BS: A Declaration of Impeachment

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 01:26 PM

YES! Jesse is the one to listen to. Amos, although we don't see the same picture, even rarely, I still gave you more credit than for mentioning this leech. He only says that which will eventually benefit him financially.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 10:25 AM

Jerry Landay writing for the Providence Journal in an article entitled "A Constitutional Obligation to Impeach Bush?", remarks:

"...A prospective impeachment agenda would be crowded. Heading the list are the grounds for war in Iraq -- the flawed and twisted intelligence on which it was based, the failure of strategic planning and tactics in waging it, corporate hanky-panky in no-bid reconstruction contracts; the alleged sanctioning by Bush of the use of torture, in violation of the Geneva Conventions; and the president's approval of warrantless telephone spying on American citizens by the National Security Agency, in abrogation of the Constitution and other U.S. law, which he admitted ordering.

John Dean, Nixon's White House counsel, who tore the lid off Watergate in the early 1970s when he bore witness to abuses of presidential power, observes that President Bush is the first president "to admit publicly to an impeachable offense."

Presidents are the nation's chief magistrates. Hand on Bible at the swearing in, each freshly elected chief executive takes an oath, as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, to faithfully execute the laws of the land. He "solemnly swears, to the best of my ability, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and the body of laws it empowers. Not to do so opens him to impeachment charges -- as in abuses of power by Richard Nixon, and the accusation of lying leveled at Bill Clinton.

Already in the public record besides warrantless phone tapping is the book The Price of Loyalty, in which President Bush's first secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, testifies that Bush and Vice President Cheney were intent on making war on Iraq just days after they took office. O'Neill told author Ron Suskind that he was dumbfounded that the matter was placed on the table at the first meeting of the National Security Council in January 2001.

That's eight months before the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, before the war on Afghanistan, before there was evidence of al-Qaida's violent intentions on American soil, before there was any public mention of concern that Saddam Hussein might have (and use) weapons of mass destruction -- all motives used by the White House many months later to justify the invasion.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, of California, who'll become chairman of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, has publicly declared that "we needto hold hearings on" the phone-tapping matter, and that she has already asked four presidential scholars to look into possible legal grounds for proceeding with impeachment.

..."

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:59 PM

From TomPaine.com, an excerpt:

Why Impeachment Is Crucial

   
Jennifer Van Bergen is a journalist with a law degree. Her book The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America has been called a "primer for citizenship." She can be reached at [e-mail].

With the Democrats in the majority in Congress for the first time in 12 years, and after six years of executive overreach and civil liberties incursions by the Republican administration and Congress, one would think impeachment would be in the air. But many progressives and Democrats—even some who have been on the front lines demanding investigations and prosecutions—view impeachment as the wrong approach and a waste of effort. They say that impeachment can't take place without Republican backing, which will never happen. They say that impeachment will take time and energy away from more important business, such as getting out of Iraq, lowering taxes, congressional ethics and pulling our budget back into line.

These arguments present a false dilemma, however. The choice is not between impeachment and Iraq, or impeachment and ethics, or impeachment and the budget. Impeachment proceedings are not the beginning but the end result of a healing process for the nation that needs to begin now. Impeachment begins with investigations.

The ever-growing list of egregious wrongs by this administration has been hypocritically ignored by the Republican Congress. When you remember what the Republicans did to Clinton over a peccadillo and compare that to the high crimes committed by Bush and his administration, there should not even be an argument over whether to move toward serious investigations with impeachment in mind. We are not talking bipartisanship; we are talking about law and morals.

The charges against this administration are so extensive there are several books that make the legal case (John Nichols, Elizabeth Holzman, Center for Constitutional Rights, David Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky, Howard Zinn).

Impeachment groups have formed across the country; at least one major city council, San Francisco's, passed an impeachment resolution; the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, has issued a 200-plus page report; and there has even a citizens' impeachment trial, complete with indictment, hearing and verdict.

The grounds for impeachment are far greater now than they were when Congress threatened to impeach President Nixon and there is a tremendous groundswell for impeachment which the newly-elected Congress would do well to heed.

Congress must start the national healing process by selecting an independent prosecutor. We don't need another commission to merely make a report that finds some comfortable middle and allows the administration to play the national security card to further hide its wrongdoing. A prosecutor will be able to gather evidence from all corners, interview those with real information and see the entire picture. He or she can decide, on the basis of the law, where culpability lies and what charges to bring.

---

As for Jesse, your anonymous, ad hominem refutation is scarcely relevant to the issues he describes. Would you like to speak to what he says, rather than your imagined version of who he is?

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:21 PM

12-11-06 Associated Press reports:

"WASHINGTON -- In what was likely her final legislative act in Congress, outgoing Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney introduced a bill Friday to impeach President Bush.

The legislation has no chance of passing and serves as a symbolic parting shot not only at Bush but also at Democratic leaders. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made clear that she will not entertain proposals to sanction Bush and has warned the liberal wing of her party against making political hay of impeachment.

McKinney, a Democrat who drew national headlines in March when she struck a Capitol police officer, has long insisted that Bush was never legitimately elected. In introducing her legislation in the final hours of the current Congress, she said Bush had violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution and the nation's laws.

In the bill, she accused Bush of misleading Congress on the war in Iraq and violating privacy laws with his domestic spying program."

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 09:14 AM

An interestingpoint of view from veteran reporter James Goldborough can be found on this page.

In it, he says "We cannot impeach Bush because we all are guilty of his crimes. Yes, there are those in Congress who stood up to him -- Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi to name two now being rewarded for their judgment -- but most of Congress tainted itself with the Iraq War resolution, giving Bush the powers he subsequently misused.

We are the nation that gave Bush a second term -- gave him a second term despite knowing of the lies, the crimes, the failures, the chaos he has created.

Impeachment would not be fair. There's enough guilt to go around."

...which is a cute line. More important he does a good analysis of errors in the Bush administration.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 05:44 PM

David Swanson, writing in American Chronicle discusses the dynamics of the McKinney impeachment proposal. He remarks:

"December 11, 2006
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has introduced articles of impeachment [ http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/mckinneyarticles.pdf ]against George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice. In doing so, she alone has spoken for the 51 percent of Americans who Newsweek says want Bush impeached. A considerably higher percentage of Americans would, if asked, almost certainly acknowledge that the abuses with which McKinney charges Bush et al. have, in fact, been committed by them and are impeachable offenses. That is to say, there are those who recognize the grounds for impeachment but don't want to see them pursued. There are even those who want impeachment pursued but wish it were not being pursued by McKinney


McKinney charges that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld manipulated intelligence and lied to justify war, and that Bush has engaged in illegal domestic spying. The former charge has been extremely well documented, [ http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/keydocuments ] and the latter proudly confessed to. The former charge was central to the concern of those who included impeachment in the U.S. Constitution. The latter charge is one of openly violating a law that was established in response to President Richard Nixon's impeachable offenses.


