BS: A Declaration of Impeachment

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 12:36 PM

Media must acknowledge resolution to impeach Bush
Issue date: 1/30/07 Section: Opinion

New Mexico Daily Lobo

On Tuesday, a resolution was introduced in the New Mexico Legislature calling for the impeachment of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. I saw no mention of it in the Daily Lobo or elsewhere. I went to the press conference for its introduction at the Capitol in Santa Fe, and there was very strong public support for the resolution. If passed, the resolution could force impeachment proceedings to begin at the national level. This is a significant, positive event, in my opinion.

The Bush administration is the most impeachable administration in American history, guilty of treason on Sept. 11, 2001, war crimes, mass murder, violating the Constitution and directly undermining our democratic election system. If Bush and Cheney are not impeached for their actions, then this will set a precedent that allows future administrations to start wars at will, torture prisoners, wiretap citizens without warrants and conduct more state-sponsored terrorism. We must act now to prevent that from happening again in the future.

If we do not use impeachment for Bush, who can we use it for? If we do not hold the Bush administration accountable for its horrible, un-American crimes, what hope is there for the future of this nation?

Why is this Legislature resolution not newsworthy? A former UNM political science professor of mine asked on an exam what the slant of the news media was; he said the correct answer was "liberal." I got that question wrong, according to him, but I still believe, now more than ever, that the American media is more conservative than liberal, and the lack of coverage on this resolution proves my point.



Colin Donoghue

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 03:54 PM

Move to impeach Bush gets local push

By ROBERT L. JAMIESON Jr.
P-I COLUMNIST

Ginny Smith hasn't felt this pumped about political activism since Vietnam.

Credit goes to Bush, George W.

What separates the retired Child Protective Services caseworker from others flummoxed by this administration is what she plans to do -- plant seeds for a grass-roots movement to impeach Bush.

Yeah, she seems a bit nuts -- and, well, maybe not so nuts, come to think of it.

The idea that a 63-year-old grandmother of five can fuel a local push to hold the president accountable for the war in Iraq and the erosion of civil liberties seems so pie-in-the-sky.

After all, the U.S. House of Representatives -- not a coffeehouse in Olympia -- is the place where impeachment proceedings typically take root. On top of that, new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she isn't interested in going down that road.

But honestly, folks, the "I-word" must have crossed your mind. People -- such as several I came across at an anti-war rally in Seattle the other day -- wonder how the government could impeach Bill Clinton for fibbing about an affair with an intern but lets Bush off for "truthiness" that has fueled a bloody debacle in Iraq.

Smith was feeling angry and helpless about this situation when she went to her neighborhood coffee shop not long ago and watched a 2006 documentary -- "How to Impeach a President" -- sponsored by the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The film talks about how the impeachment process can begin outside of D.C.

City councils could pass resolutions for impeachment that could fuel resolutions in state legislatures that could compel Congress to deal with a public outcry.

Inspired, Smith and her husband, Jerry, a retired forester, started meetings in Olympia. Their core group of about a dozen now includes an ex-lawyer, former veterans, a respected retired political journalist and a nurse from Seattle, who passes fliers around town.

In recent months, they've given time, money and energy to create something big: a public town hall meeting Feb. 20 to feature national speakers talking about impeaching Bush.

Across the country, people have this topic on the brain. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 04:08 PM

Hey Amos. I have lately felt a ground swell to impeach Cheney and Bush simultaneously.

President Pelosi?

Subject: AL GORE NOMINATED FOR NOBEL PRIZE
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 04:17 PM

Al Gore nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

OSLO, Norway - Former Vice President Al Gore was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his wide-reaching efforts to draw the world's attention to the dangers of global warming, a Norwegian lawmaker said Thursday.

"A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference," Conservative Member of Parliament Boerge Brende, a former minister of environment and then of trade, told The Associated Press.

Brende said he joined political opponent Heidi Soerensen of the Socialist Left Party to nominate Gore as well as Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier before the nomination deadline expired Thursday.

"Al Gore, like no other, has put climate change on the agenda. Gore uses his position to get politicians to understand, while Sheila works from the ground up," Brende said.

During eight years as Bill Clinton's vice president, Gore pushed for climate measures, including for the Kyoto Treaty. Since leaving office in 2001 he has campaigned worldwide, including with his Oscar-nominated documentary on climate change called "An Inconvenient Truth."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 08:52 AM

Excerpt from a punchy essay at The Huffington Post:

"...Remember how Bush claimed he'd "taken a thumpin'" after he lost Congress, how he was ready to usher in a new era of bipartisan cooperation? When exactly is that era beginning? It's been about a month with this new Congress and already he's gone after Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security (again!), spit in the face of the Iraq Study Group, escalated the war in Iraq in full defiance of the will of the American citizenry, and brought us closer to war with Iran.

And those are just the biggies. They're still undermining the truth about global warming, the FDA just lifted the ban on silicon breast implants for women despite proven health risks, and W's bogus 'health care' fix turned out to be just another transparent ploy to eliminate employer-funded health benefits once and for all.

Phew. Imagine if he didn't want to cooperate.

This is the man Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to impeach. Everywhere you look--other than the think tanks of Washington, that is---from opinion polls to the internet, restaurants to gyms, football games, letters to the editors, church bulletins, graffiti, mass transit---even the comment section of the Wall Street Journal online!--- citizens are demanding the guy has got to go, but Nancy Pelosi's decided impeachment is off the table.

The White House shows no sign of stopping, or even being chastened. It has been long one endless assault on constitutional democracy, and they don't take no for an answer.

Don't want to privatize Social Security? He'll come back with a new plan to privatize it. Don't approve his appointees? He'll appoint them anyway. Science says global warming exists? He says it doesn't. Don't want to send more troops to Iraq? He sends them anyway. Don't want to invade Iran?

It's not a lame duck Madam Speaker is giving a free ride to, it's an armed, insane, arrogant asshole duck and he has his webbed foot on the trigger of a third world war.

Only impeachment can stop him.

Only impeachment can stop this assault on democracy.

Only impeachment can stop the erosion of our constitution, our rights, our international stature, the impoverishment of our schools, the degradation of our air and water, the bankrupting of our future with mountains of debt, and the escalation of death to our soldiers, and to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

..."

