BS: A Declaration of Impeachment

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 05 May 07 - 12:06 PM

Murtha: No Impeachment at this Time
by mcjoan Mon Apr 30, 2007

Greg Sargent chases down and puts to rest the "Murtha is for impeachment!" story by doing, gasp, reporting. He called Murtha's office and spoke with his spokesman, Matt Mazonkey. Here's what Mazonkey said:

    "The Congressman was asked about the ways to influence a President. He did list impeachment as one of four ways. He listed public opinion, the election, impeachment, and the power of the purse. But he doesn't believe that impeachment is appropriate at this time."

We had an election, public opinion has already turned against the president, impeachment at this point in time is a pipe dream. For Congressional leadership right now the focus is, as it should rightly be, ending this war before the 2008 election.

What it is time for, in dealing with Iraq, is to talk about the power of the purse. Murtha is absolutely right to include in the ways in which we can influence the President. It, or the threat of it, is likely the only way we're going to be able to influence the President into getting us out of Iraq.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/30/203415/925

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 05 May 07 - 12:13 PM

This family has been too lucky for too long.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8795795223394289910

The 1st famiy's role models were not impeached they were killed or they commited suicide.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 07 - 12:18 PM

"However, on Sunday, April 29, California delegates and state party members sent a powerful message to Pelosi and Congressional Democrats. "In a resolution affirmed by the full state party convention Sunday, the Democrats called on the U.S. Congress to use its subpoena power to investigate misdeeds of President Bush and Vice President Cheney – and to hold the Administration accountable 'with appropriate remedies and punishment, including impeachment,'" a letter to Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) members obtained by RAW STORY states.


The letter continues, "The delegate insurgency was coordinated by Progressive Democrats of America and its allies. While Speaker Pelosi had declared impeachment 'off the table,' the Democratic Party rank-and-file has demonstrated its commitment to putting the issue 'on' the table. And it's no longer just the rank-and-file: Even among the members of the convention's Resolutions Committee (appointed by the California Party chair), the impeachment resolution was the top vote-getter (tied with one other resolution)." (Read the full resolution text here)

Protesters inside and outside the convention also sent a message to Presidential aspirants and Speaker Pelosi. An estimated 200 impeachment supporters lined both sides of the street outside the convention center on Saturday in anticipation of Pelosi's arrival. Demonstrators were barred from entering the building, but PDA members inside posted prominent impeachment banners and wore bright orange shirts urging impeachment."

From here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 May 07 - 12:54 PM

Dale Rae Kjonaas, Detroit Lakes, Minn. letter: Enough! Impeach Bush and Cheney
The Forum
Published Sunday, May 06, 2007

"The illegal acts of President Bush and Vice President Cheney warrant a hearing at least, and impeachment needs to happen as soon as possible. Is lying to the American people and Congress an impeachable offense? How about unwarranted searches and seizures? American citizens held incommunicado? Spying on American citizens? Torture? When will we decide enough is enough?

I support the troops. I say, "bring them home now."

President Bush has exploited the presidency, using the media (shame to them) to feed the public lies, deceptions and cover ups. Surely, we can use our resources wisely and tackle the problems we have in this country rather than trying to resolve Middle East conflicts that have been going on for a thousand years."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 07 May 07 - 12:37 AM

The media maggots, tool of the impeachment crowd:

"I have drafted a law that says we must get troops out of Iraq in 60 days," he said. "Leave all the equipment behind…The President must certify that he took troops out. If he violates this law he should go to jail for five years with no parole, and pay a $1 million fine. It says so right in the law."

He believes he could muster enough support in the House to pass the bill. If the Senate filibusters, he would urge Reid to call for a cloture vote daily. "The media will feed on this like maggots," said Gravel, who predicts the measure would pass and that a veto could ultimately be overridden. If the President and Vice President then refuse to enact the law, he concluded, "once you have them breaking the law, now you impeach."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Democratic_Senator_Impeachment_sucks_all_of_0501.html

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 07 - 01:00 AM

Stick to Fox and Rush, Dickey. They are more your style -- more on the vulture side of tje family than the maggot sode.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 07 May 07 - 12:37 PM

Stay on the side of the maggots Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 07 - 01:56 PM

Sure thing, you betcha, Dickey, yep!!

What you don't get is thatwhen you pose straw-man, hollow windbag characterizatios of the whole media induastry, you don't really make the industry look bad. Rather, you shoot yourself in the foot and damage your own credibility.


In other news:

"Published: Monday, May 7, 2007
The Associated Press

HARTLAND — No fan of a movement to impeach President Bush, U.S. Rep. Peter Welch plans to hold a town hall forum on the topic anyway.

"I'm glad to listen to Vermonters," said Welch, D-Vt. "Let whoever wants to come and talk about it."

His comments came after a tense 45-minute meeting Saturday with activists involved in the Vermont movement to impeach Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Welch, a vocal critic of the war in Iraq who joined Congress in January, said he plans to deliver a speech on the House floor about his constituents' support for impeachment. But he believes impeachment — which was endorsed by the state Senate last month — would prolong the war.

"I intend to make a statement on the House floor expressing the grass roots activity of Vermonters, the actions taken by 40 towns in expression of their frustration with the administration, and speak about the actions Vermont wants to restore democratic principles in our country," he said.

Welch's position upset pro-impeachment advocates Dan DeWalt of Newfane, Liza Earle of Richmond, James Leas of South Burlington and Adrienne Kinne of Sharon.

Earle said she was "frustrated that he won't answer the question about whether they committed impeachable offenses. Of course he can't say that because it puts him in a box, and anyone who says that statement would be obligated to pursue it."

---

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 08 May 07 - 10:31 AM

"you pose straw-man, hollow windbag characterizatios of the whole media induastry"

One of your impeachment mongers made that charactarization, not I.

You rhetoric is applicable to them.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 07 - 10:59 AM

The opening line of yourpost said "The media maggots, tool of the impeachment crowd:"...followed by a quote. Was that line not yours? I do apologize if I misinterpreted it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 07 - 12:08 PM

MPEACH plate won't be recalled by DMV
By Kevin Woster, Journal staff
Heather Morijah will get to keep her "MPEACHW" license plates after all.


State officials reversed their position on Monday, rescinding a recall notice of Morijah's personalized license plates, which encourage the impeachment of President Bush. The state Division of Motor Vehicles sent Morijah a letter last month saying the plates were being recalled because someone had complained about the message.

DMV director Deb Hillmer told the Journal in an interview Thursday that if Morijah didn't turn in the plates voluntarily, the state might send law officers to confiscate them.

But in a brief news release issued Monday, the secretary of the South Dakota Department of Revenue and Regulation — which includes the DMV — said Morijah could keep the plate.

"After reviewing case law on this issue, we have determined that the plate will not be recalled," secretary Paul Kinsman said.