So, why aren't all impeachment advocates thrilled? Because McKinney's courage and leadership are overpowered, in their minds, by their own fears. They're afraid that impeachment will be painted as radical and that other people less insightful than themselves will, as a result, oppose it. They fail to recognize that silence is more damaging to the cause of justice than are attacks by its opponents, and that other Americans are just as smart (although just as scared) as they are. McKinney has put impeachment where Speaker-Designate Nancy Pelosi said it could not go: on the table. This can only benefit the cause of impeachment.

"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 06:13 PM

oh, as much as I want Bush gone, I don't think painting McKinney as a 'courageous leader' will do much toward it. :>)

McKinney's bill will get tabled or not make it out of committee.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 08:04 PM

Mebbe it will, and mebbe not; but that does not change the fact that it would be a positive step forward and a renewal of national decency to evict the bugger, even though saying so is risky.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 07:23 PM

It would be more tempting should something happen to Cheyney first.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Dec 06 - 09:48 PM

Towns consider removing president

December 17, 2006
By DANIEL BARLOW Staff Writer

NEWFANE – Dan DeWalt expects to face a vastly different political environment in early 2007 than the last time he began asking Vermont towns if President Bush should be impeached.

DeWalt, a member of the Newfane Select Board, kicked off a statewide chain reaction last March when he successfully urged passage of a town meeting resolution supporting Bush's impeachment on the claim he mislead the country into war.

Inspired by Newfane's lead, five other Vermont towns followed suit the same day. And now up to 40 towns in the state will likely face a similar question at town meeting in 2007 if a grassroots effort organized by DeWalt is successful.

"People are gathering the signatures," DeWalt said. "People from towns all over the state have contacted us and we've reached out to peace and justice groups to pursue it."

Towns that will possibly be asked to support the impeachment resolution include the Windham County communities of Westminster and Jamaica and the Windsor County towns of Springfield and Ludlow. Other municipalities include Montpelier, Manchester and Middlebury.

Impeachment is expected to be considered in the Vermont House in the next session as well. For the second time in a year, Rep. David Zuckerman, P-Burlington, is expected to sponsor a resolution calling for Bush to be evicted from office.

"Certainly it seems like lots of people in the state want this," Zuckerman said. "The Legislature ought to tackle this issue."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Dec 06 - 09:31 AM

Why President Bush Must Be Impeached

Are we as a nation going to sit by and passively watch as the United States Constitution is relegated to the status of a vague reference document? Will we watch it become nothing more than bleached parchment under glass at the National Archives? Or are we going to stand up for the "living" Constitution, honor and defend it, and actively seek to restore the "checks and balances" between the co-equal branches of government?



The conventional wisdom states that the Democrats, after clawing their way into the majority of both houses of Congress, will blow it big time if they push the idea of impeaching the President, and risk losing their hard-won gains of 2006. But there is no such thing as "risk-free" politics. If they aggressively go after Bush the Democrats might lose seats in 2008, or they might gain seats, or it might be a draw. We have seen them lose elections in the past by being far too risk-averse.

The process of impeachment is slow and deliberative. The House would have to vote at least twice: once, to approve a Judiciary Committee inquiry into possible articles of impeachment; and then again to vote on each article. If the full House passed one or more of the articles there would be a trial in the Senate that could last for weeks or months. Removing Bush from office would require 67 Senate votes, which is admittedly a tall order. Yet however unlikely such an outcome might be, it would be an exercise in democracy and show the Chief Executive that he can no longer ignore the powers and prerogatives of the Judicial and Legislative branches of our government. It would send a clear message to Bush that he must stop this nonsense about "unitary executives," "signing statements," and "inherent powers."
...The Bush administration has blocked all Congressional efforts thus far to look into the NSA's spying operation, and has refused even to turn over the presidential order creating it. Even The New York Times, the "paper of record" that has served to legitimize Bush's "war on terror," routinely refers to the NSA's surveillance program as "Mr. Bush's illegal domestic spying." In addition, there is a mountain of evidence that Bush gave false information to the Senate concerning pre-war intelligence about Iraq, and that he lied to the American people about Saddam Hussein's WMDs and his links to Al Qaeda. Bush's jettisoning of the Geneva Conventions, his sanctioning of torture and secret prisons, and his jailing of people for years without due process have yet to be looked into by the Congress.

(More at this page.)

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 04:08 PM

From the Roanoke, Virginia, Times:

Impeach Bush before he does even more harm

While most of us who live in the United States like to brag about being citizens of the world's greatest democracy, why do we allow the president to assume the role of a dictator?

He likes to talk about being the decider and, in my opinion, he's a lousy one.

The Congress, if it had any guts, would take action to impeach President Bush forthwith before he does further damage to our nation.

BOB SCHNEIDER
BLACKSBURG

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 09:15 AM

Livingston, Michigan's local paper includes this letter:

"When Bush's dog and pony show is over and he has warned all of his cabinet members and generals that they either agree with him or get out, the results will be the same.
He will walk out like he just got off a horse, with the inevitable grin on his face and he will say in effect we are moving forward and we will stay until the job is done.


What Congress should do the very first thing in January is submit articles of impeachment, not only for Bush, but for Cheney, if he hasn't resigned by then.

This foolishness and waste of our young men and women has to stop.


Sally A. York

Brighton"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 10:51 PM

In NewsBusters the MSNBC Joe Scarborough show dedicated to a discussion of impeachment of Bush is discussed. Newsbusters seems to try and do a right-of-center "exposé" piece, but somehow does not pull it off.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 11:43 AM

A novel approach to the message -- only in San Francisco.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jan 07 - 12:48 PM

some support for the cause from Keith Olbermann

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

A pointer found at "Ticia's Blog", to Harper's respected liberal editor, Lewis Lapham:

"(...In Harper's Magazine for January, 2007, Lewis Lapham targets Nancy Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table." He also chastens Robert Reich's "it would be far better if Democrats used their newfound power to lay out a new agenda for America. There's no point digging up more dirt." Hear Lapham:...)

"Democracy is born in dirt, nourished by the digging up and turning over of as much of it as can be brought within reach of a television camera or a subpoena. We can't "lay out a new agenda for America" unless we know which America we're talking about, the one that embodies the freedoms of a sovereign people or the one made to fit the requirements of a totalitarian state.... Like it or not, and no matter how unpleasant or impolitic the proceedings, the spirit of the law doesn't allow the luxury of fastidious silence or discreet abstention.... The Constitution doesn't serve at the pleasure of Representative Pelosi any more than it answers to the whim of President Bush, and by taking "off the table" the mess of an impeachment proceeding, the lady from California joins the president in his distaste for such an unclean thing as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Rightly understood, democracy is an uproar, the argument meant to be blunt, vigilant, and fierce, not, as the purveyors of our respectable opinion would have it, a matter of liveried civil servants passing one another polite synonyms on silver trays. ...

...(Describing the Bush Administration as "a predatory government...stealing from a free but inattentive people their lives, liberties, fortunes, good name, and sacred honor," Lapham considers impeaching Bush to be a form of public education, a civic lesson that might "unearth American democracy.")...