---

'Asshole duck' captures the picture rather well, I would say.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: fumblefingers
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 07:39 PM

Amos with 228 entries out of 360 wins. The only thing he has yet to quote is the Toad Suck, Texas phone book.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 07 - 04:33 PM

BELLOWS FALLS — One of the leaders of the national grassroots movement to impeach President George W. Bush told a gathering Saturday afternoon that the Vermont Legislature could be a leader to the rest of the country.

David Lindorff, a Philadelphia journalist and the author of the book, "The Case for Impeachment," urged people to contact their legislators to urge them to support a resolution that will be introduced this week by Rep. David Zuckerman, P-Burlington.

Lindorff said that Bush was guilty of at least five impeachable offenses, most dealing with the Iraq War and the war on terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks.
He said Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, and he's also guilty of "criminal negligence" for Hurricane Katrina and the fact that 3,000 U.S. servicemen have died since the U.S.-led coalition ousted Saddam Hussein from power.

Bush had issued what he called "signing statements" under which Bush says, that because he's commander in chief in time of war, he can ignore certain laws.
"The question isn't should we impeach the president, but why haven't we done it already," Lindorff said.

Lindorff was introduced by Newfane resident Dan DeWalt, one of the leaders of the Vermont effort, at the gathering at the Village Bookstore in downtown Bellows Falls. About three dozen people attended the event, which included a book signing by Lindorff. He spoke earlier in the day in Brattleboro.

Lindorff said that there are two routes to impeachment — one can be started in the U.S. House of Representatives and the other can be started by a state legislature.

He said that founding father Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the section of the Constitution dealing with impeachment, specifically included that little-known and never-used provision.

---

Fumblebutt, I am not posting here to win anything. And in case you haven't observed it for yourself, the majority of my posts are to make other people's words and stories available to Catters, not to post my own words.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 10:49 AM

The first web site to offer a formal Indictment of the President makes for an interesting read.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 10:19 PM

Amos:

Knowing your insatiable appetite for information and understanding both sides of every story, I think you should read this:

THE POLITICS OF THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 11:31 PM

Thanks, but I have seen most of that slanderous tripe before, Dickey bird.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 09:20 AM

It is strange Amos would immediately slap his knee jerk Slander label on something written by a person involved in the antiwar movement.

In fact this person is a founder and the National Co-Chair the NO-IFS organization, the IFC Solidarity Group in US:

"The National Organization for the Iraqi Freedom Struggles (NO-IFS) is a coalition of individuals who have come together to oppose the U.S. war against Iraq by supporting the secular, democratic, and progressive movements in Iraq that are struggling for freedom against the occupation and against the Ba'athists and the political Islamists of all stripes, who aim to impose a theocratic state on the Iraqi people. We intend to be an organized presence within the American antiwar movement...

...We therefore demand the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops and military bases from Iraq, and an end to the U.S.-created "democratic process" that is part of the occupation. We also deem it necessary to stop the "next war" before it happens. To this end, we will help educate Americans as to the causes of continual U.S. intervention overseas..."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 06:21 PM

February 23, 2007 at 13:49:20

Impeachment: Breaking the Dam in Olympia, Washington

by Dave Lindorff






If the state of Washington ends up passing a joint legislative resolution next month calling on the US House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney, it will because 900 people who crammed into Olympia's Center for the Performing Arts last Tuesday evening, and countless others across the state, pushed them into it.

The crowd at the arts center had come to attend an event organized by the Citizens Movement to Impeach Bush/Cheney, a local ad hoc citizens' organization in this little burg that had convinced the local city council to make the 1000-seat auditorium available for a hearing on impeachment.



When I and my two co-speakers, CIA veteran Ray McGovern and former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega, came out on the stage, we all felt not like political speakers or authors, but like rock stars. The applause was deafening, not just at the start of the program, but after each speaker's points were made.

It was clear that even if the Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says impeachment is "off the table," a sizeable hunk of the American public is hungering for a taste of it.

Washington is one of a group of states where a serious effort is underway to pass joint legislative resolutions that, thanks to Rules of the House penned by Thomas Jefferson and in effect for nearly length of the Republic, would put impeachment back on the table at the House right under Speaker Pelosi's nose. The significance of the gathering in Olympia is that a freshman senator from Olympia, Eric Oemig, has introduced a bill in the state senate calling for such a resolution. His bill, S6018, is slated to go to a hearing on March 1, to determine whether it can be considered by the full senate, and impeachment activists are planning to have hundreds-perhaps thousands-of backers on hand to make sure it gains committee approval.

"We don't hear any of our leaders today talking about impeachment," Oemig told the crowd. "So the fact that the grass roots have built up the way they have is remarkable!"

Oemig brushed aside what he said was a common argument among colleagues in the legislature that impeachment was not the state's business, and that it would "interfere" with more pressing state matters. Noting that the war in Iraq-one of the key impeachable crimes because of the lies that were used to justify it-is costing hundreds of billions of dollars, Oemig pointed out how many crucial projects affecting Washington State residents were in jeopardy because of lack of federal funding. He noted too that issues like the president's violation of civil liberties and his abuses of power directly affect citizens of the state. "I don't think this is a partisan issue," he said. "Many of my Republican colleagues have grave concerns about some of the Constitutional violations of this administration."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 09:03 AM

Louis Farrakhan, the departing leader of the Nation of Islam, gave what was billed as his last major public address here on Sunday, with his extended illness throwing into sharp focus the question of whether the group will shift toward more mainstream Islamic teachings to survive once it loses its central charismatic figure.

Mr. Farrakhan, 73, looking fairly robust for a man who emerged from major surgery six weeks ago, spent most of his two-hour address denouncing the war in Iraq and calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

"If you don't want to impeach him," Mr. Farrakhan said, "censure him, say to the world something went wrong with our leadership and we repent after our wrongdoing."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 09:13 AM

The Seattle Times presents, in a column, one reasonable argument against impeachment -- that it would divide and paralyze.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 12:06 PM

I am glad to see that Amos is looking at both sides of the story.

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

Campus Announcements

Holtzman to argue for Bush impeachment, March 8
Posted February 28, 2007; 05:39 p.m.

Former Democratic U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, who participated in impeachment hearings on President Nixon, will argue a case for the impeachment of President Bush in a lecture set for 4:30 p.m. Thursday, March 8, in Dodds Auditorium, Robertson Hall.

