped that 100 people would come out. This place is overflowing with patriotic Americans," she said. She said she has traveled over the past 16 months speaking out about the war because of a promise she made at her son's funeral. "My sweet and noble son was the 720th American soldier to die in the hideous miscalculation called the war in Iraq," Zappala said. "I vowed to him I will not be quiet." Zappala and members of her family have spent the last week in Crawford, she said, hoping the president would take time to answer one question from families who have lost loved ones in the war. "What noble cause is it? What noble cause is it that has taken the lives of our best Americans? What noble cause is it this month?" Zappala said. "Why do the architects of this war not risk the lives of their children?" One of the event's organizers, Aaron Davis with a group called Veterans for Peace, said he filed a permit for a gathering of 1,000 people. Thirty minutes into the three-hour event Monday, he said he knew there would be that many and more. "Not only is our message today support our troops and bring them home now, but treat them right when you bring them home," said Davis, who said he served as a Marine from 1972 to 1976. Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, who called for a strong showing from Utahns at the protest in an e-mail he sent last week to local activists, addressed both the VFW convention and the protest. Anderson was booed in his speech to the veterans at the Salt Palace Convention Center about two hours before Bush's speech. After, he said challenging political leaders is being supportive of the troops. "The message we want to send is that we are behind our troops, we care very much about our troops. That if their lives are going to be put on the line, they are going to be put in harm's way, that we're told the truth and our nation hasn't been told the truth," Anderson said. Chants of "Rocky!" followed Anderson as he took the podium at the anti-war rally. "Those who take a stand ... who stand up to deceit by our government. Those are true patriots. You are true patriots," Anderson said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 29 Aug 06 - 12:57 PM Thanks, Kat -- I got it earlier from Wyo -- nearly died laughuiing, especially the sing-along!! From the current edition of OpEdNews.com: August 28, 2006 at 18:09:45 Let the Hearings Begin by Mick Youther http://www.opednews.com George W. Bush may not be on the November 7th ballot, but this may be the most important election of his life. Americans, by a 3 to 1 margin, want the Democratic Party to regain control of Congress; and unless the Republicans manage to pull off another miraculous vote count, that could mean big trouble for the Liar-in-Chief. • "...this President and his Administration must be held accountable for their misdeeds. If we in the House of Representatives, as the body charged with oversight of the executive branch, do not hold him accountable, then we have no legitimate claim to governing this country." --Bob Barr (R-GA), 11/5/97 Noble words, indeed-unfortunately, they were used to justify the impeachment of the wrong President. Congressional Republicans spent 6 years and 60 million taxpayer dollars investigating Bill Clinton, before impeaching him for lying about a personal indiscretion that had nothing to do with his official duties. That Republican hypocrisy has now been surpassed by their failure to impeach, or even investigate, George W. Bush. That is why Republicans "have no legitimate claim to governing this country" , and deserve to be voted out of office. With Democrats in control, maybe Congress can stop worrying about flag burning, gay marriage, and tax cuts for the rich-long enough to focus on more important matters, like the long-overdue Congressional hearings on the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush Administration. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and some other Democratic leaders have made conciliatory noises about how they are not interested in pursuing impeachment if the Democrats were to gain control of Congress this fall. They must be joking. An MSNBC online poll with over 300,000 responses finds that 86% of people believe that "President Bush's actions justify impeachment" (as of 8/21/06). A more scientific poll (Zogby International) found a more modest majority (52%) of respondents who "want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval." (1/16/06) This is twice the number of Americans (26%) that supported the impeachment and removal of President Clinton. Just because the Republicans failed to do their Constitutional duty to remove a President who had become a menace to America and the world; doesn't mean the Democrats should do the same. They should start the investigations. • "And it is our highest duty today to vote for this inquiry so that if the result is there are no impeachable offenses we can move on, but if there is more to be done, then we can assure that the rule of law will not be suspended or ignored by this Congress." --Asa Hutchinson (R-AR), 10/8/98 (right words-wrong President, again) Democratic-led hearings are not payback for the ridiculous impeachment of President Clinton. It is what the Constitution demands when a President acts as if he were above the law. It is the people's representatives fulfilling their Constitutional duty to investigate and remove a President, when necessary-just like the 93rd Congress did when Nixon came to believe, "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal." • "Compared to Spygate, Watergate was a kindergarten picnic. The Bush administration's lies, felonies, and illegalities have revealed it to be a criminal administration with a police state mentality and police state methods. Now Bush and his attorney general have gone the final step and declared Bush to be above the law. Bush aggressively mimics Hitler's claim that defense of the realm entitles him to ignore the rule of law." --Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury, 1/2/06 • "A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law-and repeatedly violates the law-thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office. ...President Bush has thrown down the gauntlet and virtually dared Congress to stop him from violating the law, nothing less is necessary to protect our constitutional system and preserve our democracy." --Former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, member of the House Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach President Richard Nixon, The Nation magazine, 1/11/06 I believe history will find that the Watergate hearings and the resignation of Richard Nixon was one of America's finest hours. It proved that the system worked. • "The system has thus far failed during the presidency of George W. Bush-at incalculable cost in human lives, to the American political system, to undertaking an intelligent and effective war against terror, and to the standing of the United States in parts of the world where it previously had been held in the highest regard." --Watergate hero, Carl Bernstein, Vanity Fair, 4/17/06 So: Lights...camera...action. Let the hearings begin." ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: katlaughing Date: 29 Aug 06 - 10:49 AM Amos, I know you will enjoy this...turn up the volume, but make sure there are no tender ears nearby:-): Click Here. (ITMFA = Impeach the Mother Fucker Already - Courtesy of Dan Savage of Savage Love fame...