"How much longer do we wish to pretend that nothing really happened, or that nothing really valuable is lost; that the crime is the losing of the Iraq war, not the making of it? That in place of the constitutional questions asking why, to what end, and whose interest, we can afford to substitute the questions of logistics – how many troops to dispatch or withdraw over a period of how many days or months... what deals to cut with Syria and Iran. "

---

I have to say I sympathize with both Lapham and the blogger who cites his essay. But you knew that. :)

A


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 07 - 11:18 PM

It is so easy even a Scientologist can understand it:

Nancy Pelosi - No impeachment Perhaps Nancy Pelosi tongue is salivating at the horrific precedents of ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-4vw2qw3Wc

No Impeachment Something Is Extremely 'Rotten In The State ... Seeing Bush on TV admitting he'd took a hell of a beating was great, ...
infowars.net/articles/november2006/101106Rotten.htm

Howard Dean last night said there would be no impeachment proceedings against President Bush under a Democrat controlled Congress,
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/091106deansaysno.htm

Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss
Pelosi is widely tipped to become speaker of the house but she is already on the record as saying that no impeachment proceedings against President Bush, ...
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/081106newboss.htm

Howard Dean to Jon Stewart: We Won't Impeach Bush
Stewart also said that President Bush seemed a bit humbled during his press conference today and perhaps was ready to compromise and work with the Democrats ...
editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003379813

Dean: No Impeachment Plans for Bush. ... Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean said that Democrats will not impeach Bush. (ABCNEWS.com) ...
www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/ThisWeek/story?id=1933534&page=1

Nancy Pelos No Impeachment. Oct 23 2006 12:54AM ...
www.kxnet.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=57635

Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors ...
www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/pastnews.php/2006/12/13/p12917

Conyers and Pelosi say no impeachment for bush. ... Judiciary Committee in January, said Thursday that impeachment of President Bush "is off the table." ...
portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/11/349038.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 07 - 09:31 AM

A retired federal prosecutor details the legal charges against Bush on counts of fraud, etc.

http://www.coastalpost.com/07/01/28.html

An excerpt:

"The techniques of deception used by George W. Bush and his aides are identical to those used by Lay and Skilling. In his July 2002 speech announcing the signing of the Corporate Corruption Bill, the President said, "The only fair risks are [those] based on honest information." The President and his top advisers were acutely aware of the solemn risks posed by an invasion of Iraq, but instead of debating those risks honestly, they developed slogans, including the familiar "risks of inaction are greater than the risks of action" that simultaneously usurped and deflected counter-arguments while providing no information whatsoever, honest or otherwise.

Such propaganda, cynical and craven as it is, might not qualify as criminal fraud, but the propaganda alone was insufficient to convince Congress and the American people to invest in the plan for war. To remedy this deficiency and close the deal, the President and his top aides made hundreds of representations, both general and specific, that were carefully crafted to manipulate public opinion. As we now know, many of those assertions were false and misleading. More important, we also now know that President Bush and his advisers had notice and direct knowledge that their representations were seriously undermined and in some key instances, disproved by information that was available to them. Consistently, the President and his aides knowingly conveyed false impressions, concealed important information, made deliberate misrepresentations, and professed certainty about facts that were speculative at best. Such is the definition of criminal fraud -- whether committed by the President of the United States or the CEO of a major corporation.

The only difference between the fraud committed by the Enron officers and the fraud committed by the President is that the latter was far more comprehensive and far more calculated. Even as President Bush stood center stage endorsing honesty that July four years ago, he and his company were setting the stage for another show. If the "only fair risks" speech was a perky Frank Capra clip, the White House's next production would be twenty-first-century H.G. Wells.

As of July 30, 2002, Bush had directed the creation of the White House Iraq Group, a public-relations operation whose sole purpose was to market the war. This team, collectively called WHIG, was co-chaired by the President's closest aides and long-term political consultants, Senior Adviser Karl Rove -- whom Bush has described as "the architect" of his 2004 reelection campaign--and former Counselor to the President Karen Hughes.

By July 30, 2002, the White House Iraq Group had already begun fabricating an ominous scenario that blurred together the September 11 tragedy, mushroom clouds rising over American cities, and terrorists releasing strains of smallpox, interspersed with the shadowy face of a mad Iraqi dictator spring-loaded to attack the United States. They were collecting props--anthrax vials and undated photos showing centrifuge components and unidentifiable buildings where something ominous might be happening, but we can't afford to wait to find out. They were writing the script: power phrases like "Grave and gathering danger" and "We can't afford to let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud," designed less to inform than to inflame. And, finally, Rove, Hughes, and company were scheduling appearances for the President's War Council members that would begin just a month later, in early September 2002.

It was to be a bravura performance by the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the National Security Adviser, and many supporting cast members. The production was so well done, in fact, that, like the radio audience terrified into hysteria by the infamous "War of the Worlds" broadcast of 1938, most of us were fooled. Admittedly, we resisted buying the duct tape and plastic sheeting; we may not have wrapped our heads in wet towels to ward off Martian gas like the 1938 radio audience. What happened, however, was much worse: because of Bush's fiction, we agreed to bomb people 8,000 miles away whose only "crime" was that they were oppressed by a violent and cruel dictator.

Undoubtedly, Americans were panicked by H. G. Wells's radio play in part because they were exhausted and nervous in those tough Depression years. But Orson Welles' breathless report of a Martian invasion was never intended to cause panic, nor was it ultimately harmful.

The President's elaborate production was, and still remains, an entirely different story. It was a deliberate effort to create a permanent state of fear in America. And to say it was harmful is like saying that it hurts to get hit by a Mack truck.

Federal sentencing guidelines recognize that one who defrauds a vulnerable victim, such as a salesman who falsely represents the curative benefits of an elixir to a cancer patient, has committed an even more serious crime than one who defrauds a person who is not so "particularly susceptible." The President knew that Americans were "particularly susceptible" in 2002. We were exhausted, and justifiably terrified, not only because of September 11 but also because of the anthrax murders and the random Washington, DC, sniper killings that coincided with the Bush-Cheney administration's push for war. "

Interesting reading.

Old Guy, go subscribe to mayhem somewhere.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jan 07 - 02:03 PM

Put president on trial
Chico Enterprise-Record
Article Launched: 01/05/2007 12:00:00 AM PST


George W. Bush's sacrifice of 3,000 troops killed and 25,000 wounded together with 650,000 Iraqis killed has clearly earned him the title of "War Criminal of the Century," and he should be tried as such. He rationalizes that this slaughter is a reasonable reaction to 9/11, which of course it was not, since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no weapons of mass destruction.

In fact there is convincing evidence that Bush and his neo-conservative associates were complicit in the attack on the Twin Towers, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A recent book, "9/11 and American Empire — Intellectuals Speak Out" (Olive Branch Press, 2007) written by a number of well respected experts, adduces very persuasive evidence of such complicity hidden by the administration under the bogus assertion that it is top secret. Let's hope that the new Democratic Congress ferrets out this information by investigative hearings and subpoenas. This should provide the necessary evidence to impeach Bush and Cheney, which appears to be the only way to stop the insanity and prevent another pre-emptory quagmire, i.e., the bombing or invasion of Iran.

— Victor M. Corbett, Chico

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 06:05 PM

From ABC7News:

Protestors Join In S.F. To Impeach Bush
Over 1,000 Join Beach Bash
By: Noel Cisneros
Jan. 6 - KGO - To voice their displeasure with the current administration, hundreds of people lined up on Ocean Beach Saturday morning to call for the impeachment of President Bush.