Holtzman's lecture is titled "George W. Bush: High Crimes and Misdemeanors?" She is the co-author, with Cynthia Cooper, of "The Impeachment of George W. Bush," which argues that Bush misled the country in pursuing the war in Iraq and engaged in other impeachable offenses.

Holtzman represented New York in Congress from 1973 to 1981 and was a member of the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of Nixon. She is a former Brooklyn district attorney and currently practices law in New York City.

The lecture is sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.


(From the Princeton campus paper).

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 09:07 AM

OLYMPIA, Wash. - Dubbing himself a "proud patriot," Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson took his by now well-known and well-honed Bush-bashing rhetoric to the other Washington - as in state - Thursday, accusing the president of undermining the Constitution, violating international law and leading an "outrageous, tragic war of aggression."
    Anderson - who made headlines previously with fiery protest speeches against the commander in chief in the nation's and Utah's capital - was a featured speaker twice at an "impeach-Bush" rally at the Washington State Capitol in Olympia.
    "As mayor of the capital city of the reddest state in the nation," said Anderson Rocky Speaks for Impeaching Bush
in prepared remarks released before his rally speech, "I am proud to join with millions of good, patriotic Americans who are standing up and willing to raise their voices against this madness."
   Anderson went to the Northwest to testify in support of a Washington state resolution urging Congress to investigate and, possibly, impeach President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney - a monumental step the Salt Lake City mayor argues Congress must take. Anderson's appearance before the state Senate was set to take place later Thursday afternoon.
    The resolution is seen as a long shot. Even so, Anderson tore into the Bush administration at the rally, which drew about 50 people, with all the gusto of a street preacher.
    "We proudly say 'no' - we proudly shout 'no' - to the outrageous abuses of power, the violations of law and the heinous violations of human rights committed by George Bush and his administration." The mayor then invited his fellow demonstrators to shout "no" as he rattled off a litany of alleged abuses by the president, Congress, even the news media.
    "Do we support the torture of fellow human beings?" he asked.
    "Do we support an imperial president whose repeated, blatant, arrogant disregard for U.S. and international law has transformed our country into a pariah state among the community of nations? ...
    "Do we support a complacent, complicit Congress so far unwilling to hold this president to account for his outrages?" Anderson asked.
    "Do we stand for a centralized, corporate media that behave as if our newspapers and Fox News are no more than bulletin boards for unquestioned government propaganda?"
   In his prepared remarks, Anderson then urged his listeners to say yes to "peace, the truth and accountability." Utah Republican leaders criticized the mayor's latest anti-Bush foray. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 04:45 PM

In The Nation, John Nichols writes:

"...The Next Mission: Removing a Tyrant

RUTLAND, Vt. -- Over the weekend, I traveled Vermont with three of the most remarkable defenders of democracy I have met in a long time: former Army Sgt. Drew Cameron, former Marine Cpl. Matt Howard and former Army Sgt. Adrienne Kinne.

We were on a mission: A mission to end an unjust and horrific war, and a mission to hold to account the men who launched that war.

What made the experience of appearing in close to a dozen communities with the local Iraq Veterans Against the War campaigners was not that these courageous young vets had chosen to speak so openly and so directly about the reasons why they favor ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq. IVAW members and supporters are speaking up all over this country, more boldly, more aggressively, every day, telling the fundamental truth that Drew Cameron, who served as a field artillery soldier in the 4th Infantry Division, spoke: "Democracy is not taught through the end of a gun."

Rather, the experience was remarkable because these veterans had come to the same conclusion as that reached by a growing number of honest critics of the war: If we are determined to bring the troops home, we have to get serious about addressing the lawlessness of those who brought this war on and who now seek to expand it.

We do not do so by promoting "non-binding resolutions."

We express our seriousness by sending a signal that the need to end this occupation of a foreign land is so pressing that we are prepared to speak of impeaching the men who promise to maintain their military misadventure for so long as they occupy the White House.

"If you want to support the troops, you need to support the Constitution," explained Kinne, who served in the Army from 1994 to 2004 as an Arabic linguist in military intelligence, "And you need to recognize that if you support the Constitution, you must support impeachment."


..."


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:22 PM

From southern Vermont:

"
Sunderland votes to impeach Bush, Cheney

March 6, 2007
By PATRICK McARDLE Herald Staff

SUNDERLAND — After a motion was made from the floor at town meeting Monday night, voters overwhelmingly approved a non-binding recommendation calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Unlike some other towns in Vermont, Sunderland had not added an impeachment issue to its town meeting warning. Still, the question was strongly approved, according to resident and former School Board member Weiland Ross.

Ross said the remaining ballot items were passed as presented for both the town and the school at the meeting at Sunderland Elementary School.

Ross estimated about 75 people attended.

There was some discussion of the Select Board's request for a $185,000 bond for building new town offices and declining enrollment at the school.

Voters will be asked to approve the town's general fund and highway budget, the school budget, and the bond request today. Voting by Australian ballot will take place from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. at Sunderland Elementary School."

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:56 AM

No "Declaration of Impeachment" as yet then?

Amos - looks like you're flogging a dead horse.

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

Just reporting the stories, pal.

Your hero may turn out to be a dead horse, himself, and a pity no-one would step up to do the flogging.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:05 PM

35 Vt. towns call to impeach Bush; 20 say pull troops now


Vermont residents braved sub-zero weather to attend town meetings where 35 towns passed non-binding resolutions to investigate and possibly impeach Pres. Bush and VP Cheney. The impeachment resolution was voted down or not taken up in 9 other towns, while 20 voted for immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

In Middlebury, Gov. Jim Douglas tried to block voting but relented. Supporters hope to get the attention of Vermont's 3 Congress members, none of who support impeachment, but are in favor of at least phased troop withdrawal.

Main Source: CBS News

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 04:50 PM

Failure to impeach, in light of crimes against the Republic of the magnitude we've witnessed, also becomes more than a mere failure at some point; it also becomes an additional crime against the people and the Constitution. It is clearly being generated by what can only be seen as political corruption by Democrats who value increased political power more than the Constitution and the country. Their continued refusal to uphold the law is now becoming constitutionally criminal itself. Any Prosecutor who refuses to prosecute for a perceived increase in personal power or political gain is rightly labeled criminally corrupt himself. Impeachment must neither be an opportunity nor a privilege in a situation like this; it's the legal obligation of duly elected representatives to end a criminal assault on the American people and their government. Neither the Democratic party or it's leadership had or has any right to refuse to undertake the impeachment of this President, least of all to preserve perceived political gains.