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 28 Aug 06 - 04:06 PM "Time to talk impeachment The Bush administration is a shambles. Name me one good thing he has done for the American people since he came into office. He has caused more problems for the U.S. than he has done good. He has set the U.S. back instead of forward. As an "armchair" historian, I believe he will go down in history as the worst president we ever elected. The Republican conservative right should be held accountable at the ballot box for helping elect this idiot as president of the United States, and as soon as Democrats take over the House/Senate in 2006, impeach him to prevent any more damage." Len Eagleburger, Springfield, in a letter to OpEd News |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 28 Aug 06 - 10:49 AM Impeachment Not on Media's Radar Dave Lindorff www.thiscantbehappening.org Sunday, August 27, 2006 Reader Response to C-Span and NPR Book Events Demonstrates Wide-Spread Interest in Impeachment Issue Before Barbara and I got a chance to get any real national attention for The Case for Impeachment outside of programs on Air America, the best the book did on the Amazon sales ranking was about #3500. Then last weekend, we had the opportunity, over a period of two days, to air a 7.5-minute interview on NPR, and a 75-minute presention on C-Span's "Books TV" program. Suddenly the book leapt in the rankings to #42, well ahead of #400, Greg Palast's best-selling Armed Madhouse, and even #80, Ann Coulter's Godless, and closing in on #27, Al Gore's best-selling Inconvenient Truth! It makes you wonder what would happen if the mainstream media, like the NY Times, Washington Post and LA Times, and liberal publications like the Nation, In These Times, Salon, Slate, the Progressive, Harper's, the New Republic and others, or shows like "Fresh Air" and "Democracy Now," would stop ignoring the book and instead review it. But ignoring "The Case for Impeachment" is just part of a larger censorship going on around impeachment, as I explain in this story which is appearing in the current issue of Extra!, the publication of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting: Adultery Was Serious; This is Just the Constitution There is a growing grassroots campaign demanding the impeachment of George W. Bush. Across the nation, towns and cities have been passing pro-impeachment resolutions. Websites promoting impeachment keep springing up. In several states, bills have been introduced in state legislatures that, if passed, would become formal bills of impeachment in the U.S. House of Representatives, requiring initiation of impeachment hearings under congressional rules dating back to the early 19th century. Starting last fall, several polls (Zogby, 10/29=29/05, 1/9=12/06; Ipsos, 10/6=9/05) reported that a majority of Americans thought Bush should be impeached if he lied the country into war in Iraq or if he authorized warrantless spying on Americans. Those poll results were reported all over the Internet, but they barely made it into any mainstream corporate news reports. Indeed, impeachment itself is getting short shrift in the media, despite all this impeachment organizing activity. When the House Judiciary Committee's ranking minority member, Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich.), introduced a bill in December calling for creation of a select committee to investigate "possible impeachable crimes" by Bush, the dramatic move received virtually no mainstream coverage beyond an AP wire item (12/21/05). Even as the number of Democratic House members co-sponsoring that bill rose from an initial handful to 39, it has received scant attention. The first time impeachment made the front page of the Washington Post was March 25, 2006, when that paper finally ran a story on the wave of town government resolutions across the country. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 28 Aug 06 - 10:17 AM From Norman, Oklahoma: Published: August 27, 2006 12:23 am Group seeking to impeach Bush stage in Norman The Norman Transcript By Althea Peterson Transcript Staff Writer Back in 1973, hundreds gathered in Washington to have President Richard Nixon impeached. Now, remnants of the same group are in Norman with a similar cause. Drivers at the corner of Flood Avenue and Symmes were greeted with a "drive-thru impeachment" table, encouraging drivers to stop and sign a petition to impeach President George W. Bush. The group, "Committee to Impeach the President," has traveled through Washington D.C., Virginia, Texas and Oklahoma so far. Jim Goodnow, 67, of Terlingua, Texas, said after protesting Nixon's presidency in the '70s, he never thought he would have to resurrect the group once again. "You're seeing history made in Norman," Goodnow said. "This is the first and only drive through impeachment location." The "drive-thru impeachment," which could be noticed from far away because of the large tour bus in the driveway, had several drivers stop to sign Saturday evening. Andrea Farnan, 18, of Norman, said she was volunteering to help promote the petition because she wants to increase awareness. "I think it's important that people know what is going on," Farnan said. "There's a lot of censorship going on right now, which is wrong. Back during Vietnam, people weren't afraid to speak out against the war." Goodnow certainly remembers those days. Inside the tour bus, which has many American flags, has pictures of the original Committee to Impeach the President group, which worked against Nixon. "Who would have ever thought we'd go through this again?" Goodnow asks. "This is Deja vu." The committee will stay in Norman through Friday at the same location to collect more signatures before heading to Washington D.C. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 25 Aug 06 - 04:11 PM August 25, 2006 at 07:32:21 Impeach George "Dubya Gump" Bush Now! by Ben Marble, M.D. http://www.opednews.com George "Dubya Gump" Bush is without question the single worst president in the history of our nation. Let's recap. He took the largest surplus in the history of our nation and converted it to the largest deficit in a short 3 years. Worse than that he has managed to turn pretty much the entire world against us (remember after 911 when the whole world was on OUR side????). He recently admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, though, if you ask the BUSHEEP they are still convinced they had 'womd'. So he basically admitted that he started a war based on LIES that his administration propagated. For example: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." The Dick Cheney August 26, 2002 Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.-George "Dubya Gump" Bush September 12, 2002 Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.-George "Dubya Gump" Bush January 28, 2003 We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.-Colin Powell February 5, 200 Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.-George "Dubya Gump" Bush March 18, 2003 Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.-Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003 We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.-Ronald Donefailed March 30, 2003 The quotes go on and on and on....The point is why hasn't this asshole been impeached yet????? The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the American public (for re-electing him and electing a republican majority) AND the limp dick Democrats in charge. If a blow job was enough to get impeachment proceedings rolling against Slick Willy then what the hell are the leaders in congress waiting for??? Does George "Dubya Gump" have to shoot a baby in the head on national TV for you fucking idiots to get the point???? The US population deserves better than this. It is time for Dubya Gump to go! cya ben ps The Dick Cheney must go too! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 23 Aug 06 - 05:20 PM The Santa Barbara City Council was a little surprised at the number who turned out to discuss a movement to impeach. Maybe the good folks of the Golden Coast are onto something. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:39 AM From Capitol Hill Blue : Bush Leagues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge's ruling may provide grounds to impeach Bush By CHB Staff Aug 18, 2006, 07:57 If a judge's ruling that declares President George W. Bush's domestic spying program unconstitutional holds up under appeal, the President will be guilty of violating federal law at least 30 times and that could provide grounds for impeachment, says a leading Constitutional scholar. Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University and a recognized expert on constitutional law, says the ruling Thursday by a federal judge in Detroit raises "serious implications for the Bush administration" and indicates that the President "could well have committed a federal crime at least 30 times." "This ruling is a bad situation that just got worse for the White House," says Turley. "These crimes could constitute impeachable offenses." Turley knows a thing or two about the impeachment process. He worked with Special Prosecutor Ken Starr on the investigation that led to impeachment proceedings against former President Bill Clinton. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, in a stinging indictment of Constitutional abuse by the Bush Administration over its use of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens by the National Security Agency, ruled the program violates the Administrative Procedures Act, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the First and Fourth amendments to the Constitution and ordered an immediate halt to the practice. "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution," Taylor wrote in her lengthy opinion. The White House went into immediate attack mode, claiming Taylor is an activist judge appointed by a Democratic president (Jimmy Carter) and vowing to appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court. A Republican National Committee press release declared: Liberal judge backs Dem agenda to weaken national security. Turley says such tactics are typical for the Bush White House. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 18 Aug 06 - 12:32 AM A video from "After Downing Street" on the impeachment effort. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 17 Aug 06 - 09:20 PM From the Santa Barbara Independent: S.B. Considers Impeachment By Nick Welsh, August 17, 2006 by Nick Welsh About 250 people crammed into the Faulkner Gallery in the downtown library last Tuesday to hear three speakers lay out the case for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Lisa Hajjar, a professor of law and society at UCSB, argued that the most compelling legal argument was Bush's authorization of warrantless?—?and apparently illegal?—?wiretaps of thousands of American citizens. She also contended that the administration had lied to Congress about the reasons for waging war on Iraq, and that that deception constituted high crimes and misdemeanors. And she argued that the administration has knowingly and intentionally encouraged the systematic torture of suspected combatants in the "war on terror," and in so doing has violated countless international treaties to which the United States is a signatory. Richard Falk, a Yale professor of international law, acknowledged that the impeachment process would be traumatic for the nation, but argued that even if Congress chose not to impeach, the exercise would help salvage American democracy. "Only by the activism of the American people will we be spared a future that will destroy all that is great about this country," he said. im Lafferty with the National Lawyers Guild added a note of skepticism, arguing that even if the Democrats controlled the House and Senate, they would never impeach Bush. The real problem, he said, was not Bush but a national policy of imperialism to which both parties have actively subscribed since the end of World War II. Organizers of the event explained afterwards that they plan to take a resolution calling for impeachment of the president and vice president to the Santa Barbara City Council sometime in September. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 17 Aug 06 - 07:32 PM Judge orders halt to Bush wiretapping plan The White House on Thursday suffered another major blow in its strategy for the "war against terror" when a federal court ruled that its controversial warrantless eavesdropping programme was unconstitutional. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered the Bush administration to immediately stop the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Programme", which she said violated the rights to free speech and privacy. She added that the programme also contravened the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to obtain a warrant from a special intelligence court before it can intercept communications of Americans. The American Civil Liberties Union said the decision was "a landmark victory against the abuse of power that has become the hallmark of the Bush administration". "Government spying on innocent Americans without any kind of warrant and without Congressional approval runs counter to the very foundations of our democracy," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, which brought the lawsuit against the government. President George W. Bush authorised the eavesdropping programme after the September 11 attacks on the US. The highly classified programme allowed the NSA to intercept the international phone calls and emails of Americans with links to suspected terrorists. The White House argued that Mr Bush had the authority to authorise the programme, saying it was a crucial tool in the "war on terror". But Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, and many Democrats criticised Mr Bush for not seeking Congressional approval. Judge Taylor rebuked Mr Bush in her ruling, writing: "It was never the intent of the Framers [of the Constitution] to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregarded the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution". There ya go, George-me-lad. A |
|
Subject: The Resumé of W From: Amos Date: 16 Aug 06 - 10:59 PM In case you wonder why some folks think about such a heretical idea as impeachment, consider the gent's qualification. The following sent by a friend: "I thought it would be wise to forward this to show how liberals process things. It is clear, we must do something about liberals. They just don't understand how important simplicismic approaches to all complexified matters can be. Read this, but don't think too much about it. Voters should never think too much.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 15 Aug 06 - 07:03 PM ote to impeach Printable version of this article Email this Article EDITORIAL Mainstream media reporters and pundits, as well as our cynical colleagues at the SF Weekly and the rest of their corporate alt-weekly chain, love to bash the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the city councils of other Bay Area cities for passing resolutions on big questions like war, human rights, or impeachment. We don't share that view. Resolutions take almost no time or effort to pass, yet they are important barometers of popular political sentiment, tools that are particularly important given how both major political parties have shown more willingness to listen to their corporate backers than their lowly constituents. People need avenues to make their voices heard without the filters imposed by the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties. That's why we're happy that citizens in both San Francisco and Berkeley will get a chance to vote this November on the question of whether Congress should initiate impeachment proceedings against President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for their many high crimes: fraudulently leading the United States into war, illegally spying on Americans, torturing enemies, claiming unconstitutional executive power, violating binding treaties, and engaging in war crimes and profiteering, among others. Berkeley and San Francisco will be the first major American cities to allow a popular vote on this question. The Guardian in January was one of the first publications in the country to lay out in detail the impeachable crimes of the Bush administration ("The Case for Impeachment," 1/25/06), joining a chorus of activists, scholars, and legal experts who say this is the only way to slow the country's slide into empire and penetrate the Bush administration's veil of secrecy. Our congressional representatives have been terrible on this issue, showing more concern with seeking partisan advantage than upholding the Constitution. Rep. Nancy Pelosi has said the Democrats won't pursue impeachment even if the party retakes Congress this fall. But maybe they'll listen to the people directly telling them that we want Congress to finally launch a serious investigation into the many crimes perpetrated by the Bush administration. This is a vote that the world wants to see us take From http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=1359&catid=4&volume_id=147&issue_id=245&volume_num=40&issue_num=46. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 14 Aug 06 - 10:49 PM My, my...I guess half a brain is better than none, but not by much. LIke I said, you can find any poll you want out there, but no-one puts W's rating over 40%. Let's not argue that "big improvements are happening" because it went UP to 40%. That's jes' pathetic. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: GUEST,Woody Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:38 PM http://www.nbc4.tv/politics/9677460/detail.html A post-plot Newsweek poll showed a slight up tick in the President's dismal job approval rating and an 11-point jump in Americans' opinion of his handling of terrorism and homeland security. The poll shows, too, that voters trust Republicans to do a better job than Democrats on the issue. So Democrats will hit hard on Administration "failures" -- such as an Osama Bin Laden still at large, the mess in Iraq and the tinderbox that is the Middle East. They'll focus on poll results that indicate that on handling almost every other important issue but terrorism -- Iraq, health care and the economy, Americans trust Democrats to do a better job than Republicans. According to Newsweek, the "only non-security issue where the GOP comes close is immigration," where public opinion is split. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: GUEST,Woody Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:35 PM http://www.gg2.net/viewnews.asp?nid=3369&tid=countryNews&catid=UK%20News George Bush's rating on homeland security up sharply: poll GG2.NET NEWS [14/08/2006] News : Popular Popular CONFIDENCE in President George W Bush`s handling of domestic security rose sharply in the wake of the British foiling of a plot to blow up aircraft, according to a new poll by a leading magazine on Sunday. Fifty-five percent of people surveyed on Thursday and Friday - coinciding with the news that Britain had arrested two dozen people who had allegedly plotted to blow up several US-bound aircraft - said they trusted Bush`s handling of homeland security, the magazine said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:07 PM Bush facing a new slide Posted by Mark Silva at 1:45 pm CDT, updated at 3:05 pm CDT http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/08/bush_facing_a_n.html The most pressing political question about President Bush these days – will he be an "asset'' for congressional candidates on the campaign trail, or "an albatross around the neck of any Republican'' – finds a new answer in a poll conducted this week by The Associated Press and Ipsos Public Affairs. Pollsters don't use words like asset – the White House's word for the president's role in the fall campaigns – or albatross – the description that a Democratic operative offered recently. But the pollsters do ask voters if their congressional vote this fall will be, in part, an expression of opposition to the president. And the share of voters saying yes has jumped from 20 percent last month to 29 percent in this week's AP/Ipsos survey – "driven,'' the AP reports today, by double-digit increases among males, minorities, moderate and conservative Democrats and Northeasterners. The president still has the power to raise money within his party, like the $500,000 that Bush raised for Republican candidate John Gard in the 8th Congressional District of Wisconsin this week. And the $750,000 that he raised for the Republican National Committee today at the Broken Spoke Ranch in Texas, where Bush welcomed about 350 supporters who already had each raised at least $15,000 for the party. It's an annual rite of thanks for big fundraisers. This marked his last planned outing from his own ranch before he returns to Washington this weekend. But his power at the polls is another question, and the AP/Ipsos poll suggests that power is waning. The AP survey also found that Bush's overall job approval has fallen to 33 percent, returning to a low-point that he reached in May. The latest Gallup Poll on this question still has Bush's job approval at 40 percent, up from the 31-percent low that Gallup found in May. But a new Gallup will be out soon. The president's handling of nearly every issue – from the war in Iraq to foreign policy in general – has contributed to the newest decline, "even in the Republican-friendly South,'' the AP notes. ....Hmmmmmmm.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:59 PM New Poll Shows Most Americans Want Democrat For Congress by Joe Gandelman A new Wall Street Journal poll shows growing support for Democratic Congressional candidates: A new poll shows an uptick in support for a Democratic candidate in the next Congressional elections. When asked whom they would vote for "if elections for Congress were held today," 45% of U.S. adults said they would vote for the Democratic candidate and 30% would vote for the Republican, the Harris Interactive poll shows. In a similar poll in April, 41% supported a Democratic candidate for Congress and 37% supported a Republican. http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1155505512.shtml By Donna Cassata, Associated Press Writer | August 11, 2006 WASHINGTON --Republicans determined to win in November are up against a troublesome trend -- growing opposition to President Bush. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted this week found the president's approval rating has dropped to 33 percent, matching his low in May. His handling of nearly every issue, from the Iraq war to foreign policy, contributed to the president's decline around the nation, even in the Republican-friendly South. More sobering for the GOP are the number of voters who backed Bush in 2004 who are ready to vote Democratic in the fall's congressional elections -- 19 percent. These one-time Bush voters are more likely to be female, self-described moderates, low- to middle-income and from the Northeast and Midwest. Two years after giving the Republican president another term, more than half of these voters -- 57 percent -- disapprove of the job Bush is doing http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/08/11/poll_bush_may_be_hurting_republicans/?p1=MEWell_Pos4 From Political Wire: Harris Interactive Poll: If elections for Congress were held today, 45% of Americans say they would vote for the Democratic candidate and 30% would vote for the Republican. Women favor the Democratic candidate by a 50% to 28% margin. President Bush's approval rating is just 34%. Newsweek poll: "Right now 53 percent of Americans would like to see the Democrats win control of Congress, compared to just 34 percent who want the Republicans to retain control." President Bush's approval rating is 38% in this poll. http://donklephant.com/2006/08/13/ahhhthe-polls/ Say, Woody, what paper d'ye read? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: GUEST,Woody Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:33 AM Bush rating up sharply: poll Published: Monday, 14 August, 2006, 01:14 PM Doha Time WASHINGTON: Confidence in President George W Bush's handling of domestic security rose sharply in the wake of the British foiling of a plot to blow up aircraft, a new poll by Newsweek showed yesterday. Fifty-five percent of people surveyed on Thursday and Friday – coinciding with the news that Britain had arrested two dozen people who had allegedly plotted to blow up several US-bound aircraft – said they trusted Bush's handling of homeland security, Newsweek said. That was a jump from 44% in Newsweek's May poll. http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=102450&version=1&template_id=43&parent_id=19 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 13 Aug 06 - 11:15 AM From the New Jersey Courier-Post: Saturday, August 12, 2006 Re: "Congress sends stem cell bill to veto-wielding Bush" (C-P, July 19). President Bush has no problem sending U.S. troops to Iraq, where more than 2,500 have died and thousands have been injured. That's not counting innocent civilians. It was obvious the congressional vote to override Bush's veto on funding was orchestrated to come up short of the votes needed. Bush had a hand-picked audience to give him a standing ovation when he vetoed the bill. The man is a blight on our country and should be impeached. His disregard for the Constitution should be enough grounds. They had a lot less on President Clinton, but the Republicans pushed for impeachment. Where are all those law-and-order officials now? BOB PARR Pennsauken |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 12 Aug 06 - 04:42 PM David Swanson writes: ...nd I heard two familiar lies escape Bush's lips yesterday, when he said our enemy was Islamic fascists, and when he said Americans are safer now than before 9-11. The origin of our danger lies not in the murderous intentions of a small number of Muslims, but in the massive crimes of the gang of thugs pushing our country in a fascist direction. And we are decidedly less safe with each passing year, our nation is more hated, terrorist incidents are more frequent. Polls suggest that most of the U.S. troops in Iraq want to come home, but Bush says we should support the war to support the troops. Meanwhile it is the military holding the chickenhawks back from putting nuclear options on the table. Bush is using our troops for his power and profit. I've seen veterans for war make a point of pride out of being used. I recently spoke on a panel in San Diego and mentioned that Suzanne Swift had been lied to by recruiters. Paul Hackett was on the panel and said "You know, that's life." Actually that's death for some of the young men and women who have been lied to and sent to Iraq. I'll tell you what's life. Life is doing what Ricky Cousing is doing, what Lt. Watada is doing, what everyone must summon the courage to do. And life is impeachment. This war cannot be ended except by removing Bush and Cheney from office. So, we need to keep passing impeachment resolutions in towns and cities and pushing for passage of one in a state legislature. And we need to push impeachment if we are going to win. Beginning August this month. We do not need to choose between impeachment and elections; we need to promote impeachment if we are going to win any elections. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 11 Aug 06 - 09:08 PM From the Amador, CA Ledger-Dispatch Abuse of power? Friday, August 11, 2006 - Billie Shields, Railroad Flat As American citizens we are in a state of sloth. We accept breaches of the Constitution without raising an eye. As an American citizen it is our duty to defend our constitution and what it stands for. We didn't elect a king or dictator, but a president who should be held accountable for his actions. If we don't uphold the rights that each of us has as a citizen and if we don't keep the balance of power, then we will lose the rights and freedoms that have been fought for, for the last 300 years. It's not a matter of Democrat or Republican, it's a matter of preserving our country and what it stands for at its highest level. When Richard Nixon abused power, Congress held a serious, bi-partisan investigation that resulted in articles of impeachment. Strong evidence suggests that George Bush and Dick Cheney launched an illegal war and lied to Congress, spied on Americans without court approval, leaked classified information, produced phony news reports, imprisoned without charge and tortured targeted civilians and used illegal weapons. Ask your Congress member to co-sponsor House Resolution 635 for an investigation. Billie Shields Rail Road Flat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Old Guy Date: 11 Aug 06 - 10:25 AM The Prez is less trustworthy than Bankers but more trustworthy than the Media. Harris Poll August 8, 2006 WHO WOULD YOU GENERALLY TRUST? "Would you generally trust each of the following types of people to tell the truth, or not?" .......................Would..Would Not..Not Sure .......................Trust....Trust....Refused .........................%........%.........% Doctors.................85.......12.........3 Teachers................83.......15.........2 Scientists..............77.......19.........4 Police officers.........76.......21.........3 Professors..............75.......19.........6 Clergymen or priests....74.......22.........4 Military officers.......72.......26.........3 Judges..................70.......24.........5 Accountants.............68.......28.........3 Ordinary man or woman...66.......26.........8 Civil servants..........62.......32.........6 Bankers.................62.......34.........3 The President...........48.......47.........4 TV newscasters..........44.......51.........5 Athletes................43.......47........10 Journalists.............39.......58.........3 Members of Congress.....35.......63.........3 Pollsters...............34.......54........12 Trade union leaders.....30.......60........10 Stockbrokers............29.......63.........8 Lawyers.................27.......68.........5 Actors..................26.......69.........5 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:48 PM Excerpted from "The Ether Zone A CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT I PRAY IT'S NOT TOO LATE By: Norma Sherry Impeachment is a serious indictment. In our recent history, President Richard M. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached for lying, covering up and ordering very un-presidential orders. It was a very sad day and for many of us it was the end of our idealism and trust. Then, there was the act of impeachment of President William H. Clinton, in which he was later acquitted because his crimes did not rise to the level of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" as required by our Constitution. However, he was caught lying and covering up about a distasteful and unprofessional presidential act in and around his desk in the oval office. Two presidents, two vastly different extremes, but both were caught and both were duly chastised. One was removed from office; the other remained, but his presidency was forever stained. Today, we have a president, George W. Bush, who has lied to the American people, caused an unnecessary war and in so doing has disrupted, ruined, and killed many American service men and women. He has single-handedly destroyed our reputation around the world, grown our national debt to an astonishing figure that none of us will see repaid in our lifetimes, and he has, by his actions, killed, maimed, and destroyed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children. He has, by his negligence and disdain for the clear and evident science, altered our ability to save our planet from the ravages of global warming. He has undermined and destroyed our natural resources by his wanton neglect and insistence that he alone is the 'decider'. He has allowed his oil rich cronies hold us hostage to obscene fuel increases while they fill their coffers with even more obscene financial gains. Perhaps even more awful is his following in his father?s footsteps in allowing and standing silent as we continue to build, sell, and drop munitions with depleted uranium, which will forever alter all who eat, breathe, or drink in its remains. He has destroyed our Constitution and Bill Rights; ignored the Geneva Convention perpetrating and blessing torture and unlawful imprisonment. He's allowed spying on American citizens with illegal wiretaps. What does it take folks to get your ire up? It boggles the mind that with all the evidence that this president should be impeached that in