Over one thousand protestors decided to make a stand - by lying down.
Protestor: "I'd like to see him impeached for every crime he's committed since he was appointed to his office."

Fingers up - heads down - they lined Ocean Beach, to form the word impeach -- exclamation point included.

Dan Brook, Protestor: "Every great idea starts with people -- it has to start with people or it will never happen -- so it has to start with us."

ABC7's Noel Cisneros: "Do you think the country has the stomach for another impeachment?"

Dan Brook: "I think we don't have the stomach for another two years of Bush."

The "Impeach on the Beach" project is the brain child of Brad Newsham -- who got the idea from looking at Google satellite images with his daughter.

Brad Newsham, Event Organizer: "I hope we send a message of what a great country we have, and what horrible leadership we have, and we hope the message gets back to Washington -- and impeachment gets put back onto the table where the American people want it to be."

ABC7 Legal Analyst Dean Johnson: "You can't impeach a president for incompetence."

Dean Johnson is a former prosecutor and he says the strongest legal case against Mr. Bush would likely be for the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretaps of millions of American telephone calls.

ABC7 Legal Analyst Dean Johnson: "Section 1809 of the FISA Act provides that any public official who engages in a wiretap, without authorization, is guilty of a felony - I think it's beyond a reasonable dispute that President Bush violated that statute."

With Democrats now a majority in the House - an impeachment could be brought up. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that it is not on the table in this Congress. Impeachment straddles the legal and political and it is the Senate that conducts a trial. Democrats are also short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict a president for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 06:41 PM

"Impeachment straddles the legal and political and it is the Senate that conducts a trial. Democrats are also short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict a president for high crimes and misdemeanors."

If the democrats gain a majority at a later date, can he be tried at that time?

Maybe another country should try him for war crimes.

...or, do what he did to Iraq.

Canada should invade the U.S. because they have WMDs (for sure), arrest Bush and hang him.

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

From The Detroit Free Press:

ROCHELLE RILEY: Impeach now to end war

January 7, 2007
BY ROCHELLE RILEY
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

Now that Washington has installed new representatives and elected its first female speaker of the House ...

Now that Democrats have seized control of Congress away from a Republican Party, whose leader has run amok for six years ...

Now that it is apparent to even a 6-year-old that President George W. Bush's strategy for the Iraq war is based on a fairy tale ...

Now that 3,000 American soldiers have died ...

Now that the majority of the American people have said: Enough! ...

Now it is time for Congress to quit singing "Kum Ba Yah" and stop treating impeachment as if it's a bad word.

Beyond politics

It is past time for Congress to begin impeachment hearings against the president, proceedings that have nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with truth, justice and the American way.

America should not be deterred by how such an investigation might look outside America. America can't look any worse to countries watching us run roughshod over weaker countries, the law and common sense.

Regardless of how much we pretend we weren't involved, America is being partly blamed for the juvenile handling of last week's execution of Saddam Hussein.

And if I hear one more Republican apologist say that Bush's behavior is vindicated by the absence of a major terrorist attack, I will scream. The global terrorists are biding their time. But our internal terrorists have been attacking us for two years.

Enough already

Between seeking access to Americans' mail, listening to Americans' telephone conversations, ignoring prisoner torture and holding potential suspects at Guantanamo Bay for months or years -- while suspending their rights to challenge their imprisonment -- the president has used the Constitution for nothing more than to wipe his behind.
He does not care that the only beneficiaries of the Iraq war have been defense contractors, not Iraqi citizens or a government he dreams of instituting, but which Iraq will never be able to sustain.

Bush refuses to listen to the military advisers whose duty is to make him smarter. He refuses to listen to constituents who have tired of flag-draped coffins for a cause they can't explain to their neighbors.

Bush's arrogance, stubbornness and incessant need for war mean that the American soldiers' death toll that we never believed would reach 3,000 may hit twice that before our soldiers are allowed to leave Iraq.

When is enough enough? ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Tituba
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:32 PM

You're Blowin' My High

There are many of us who are familiar with that phrase of a few decades ago.For the uninitiated what it refers to in essence,is when a group of people getting "high" together have someone in the group commence a recitation – or verbalize a thought – of a negative nature.(I suppose I could draw a 21st century analogy here; think about a person on a message board thread suddenly going "off-topic.")The response to that articulation generally went something like this:"Wow!Man you're blowin' my high here, give it a break."

Right now I feel like I'm back there, passing the joint and just goofing along on the nonsensical.The absurdity, of course, being that I'm reading – and hearing – what the suddenly muscular Democrats are planning in their "first hundred hours."I mean, like, we already knew that impeachment was "off the table," is there a thinking human among us that truly thought impeachment would even make it to the table?So, in place of a main course of impeachment as well as side dishes of restoring our Constitutional Rights and making us secure in our homes and workplace, we will get fluff. No meat, no veggies and no dessert; just non-caloric fluff along with innumerable sound bytes.Like, this really is blowin' my high, man.

The beefy Democrats are - rather than taking Amerika back from the plutocrats - going to puff up their respective chests, make a lot of noise about change and keep on keeping on.Shouldn't that blow the post-euphoric high of the faithful herd that voted to make (as well as see) change? So that collective high felt by the dedicated flock– now that reality has seated itself in the chamber – has been blown all to hell and back.For the loyalists who expected Chateaubriand, once seated at the "all-inclusive" table they instead find themselves still "sitting below the salt." Given that the overwhelming majority of voters who put the Democrats in power were all on the same page, you know, the message board thing; it appears that the Democrats have seriously gone "off-topic."Now, doesn't that just blow your high if you are one of the flock who was steadfast in your passing of the joint of change, high on the over the moon "good shit" you were hearing from the Democrats?


Ergo, instead of impeachment we will get minimum wage raise, which is commendable and long overdue. However, since many states and municipalities have (and are) taking it upon themselves to implement "living wages" far and above what the Democrats are talking this is hardly a hot button issue for the electorate – at least priority wise. From everything this writer read and heard during – and after – the recent election season what was topmost on the mind of the voters was; Iraq (get us out), Bush (rein him in), the economy (stop hemorrhaging jobs, pensions, wages, etcetera), health care (accessibility and affordability),and last but not least end the damn "pay to play" and corruption in the political arena.

The Democrats also plan votes on boosting funding for embryonic stem cell research; cutting student loan interest rates; and putting into effect the 9/11 Commission recommendations for enhanced cargo screening as well as better emergency communication systems.That is the gist of their so-called "first hundred hours."

As I've mentioned, all of that is laudable but what about campaign finance reform? What about ethics reform? The Democrats talked a good game about moral principles but the first damn thing they did was to introduce a reform package that is a mirror image of the same weak Republican reform bill from last year. They plan to debate this bill in the coming weeks and amendments to the bill will be considered to either strengthen or weaken it.Now, you can bet the farm that these Democrats – Pelosi and Reid – who owe their soul to the Corporate Store are not going to sweep that candy jar off the counter.