The American people need to rise up and demand the Democratic party act: They must subpoena George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and other high officials and place them under oath in public hearings regarding the lies and falsified intelligence upon which they plunged this nation into a ruinous and lethal war. If they fail to act now, the American people, and Democrats in particular must in no way support the continuation of Democrats in power in 2008. As Americans, we can not afford that any President is placed into the office in it's now constitutionally decimated condition; impeachment must be undertaken to restore the balance of powers and credibility of the United States, both abroad, and with it's own people. The time is short and the Democratic majority have an absolute legal obligation to act now to protect us from further executive tyranny and high crimes.

The leadership of the Democratic party must be made to know that their craven and fundamentally corrupt current political calculation can and will be made to backfire if they do not change course now. I for one, will hold my representatives accountable for what's now clearly amounting to their aiding and abetting an ongoing criminal conspiracy; Jay Inslee and Patty Murray: You'd better stop impeding the lawful removal of this administration now or be ready to clean out your offices in 2008. I will not support you under any circumstances if this continues: I will consider it criminal. ...

Jay Esber, writing here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 02:55 AM

President Bush dodged a Constitutional bullet in New Mexico Thursday, when nine Democrats in the state senate joined all 17 Republicans to prevent a proposed joint resolution calling for the US House to begin impeachment hearings to come to a floor vote. Supporters of the measure said it appeared that the Democrats in question mostly came from Republican districts and were worried about electoral repercussions of a pro-impeachment vote.


There is reason to suspect, however, that there was some arm-twisting from national Democratic leaders, who appear dead set on avoiding impeachment hearings, whatever the public sentiment on impeachment (Newsweek reported last fall that 51 percent of Americans favor impeachment) and whatever Bush's crimes, Constitutional violations and abuses of power.

In the state of Washington, where another such effort is being made in that state's senate, the state's senior Senator, Pat Murray, and one of its senior representatives, Jay Inslee, both Democrats, have been lobbying state senate leaders behind the scenes urging them to prevent Sen. Eric Oemig's proposed joint resolution on impeachment, as well as another senator's bill calling for an end to the Iraq war, from getting a floor vote. A decision there is expected before March 14. Supporters of Sen. Oemig's bill say they think the votes are there to pass his measure in the full Senate, if they can get it past the procedural hurdles. It would then go to the state's house of representatives. (One reason leading Democrats want to prevent a floor vote is that impeachment advocates could then rebut their claims that impeachment would be "divisive" and that it "detracts from the Democratic agenda.")

Perhaps the best chance for passage of a state impeachment joint resolution is in Vermont. There impeachment activists have made it through committee in the House. Meanwhile, a grassroots effort has been underway to get towns across the state, most of which operate under a town-meeting form of democratic governance, to pass impeachment resolutions at their annual town meeting. In nearly a third of the state's towns, 48, residents agreed to put the issue on the agenda of their meeting, and of those, 36 passed the resolution. Only one town voted the resolution down.

That kind of public expression of support for putting Bush in the dock in Congress could help convince wavering Democrats in the state's legislature to vote for impeachment whatever national Democratic leaders may say.

Other efforts to pass state resolutions on impeachment are reportedly underway in Maine, California, New Jersey and elsewhere.

The Constitution lays out a process for initiating impeachment which begins with the filing of a bill of impeachment by a member of the House of Representatives, but Thomas Jefferson, recognizing that Congress in some cases might be too cowed by a powerful president or to removed from public sentiment, established, in his Manual of Rules for the House, a second route to impeachment--a joint resolution by a state legislature--on the theory that state legislators are much closer to the people."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 11:17 AM

The Toronto Daily News:

"Sen. Chuck Hagel, an outspoken war critic, called Bush's Iraq policy the most dangerous foreign policy blunder.

Outspoken war critic Senator Chuck Hagel will announce his "future plans" to become a Republican presidential contender on Monday.

In January, Hagel, 60, a decorated infantry sergeant during the Vietnam War, told CNN that he would make a decision about a presidential run "soon."

Hagel, an increasingly vocal critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war, called President Bush's plan this year to increase U.S. troops in Iraq "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."

Hagel also joined six other Republicans in February to back a nonbinding resolution opposing the troop increase.

"I believed what the administration said, that war would be a last resort," Hagel told Esquire magazine in an interview. "And the second thing is, at a critical time like this, the president needs a strong hand, and to some extent, you've got to trust him, until he lies or screws up or something."

Hagel also told Esquire that Bush appears to believe he's no longer accountable. "You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends how this goes."

---

The Billings, Montana, Gazette:

Letter: Support our troops, impeach Bush

The only way we will avoid a war with Iran is to impeach Bush.

If we go to war with Iran, will it spread to Syria and Jordan? Will China and Russia get involved? It will inflame the Muslim world against us. Probably the oil will be shut off. It could be the beginning of World War III.

Going to war is like opening a door to a darkened room. One never knows what is hidden in the darkness.

Former President Carter, in his recently published book, tells us we need peace, not apartheid, in Palestine. Let's support our troops and impeach Bush.

Lee Smoot Jr.
Big Timber

---

The Seattle Times:
True representation advocates for the people whose trust is abused

Editor, The Times:

The Seattle Times' opposition to Sen. Eric Oemig's resolution, calling for the House of Representatives to investigate issues related to the possible impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, is as well-thought-out as its endorsement of George Bush in 2000 ["Impeach Bush? Not from Olympia," editorial, March 8].

Our legislators, at both the federal and state level, are equally bound by Article 6 of the United States Constitution to support it. To ignore the assault that has occurred is dereliction.

Would Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, or Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., counsel a victim of domestic assault not to become distracted by the pursuit of justice? If they did so counsel, would you acquiesce? Shame on those who would; you simply lower the bar for those who seek to lead this country in the future.

The Democrats' avoidance of impeachment is a smokescreen. I sense in this resistance a fear of not being up to the task of leading our nation out of this quagmire. While we must withdraw from Iraq, we must withdraw from Iraq in a manner that doesn't leave the region poised to explode, and the only way to do that is to replace this administration with competent world leaders and diplomats, committed to peace and justice.