Morijah said she got a personal call from Hillmer on Monday morning announcing the decision before the news release came out. After a flurry of media interviews late last week that prompted messages of support from across the nation, Morijah said the state's change of heart on Monday was "almost like an anti-climax."

But it was a joyful one, she said.

"I'm glad the state did the right thing. And I feel truly that they did the right thing," Morijah said. "This whole experience has been one of the most significant of my entire life. And I will never forget it as long as I live."

Kinsman responded to a Journal request for additional comments Monday afternoon with an e-mail that said a Missouri case dealing with a personalized license plate was important to the decision to drop the recall of Morijah's plate.

In that case, a woman won the right to keep a personalized license plate that read "ARYAN-1" and attorney's fees. She overcame both the Missouri Department of Revenue and the state Legislature there with a legal challenge that resulted in a June 12, 2001, unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

U.S. District Judge Richard Battey of Rapid City, a judge within the 8th circuit, was designated to sit in on that case in place of a regular member.

Rapid City lawyer Patrick Duffy said South Dakota officials would have smashed into the legal precedent of the Missouri case if they had continued the recall move on Morijah's plates. He said it was obvious that the South Dakota DMV hadn't done its legal research before sending the recall letter to Morijah.

"Certainly, nobody outside of the DMV bureaucracy looked at it before that decision was made," Duffy said. "What a foolish thing for a bureaucrat to have done. Thank God, the First Amendment lives. It makes me feel good about being a South Dakotan."

Not everyone felt so good about the decision, however. Burton Robinson of Rapid City contacted the Journal by e-mail Friday to support the recall and criticize Morijah. Informed of the state's reversal on Monday, Robinson said he was "very disappointed." Morijah's license-plate message is inappropriate and disrespectful to the president, Robinson said.

"I think they should take it away from her," he said. "If she's so dissatisfied, why doesn't she move somewhere else," outside the United States.

Morijah is a Pennsylvania native who plans to move back to her home state this summer. She has been working as the conservation organizer for the West River Office of the Sierra Club in Rapid City. She purchased the personalized plate late last summer for her 2005 Toyota Prius, and said she received mostly positive comments about the message.

A story in Friday's Journal, which was also posted the night before on the paper's Web site, prompted a barrage of calls and e-mails to Morijah from across the nation, she said.

"The phone calls started at 7 a.m. Friday morning," she said. "My office phone, my cell phone and my home phone pretty much rang off the hook Friday."

Although one caller suggested that her name should be "pariah" instead of Morijah, she said the overwhelming majority were supportive. Morijah said one caller said he would send her $19.84, a reference to the novel "1984" by George Orwell depicting life in a repressive society.

Other people told Morijah that they would apply for their own personalized plate — including MPEACH1, MPEACH2 and MPEACH3. Morijah intends to keep her plates on through her move back to Pennsylvania and until they are no longer valid there.

After that, they'll become keepsakes or maybe bits of merchandise.

"I've had people suggest that I sell them on eBay," she said. "I'm not going to rule that out entirely. But I wouldn't think about it until after I get settled."

Morijah said her experience increased her respect for the American Civil Liberties Union, which contacted the state to oppose the recall. Morijah had contacts with ACLU legal experts in New York, she said.

"I have a new-found respect for the organization and what it does," she said. "They're incredibly supportive and determined to protect our constitutional rights."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 08 May 07 - 05:05 PM

From the wording of the quote, it is obvious the impeachment crowd considers the media a tool and charactarizes them as maggots feeding on impeachment news.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 07 - 05:51 PM

One individual makes a sloppy statement, and you attribute the idea to everyone who desires to impeach Bush -- that's one hell of a multiplication factor, there Dickey. I doubt it is very accurate.

Most of the people I know who are in favor of impeachment are also of the opinion that the Fourth Estate is an honorable profession and a high calling, when ethically pursued. Fox notwithstanding.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 07 - 01:44 AM

Op Ed News reports:

"While hack lamestream news anchors and reporters mock impeachment advocates like Dennis Kucinich as far left wackos, a new poll shows that 39% of responents supported impeachment of Bush AND Cheney, and that 42% of indepents, the people who will decide the next election, support impeachment.


The poll, was reported in an article on townhall, by Matt Towery. He said,
Our InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll asked this:

"Would you favor or oppose the impeachment by Congress of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney?"

Favor: 39 percent.

Oppose: 55 percent.

Undecided/Don't Know: 6 percent.

The survey of 621 registered voters has been weighted for age, race, gender and political affiliation. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

About four out of 10 Americans favor impeaching the president and vice president. But the biggest news from this survey is not the overall results, but the opinions of independent voters, who usually decide presidential elections.

Forty-two percent of independents want Bush and Cheney impeached. These aren't just voters who disapprove of the White House. Instead, they're for initiating a process that could remove them from office."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 07 - 12:27 PM

From Litchfield, Connecticut:

"Impeach the Fool on the Hill
Submitted by Slikweasel on May 8, 2007 - 1:36pm.

Gas is at $3.09 in Litchfield.

I think it is time we remove the Boy King from his throne so he can go back to snorting cocaine and running businesses into the dirt. He was definitely more successful at doing those things than he is at playing in the White House.

I have had enough of this moron. Everything he has done has made life worse for the average American. He has not done one good thing for this country. Yes, I blame this ignoramus for gas being at $3.09. He and his cronies are definitely at the forefront of record petroleum profits.

How stupid are we as people to have elected such an Evil Administration to our nations highest office. It is time to impeach Bush and his administration now. Enough is enough. If we can impeach a president for having oral sex in the oval office, we sure as hell can impeach the entire Bush Administration for treason. Treason against our people, the systematic destruction of the American Dream.

Wake up people. We cannot afford any more Republicans, the Fools are destroying our country."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 10 May 07 - 12:18 AM

The statement was made by former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel.

Gravel: Impeachment 'will come, in due course'

At last week's debate, Democratic Presidential candidates were asked to raise their hands if they would support impeachment. Other than Rep. Dennis Kucinich (who has introduced impeachment papers against Cheney), not a single candidate raised their hand. So RAW STORY decided to find out why.

At the California Democratic Convention in San Diego over the weekend, RAW STORY obtained responses directly from Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CONN), and 2008 candidates New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel, then elicited help from a blogger present to pose the question to Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) did not host a press conference and was not available to the media...."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Democratic_Senator_Impeachment_sucks_all_of_0501.html

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 07 - 12:47 AM

Don't worry about impeachment," Gravel said in a reassuring tone, adding that he has held discussions with House Judiciary Chair John Conyers (D-MI). "That will come, in due course."

Gravel plan could land Bush "behind bars"

Gravel criticized the President as a "lousy and immoral" commander in chief, but also levied criticism at Democrats for only passing a non-binding resolution to end the war. Nor does the former senator believe simply cutting off funds would work. "I filibustered to end funding in the Vietnam War, but it was not successful," he recalled.