One amendment that is certain to come up is the Lieberman-Collins amendment (Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act), which came up during the last session as an amendment to S2128.This amendment was shot down in Committee with the help of the Democrats.Let's take a look at where the bulk of the money comes from in the new Democratic leader's war chests.PACS are what fuels both the Pelosi and Reid juggernaut, these are made up of – in no particular order – Agribusiness, Communication/Electronics, Construction, Defense, Energy, Finance/Insurance/Real Estate, Health, Lawyers and Lobbyists.Pelosi and Reid are certainly not the only Democrats – or politicians - who are indebted to "special interests" such as lobbyists, these business and corporate bloodsuckers are what drives the political and money machine that is euphemistically called a "Democracy."If the misguided as well as naïve electorate truly believe that they are going to see a change in just how the business of governing is conducted, I have this bridge I want to sell…

The Lieberman-Collins amendment, which seeks to establish an Office of Public Integrity has a snowball's chance in hell of being approved by this Congress.Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Democrats may talk a good game however there is no way in hell they want to impose any rules which might give the appearance of a level playing field.It is much easier to mouth the platitudes and flex muscles for a photo-op than it is to do the right thing.

I – as well as many other writers – have taken our hits from the party faithful for daring to infer that there is absolutely no difference between the political parties in Washington.We have been called names like agent provocateur as well as worse.Well folks, the Democrats are in power, there will be no impeachment, no reining in of prolifigate campaign and/or lobbyist spending, no health care reform, no assistance for our poor and no end to the death of our men and women in Iraq.

The steadfast herd have their wish, the Democrats are in power, all I can say is, be careful what you wish for."

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/589/81/

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 01:34 PM

Impeachment Chronicles: Bush on Steady Collision Course with Constitution
By Bill Hare
01/07/2007 (From this site)

Elizabeth Holtzman has experience in the impeachment process as a member of the House Judiciary Committee in the case of President Richard M. Nixon, whose actions put him above the law and abrogated the Constitution.
Holtzman and enough of her Judiciary Committee colleagues believed that the Constitution had indeed been contravened and voted to impeach Nixon. As reported in a previous column, Nixon was persuaded to resign by a powerful trio of Republicans led by Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona and the nation was spared an impeachment trial.

Elizabeth Holtzman believes that the time has come for George W. Bush to face impeachment proceedings. As someone who called for impeachment proceedings after Bush and Dick Cheney took America to war on spurious grounds, and on that basis recommended impeachment four years ago, I concur in Holtzman's assessment.


Time has only strengthened the impeachment case since Bush in concert with Cheney has done far more by this turbulent juncture than take the country to war in contravention of international laws that America as a nation was highly instrumental in creating.
The specific references are to the Nuremberg and United Nations charters. Subsequent actions on Bush's part since his unconstitutional rush to war have been reminiscent of France's supreme Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte when he arrogantly declared, "I am the state!"

The Bush strategy has been to use the 9/11 tragedies to erect himself as emperor without constitutional authority. Holtzman in an article in the November 15 American Spectator examines the period from the march to war until the present, concluding that impeachable offenses exist against Bush, and assuredly Cheney as well, in five basic areas:

1)For deceptions in taking the country into war. The false premises by which Bush and Cheney took America to war, unproven assertions of Iraq's nuclear capability linked to the claim that its dictator Saddam Hussein was presently intending to unleash this weaponry on the United States, contravene international law and constitute grounds for impeachment.

2)For violating the law against wiretapping. Bush admitted that he has not complied with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and is engaging in domestic surveillance without seeking court orders. Violating this law carries criminal penalties against other citizens. Bush's actions contravene a law passed by Congress and is an impeachable offense.

3)For permitting and condoning the mistreatment of U.S. detainees. Congress has passed laws governing mistreatment or torture of prisoners in U.S. hands, specifically the War Crimes Act of 1996 making it a crime to violate the ban in the Geneva Conventions regarding torture, cruelty, or degrading treatment. Violating this law constitutes grounds for impeachment.

4)For reckless indifference to human life during Hurricane Katrina. This impeachment ground falls into a different category than its predecessors since, in this instance, Bush is questioned for inaction rather than action. Holtzman defines Bush's inaction as a "type of gross negligence ... also apparent in his decision to invade Iraq without providing protective equipment to soldiers and without having an adequate post-invasion plan." While "simple negligence" would not apply, these aforementioned actions constitute "inexcusable neglect."

5)For leaking classified information. If the facts, as yet unknown, reveal that Bush had any role in releasing information regarding the "outing" of CIA agent Valerie Plame, a political act of reprisal against her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a violation of federal law would exist. This would constitute an impeachable offense.

The late Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina, Chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee and a staunch constitutional conservative, sounded the correct note when, in reference to the actions of President Nixon during the turbulent seventies, asserted, "If the Founding Fathers had wanted a King they would have created one."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 02:06 PM

Democrats are Reverting to Form
by DAVE LINDORFF

From the Baltimore Chronicle:

If the Democrats fail to act to ending the war, to revoking the president's claim to dictatorial powers, and to initiating impeachment proceedings they will have sealed their fate come 2008, and will deserve to be abandoned by all thinking voters.Reverting to form, Democrats in Congress are cautiously trying to have it both ways so as to avoid having to take a stand on any of the issues that matter.
Faced with President Bush's own disastrous decision to go "double or nothing" on his losing Iraq War by adding another 20,000 or more troops to the front, House leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate leader Harry Reid chose to...write a letter to the White House "urging" the president not to go that route.


The idea seems to be that if he goes ahead and sends the additional troops into the cauldron and things go from bad to worse, Pelosi and Reid will be able to say that they opposed the idea, while they will be immune from right-wing charges that they undermined the commander in chief, since they didn't do anything concrete to block his insane plan.

The truth is that Democrats could, if they had any principle and if they honored the wishes of the electorate, bring U.S. involvement in the Iraq War to a screeching halt. How? They could vote to cut off all funding for the Iraq War except for the costs of safely withdrawing all troops from the country. Nobody could accuse them, were they to do this, with putting American troops at risk. But they would have to face those who would accuse them of "cutting and running."

Democrats also have the votes to put an end to Bush's serial trashing of cherished civil liberties. Instead of grumbling about violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth and other Amendments, as Democrats have been doing so ineffectively now for five years, they could simply vote to revoke the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, approved almost without objection by both houses of Congress back in September 2001 (resolutions are not subject to veto). It is that resolution which Bush and his mob attorneys in the White House and the "Justice" Department have been citing as justification for the president's assumption of dictatorial powers, such as the power to revoke habeas corpus rights of American citizens, the power to authorize torture and detention without trial, the power to kidnap and render people, the power to declare American citizens to be "unlawful combatants" devoid of citizenship rights, the power to invalidate duly passed acts of Congress, and the power to ignore federal laws like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Revoke the 2001 AUMF and the president would have no grounds, fraudulent and unconstitutional as they in any case are, to claim that the nation is in a state of war and that he, as commander in chief, is no longer constrained by the Constitution.

We don't hear any calls in Congress to revoke the AUMF though, because that would require taking a concrete and resolute stand on principle in defense of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and taking the heat from right wing cranks who would accuse them of being "soft on terror." (Democrats aren't soft on terror; they are soft on the Constitution.) And of course there is impeachment.