The work associated with improvements to the minimum wage, education, health care and the environment can proceed concurrently; or are you suggesting we must also tackle each of these issues one at a time?

Flogging a horse doesn't help, but neither does surrender in the face of injustice.

— Ronald Roberts, Redmond

---

The Los Gatos Observer:
Impeach Bush, Los Gatans Told
Petition drive in Town Plaza
By Alastair Dallas 03/10/07 5:53 pm
View 3 responsesPrint-friendly version
At least 7 protesters gathered near the post office Sat. night to express themselves with signs reading "Impeach Bush/Cheney" and "Don't be Fuelish." The individuals seemed determined but calm and willing to listen to other points of view.

"Senator [J. William] Fulbright, back in the 60s, said that if you don't like what your government is doing," one protester explained, "then you have a constitutional duty to make your views heard."


Several protesters gathered across from the post office. Others arrived, and the group headed up N. Santa Cruz Ave.
The protesters have been picketing in Mountain View and decided to try a different locale.

"We thought we'd take the temperature here in Los Gatos," one said. Within a few minutes, they had gathered a couple of signatures on their impeachment petition, along with a harangue by someone they described as being a Rush Limbaugh fan.

The protest seemed loosely organized; it's not clear when the group will return. The important thing, beyond gathering signatures, seems to be just getting the word out. Free speech is alive in Los Gatos.

...

"lamoyer0 03/11/07 11:21 am:

It's about time. The law is the law. Bush/Cheney and their band of the worst 'mafia' in the history of this country, probably the world have committed so many impeachable offenses, from lying to Americans, congress, the UN, the world, to an illegal war-for-profit, to TORTURE, to illegal wire tapping.... WHICH BUSH ADMITS TO AND ARROGANTLY INFORMS US HE WILL CONTINUE TO DO... TO OUTING A COVERT CIA AGENT AND ITS OPERATION (tracking WMD's, for God's sake), which is ON ITS FACE... TREASON. The Republicans, who "conserve" NOTHING, including our precious Constitution, have LOOTED America to support this murderous Bush Mafia. Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez/Ashcroft, Rice, Rove, Rumsfeld.. ALL... have way beyond exceeded the "standards for impeachment" set by the Republicans, themselves, that their ignoring these presidential crimes is complicity and treason, as well.

IMPEACHMENT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS, of investigation and indictment, that discovers the truth (hopefully) and writes their crimes into history. IF IT ISN'T WRITTEN, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

IMPEACHMENT SAYS, "WE'RE SORRY!" Something the world needs, and which may be the only thing that convinces the world that the American People do not condone the crimes of this indifferent, murderous administration. It may be, in fact, the one and only thing that will save the lives of countless Americans and our economy...way into the future. The search for the truth through impeachment will undoubtedly expose the corporate greed that war feeds, as well as its poisoning of human beings for profit and the fact that the U.S. military has become a fascist corporate tool to capture and hold the resources and lives struggling nations, and human beings around the world.

What kind of a country have we become when the American People are convinced (like "good Germnans") that it's ok to let these rich bastards murder 650,000 Iraqi human beings, including infants and children... TO FEED THEIR ADDICTION TO PROFIT AND POWER? "

...

"Arthur 03/11/07 10:11 am
A better sign would read. "Uphold the Constitution and enforce Federal law." The Federal War Crimes Act of 1996 should be invoked NOW! Indict, try, convict, and EXECUTE Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and all the other war criminals, mass murderers, war mongerers, CIA death squads, war profiteers and conspirators in our government. Hang them high from the top of the Washington Monument as a signal to the rest of the world that Americans will NOT tolerate war criminals and murderers at the head of our government. DO IT AND DO IT NOW!"

---

The tide gathers long before it reaches the sands.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 03:13 PM

Anti-war activist speaks for Bush impeachment
Monday, March 12, 2007
By PATRICIA NORRIS
[e-mail]


NORTHAMPTON - The mere mention of impeachment brought thunderous applause and standing ovations in Northampton yesterday.

Men, women and children came to an impeachment forum at First Churches, organized by the Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts' Western Massachusetts chapter. The discussion of whether impeachment of President George W. Bush is necessary to end the war in Iraq was also held in Greenfield on Saturday.

More than 300 people attended yesterday and crowds were estimated at over 500 in Greenfield.



The panel at both events included Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq. Sheehan gained national attention when she protested Bush's policies at the entrance to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, a time she refers to as "Camp Casey" after her son. Sheehan is president of Gold Star Families for Peace.

Also speaking was lawyer John Bonifaz, author of "Warrior King: The Case for Impeaching George Bush," and Daniel Dewalt, an activist and selectman from Vermont who is working to have town meeting members officially move for Bush's impeachment in Vermont. Some 38 towns have signed on to do so, DeWalt said.

"This is not a call to arms, this is a call to hands, heads and hearts," said DeWalt of the impeachment movement.

Sheehan told the crowd that the politically powerful want to make the people feel despair and powerless to effect change, particularly when it comes to impeaching Bush. But she refuses to feel paralyzed, she said.

"We are their bosses. They should do what we want them to do, not what the war profiteers on K Street want them to do ... End the 'stinkin' thinkin' that you can't make a difference if you are only one person," she said.

Kaolin, a 52-year-old mother and social worker, said she came to the forum because she has grown tired of the war and what she called "the Bush dynasty." Kaolin, who said she legally changed her name when she turned 40 to be without a surname, came to the anti-war venue with her daughter and husband. It was the first anti-war forum for her daughter, Amara Williams.

Her father, a Vietnam veteran, joined them later. George A. Williams, who served in combat from 1967 to 1968 and was wounded in action, came to support Sheehan, "for all that she has done."

"This means a lot to me to stop this madness of war," he said before taking off a black cap adorned with a veteran fund-raising flower.

"This war is another Vietnam. I am opposed to it and I see many similarities. It was started under false pretenses."