fact, he has remained above the fray. How is it possible? Are political lines so vital that we as citizens are less concerned for correcting wrongs and punishing wrong-doers than we are for supporting our political party? We weren't always so blindsided. Certainly, when President Clinton was brought up on charges, even his most strident supporters did not defend the indefensible. Compared with the crimes perpetrated upon this nation by this sitting president and past criminal actions by past presidents it is unconscionable that 40% of American citizens still stand by and support President George W. Bush. I ask again, how is it possible? We are living in tenuous times. Some even believe the end times. But then again, storytellers of biblical prophecy have always warned of impending doom. But one doesn't have to consult the Bible to see the world around us is in serious trouble: sadly, much of which is imposed upon the populace by the few and mighty. Pollution threatens our ability to breathe fresh, clean air. Global Warming is real and a very serious problem. Warmongers bully and hold nuclear weapons in the balance. The Middle East is in crisis. Starvation, torture, murder, destruction of the human race is happening every day in Somalia and Darfur. Disease and lack of vital nutrition and drinkable water threaten the lives of millions around the world. Here at home are homeless families living in cars without gasoline, food banks unable to feed all the hungry, abused children, beaten down and downtrodden parents no longer able to meet the demands of keeping their families safe and healthy. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 10 Aug 06 - 08:52 PM WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible criminal charges for authorizing any humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal. The move by the administration is the latest effort to deal with treatment of those taken into custody in the war on terror. At issue are interrogations carried out by the CIA, and the degree to which harsh tactics such as water-boarding were authorized by administration officials. A separate law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, applies to the military. The Washington Post first reported on the War Crimes Act amendments Wednesday. One section of the draft would outlaw torture and inhuman or cruel treatment, but it does not contain prohibitions from Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions against "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." A copy of the section of the draft was obtained by The Associated Press. Another section would apply the legislation retroactively, according to two lawyers who have seen the contents of the section and who spoke on condition of anonymity because their sources did not authorize them to release the information. One of the two attorneys said the draft is in the revision stage, but that the administration seems intent on pushing forward the draft's major points in Congress after Labor Day. "I think what this bill can do is in effect immunize past crimes. That's why it's so dangerous," said a third attorney, Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice. Fidell said the initiative is "not just protection of political appointees, but also CIA personnel who led interrogations." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:24 AM "Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer." John F. Kennedy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Old Guy Date: 10 Aug 06 - 08:56 AM Half of Americans Still Believe In WMDs - They Saw Them on TV Center for Media and Democracy August 9, 2006 A recent Harris Poll reports found that while "the U.S. and other countries have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, surprisingly more U.S. adults (50%) think that Iraq had such weapons when the U.S. invaded Iraq. This is an increase from 36 percent in February 2005." http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25622&l=i&size=1&hd=0 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 10 Aug 06 - 02:49 AM Ellison calls for Watergate-style hearings on Bush administration Last update: August 10, 2006 – 12:01 AM Minneapolis Star Tribune Rep. Keith Ellison called Wednesday for Watergate-like congressional hearings into what he called the expansion of executive authority by the administration of President Bush. The Minneapolis DFLer made the announcement on the 32nd anniversary of the resignation of President Richard Nixon. "They had a Congress that was willing to ask the hard questions and hold the executive responsible," he said. Ellison called "unacceptable" an expansion of the executive branch's power during the Bush presidency. He stopped short of calling for impeachment, saying a body of evidence first must be accumulated through hearings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: GUEST,Mr Snerdly Date: 08 Aug 06 - 08:42 PM Bush Eats Baby, Republicans Defend President WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Republicans across the nation are scrambling to defend President George W. Bush after he ate a baby during a visit to the White House kitchen early last evening. Eye witnesses report that the president left the White House residence at around 8:05 p.m. eastern time wearing what appeared to be a crudely stitched "woman suit made from actual women". He then entered the White House kitchen where he ate a baby with a side order of "a Cobb Salad containing raw puppy heads". "I'm a baby eater. An eater of babies," the president told reporters this morning in the Rose Garden. "That's my job. My job is to tell the American people what I eat. And I eat babies and puppies while wearing suits of women. At least you know where I stand." The presidential "Suit of Women" has been confirmed as having been fashioned from obese D.C. area residents who were coaxed into a nondescript van driven by Bush and his senior political advisor Karl Rove. The women were forced to, "Put the lotion on their skin or else they get the hose again," says an anonymous White House source. The skins of the women were then harvested and sewn together into a costume which, when worn, makes the president appear to be an actual woman. Photographs of the suit, which is allegedly flattering to the president's groin region, have yet to be released to the public. Officials have not yet confirmed the identities of the women or the baby, but it has been confirmed that the president dropped the two-week-old child into a blender, set the device for "liquefy", then drank it down in only a few short gulps. He then decapitated several puppies, dropped them into a bed of lettuce and, "Scarfed it down like a Viking," said a White House kitchen employee. REPUBLICANS DEFEND AND SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT "Our goal isn't to play the blame game during an on-going investigation because the investigation is going on in an on-going kind of way indicative of an investigation," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters. "There's a time for that and that time isn't now." Republicans, however, are already calling for an investigation into the "inaction" of the White House kitchen staff for allowing this to happen. "I'm not going to engage in the blame game. That baby was stupid for not running away and calling 911 for assistance," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX). "And I've seen the president's woman suit up close and I can tell you, it's better than mine. Never-the-less, the kitchen staff should be held accountable for letting this happen on their turf." "I'm not going to engage in the blame game. That baby was stupid for not running away and calling 911 for assistance," said Republican Senator Trent Lott. "And I've seen the president's woman suit up close and I can tell you, it's better than mine. Never-the-less, the kitchen staff should be held accountable for letting this happen on their turf." "I'm not going to engage in the blame game. That baby was stupid for not running away and calling 911 for assistance," said conservative Fox News host Sean Hannity. "And I've seen the president's woman suit up close and I can tell you, it's better than mine. Never-the-less, the kitchen staff should be held accountable for letting this happen on their turf." "That baby was stupid for not running away and calling 911 for assistance," said formerly unknown conservative talk radio host Studs Pepperoni. "And I've seen the president's woman suit up close and I can tell you, it's better than mine. Never-the-less, the kitchen staff should be held accountable for letting this happen on their turf." "Those women should be penalized for allowing themselves to get so fat and thus ripening themselves for skin harvesting," Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) commented on a Pennsylvania cable access show. Santorum had no comment on the puppies. Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh blamed former president Bill Clinton, "Folks, the eees-syooo here has nothing to do with babies or women or blenders or puppies. This has everything to do with Bill Clinton -- you know something folks -- Snerdly is telling me to cut it, but -- ummmm -- the nigg -- you know, I mean babies -- Clinton had eight years to stop babies from being ingested." BLOGOSPHERE REACTION While progressive bloggers are calling for the immediate arrest and impeachment of the president, denizens of the right-wing blogosphere immediately weighed in with their thoughts on the presidential crisis. "Whiny libs are fags." -GOPawesome420. "Shut up traitors attaking the prez is just showig your faggy lib colors." -Dittofan56. "You lost, we won, get over it you whiny homos." -Nospinguy57. BUSH FAMILY REACTION The president's mother, Barbara Bush told reporters during a visit to Texas, "Those puppies were going to be used as fishing bait anyway, they're much better off now. BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHA! HA!" "It hurts me to the core that the liberal elite have begun to attack my boy," former president George H. W. Bush said Friday. "I know my boy and he's a compassionate, caring person. He could've eaten the baby alive, but he took the care to blend it up first. Round and round doing that thing a blender does down there." LIKE A MERRY-GO-ROUND Congressman Tom DeLay added this morning, "I bet the baby thought it was an amusement park ride. The blender must've been like a merry-go-round then the president's throat was like a fun water slide." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 08 Aug 06 - 06:40 PM The minority staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Congressman John Conyers (D., Mich.) has released an in depth report on the crimes attributable to the Bushwah League. One reviewer says: "Day of reckoning is coming Submitted by deepseas on Tue, 2006-08-08 17:16. This report is invaluable, and will make the case against these crooks much smoother when the day of reckoning arrives. Make no mistake in thinking BushCo will get off for their crimes. It may not be as soon as we'd like - it may even take years to happen. But happen it will because the American people won't stand to see them get away with this once the majority realize how their country and respect was stolen right under their noses. Many conservative Republicans are trying to distance themselves from these rogues. When the ship sinks, they don't want to go down with it, or even be associated with the disaster created from the neocons' greed. Folks like Richie "Right Wing Kook" Rich will soon discover that: "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." – Dwight Eisenhower, 34th US president This is not about who wins; it's about what is humane and right." See http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/constitutionincrisis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:40 PM One other little excerpt from the above: "On the war, Conyers argues that the Bush administration's case for war, its decision to go to war, and its conduct of the war have been, in essence, an exercise in criminal fraud. The report lists four laws which Conyers says the president violated in the run-up to the war: Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. 371) Making False Statements to Congress (18 U.S.C. 1001) War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148) Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. 1301) On the question of committing a fraud against the United States, Conyers argues that President Bush, intent on "avenging [his] father and working with the neo-cons," made the decision to go to war in Iraq before asking Congress for the authority to do so. That is the heart of the alleged fraud; every act that followed, Conyers writes, was part of the crime — even if those actions do not, at first glance, appear to be criminal acts. "'Defrauding the government' has been defined quite broadly and does not need an underlying criminal offense and alone subjects the offender to prosecution," Conyers writes in a legal analysis section. "While this statute is similar to obstructing or lying to Congress…it is broader. It covers acts that may not technically be lying or communications that are not formally before Congress." Besides the alleged fraud, Conyers also contends that the administration's preparations for war — the moving of military equipment and personnel to the Gulf region — violated at least two other laws. "Our investigation has found that there is evidence the Bush Administration redeployed military assets in the immediate vicinity of Iraq and conducted bombing raids on Iraq in 2002 in possible violation of the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, and laws prohibiting the Misuse of Government Funds, 31 U.S.C. 1301," he writes. And key elements of the president's case for war, Conyers says, violated yet another statute. "We have found that President Bush and members of his administration made numerous false statements that Iraq had sought to acquire enriched uranium from Niger," the report continues. "In particular, President Bush's statements and certifications before and to Congress may constitute Making a False Statement to Congress in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:31 PM The Democrats' Impeachment Road Map It's finished, ready to go — and waiting for November. By Byron York There's a word you won't find in the text of Democratic Rep. John Conyers's new "investigative report" on the Bush administration, "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance." And the word is…impeachment. Yet the 350-page "Constitution in Crisis," released last week, is, more than anything else, a detailed road map for the impeachment of George W. Bush, ready for use should Democrats win control of the House of Representatives this November. And Conyers, who would become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee — the panel that would initiate any impeachment proceedings — is the man who could make it happen. While it's absent in the body of the report, the I-word does appear a few times in Conyers's 1,401 footnotes, which include citations of authorities ranging from the left-wing conspiracy website rawstory.com to the left-wing antiwar sites democracyrising.us and afterdowningstreet.org to the left-wing British newspaper the Guardian to the left-wing magazines The Nation and Mother Jones to the left-wing blogosphere favorite Murray Waas to the New York Times columnists Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, and Frank Rich to former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal to the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh. (Sources for "The Constitution in Crisis" even include one story co-written by the disgraced Internet writer Jason Leopold.) Relying on such material, Conyers has created what might be called the definitive left-wing blogger's history of the Bush administration. "I would like to thank the 'blogosphere' for its myriad and invaluable contributions to me and my staff," Conyers writes in the report's introduction. "Absent the assistance of 'blogs' and other Internet-based media, it would have been impossible to assemble all of the information, sources and other materials necessary to the preparation of this report." But Conyers's report is more than the world's longest blog post. Far more seriously, it is the foundation for possible articles of impeachment, detailing charge after charge against the president. "Approximately 26 laws and regulations may have been violated by this administration's misconduct," Conyers wrote Friday in a message posted simultaneously on the DailyKos and Huffington Post websites. "The report…compiles the accumulated evidence that the Bush administration has thumbed its nose at our nation's laws, and the Constitution itself." Excerpted from National Review Online A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 06 Aug 06 - 05:59 PM ush violating Constitution Martin H. Berman Boca Raton Posted August 6 2006 E-mail story Print story Most e-mailed News on your cell RSS news feeds MOST E-MAILED (last 24 hours) 1. State failures leave policyholders without a net 2. Hurricane aid up for grabs. Interested? 