On Jan. 3 and 4, most members of Congress took their oaths of office for the 110th Congress. That oath pledges them to "support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic." If they were to take those words to heart, it's pretty clear that--given the president's blatant abuses of power and willful violation of both law and Constitution--they constitute a call to action. This is, after all, not a simply matter of lying about a blowjob; President Bush has already been found by a federal district judge to have violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--a felony. Moreover, a majority of the Supreme Court justices also declared last June that Bush had violated both the Third Geneva Convention and the U.S. Criminal Code in authorizing and failing to prevent rampant torture of captives in the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War and the so-called "war" on terror. The members of the House and Senate know full well that the president lied to them and to the American people in 2002 and 2003 about the reasons for the Iraq invasion, just as he and his administration are lying now about the reasons for a looming war on Iran. All of these things--and the list runs much longer (check out my book, The Case for Impeachment)--are serious threats to the Constitution, and call for Bush's impeachment. (...)

---

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 02:42 PM

A profound video of the testimony of Lieutenant Ehren Watada Against Illegal and Immoral War in Iraq: As the first Army officer to publicly speak out against the war and refuse deployment to Iraq, Lt Watada will be punished by the U.S. Army with a maximum six years in prison. Video here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 01:16 AM

Is it true that if someone posts something about you that you don't like even though it is the truth, you can get it removed if you cry and suck enough ass?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 09:23 AM

Is the punishment for disobeying a legitimate and duly authorised order six years in military prison?

Unfortunately this young Army Lt has been badly advised.

The matter whether or not the invasion of Iraq was legal is moot.

This young officer has been ordered to Iraq with his unit to serve under the terms of a duly constituted United Nations Mandate and at the request of the duly elected Iraqi Government. There is nothing illegal for him to base his objections on.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 12:10 PM

Amos decides what is moral?

What are his qualifications for being a judge of morality?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:15 PM

Another view on the possibility and reason for impeachment:

"January 12, 2007 at 04:25:40

Bush's perilous provocations ask the question - is he begging for impeachment?

by Gustav Wynn




True to his nature, George Bush is so unwilling to listen to others, Congress may soon have to consider impeachment in the interests of national security.

Undaunted by the rejection of the neo-con ideology in the November elections, Bush has continued a full court press on our civil liberties, seeking not only to open any snail mail but also force internet providers to record and report every web site visited by all U.S. citizens.

He continues to advocate tax cuts for the wealthiest, even after new figures released proved his cuts through 2004 yielded only benefits for those earning over $1 million annually, a tiny fraction of the American taxpayers, though a huge percentage of his supporters.

He has cut deals to aid India's nuclear program, undoing decades of non-proliferation work, and he has approved a completely new program to build a new class of expensive nuclear missiles, though we already have more then would be needed to destroy the entire planet hundreds of times over. He would also have us resume underground testing, in violation of long standing international treaties.

His appointments continue to shamelessly recycle cronies, most lately his nomination for General Counsel of the Department of Transportation being a lobbyist and ex-Halliburton executive who intends to begin privatizing our highways. The new Ambassador to the Dominican Republic? A lobbyist who chaired Arizona's Republican Party. The new hire at the Agency for International Development? Former director of daddy Bush's Presidential Library and an Iran/Contra era rehash. The new deputy director of the Office of Personnel Management? A lobbyist and consultant for firms specializing in outsourcing and building access between senior executives at very large corporations with federal agency leaders to "help improve the quality of governmental services".


...

From http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_gustav_w_070111_bush_s_perilous_prov.htm

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:19 PM

The question of whether legal orders have any bearing in an illegal strategy or an illegal war was pretty well settled at Nurenburg, T. "Following orders" was deemed no grounds for violating higher principles of law.

If in fact the war IS illegal in its basic construction, then those who kill others while particpating in it are guilty of manslaughter or murder.

And that's just man-made laws, so to speak. Who knows where the highest sources of Law exist?


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:26 PM

The presence of MNF troops in Iraq cannot in any be construed as being illegal, they are there at the specific request of the Iraqi Government and by United Nations Security Council Mandate.

I believe that the only order given to this unfortunate and ill advised young man was to deploy with his combat unit to Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Arne
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:58 PM

Teribus:

The presence of MNF troops in Iraq cannot in any be construed as being illegal, they are there at the specific request of the Iraqi Government....

The one that we installled under the point of a gun?

FWIW, the UN didn't mandate any troops there.

The initial invasion was contrary to U.N. wishes, and a violation of international law.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Nameless One
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:39 PM

"The one that we installled under the point of a gun?"

Remember the purple fingers?

Remember Saddam's soldiers with guns examining the ballots before they went into the ballot box?

You are 100% wrong.

Cheers

PS: GWB did listen and made a decision. If he was gutless like Carter or Clinton he would bend to popular opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:59 PM

The purple fingers was a major step forward, without question.

Unilateral invasion against a non-aggressor is a war crime.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Nameless One
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 10:53 PM

Looks like Amos is running short on misrepresentations.

Now he claims that a force consisting of troops from the US, UK, South Korea, Australia, Poland, Romania, Denmark, El Salvador, Georgia , Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Albania, Latvia, Slovakia and others was unilateral.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:08 PM

Old Phart, you are truly a p[iece of work. "It wasn't GWB, honest!!! It were the UN!!"

It was an invasion by US forces. Saddam's ultimatum was issued by the POTUS, and it was unilateral in the respect that one "side" invaded without prior aggression.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:26 PM

Arne - 12 Jan 07 - 04:58 PM

"FWIW, the UN didn't mandate any troops there."

Eh? Arne FWIW according to what is shown below - it rather looks like they did.

"SECURITY COUNCIL EXTENDS MANDATE OF MULTINATIONAL FORCE IN IRAQ UNTIL


31 DECEMBER 2007, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1723 (2006)


Also Calls for Review of Force by 15 June 2007,

Earlier Termination of Mandate if Requested by Iraqi Government



Responding to a request by the Iraqi Prime Minister, the Security Council today extended the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until the end of next year, deciding that it should be reviewed at the request of that country's Government or no later than 15 June 2007. The Council also declared that it would terminate the mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq.



Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 1723 (2006) -- submitted by Denmark, Japan, Slovakia, United Kingdom and United States -– which also extended through the end of 2007 the arrangements for depositing proceeds from export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas into the Development Fund of Iraq, as well as the arrangements for monitoring the Fund by the International Advisory and Monitoring Board. Also by the text, the arrangements for the monitoring of the Development Fund by the International Advisory and Monitoring Board would be reviewed at the request of the Government or no later than 15 June 2007.



Annexed to the resolution was a letter containing Iraq's request, as well as a letter from the United States Secretary of State, who confirmed the force's readiness to continue to fulfil its mandate as set out in Security Council resolution 1546 (2004) and extended by resolution 1637 (2005)."

Source Security Council SC/8879 - Security Council 5574th Meeting held 28th November 2006.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:37 PM

T:

Perhaps you posted this news about a UN meeting in late 2006 to the wrong thread?