From Massachusetts Live.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 03:17 PM

Forget Impeachment: Grab The Tar And Feathers
by CHUCK BALDWIN

March 13, 2007—In this column last week, I asked the question, Should President George W. Bush be impeached? The specific precursor for that question was the guilty verdict of former White House insider Lewis "Scooter" Libby. In my mind, that trial and subsequent conviction demonstrated that there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a thorough investigation into whether President Bush willfully manipulated evidence regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq and whether he deliberately lied to the American people in order to justify a pre-determined plan to launch a preemptive attack on that country.

...

...What do you think George Bush would do if a group of people violently tried to oust him from power? I seem to recall a President and Attorney General sending tanks and helicopter gun ships against mostly old men, women, and children outside Waco, Texas, a few years back. And those poor folks had no intention of overthrowing the Texas capital, much less Washington, D.C.

The relevant question is not, Did Iraq have WMD, but Did they have WMD capable of threatening the United States? Everyone now knows the answer to that question is, no, it did not. But what we don't know is, When did President Bush know the answer to that question?


If our President knew that Iraq did not pose a "clear and present danger" to the security of the United States...the man is certainly guilty of "high crimes" and should be impeached...If our President knew that Iraq did not pose a "clear and present danger" to the security of the United States, and if he deliberately deceived the American people and sent more than 3,000 of America's finest to their deaths for ulterior motives (whatever they were), the man is certainly guilty of "high crimes" and should be impeached, at the very least.

What did Bush know, and when did he know it? Regardless of where each of us stands politically, we should want to know the answer to that question. Unless we are afraid of the truth, of course.Frankly, I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't know anyone who does (outside Bush and his inner circle). Therefore, I stand behind my initial statement that we need a thorough investigation to find out the truth. It would seem to me that, regardless of where each of us stands politically, we should want to know the answer to that question. Unless we are afraid of the truth, of course. ...

Mr Baldwin's column is here.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 11:35 AM

"Love Life, Liberty? Impeach Bush/Cheney Rally/March in Palo Alto
by Carol Brouillet
Wednesday Mar 14th, 2007 8:19 AM

Activists will rally at Lytton Plaza in Downtown Palo Alto at 1:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 14, 2007 to voice their opposition to government policies and demand that Congress launch the "Impeachment" of Bush and Cheney. The rally will conclude with a presentation of demands at Congresswoman Anna Eshoo's Emerson Street office. Like Pelosi, Eshoo doesn't want to touch "Impeachment."


...Listening Project begins at 10:00 am and the Impeachment Rally will follow at 1:00 pm. Along with the impeachment issue, activists hope to draw more public support for the larger antiwar/impeachment rallies that are scheduled for the weekend in Palo Alto, San Francisco, Washington D.C. and other cities throughout the US.

Local organizer Carol Brouillet's message to Eshoo and Congress is simple:

"'We the people' are finding it hard to endure Congress's lack of scrutiny—and even encouragement—of Administration policies that have led us into immoral, illegal wars, gutted our Constitution and Bill of Rights, created the monstrous Homeland Security/Police State Apparatus that threatens the civil rights of peace activists and dissenters more than it threatens 'high-level Al Qaeda operatives'—who have been assisted, employed, and protected by the FBI, the CIA and the military, blatantly, under your watchful eyes. There has been no move by the Congress to rescind the offensive Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, nor has there been an outcry against the institutionalization of torture, the new legislation that allows the Executive Branch to easily declare 'martial law,' and the abolition of posse comitatus or habeas corpus. Bush and Cheney continue to lie, to attempt to link 9/11 to Iraq, to bully and threaten other nations, and to terrorize the American people and Congress.

"Bush and Cheney's flagrant high crimes and contempt for truth, justice, the Constitution, International Law, and human life have outraged the entire planet, uniting people everywhere against the United States government. The best hope for the country and the world is for Congress to commence impeachment proceedings and to immediately begin to roll back the Administration's aggressive, imperialistic policies. "


From Peninsula News.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 04:14 PM

Kucinich: "Impeachment May Well Be the Only Remedy"

Today Rep. Dennis Kucinich defied Speaker Nancy Pelosi and put the Impeachment of George W. Bush "on the table" where it urgently belongs. Kucinich said,

"This week the House Appropriations committee removed language from the Iraq war funding bill requiring the Administration, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, to seek permission before it launched an attack against Iran. Since war with Iran is an option of this Administration and since such war is patently illegal, then impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran."

Of course speaking about impeachment is not the same as introducing Articles of Impeachment. But Kucinich is stepping into a firestorm of opposition from the corporate media and his own party's leadership - and needs our support to keep him going. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 01:30 PM

Out of 264 towns in Vermont, 35 call to impeach Bush; 20 say pull troops now!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 03:07 PM

Brave and thoughful towns, they are.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 04:04 PM

Larry Margasak, Canadian Press
Published: Saturday, March 17, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hundreds of anti-war demonstrators traded barbs with supporters of the U.S. policy in Iraq on Saturday from opposite sides of a street bordering the National Mall in advance of a protest march to the Pentagon to denounce a war entering its fifth year.

The anti-war group carried signs saying "U.S. Out of Iraq Now," "Stop Iraq War, No Iran War, Impeach" and "Illegal Combat."

The other side carried signs saying "Peace Through Strength," "al-Qaida Appeasers On Parade" and "We Are At War, Liberals Root For the Enemy."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=e2403686-85cb-4d1a-8fa9-86e3098150db&k=34819

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 04:31 PM

It appears that the pro-warheads were kind of short on understanding who their enemy is and who the protesters were. I can guarantee you that practically none of those protesting the Iraq war thought we should appease Al Queda, or thought of rooting for any enemy of the United States. In the murk, smoke, and FUD caused by Bush's sales pitches for going to war where he should not have, a huge division of sides has been artificially created, amplified by voices like Dickey, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and other nutballs who think slaughter is the road to peace, and that bullying is the sign of strength. God knows where they picked up such notions -- probably at recess, overwhelmed by beefy playground toughs in leather jackets who took their lunch money.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 12:09 AM

Keep in mind that al Qaeda likes the anti-war protesters even if they don't like him.

The a huge division of sides has been artificially created by anti-war socialist outfits like ANSWER.