3. Minorities become a majority in Broward 4. Online markets offer textbooks at good prices 5. Mobile home park residents face option of buying land or moving away See the complete list ... Subscribe today to the Sun-Sentinel and find out how to get one week extra! Click here or call 1-877-READ-SUN. LocalLinks Not long after George W. Bush was sworn in as the president, action was taken by him that led me to write my first letter about his presidency. In it, I stated that he had declared war against the world. Treaties the United States had entered into under previous administrations were abrogated. Laws passed by the Congress and signed into law by him were not enforced. He destroyed the largest surplus of money we had by giving tax reductions to the wealthiest people and corporations in the nation and at the same time raised the national debt limit three times in order to run the government. Now, six years into his administration, a group of people -- conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats and independents -- has determined that he is violating the Constitution. He has had the telephones of American citizens tapped without a court order. He has gone into the records of Internet companies, telephone companies and banks, violating the privacy of many. His "bring 'em on" attitude coupled with his disdain of Old Europe split our nation from those nations he is now trying to cuddle up to. His insulting behavior toward the United Nations has come back to haunt us and now he needs the United Nations, Old Europe and those other nations in the Middle East to assist his administration in escaping the quagmire of Iraq that he so willingly rushed into. It is time Congress began impeachment procedures against him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 04 Aug 06 - 11:28 PM Seriously Amos, You better check this out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 06 - 09:22 AM By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian Posted August 4, 2006 BRATTLEBORO — From veterans to grandmothers, more than 50 activists representing some 100 organizations in five states turned out for a Vermont meeting unified by a single goal: a quick and concrete plan to end the war. And if it takes impeachment to get there, they said at a follow-up rally on the Brattleboro town commons, then so be it. "It's time to move this to a higher level of national consciousness," said organizer Dan DeWalt, a Newfane selectman and the activist behind the impeachment town meeting resolutions that passed in seven Vermont communities earlier this year. Participants at the July 30 meeting said that although they didn't agree on every point, there was unanimous support of a "Declaration of Peace" now circulating throughout the country and planned to culminate in a week of grassroots activism and nonviolent civil disobedience in Washington starting Sept. 21 if a hard deadline for withdrawal is not met. (See sidebar). The declaration, already endorsed by nearly 200 individual U.S. peace groups including United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of 1,400 organizations, "is a pledge to take nonviolent steps for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops — and to engage in peaceful protest if a comprehensive, concrete and rapid plan for an end to the U.S. war in Iraq is not established and begun by Sept. 21, 2006, just days before Congress adjourns for the fall elections," according to the website http://declarationofpeace.org. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 06 - 03:03 AM From Litchfield, CY County Times: Petition on Impeachment Not Quietly Going Away By: Rebecca Ransom 08/03/2006 Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly WASHINGTON-A group of activists is going back to the Board of Selectmen this month to re-petition for a special town meeting on adopting a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush. Members of the informal group are currently in the process of collecting signatures on a second petition seeking a session that could put the town on record as the first municipality in the state asking that the appropriate elected officials begin an impeachment process. In June, selectmen denied the petitioners' request 2 to 1 on the grounds that the meeting being sought would be "improper," largely because municipalities have no formal role in national issues. Republican Mark Lyon and Democrat Nicholas Solley voted against the request. Democratic First Selectman Dick Sears was in favor of allowing the town meeting. "We will give [the Board of Selectmen] reasons why this is proper ... why this is important for the town," said petitioner Ken Cornet. In seeking the meeting, the petitioners claim the president should be impeached on the grounds that he has "subverted the Constitution," illegally spied on American civilians, "conspired to commit the torture of prisoners" and "formally declared his intent to violate the laws enacted by Congress by appending a signing statement to legislation that asserts his right to carve out exceptions to legislation as he sees fit." In challenging the selectmen's reasons for denying the first petition, Mr. Cornet noted that in the 1980s many towns across the country, including Washington, passed resolutions declaring the municipalities "nuclear free zones." "There have already been resolutions on national events. It has already happened. It is already precedent," he said. At a meeting in July, Mr. Sears suggested a compromise to the petitioners and officials-to call a special Board of Selectmen meeting instead of a town meeting. At that session, Mr. Sears said, the audience could debate the topic and vote on "a motion that the citizens present at the meeting endorse the goals in the petition presented." Mr. Sears said he borrowed this model from the towns of Cornwall and Salisbury, which held similar meetings to debate the war in Iraq. According to Mr. Cornet, the group is choosing not to pursue that option at this time. "The whole point is that we want it to be official. Otherwise, if we just have a discussion, those who don't care won't come out and it's my personal feeling that people have to get involved in what's going on. ... . The last few weeks are evidence that we cannot just let politicians go off and do what they want," he said, referring to the violence in Israel and Lebanon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 02 Aug 06 - 06:16 PM Doug: No, I am not. But I have a strong interest in seeing criminals brought to justice, especially when they are posing as leaders. I contribute to this thread things on its topic that are written by others. It may disturb you that there is so much talk out there; maybe there is some merit to it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: DougR Date: 02 Aug 06 - 04:22 PM Hmmm. If I didn't know better, I might come to the conclusion (after reviewing the contributors to this thread) that Amos is a bit obsessed. DougR |