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 11:18 PM

No Amos, no mistake. Arne posted the following on this thread:

Arne - 12 Jan 07 - 04:58 PM

"FWIW, the UN didn't mandate any troops there."

I merely responded to provide evidence that the MNF does have a UN Mandate to be in Iraq. Therefore the US Army Lt., refusing to go to Iraq cannot be refusing an illegal order.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 01:10 PM

Vermont towns urged to support Bush impeachment

January 15, 2007

NEWFANE — Dan DeWalt is hoping what he started in his small town a year ago will spread around Vermont this Town Meeting Day and eventually to the halls of Congress.

DeWalt a member of his town Select Board, got his meeting to vote last year to support a call for Congress to impeach President Bush. He said this year, people in 50 Vermont towns are circulating petitions to get the question before voters at Town Meeting, the first Tuesday in March.

"We will be barnstorming the state on this," DeWalt said. "In towns where we do not get it on the warning" — the official agenda for the meeting — "we will try to have it taken up under other business."

DeWalt, a musician and woodworker, saw his effort in Newfane matched by four other towns passing similar resolutions. The vote drew both praise and derision nationwide.

"What we did last year became a clarion call for towns all across the country where people were despairing of the war and the state of the Constitution," DeWalt said. "Now, there's a real possibility Vermont can get the nation's attention focused on impeachment."

DeWalt said the effort is getting support — and expected visits to Vermont — from Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist and mother of a soldier who died in Iraq, and former Rep. Elizabeth Holzman, D-N.Y. Holzman was on the House Judiciary Committee that impeached President Nixon and is the author of "The Impeachment of George W. Bush."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:19 AM

A miscellany of headers currently alive in the media-cloud:

Impeach Bush and Cheney
Aspen Daily News - 10 hours ago
There may well be a woman president before the end of the Bush/Cheney term. After a thorough, under oath, congressional investigation of the lies that misled members of congress to vote for the Bush/Cheney war in Iraq, an impeachment of Bush and Cheney ...


If Beal Street Could Talk – Part 2 - Impeach Disney and General ...
American Chronicle - 18 hours ago
And that's what we're doing if we fail to impeach Bush and Cheney. Impeachment is too important to stop for consideration of elections, but if you do, and if you read John Nichol's book, you realize that impeachment is not politically dangerous.
Land of Enchantment and Impeachment Scoop.co.nz (press release)
all 4 news articles »

VIDEO: Impeach Bush: 911, Iraq and the coming invasion of Iran
Center for Research on Globalization - Jan 15, 2007
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Impeach Bush—Stop Iran Invasion
VDARE.com - Jan 14, 2007
Bush's "surge" speech last Wednesday night makes it completely clear that his real purpose is to start wars with Iran and Syria before failure in Iraq brings an end to the neoconservative/Israeli plan to establish hegemony over the Middle East.

LeFevre: Why the Bush Administration Is Evil
Scoop.co.nz (press release) - Jan 14, 2007
First, the Bush Administration is not an anomaly, but the manifestation of the death of this nation's soul. It's true that if Americans miraculously managed to impeach Bush and Cheney (a political impossibility), it would restore the American spirit.

'The State of the Union Is ... Screwed Beyond Belief'
Wonkette (satire) - 20 hours ago

While the party that's not even brave enough to Cut & Run will never impeach Bush & Cheney and provide America with the healing YouTube videos of awful decapitation-hangings, the Dems might refuse to stand up or applaud or whatever.


Impeachment Now?
Blogger News Network - 3 hours ago
[If one is to believe a recent Newsweek poll, a majority of Americans support impeachment of Bush now. I do because I fear the damage that he may do with two more years in office.
NEWSWEEK MEDIA LEAD SHEET/January 22, 2007 Issue (on newsstands ... PR Newswire (press release)

It's time for impeachment proceedings
Sioux City Journal - Jan 14, 2007
Rose wrote on January 14, 2007 10:02 AM:"I'ma Democrat, but not one that's in favor of impeachment. I don't want to see Democrats spend the next two years trying to impeach Bush. He's a moron, no doubt about that, but there's too many other important ...
He hopes he's wrong, but ...

KCBS
Mr. Bush: Meet Walter Jones
Yahoo! News - 15 hours ago
If tomorrow Bush took out Iran's nuclear facilities, would a Senate that lacks the courage to cut funds for an unpopular war really impeach him for denying a nuclear capability to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Bush's lawyers would make the same case Nixon made ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 11:40 AM

Excerpt from a talk by David Swanson of AFterDowningStreet.org:

If Beal Street Could Talk – Part 2 Impeach Disney and General Electric
by David Swanson
January 18, 2007


By any serious standard of journalism, impeachment should be in the news right now. This illustrates the worst problem with our media. It's not how they cover stories. It's how they do not cover stories.

A Newsweek poll a while back said that 51 percent of Americans want Bush impeached and 44 percent do not. That's about double the support there was for impeaching Clinton when it was in the news every single day.

Dozens of cities have passed resolutions for impeachment. State legislatures have introduced the same. One outgoing congresswoman introduced articles of impeachment in December. Dozens of scholars have written books advocating for impeachment. There are DVDs, forums, marches, rallies, protests. A week ago, we packed a huge ballroom for an impeachment forum, and to make it easy, it was the ballroom in the National Press Club. The media couldn't make the elevator trip to be there.

And of course, the evidence of impeachable offenses is clear and overwhelming, but rarely presented in the media.

The number one reason that Congress members and their staff tell you in private that they are not yet impeaching is fear of the media. The number two reason is fear of Nancy Pelosi.

The number one reason that well-meaning citizens tell you they don't want impeachment consists of a PR strategy. People want to present an image that does not include what the corporate media says impeachment is. It is a long journey to move from seeing this as smart and strategic to seeing it as a self-defeating surrender to the corporate media.

And the independent media isn't where it needs to be either. In part, this is because it tends to retell corporate stories in a more honest way, rather than telling stories that have been untold.
...

See the full article here.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 06:35 PM

I wonder what part of "impeachment is off the table" Amos does not understand?

Democrats are not going to get rid of their whipping boy.

Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer

Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.
        

Some House Democrats, including ranking Judiciary Committee member John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, have called for impeachment hearings into allegations that Bush misled the nation about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and that he violated federal law by approving warrantless wiretaps on Americans. In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to."

GOP activists seized on the remarks to warn potential donors of Bush's possible peril if Democrats pick up the 15 net House seats they need to become the majority. The National Republican Congressional Committee republished The Post's Sunday article in a letter to supporters and donors that stated: "The threat of the Democrats taking the majority in the House this November is very real."

Some Democratic activists criticized Pelosi, saying she made the party appear extreme while drawing attention away from more useful issues such as gasoline prices and Republican lobbying scandals.

Daly said Pelosi never considered impeachment a priority. Republicans "are in such desperate shape," he said, "we don't want to give them anything to grab on to." He said Conyers agrees with Pelosi's thinking.


Pelosi: Bush Impeachment `Off the Table'
By Susan Ferrechio NYT

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi promised Wednesday that when her party takes over, the new majority will not attempt to remove President Bush from office, despite earlier pledges to the contrary from others in the caucus.

"I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table," Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference.