Instead, Gravel revealed a novel plan to bring about an end to the Iraq War, impeachment, or possibly both—and perhaps even land the President "behind bars."

"I have drafted a law that says we must get troops out of Iraq in 60 days," he said. "Leave all the equipment behind…The President must certify that he took troops out. If he violates this law he should go to jail for five years with no parole, and pay a $1 million fine. It says so right in the law."

He believes he could muster enough support in the House to pass the bill. If the Senate filibusters, he would urge Reid to call for a cloture vote daily. "The media will feed on this like maggots," said Gravel, who predicts the measure would pass and that a veto could ultimately be overridden. If the President and Vice President then refuse to enact the law, he concluded, "once you have them breaking the law, now you impeach."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 07 - 01:03 AM

"The bankruptcy of the Democratic Party leadership's position in Congress on impeachment was revealed in stark terms yesterday, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she would sue the president in court if he resorted to a signing statement to kill the next version of Congress's Iraq funding bill.

Suing Bush over a signing statement, given the number of Federalist judges that this administration has named to the federal district and appellate courts, and to the US Supreme Court, is not just an exercise in futility; it is a dangerous tactic which could backfire disastrously by leading to a ruling that it's perfectly constitutional for a president to ignore laws passed by the Congress. Does Pelosi really want to risk such a catastrophe?

The only solution is to impeach the president over his signing statements, and there is no need to wait for the next one to take action. Bush has invalidated more than 1200 laws or parts of laws passed by Congress since 2001 using what are called "signing statements."

Republican apologists for the president have noted that other presidents, including Clinton, also issued signing statements, which is true. But they fail to mention that other presidents did not use those signing statements to then ignore or invalidate laws passed by Congress. They merely used them to register their view that a law, or a part of a law, was unconstitutional.

Bush has made a wholly different argument. For the past six years, he has been claiming that because he is commander in chief in a time of war, by which he means the so-called "war" on terror, he has had what he calls "unitary executive" authority. By this he means that legislative and judicial power, as well as executive power, are all in his hands for as long as the threat of terrorism is with us. Since this "war" on terror never really ends, what he is claiming is that separation of powers no longer exists in America. Indeed, the Constitution itself is set aside. The president is a dictator during his term of office, and Congress is just a debating club.

At this point, it should be clear to anyone, including Speaker Pelosi, that the only remedy for this gross abuse of power by the president is impeachment. (Just as an aside: if Pelosi thinks Bush is breaking the law and exceeding his authority by using signing statements to ignore laws passed by Congress, why wouldn't seen use the Congressional remedy for such transgressions: impeachment?) Her resort to the courts implies an almost irrational belief that the system is still functional.)..."

Excerpted from The Atlantic Free Press

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 10 May 07 - 10:03 AM

"The media will feed on this like maggots," said Gravel,

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 07 - 02:13 PM

(Angus Reid Global Scan) - Some adults in the United States believe their president and vice-president should face legal action, according to a poll by InsiderAdvantage. 39 per cent of respondents favour the impeachment by Congress of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, while 55 per cent are opposed.

In the U.S., the federal process for impeachment begins with a vote in the House of Representatives, followed by a trial in the Senate. Only two American presidents—Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998—have been impeached by the lower house. Both Johnson and Clinton were later acquitted by the upper house. In April 1974, Richard Nixon resigned after impeachment hearings had started.

Several Democratic lawmakers—including Michigan congressman John Conyers, California senator Barbara Boxer and Georgia congressman John Lewis—have openly discussed Bush's impeachment, either for not telling the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, or for authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to wiretap the telephone calls and e-mails of Americans suspected of having terrorist ties.

In March 2006, Democratic Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold officially introduced a resolution to censure Bush for the NSA secret domestic electronic surveillance program. In 1834, Andrew Jackson became the only U.S. president to be censured for removing the nation's money from a private bank in defiance of the Senate.

Last month, Democratic Pennsylvania congressman John Murtha said impeachment is "one of the ways Congress has to influence the president."

Polling Data

Would you favour or oppose the impeachment by Congress of U.S. president George W. Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney?

Favour
39%

Oppose
55%

Undecided
6%


http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15689

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 07 - 12:13 PM

"...(S)some of this president's high crimes are self-evident. Take the case of Bush's ordering the National Security Agency to spy on Americans' communications without a warrant. A federal judge has already labeled this violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act a felony. There is no denying this felony occurred, or that Bush is responsible. The only question the House needs to vote on is whether the felony is a "high crime" warranting impeachment.
    The same applies Bush's refusal to enact over 1200 laws or parts of laws duly passed by Congress. Bush doesn't deny that he has usurped the power of the Congress, as laid down in Article I of the Constitution. Rather, he asserts—with no basis in the wording of that document—that as commander in chief in the war on terror, he has the "unitary executive" authority to ignore acts of Congress. Again, there is no need for an "investigation" to establish whether this happened. What Congress must do is decide whether this usurpation of its Constitutional role is an impeachable abuse of power.
    Likewise the president's authorization of kidnap and torture. We know the president okayed torture. We know too, that he used his "unitary executive" claim to refuse to accept a law passed overwhelmingly by the last Congress outlawing torture. Finally, we know the president did not, as required by US and international law, act to halt torture and punish those up the chain of command who oversaw systematic, widespread torture.
    There are many impeachable crimes by this president (and vice president), such as obstruction of justice in the Valeria Plame outing case, conspiracy (or treason) in the Niger "yellowcake" document forgery scandal, conspiracy to engage in election fraud, lying to Congress, criminal negligence in responding to the Katrina disaster, bribery and war profiteering, etc., which would require Judiciary Committee investigations.   
In the meantime, though, Democrats need to step up to their responsibility.
    If this president is not to be impeached, Congress may as well the Constitution to remove the impeachment clause. It will, in that case, have become as much an anachronism as prohibition."

From Op Ed News

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 07 - 06:38 PM

From Buzzflash:

"olls: Americans want Bush Impeached more now than they did Clinton in '99
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Thu, 05/10/2007 - 1:07pm. Analysis
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

A 1999 poll in the midst of Bill Clinton's impeachment trial showed that only 32% of Americans wanted to remove him from office. But a poll this week shows that 39% of Americans want Bush and Cheney to be impeached.

So why is all of Congress - save Rep. Dennis Kucinich - just sitting around when Republicans have already set the impeachment bar so low? In 1999, 79% agreed Clinton had actually committed perjury but a majority of those people still didn't think it was enough to ditch him. By contrast, a poll two months ago found that 54% believe the Bush Administration "deliberately misled the American public" about Iraq, which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Of course, Clinton's approval rate was 67% at the time - more than twice Bush's current 28%. That's because Clinton was making the nation a better place despite his personal failings, as opposed to Bush making the whole world worse. For example, 89% of Americans thought the economy was in good shape in 1999, and today 65% oppose the war in Iraq.