ANSWER characterizes itself as anti-imperialist, and its steering committee consists of socialists, Marxists, civil rights advocates, and left-wing progressive organizations from the Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, Filipino, Haitian, and Latin American communities. Many of ANSWER's leaders were members of Workers World Party (WWP) at the time of ANSWER's founding, and are current members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), a Marxist-Leninist organization that formed in 2004. ANSWER was established by the International Action Center (IAC), which was founded by former United States attorney general Ramsey Clark and the Workers World Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.N.S.W.E.R.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 12:15 AM

That same horseshit was tried during the Vietnam War also. It was horseshit then and it's horseshit now. It is a person's responsibility to protest unjust wars. The fuckin' politicians don't have their kids' lives on the line.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 12:08 PM

One way to win a war that would not be winnable otherwise is to influence to the weak minded people among the enemy. They will win it for you.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 01:32 PM

Coming from the chief Dick around here, that is a compliment.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 08:31 AM

How's the Impeachment going then Amos?

All seems pretty quiet from the amount reported this side of the pond. But as far as indictments go the following opinion should be of interest -

From The Times: March 12, 2007

THE PRICE OF THE BLAIR-BROWN WAR

The Armed Services are paying with lives for Labour rivalry (by William Rees-Mogg)

The British Army could draw up an indictment against the British Government. It would not be based on the decisions to go to war in Afghanistan or Iraq. Both were the subjects of national and parliamentary debate at the time that the decisions were made. The indictment would be that the Government failed to back the troops with adequate funding. Whether one is talking about pay and allowances, about equipment, about the numbers of men, about military hospitals, about the shortage of aftercare for the sick, the Government has failed to find the money. It has not honoured its side of the defence covenant.

Two ministers are responsible. Forget the grey ghosts who have held the post of secretary for defence. None has resigned rather than accept his responsibility for running the Armed Services, in a war on two fronts, without securing adequate financial support. It was the Prime Minister who decided the policy; it was the Chancellor who controlled the funding. If there has been a mismatch between commitments and funding, they must take the responsibility.

Tony Blair had several reasons for his decision to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq; I found them convincing at the time, whatever errors may have been made since. He wanted to maintain the Anglo-American alliance for defence; he was right to think that the United States is both the most advanced defence power and the most reliable ally. The European powers of Nato have been reluctant to accept their fighting responsibilities in Afghanistan. That supports Mr Blair's judgment that he should rely on the United States rather than them.

Mr Blair wanted to drive al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan; he was convinced that Saddam Hussein was a threat to peace throughout the region. The strengths of the post-Saddam insurgency tend to confirm that judgment. Presumably, Mr Blair was also concerned about the future of oil supplies from the Middle East, which is a permanent economic interest for the United Kingdom. He believed that Saddam was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction; he may have used that argument as propaganda, but there is no reason to doubt that he believed it at the time — almost everyone else did, even President Chirac of France.

The more closely one considers the original arguments for supporting US policy, the more weight they seem to have. At the very least, these were reasons for going to war that could have been accepted in good faith by a responsible and rational statesman. That is all the justification that the Army expects, or can ever expect. What was inexcusable was that defence expenditure, in all its forms, including the pay and welfare of soldiers, was allowed to fall so far behind events.

The peace dividend, which was composed of defence cuts made after the end of the Cold War, coincided with the outbreak of war in the Middle East. The policy should then have been reconsidered. Defence spending should have been doubled — or thereabouts — after the decisions to go to war that were made in 2002 and 2003. As a share of the national income, defence spending continued to fall, despite the protests of senior officers, made at first privately and then publicly. The Government cannot claim that it was not given warning by the professionals.

Gordon Brown never quite made clear his attitude to the decision to go to war. He gave sufficient public support to the war to be able to remain a member of the Cabinet. At the same time he allowed people in the Labour Party who opposed the war to believe that his public position did not represent his real opinion, and that he had a considerable sympathy with their point of view. Silence is ambiguity, and he was silent most of the time. Mr Brown's attitude to defence spending has not changed subsequently. He wants it to be reduced in proportion to the national income, even though British forces are at war.

Throughout the period of the war, the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor has been deplorable. They were fighting a third war, for the leadership of the Labour Party. The division between them meant that the war was Mr Blair's business, but paying for the war was Mr Brown's business. We do not know whether the Prime Minister tried to persuade the Chancellor to increase spending. He could have sacked Mr Brown if he refused to finance the war which was government policy. He did not do so.

Wherever one looks, the Armed Forces are underfunded. Patrols in Basra are still using vulnerable snatch vehicles in which several soldiers have been killed. The RAF has not yet fitted foam retardant to all its Hercules aircraft, as has been routine in the US Air Force since the 1960s, and as has become universal in Australia and with most other allies. The Hercules has cost lives. The only regiment in the Army that is fully up to strength is the Gurkhas. Even after a 9 per cent rise for privates, recruits to the Army will be paid £10,000 a year less than those to the Metropolitan Police. Half the accommodation for the Army in the United Kingdom is "below standard". The only 1,000 reservists are engaged in the Middle East, often on work for which they have not been fully trained. By the end of this month there will be no military hospital left in Britain to treat the wounded. Put a finger anywhere into the military pie and it will touch the damage done by ten years of budget cuts. The Americans laugh at the way that the Brits rely on hand-me-downs of US equipment.

The Army is seriously overstretched in both Afghanistan and in Iraq. This has done serious strategic damage to its morale and future capacity. Soldiers are given extraordinarily little time to spend with their families and the break-up of marriages is common. There is a pathetic group of unsupported ex-servicemen, who may be suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder, who are homeless, jobless and wifeless.

Money alone would not solve these problems, but they certainly cannot be solved without money. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown opted for war on the cheap; British soldiers have to pay the cost.

Additional personal comment:

As a percentage of our GDP, defence expenditure has decreased from 2.7 per cent in 1997 to 2.2 per cent in 2005. That's roughly the same as in the "Appeasement Years" of the 1930s before re-armament began. In the period under discussion, however, the government has committed our forces to battle on two very difficult fronts which require different types and scales of equipment than the European theatre for which they were originally organised and trained to fight.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 08:48 AM

Well, T, I dunno. It might happen, but then, it might not.

I think both our gummints have a lot to answer for as regards the discrepancy between strategy and funding, weak planning and inadequate logistics.

Bush would have a lot less flak on his ass if he had designed a winnable war and won it. A smaller number of wrongful deaths. A lower-scale black hole in the economic profile.

Fewer keening widows and shattered children -- would have been a lot easier to sweep under the carpet, eh?