Pelosi also said Democrats, despite complaining about years of unfair treatment by the majority GOP, "are not about getting even" with Republicans.

She said the GOP, which frequently excluded Democrats from conference committee hearings and often blocked attempts to introduce amendments, would not suffer similar treatment.

"Democrats pledge civility and bipartisanship in the conduct of the work here and we pledge partnerships with Congress and the Republicans in Congress, and the president — not partisanship."

She also extended an olive branch to Bush on the war in Iraq, saying she plans to work with him on a new plan but will not support the current strategy and supports beginning redeployment of troops by the end of the year.

Pelosi also said she supports the idea of a bipartisan summit on the war.

"We know, 'stay the course,' is not the way," Pelosi said.

Pelosi said she received a brief, early-morning call from Bush, who invited her to lunch on Thursday.

"We both expressed our wish to work in a bipartisan way for the benefit of the American people."

A handful of Democratic lawmakers who are considered top Pelosi lieutenants said after the news conference that they believe she will be able to keep their traditionally diverse caucus united, despite an influx of new, more moderate Democrats.

"She will force a synergistic union," of the caucus, said Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman John B. Larson of Connecticut.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said the election has sent a message to Democrats that will foster a sense of unity even among those who agree the least.

But the party must still complete potentially contentious leadership elections before any of that work can begin.

Pelosi was unwilling to discuss those elections Wednesday, saying the votes for all the House seats have not been counted.

"There are people who have ambitions," Lofgren acknowledged. "A majority of the Democratic members have never served in the majority. There is a lot of pent-up ambition to do something."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 09:31 AM

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=159757 -- a discussion of the SOU and the current atmosphere.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 12:34 AM

Dean: No Impeachment Plans for Bush

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 01:02 AM

I think we heard that the first time.

But there are many other viewpoints deserving to be aired, on the table or not.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 01:17 PM

From Impeachment: The Case in Favor

Elizabeth Holtzman

Approximately a year ago, I wrote in this magazine that President George W. Bush had committed high crimes and misdemeanors and should be impeached and removed from office. His impeachable offenses include using lies and deceptions to drive the country into war in Iraq, deliberately and repeatedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on wiretapping in the United States, and facilitating the mistreatment of US detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Since then, the case against President Bush has, if anything, been strengthened by reports that he personally authorized CIA abuse of detainees. In addition, courts have rejected some of his extreme assertions of executive power. The Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees, and a federal judge ruled that the President could not legally ignore FISA. Even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's recent announcement that the wiretapping program would from now on operate under FISA court supervision strongly suggests that Bush's prior claims that it could not were untrue.

Despite scant attention from the mainstream media, since last year impeachment has won a wide audience. Amid a flurry of blogs, books and articles, a national grassroots movement has sprung up. In early December seventy-five pro-impeachment rallies were held around the country and pro-impeachment efforts are planned for Congressional districts across America. A Newsweek poll, conducted just before election day, showed 51 percent of Americans believed that impeachment of President Bush should be either a high or lower priority; 44 percent opposed it entirely. (Compare these results with the 63 percent of the public who in the fall of 1998 opposed President Clinton's impeachment.) Most Americans understand the gravity of President Bush's constitutional misconduct.

Public anger at Bush has been mounting. On November 7 voters swept away Republican control of the House and Senate. The President's poll numbers continue to drop.

These facts should signal a propitious moment for impeachment proceedings to start. Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment "off the table." (Impeachment proceedings must commence in the House of Representatives.) Her position doesn't mean impeachment is dead; it simply means a different route to it has to be pursued. Congressional investigations must start, and public pressure must build to make the House act.

This is no different from what took place during Watergate. In 1973 impeachment was not "on the table" for many months while President Nixon's cover-up unraveled, even though Democrats controlled the House and Senate. But when Nixon fired the special prosecutor to avoid making his White House tapes public, the American people were outraged and put impeachment on the table, demanding that Congress act. That can happen again. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 07:45 PM

Impeachment march

My husband and I took part in the protest march in Austin, TX on Saturday. There were at least 1000 people participating. That evening, the local CBS affiliate had the protest as their top story and began with the statement that the protesters want our troops brought home AND they want President Bush removed from office. I was happy to see that at least in Austin, the press noticed all the "Impeach Bush" signs like mine.

Here's a link to the story and video:

http://keyetv.com/topstories/local_story_027222018.html

---

The Historic, First Ever DC Massive Impeachment March No-one Reported On

by Rob Kall

Entire piece with photos is here.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_070129_the_historic_2c_first_.htm

Yesterday, I reported on the Antiwar Event in Washington D.C.

That's what it was billed as. That's why I went-- to send a message to stop the war, to stop Bush, Cheney, Lieberman, McCain and their enablers.

But I finally realized something quite extraordinary. This was not JUST an antiwar event. It was the largest and perhaps the first major IMPEACHMENT event ever to occur in Washington DC.

The crowd estimates ranged from tens of thousands to half a million. Judging by the signs carried and the sentiments of the protesters-- a good 30-50% of the signs were about impeachment, prosecution, trial for war crimes or imprisonment of Bush and Cheney. And I'd guess that theren't more than a handful of people out of that 100,000 to 500,000 person crowd who disagreed with the message of those signs.

John Conyers talked about firing Bush. Most of the speakers talked about the war. But underneath the antiwar message, something historic happened. The USA's first major, massive impeachment march was held, or maybe I should say, it happened. It wasn't planned. It wasn't orchestrated. It emerged. It took on a life of its own.

Of course, the mainstream media didn't discuss it. But then again, neither did the progressive media, at least that I saw. It sort of happened and it was such a natural part of the demonstration. But I don't recall tens of thousands of impeachment signs during the Viet Nam anti war demonstrations. I remember tear gas.

Tear gas. Bush doesn't have the guts to use tear gas. If he went after Americans for protesting THIS war... well, I grit my teeth just thinking about what would happen. I truly wonder if the capitol police would even obey such orders. I wonder if the nation al guard would. (Actually, the capitol police were ordered to leave protesters alone as they spray painted the capitol steps )And I know that the American people would reach such a fury... well, that's why it didn't happen, and maybe... why it should be pushed. It might just take Bush's popularity down a few more points and move a few more Republican senators into the "what the hell am I doiong supporting this idiot" camp.

Frankly, I don't think, if there was a call for an impeachment protest, that there would be anywhere near the response we saw on Saturday. But underneath the antiwar energy, perhaps underlying and energizing it, there is a clear, huge massively building energy-- a momentum that, as manifested by the historic impeach Bush turnout-- is something the US and the congress has never seen before.

People will probably be patient for a few months, as Waxman, Conyers and others start their hearings. But it is clear, very clear, that tens of millions of Americans expect the congress to protect the constitution, and that means stopping the abuses Bush and Cheney and Gonzalez have perpetrated and prosecuting them for their illegal acts. Tens of millions.

Saturday was historic. Make no mistake about it. It produced, naturally, without a call for it or any effort, the most massive impeachment demonstration in the history ot the USA. It is a beginning. It will not be the last. Americans have had enough of this administration. The Democratic led congress would be wise to smell the coffee.

---

For a complete collection of current impeachment articles and discussions, click here.

A