Now that so many more people want Bush to be axed than they did Clinton, Republicans must either stay consistent and impeach Bush or admit they impeached Clinton out of blatant, selfish partisanship (and then resign).

Impeachment shouldn't just be about punishment - that can happen later once Bush and Cheney are safely out of the White House. Impeachment is primarily a last resort to prevent tyrants like Bush from doing further harm. But don't just take our word for it: 58% of Americans "personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over."

Why wait till 2009?

---

Comments from the same page:

Technorati Tags: Analysis Impeachment Bush Clinton
» login or register to post comments | printer friendly version | Send to friend
Impeachment Percent
Submitted by webpatty on Thu, 05/10/2007 - 7:45pm.

As I remember the Clinton impeachment, only the die-hard republicans wanted Clinton impeached. I find it hard to believe only 39% of the US want Bush impeached. It has to be closer to 70%. Bush and his cronies have redefined the words "corrupt" and "inept".

» login or register to post comments
39% is for Bush AND Cheney

Submitted by John Perry on Thu, 05/10/2007 - 8:05pm.
It's the corporate Bush whore MSM's way of softening the blow as much as possible by loading the questions. Other polls have already long since revealed that the majority of Americans would want Bush impeached if it was shown that he lied about Iraq.

It's pretty clear from this 39% number that a lot of people don't realize that the president isn't the only one that can be impeached. That Constitution that George loathes so much says "President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States..."

Can't imagine that the sentiment to impeach Dubya himself has actually decreased over the last couple of years....

Not Your Daddy's Editorial Page:
johnperryonline.com

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 12 May 07 - 12:17 AM

Welch: No impeachment

HARTLAND -- He doesn't agree with them, but he'll listen to their arguments and pass those along to the U.S. House of Representatives.

So said Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., Saturday afternoon, following a tense meeting with impeachment proponents in the basement of Damon Hall in Hartland.

Since the Vermont House and Senate weighed in on impeachment last month, the political hot potato has been tossed to Welch, a first term Congressman who believes impeachment proceedings would divide the fragile Democratic majority and prolong the Iraq war..."

http://www.reformer.com/headlines/ci_5835450

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 07 - 12:48 AM

Dickey:

I posted that story on May 7, 1:56 pm.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 07 - 07:37 AM

"The Ecology of Impeachment
by Patricia Goldsmith / May 11th, 2007

The American electorate is looking more and more like the polar bear stranded on a shrinking ice floe — still powerful but with democracy melting out from under our feet. Unlike the polar bear, however, we should be able to analyze our situation and take action. The first thing we have to do is accept that certain familiar features of our habitat, which we have depended on in the past, are just gone.

We now have more media outlets than ever before, but their mission seems to be to drown out any molecule of truth. And our inter-dependent voting and justice systems have been reduced to slivers of their former selves.

For example, as time has gone by, the true significance of the Supreme Court's selection of George W. Bush as president has become more and more painfully clear, in spite of efforts on the part of the media and across the political spectrum to obscure the bald truth: In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court shamelessly sided with a gang of Republican congressional aides swinging baseball bats who originally shut down the vote count and threw the case into the courts...."

From The Dissident Voice.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 07 - 01:41 PM

Former Powell aide says Bush, Cheney guilty of 'high crimes'
Nick Juliano
Published: Thursday May 10, 2007        
        
        

A former top State Department aide to Colin Powell said today that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are more deserving of impeachment than was Bill Clinton.

Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, said on the public radio program On Point Thursday that "Bill Clinton's peccadilloes ... pale in significance" when compared to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" of Bush and Cheney.

Wilkerson did not directly call on Congress to begin impeachment hearings, and he brought up impeachment in response to a caller's question. Early in the show, however, he observed, "This administration doesn't know how to effect accountability, in my opinion."

Wilkerson's comments were first reported by pro-impeachment Web site AfterDowningStreet.org.

"The language in [the Constitution] about impeachment is nice and precise -– it's high crimes and misdemeanors," he said. "You compare Bill Clinton's peccadilloes for which he was impeached to George Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors or Dick Cheney's high crimes and misdemeanors, and I think they pale in significance."

Taking a historical view of impeachment, Wilkerson said he believed the Founding Fathers would be surprised that more presidents had not been impeached.

"I do believe that they would have thought had they been asked by you or whomever at the time of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia 'Do you think this will be exercised?' they would have said 'Of course it will, every generation they'll have to throw some bastard out.'"Wilkerson said. "That's a form of accountability too. It's ultimate accountability."

Asked about the high crimes of the current administration, Wilkerson said the American public was duped into supporting a war in Iraq.

"I think we went into this war for specious reasons," he said. "I think we went into this war not too much unlike the way we went into the Spanish American War with the Hearst press essentially goading the American people and the leadership into war. That was a different time in a different culture, in a different America. We're in a very different place today and I think we essentially got goaded into the war through some of the same means."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 13 May 07 - 12:11 PM

Jump on the Impeachment Bandwagon

The bandwagon effect is the observation that people often do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. The effect is often pejoratively referred to as herding instinct, particularly as applied to adolescents. Without examining the merits of the particular thing, people tend to “follow the crowdâ€쳌. The bandwagon effect is the reason for the bandwagon fallacy's success.

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

This type of argument is known by several names[1], including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, and tyranny of the majority, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".

This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular theory is true.

    * Since 88% of the people polled believed in UFOs, they must exist.
    * Since citizens have to pay taxes and are ruled by governments, the state must be a judicial reasoned and rightful institution.
    * Since most of the world believes in God, he must exist.

It is sometimes committed when trying to convince a person that widely unpopular theories are false.

    * It's silly for you to claim that Hitler would not have attacked the United States if they hadn't entered World War II. Everyone knows that he planned to conquer the world.

The fallacy is commonly found in arguments over ethics:

    * Most Americans hold that the Vietnam War was morally wrong. Therefore, the Vietnam War was morally wrong.

The fallacy is also commonly found in marketing:

    * Brand X vacuum cleaners are the leading brand in America. You should buy Brand X vacuum cleaners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 07 - 12:43 PM

Another month gone and still no "Impeachment" Amos?

What on earth can be the matter with people considering all this "evidence" of wrong-doing that everybody claims exists?

Might have something to do with the fact that when examined all this supposed "evidence" is found to be as water-tight as a collander.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 07 - 01:05 PM

Dickey:

While arguments ad populum are definitely an illogic, one which many Republican voters regret, I'm sure, they are not the class of argument to which the impeachment argument belongs.

There are distinct impeachable offense on Bush's list of offenses, and I'm afraid Teribus' calm certainty is probably misplaced and certain ill-founded.

The reluctance is partly a fear of consequences (a highly disruptive impact which didn't seem to bother the rabid Repubs who houndede Clinton) and partly an unwillingness to turn away from more important matters like undoing the harm Bush has already done.

I know some folks don't think of what he has done as harmful, but maybe they should talk to the orphans, widows, multiple amputees and traumatized of Iraq, either side will do.

Or the dead.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 07 - 01:18 PM

May 12, 2007 at 14:34:04
Why they really won't impeach him and how the failure to impeach carries the seeds of the next war.

by Jay Esbe    Page 1 of 2 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com




The calculating, craven, and ultimately treasonous Democrats admit that they're not impeaching Bush because of a political calculation; that they can win in 08 by leaving him there, and making use of the status quo. As bad as that is however, there are additional reasons which are far more egregious than playing politics with American and Iraqi deaths and ruin.

It must first be remembered that only 22 Democrats voted against the resolution which unconstitutionally ceded Congressional War Powers to the President; The 2nd Iraq War therefor is inarguably a bipartisan disaster with an actual majority of Democrats supporting it.




Although it's true insofar as they've admitted it, that the refusal to hold Bush accountable through impeachment, is a political decision made for the worst possible reasons, the more important reason Nancy Pelosi flagrantly violated her oath of office by saying "Impeachment is off the table", is because an impeachment would bring about the presentation of evidence; evidence which would not only prove the case against Bush, but also his enablers.

Dick Durbin recently went public with an accusation against Hillary Clinton; that she, and others who sat of the Select Foreign Intelligence Committee, were privy to declassified intelligence that contained additional facts which were exculpatory to Iraq, beyond those which the rest of Congress were presented. I read the declassified NIE presented to Congress, and like so many others outside of government who studied the matter, I was able to conclude that the case against Saddam Hussien was not only filled with doubt, but that his current possession of the alleged WMD and nuclear capability was highly improbable. If those of us ordinary citizens who correctly read and interpreted the declassified NIE could come to the right conclusion, how much more then, should the members of the Select Foreign Intelligence Committee who received additional intelligence which weakened an already weak case, even further?

Dick Durbin rightly stated that on account of the rules, he could not go public with his further doubts gleaned from his presence on the committee; to have done so would have placed him in violation of the law. All he could do, was join 21 other house members, and vote against the resolution authorizing military force.

The star witness for the prosecution of Saddam Hussein as a "threat" to the United States and his neighbors, was Hussein Kamel, Saddam's own Son in law and a defector who provided the entire stockpile list of WMD as read by Colin Powel to the UN Security Council as justification for war. I do not know what additional exculpatory evidence the Select Foreign Intelligence Committee was privy to, but the transcripts of the interrogation of Hussien Kamel which were declassified and widely available both to the entire Congress, and you and I via the internet, already contained a piece of exculpatory information which was knowingly and willfully withheld from the court (The U.N.) by the Bush administration: "I made the decision to disclose everything so that Iraq could return to normal." (p.8)…… "not a single missile left but they had blueprints and molds for production. All missiles were destroyed." (p.8) ……."I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed"
(p. 13)…. We gave insturctions [sic] not to produce chemical weapons." (p.13). -Hussein Kamel, head of Iraq's military industries.


LIES, LIES, LIES:

# Prime Minister Tony Blair in his statement to the House of Commons on 25 February 2003, said: "It was only four years later after the defection of Saddam's son-in-law to Jordan, that the offensive biological weapons and the full extent of the nuclear programme were discovered."

# President Bush declared in a 7 October 2002 speech: "In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions."

# Colin Powell's 5 February 2003 presentation to the UN Security Council claimed: "It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX. A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons. The admission only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamal, Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law."

# In a speech on 26 August 2002, Vice-President Dick Cheney said Kamel's story "should serve as a reminder to all that we often learned more as the result of defections than we learned from the inspection regime itself".
It is a crime against the court in every court to knowingly withhold exculpatory evidence.
The "WMD stockpile" list which was read before the U.N. Security Council was quoted verbatim from Hussein Kamel's interrogation transcript. The final statements by Kamel –(Those weapons were all destroyed in 1991) was deliberately dis-included from the evidence as otherwise read from the transcript. Furthermore, without the witness in question –Hussein Kamel- there was no "list" of WMD. His testimony was the sole basis for the case presented to the U.N. This was more than enough for me and so many others who did their pre-war homework, to conclude that the case against Saddam Hussein was without merit, and even further, to conclude beyond any doubt, that the deliberate secreting of the most important exculpatory statement on record, was proof positive that the Bush administration was lying through their teeth. The innermerable statements by Bush and Cheney that regarding WMD "There can be no doubt", was not only the biggest lie ever told in the political history of the United States, but the most easilly proven lie ever told. There was nothing BUT "doubt" and they knew it. It was reported by an un-named source inside the White House, that when Colin Powel was first presented with the charges he read before the U.N. Security Council, that he threw the stack of papers into the air and shouted "This is bullshit!". Indeed it was, and Powel knew it. But WHY then, did he go on to present a case he knew was a lie?

The answer to that, and many other questions would probably come to light in impeachment proceedings against Bush. We know that under Bush 41, April Glaspie (State Department) was approached by an envoy from Saddam Hussein regarding his ongoing border dispute with Kuwait, and that Glaspie was clearly told by the envoy that Saddam wanted permission from the United States to use military force against Kuwait to "solve the problem" if he could not solve it peacefully. We also know, as a matter of record, that rather than Bush 41's representative telling Saddam's envoy "Do not attack Kuwait", Glaspie's message to Saddam was "Your internal Arab disputes are none of our concern".

We know also, that through two-terms of the Clinton administration, the so-called "containment" of Saddam Hussein was predicated on economic sanctions which resulted in the starvation deaths of at least half a million Iraqi children, and we further know that –according to the star WMD witness, Husein Kamel – the Clinton administration was engaged in a policy of brutal economic oppression resulting in the loss of innocent life, with the knowledge that Saddam probably had in fact actually complied and destroyed the weapons in question. This then creates an unavoidable conclusion: The first Gulf War was deliberately fostered by Bush 41 through deceit via the State Department, the decades of so-called "containment" were predicated knowingly to the death of half a million innocent children by the Clinton administration, and that this long range deceit culminated in the final deception; unprovoked, unwarrented war by George W. Bush, with the full support of Bill Clinton; there was a damned good reason Bill Clinton went onto Larry King and had Bush' back when he said Bush "Didn't lie": They all lied. Powel ultimately chose to lie to the whole world because he was up to his ass in decades of deception regarding Saddam; Like any organized crime participant, Powel lied because he was already dirty and he was ultimately forced to.

Any impeachment of George W. Bush has implications far beyond this administration; as the evidence is brought forward, it would inevitably threaten not just Bush and Cheney, but would threaten the entire political establishment through a revelation that "this mess" has been an evolving conspiracy spanning almost 20 years. It would threatened to take down the entire political establishment.

The removal of impeachment from the table and refusal to impeach Bush by Nancy Pelosi, goes far beyond immediate political expediency, as overtly corrupt as that concept alone is; it is protecting the Democratic front runner from voluminous evidence that her husband was first complicit in fraud and crimes against humanity, and that she herself has continued the greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon the American people through her knowledge that in fact Saddam probably did NOT possess WMD. Whatever she knew, whatever her husband knew, and whatever Bush 41 initiated, is all threatened with exposure were the requisite evidentiary hearing to proceed concurrent with impeachment proceeding against George W. Bush.

This is why the claims by right-wingers of "Yeah but Clinton thought they had WMD" as a defense, carry absolutely no weight with me in my assessment of the situation. No, he didn't. Bill Clinton knew with certainty by August of 1995, the date of the defection and interrogation of Hussein Kamel, that the ONLY reliable governmental source for any conclusion of U.N. weapons violations, had cleared Saddam and placed him in probable U.N. compliance. ...

Full article can be found here.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 07 - 02:46 PM

BREAKING: Four US Reps for Cheney Impeachment (UPDATE 1)

By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, Atlanta Progressive News (May 11, 2007)

(APN) ATLANTA – US Rep. Albert Russell Wynn (D-MD) has become the fourth total co-sponsor of US Rep. Dennis Kucinich's (D-OH) bill to impeach Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, Atlanta Progressive News has learned. In addition to Kucinich, the other two Members of Congress who have signed on to H. Res 333 are US Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL) and William Lacy Clay (D-MO).

"Vice President Dick Cheney is the architect of the Administration's deception about the war. Cheney persistently and deliberately deceived the Congress and the American people about the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and the attack on September 11th. There should be a serious dialogue about the conduct of this Administration. Cheney should be held accountable for purposely misleading the American people. Despite the obvious lack of success on the ground, Vice President Cheney continued a barrage of propaganda claiming that we were winning the war and successfully rebuilding Iraq which is patently false. His statements and representations about the situation in Iraq amount to malfeasance for which he should be taken to task," said Wynn in a press release prepared for Atlanta Progressive News.

Impeachment activist Tracie Stern of Atlanta World Can't Wait said the new co-sponsorships are exciting, but at the same time, the case for impeachment is so clear that these Members of Congress are actually just doing their duty.

Those Members who do not co-sponsor H Res 333 are enabling the Bush Adminstration, Stern said, adding "People need to step on to the stage of history."

US Rep. Wynn (D-MD) is a champion of civil rights issues, but unlike Clay, Kucinich, and Schakowsky, he is not a Member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This suggests the bill is gaining appreciation beyond the traditional impeachment constituency of the CPC. Of course, Kucinich himself had not supported H Res 635 either. ...
From the Atlanta Progressive News

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:02 PM

History repeats itself:

Free Speech - March 1998 - Volume IV, Number 3
Bill, Monica, and Saddam
by Dr. William Pierce
As we all watch the U.S. government deliberately move closer day by day to the war I predicted a year ago -- when Clinton appointed his all-Jewish foreign policy, national security, and defense team -- the question must come to many minds: Why do the American people permit this? Why do they vote for a government which clearly doesn't care at all about American interests? Why do they tolerate a government which plunges them into unnecessary wars?

Well, of course, we already know part of the answer. An electorate which will put a creature like Bill Clinton into the White House twice clearly doesn't care much about American interests. All most of them care about is the size of their welfare checks. But there's more to the war mania in Washington than an irresponsible lumpen electorate. There is the conviction on the part of those pushing for war against Iraq that they can get away with it, that no one will call them to account for it, because the controlled media will cover for them. In fact, the controlled media are at the forefront of those insisting on a war. Which is why virtually every political prostitute in Washington, Republican as well as Democrat, is beating the war drums and calling for the bombing of Iraq to begin.

But the American people -- the decent, level-headed, responsible portion of the electorate that didn't vote for Clinton -- what about them? Why are so few of them speaking out against the government's warmongering? I mean, when our government goes in and tears up another country and massacres thousands of its citizens for no good reason, it reflects on all of us. Why do we not at least speak out against it?

For an answer we must examine in more detail the role of the controlled mass media in this affair. They are not just telling the politicians of both parties that if they want media support at the next election they had better rattle their sabers at Saddam Hussein; they also are deceiving the American people about all of the issues involved...."

http://www.natall.com/free-speech/fs983b.html

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:50 PM

when Clinton appointed his all-Jewish foreign policy, national security, and defense team -- the question must come to many minds: Why do the American people permit this? Why do they vote for a government which clearly doesn't care at all about American interests? Why do they tolerate a government which plunges them into unnecessary wars?

I can't believe you'd subscribe to this kind of hate speech, Dickey; and furthermore, this wild-eyed rhetoric is a grotesque mischaracterization of Clinton, what he cared about and what he accomplished.

An extreme distortion, fueled by cockamamie hatreds, I'd call it, and not worth engaging.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:26 AM

Viewed from one perspective Amos, all Clinton did was obey the instructions on the box - "Light blue touch-paper and retire".

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:45 AM

Hey Amos: Your rhetoric and name calling far exceed what is in this "hate speech" yet you will no doubt claim yours is free speech.

Substitue Bush for Clinton and it fits perfectly with your agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:13 AM

Dickey,

I hate to get personal, but you're a goddamned liar, pal, plain and simple. I don't use that kind of racism in my posts. I'd apologize if I were you.

My own invective against Bush sometimes gets angry and colorful, I agree. This is because it is frustrating in the extreme to see such great abuse being pushed forward over his signature.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:15 AM

Democrats Against Impeachment
By JOHN MCCLAUGHRY WSJ May 12, 2007

CONCORD, Vt. -- George Will recently observed that the Democrats are so confident about their chances in 2008 that they are willing to "surrender to the tugging of groups to the left." In no place has that tugging been so urgent as in Vermont.

The Green Mountain State arguably has the most left-wing state legislature in the nation's modern history. The Senate is 23-7 Democratic, with two of the Republicans suffering identity confusion. The House has 93 Democrats, two independents, six hard-left Progressives and 49 embattled Republicans.

In mid-2006 Dan DeWalt, a selectman in the town of Newfane (population 680) launched a campaign to pass resolutions calling for President George W. Bush to be impeached. He had his aim on March 6, 2007, "Town Meeting Day" in the state. To generate enthusiasm, he attracted anti-Bush activist Cindy Sheehan.

She came earlier this year and testified in front of the state Senate in support of a "get the troops out of Iraq" resolution -- a resolution that had already been approved by the legislature. Nonetheless, her appearance helped push voters in 38 of the 40 towns that considered the impeachment resolution to approve it.

Mr. DeWalt's home county, Windham (except for its lightly populated mountain interior) is a hotbed of liberal causes. Gay marriage, socialized medicine and shutting down the state's only nuclear power plant are all popular there. One of its state senators, Jeannette White, sponsored the Sheehan appearance. The other, Peter Shumlin, is the ambitious Senate president pro tem and a favorite of the county's teeming Left.

At an April 18 news conference, Mr. Shumlin and House Speaker Gaye Symington declared firmly that the legislature, deeply concerned about global warming, "did not have time to deal with impeachment." Mr. Shumlin did, however, offer his opinion that President Bush ought to be impeached. But he also threw up a host of excuses for why the legislature couldn't take up the issue. But Mr. DeWalt continued to pressure him.

Realizing that he may need the support of the hyperactive Impeachment Left in a future Democratic primary for governor, Mr. Shumlin relented. He waited for a day when the presiding officer of the Senate, Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, was out of state and then sprung into action. At 8:30 a.m. on April 20, Mr. Shumlin presented Mr. DeWalt's resolution to the Senate and whisked it through in five minutes without debate. The vote was 16-9, with three Democrats joining six Republicans in opposition...."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117893201554300699.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:37 AM

Masterful innuendo, Dickey. I am sure you are quite confident it is exactly how it happened.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:40 AM

Bob Burnett writes:

"In Berkeley, it's difficult to travel more than a few blocks without seeing an "Impeach Bush" bumper sticker. And whenever I write a column about the 43rd President, I receive emails suggesting that the simplest solution to America's problems is his impeachment. Nonetheless, I'd never taken the possibility of impeachment seriously until this week, when I realized I've had enough: I want Dubya to go down.


The movement to impeach George W. Bush started around Labor Day, in 2002, when it become clear that he was determined to invade Iraq. In March 2003, it gathered momentum when many Americans joined marches and silent vigils to protest what we considered to be an ill-considered and dangerous action. Bush was enormously popular and many "blue" Americans felt we had lost our country: we couldn't understand why so many of our fellow citizens supported Dubya; or why they voted to reelect him in 2004. In those dark days, the impeachment movement seemed to be the last refuge of die-hard liberals: a defiant stance that had little hope of success.

Times changed: in 2006, Democrats took control of Congress and Bush's popularity rating sank to Nixonian depths. Meanwhile, evidence of his malfeasance exploded. Suddenly, even conservative Republicans were criticizing the President, calling for him to abandon his customary intractability and engage in real bipartisanship.

As the impeachment movement grew stronger, I resisted its call for several reasons. While I've never doubted that there are strong legal grounds for Bush's impeachment, I've been troubled by pragmatic considerations: if Dubya was removed from office, Dick Cheney would become President; impeachment proceedings would tie up the 110th Congress at a time when congressional energy needs to be focused on undoing Bush Administration mistakes -- such as ending the war in Iraq; and the impeachment process would further polarize a nation that has become far too adversarial and combative. When the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said that impeachment was "off the table," I agreed: it's one thing to be right and quite another thing to be effective, I thought.

My thinking changed after I read George Packer's magnificent commentary in the May 14th New Yorker magazine , No Blame, No Shame. Packer asks the key question: "Why has it become impossible to admit a mistake in Washington and accept the consequences?" I pondered the fact that "under the Bush Administration no senior civilian official or military officer has been held responsible for what will probably turn out to be the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history." Then, I had an epiphany: I understood the "why" Packer asks about. The reason why Bush never admits a mistake or accepts consequences is because he believes he can get away with it. He was raised in a system of privilege where there's no accountability.

George Bush's unwillingness to be held personally responsible reflects on more than his Administration. It's a symptom of a deeper malaise that infects American politics and, sadly, much of American society. It's what I think of as the dual justice system. I first ran into this system many years ago when I was an idealistic probation officer in Orange County: courthouse habitués informed me that the defendants whose cases I handled were exclusively from the lower and middle class, because there was a different system of justice for the rich and powerful - patricians didn't go through the same process that plebeians did. Whether their crime was petty theft or murder, the elite received different treatment than they would have if they had been poor or a person of color.

There are two systems of justice in the United States: one for the rich and powerful and a far different system for everyone else. Rob a bank and you go to prison; loot a savings and loan as an executive and you're likely to get a hefty fine, if that. Every day, we read about corporate executives who mismanaged their firms, caused the layoffs of thousands of poorly paid workers, and then danced away with millions of dollars of severance pay. We see what happened to the architects of the disaster in Iraq: Bremer, Franks, and Tenet got the "Presidential Medal of Freedom," Rice and Wolfowitz got promoted, as did the invasion supporters within the Pentagon. There was no accountability; they got away with it. So far.

That's why the impeachment of George W. Bush would send an important signal to other elected officials, and the power elite. It would be an indication that the American people are tired of Washington business-as-usual and serious about holding our leaders accountable for their actions. I'm not suggesting that the focus be exclusively on Bush, because I think his whole crew - Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, and Rumsfeld, among others - should go down, too. However, the logical place to start is with the guy at the top: the decider-in-chief.

Bob Dylan once wrote "even the President of the United States sometimes has to stand naked." This is the time for the trappings of power to be stripped from George Bush. He needs to stand naked before the law and take full responsibility for the failures of his Administration. Impeach Dubya."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:07 PM

"Below are the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.



Artice I

The Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests.

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.

(3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002 vote to autorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intellgence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two federal agencies.

The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the U.S. invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq."

The article cites the following:

http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1A.pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1B.pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1C.pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1D.pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1E.pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1FG.pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1H.pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI2A.pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI2B.pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI3.pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI3.pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI3.pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo1.pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo2.pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo3.pdf
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo4.pdf

---

From here

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:50 PM

WASHINGTON (FinalCall.com) - The grassroots movement to impeach Pres. George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and other high officials is gaining momentum nationally.

On Capitol Hill Apr. 26, members of several anti-war groups even staged a noisy disruption in the atrium of the Hart Senate Office Building, unfurling banners from the seventh floor, which draped to nearly the fifth floor. One banner read "Your silence, your legacy," while the other was simply the article of the U.S. constitution providing for impeachment of the president, and Vice President, according to D.C. Indymedia.org. As the banners unfurled, the crowd on the atrium floor yelled "Impeach!"

The protestors also conducted a mock military funeral, before 14 were arrested.

Meanwhile, in Vermont, several Town Hall Assemblies, as well as the State Senate have voted to instruct the state's Congressional delegation to support impeachment. Other cities have passed similar resolutions.

In the House, Rep. Dennis Kucinich has introduced a measure to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. "Because I believe the vice president's conduct in office has been destructive to the founding purposes of our nation, today I have introduced House Resolution 333: Articles of Impeachment of Richard B. Cheney," Rep. Kucinich said on Capitol Hill Apr. 24.

Mr. Kucinich says the Vice President should be held accountable for manipulating the intelligence process and deceiving the public to build support for the invasion of Iraq.

But that measure does not go far enough, according to a more than 100 prominent activists who gathered at the Capitol Apr. 25. The coalition included Washington State Senator Eric Oemig; Mayors Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City and John Shields of Nyack, N.Y.; Vietnam-era government official Daniel Ellsberg; "Peace Mom" Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq; and retired Army Colonel and diplomat Ann Wright, who resigned the day the Iraq war began.

"Oh that's just the first step," Ms. Sheehan told The Final Call. "What we have to do now as grassroots, is to pressure our congressional members to co-sponsor that resolution with Dennis Kucinich. If we could get 100 to 120 co-sponsors, it actually would come out of the committee, and may come up for a vote.

"The most important thing we can do as grassroots America is show Congress that we are on board, and we will support any Congress member who does introduce articles of impeachment. Now, we only need articles of impeachment introduced against George Bush. I support HR-333," Ms. Sheehan continued.

"The winds of impeachment are sweeping the country," former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark said in a statement Apr. 24. Mr. Clark accuses Pres. Bush and V.P. Cheney of "actively deceiving the country with false propaganda aimed at justifying an unprovoked war of aggression." Mr. Clark has mobilized nearly 900,000 signatures on an on-line petition at www.VoteToImpeach.org.

"There comes a time when voices of conscience must sound the alarm and recommend the remedy," Debra Sweet, director of the World Can't Wait—Drive Out The Bush Regime, and another impeachment coalition member said in a statement.

"To fail to identify actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney as impeachable offenses, high crimes and misdemeanors, is for Congress to be in full complicity with the assault on the Constitution and the rule of law," said Mr. Ellsberg, who released the classified Pentagon Papers in 1971, which revealed that Pentagon officials knew all along that the Vietnam War could not be won.

...From http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_3484.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:14 PM

"The reason why Bush never admits a mistake"


BREAKING: PRESIDENT BUSH ADMITS MISTAKE. From an interview with Barbara Walters:. "I watch what I say. I said some things in the first term that were ...
www.brianarner.com/weblog/archives/001406.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
Bush admits mistake over Iraq | Iraq | Guardian Unlimited
Bush admits mistake over Iraq. Julian Borger in Washington Saturday August 28, 2004 The Guardian. President Bush yesterday conceded for the first time that ...
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1292698,00.html - 41k - Cached - Similar pages
Katrina failings were my fault, Bush admits for first time ...
Katrina failings were my fault, Bush admits for first time. · President says hurricane exposed serious problems · Tests planned for 44 bodies found in ...
www.guardian.co.uk/katrina/story/0,,1569424,00.html - 42k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.guardian.co.uk ]
Bush Admits Mistakes in Iraq, Defends Tactics - washingtonpost.com
President Bush today said mistakes were made in planning for the Iraq invasion, but he defended the troop level he ordered in the initial strike, ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042400850.html - Similar pages
As He Touts a 'Way Forward,' Bush Admits Errors of the Past ...
... campaign geared up in 2004, President Bush was asked to name his biggest mistake. ... not a White House traditionally loath to admit mistakes. ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011002731.html

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:17 PM

The Final Call

A Message Dedicated to the Resurrection of the
Black Man and Woman of America and the World

Founded by
MINISTER LOUIS FARRAKHAN
National Representative of The Honorable Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam

Abdul Allah Muhammad, Chairman, Editorial Board

Print Edition

Interim Managing Editor
Abdul Arif Muhammad

General Manager
Duane Muhammad

White House Correspondent
Askia Muhammad

Staff Writers
Charlene Muhammad
Jesse Muhammad
Saeed Shabazz
Nisa Islam Muhammad

Editorial Supervisor
Vanessa A. X

Copy Desk Editors
Arai Hodari Muhammad
Eleanor Smith

Transcriptionist
Marcella A. X

Production Manager
Tamiko G. Muhammad

Production Assistants
Harold Muhammad
Timothy 6X

Staff Photographer
Kenneth Muhammad

Circulations Manager
Sherice A. Muhammad

Subscriptions
Debra Muhammad
Ida M. X
Shaka Muhammad
Yusuf Muhammad

Distribution Manager
Leonard E. Muhammad

---

Amos needs to go to work for this outfit. His bias makes him perfectly suitable for the job. :D

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:19 PM

The hell with Bush admitting to his mistakes...who cares? I want to see Dickey or Amos admit to having once made a mistake!

(grin)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:30 PM

Amos endorses the Nation of Islam which only speaks the truth never makes mistakes:

In his Savior's Day speech in Chicago, Illinois, February 25, 1996, Louis Farrakhan preached:

    And you do with me as is written, but remember that I have warned you that Allah will punish you. You are wicked deceivers of the American people. You have sucked their blood. You are not real Jews, those of you that are not real Jews. You are the synagogue of Satan, and you have wrapped your tentacles around the U.S. government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell. But I warn you in the name of Allah, you would be wise to leave me alone. But if you choose to crucify me, know that Allah will crucify you."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:53 PM

Little Hawk:

You haven't been paying attention. When I make one, I sez so.

Dickey:

How dare you put words in my mouth? You are lying, sir. You have no permission to tell others what I think as if you were some more informed point of view, which you are clearly not; and knowingly passing falsehoods around is a bit evil of you, pal.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:57 PM

Now, don't get all literal-minded on me, Amos... ;-) I'm sure if I were to comb through the last several thousand posts you and Dickey have done, I could find a paltry few occasions when either of you have admitted to a mistake.

"But it ain't worth the effort," to quote Chongo. Did you know he's upset with you?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:02 PM

0.7742 - Thread - Message - RE: BS: Rumsfeld Resignation Date Contest... - Mar 1 2005 1:19PM -   Amos
Summary: I erred because I misunderestimated; also, as a contributing factor, I was wrong. A


Yeah, I know. But I don't even worry much about what opinion Imaginary Deities have of me, Little Hawk; why should I worry about the viewpoint of imaginary simians?


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:17 PM

As a follow up, the phrase "I was wrong" appears 687 times in the Forum, according to the Mudcat Search. Of these posts, 7 of them are from me stating I was wrong for one or another reason. That's just over 1%.

As there are MANY more than 100 members regularly reading the 'Cat I conclude my humility is DEFINITELY above average and I should not be subjected to slurs from Little Hawk.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 06:54 PM

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos - PM
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:50 PM

WASHINGTON (FinalCall.com) - The grassroots movement to impeach Pres. George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and other high officials is gaining momentum nationally.

Final Call is an organ of the Nation of Islam. If Amos chooses to quote it, he must therefore be endorsing their views. Unless he wants to cherry pick the opinions of others to find things that concur with his agenda.

Where is your original thinking an reasoning Amos?

Yeah, The nation of Islam does not like GWB. No matter if they hate Jews an white people too. All I am concerned with is if they hate GWB or not.