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 08:54 AM

Bush Impeachment A Rallying Cry for Anti-War Movement
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
March 19, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Alan McConnell of Silver Spring, Md., stood near the Lincoln Memorial, the starting point for the "March on the Pentagon" Saturday, selling little green "Impeach Bush" buttons for a dollar each.

The proceeds, he said, would go toward making big green "Impeach Bush" yard signs. In the first hour at the rally, he made $150 in sales from the anti-war crowd that numbered in the thousands, all braving the windy, 30-degree weather in Washington, D.C.

The protesters participating in the march from the Mall to the Pentagon - a march intended to recall a 1967 anti-Vietnam War march -- made impeachment of President George W. Bush a high priority, waving signs that said "Impeach Bush for War Crimes;" "Visualize Impeachment, Save the Country;" and "Impeach and Imprison Bush," among others.

Both protesters and speakers at the march cited as reasons for impeachment their belief that Bush intentionally lied about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to "mislead" the country into war; the warrantless domestic surveillance of international telephone calls; and the leaking of CIA employee Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. Many also called for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney and cabinet officials as well.

The group ImpeachBush.org, a group founded by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, was a co-sponsor of the "March on the Pentagon," along with the A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition.

"The president and vice president committed high crimes and misdemeanors. How many crimes do they have to commit? How long does this have to go on?" said Clark, who served on the legal defense team for Saddam Hussein when he was tried in Iraq for crimes against humanity. "Impeachment is the first step to restore order to the country."

ImpeachBush.org says it has collected more than 850,000 signatures on impeachment petitions and it claims to be the country's largest impeachment group. And there are other such groups.

Aggressively trying to sell his green buttons, McConnell, of the group United Local Impeachment Meet-up approached Monica McGovern, 47, who was holding a collection bucket for donations to the pro-impeachment group WorldCan'tWait.org in one hand and a "Stop the Iraq War, No Iran War, Impeach Bush" sign in the other.

McGovern, who traveled from Bush's birthplace of New Haven, Conn., for the march, told McConnell she didn't have a $1 to spend on the green button, and declined his request to use money from the bucket for the purchase.

"I'm a conservative Republican and believed the president, but then I found out it was a lie and not an intelligence mistake," McGovern, 47, told Cybercast News Service.

She said she doesn't expect Congress to do anything about it.

"It's discouraging," she said. "But I have to do the right thing even if there is no chance."

Multiple speakers near the Pentagon led the crowd in chants of "Impeach Bush."

To be sure, protesters in the large crowd had multiple messages. Many held signs that said "9/11: It was an Inside Job;" "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" and "The Rapture is Not an Exit Strategy."

Others carried upside down American flags. At least one person wore a Bush mask with a red devil outfit including horns.

"They are Satanic," said Kennedy Hart of Northern Virginia, referring to the Bush administraton. "How do you run your own nation into the ground and kill mass numbers of people without being Satanic? They think they are above God and can use the world as their playground."

Hart held a sign that said "Impeach Cheney, Then Bush."

"If you just impeach Bush, who do you get? The one who designed the war," said Hart, who is part of the political action committee of perennial presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche.

Despite the apparent broad support in the anti-war movement for impeachment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said more than once that impeachment is "off the table." However, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which would preside over impeachment proceedings, has repeatedly expressed interest in taking up the matter.

Speaking to the crowd, former Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia blamed her own party for not taking action on impeachment and ending the war.

"Why is impeachment off the table?" McKinney shouted into the microphone. "The Democrats are full partners in George Bush's war. As an American of conscience, I declare my independence from every bomb that was dropped. I declare my independence from every civil right violated. Sadly, I declare my independence from the leaders who let this happen."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 08:58 PM

This article appears in the March 23, 2007 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors Propel Double Impeachment

by Edward Spannaus and Jeffrey Steinberg

Without warning, the Bush-Cheney White House is once again overwhelmed by new evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, by both the President and the Vice President, that once again put the issue of impeachment squarely on the table. And this time, the evidence of official criminality is hitting the White House as a whole, including the President's chief political hit-man Karl Rove, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and, according to several highly placed Washington sources, the President himself.

In the past two weeks, simultaneous with the jury's guilty verdict in the Lewis Libby trial, two serious scandals have erupted, that have destabilized the White House like never before, and have led to bipartisan Congressional demands for the immediate resignation of Gonzales, the former White House Counsel, and one of Bush's closest Texas friends still remaining in the Administration.

Furthermore, on March 16, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) held dramatic hearings on the Valerie Plame Wilson leak, featuring the former CIA covert officer herself, which has opened up yet another flank on the crimes of the Vice President.

Rove and Bush in the Target Zone

Although Gonzales's chief of staff has already resigned, and many observers believe that Gonzales cannot be far behind, there is mounting evidence that the political purge of GOP-appointed U.S. Attorneys—who are the chief Federal prosecutors in each of 93 Federal judicial districts across the country—was planned and orchestrated from the highest levels of the White House.

And further, it is clear that the driving motive behind the purge was the failure of certain U.S. Attorneys to aggressively pursue what Karl Rove and the White House call "voter fraud"—the offense of "voting-while-black" (or Hispanic)—otherwise known as "vote suppression."

Rove's fingerprints are all over this, not only from the evidence that it was he, and not Harriet Miers or Gonzales, who initiated the idea of firing all U.S. Attorneys in January 2005, but who later settled for a more modest plan of firing a lesser number who were considered "disloyal" to the White House agenda. As former Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal points out in the March 15 issue of Salon, not only was Rove the point-man in the Republican Party for collecting complaints of "voter fraud," and demanding prosecutions of Democrats, but the man known as "Bush's Brain" has a long history, going back to 1986 in Texas, of using the FBI to investigate his candidates' Democratic opponents. Rove was just "doin' what comes naturally."

Background: As we have previously reported (see EIR, Oct 8, 2004), there was a major shift in the Justice Department during the Bush-Cheney Administration's first term, ceasing enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, and instead pushing so-called "voting integrity" measures targetting "illegal" registration and voting by minorities and poor people who happen to vote heavily Democratic. The DOJ Civil Rights Division and its Voting Rights section were purged of career officials, who were replaced by Federalist Society activists and other right-wing types, who had a long history in GOP vote-suppression efforts.

The White House has acknowledged that last October, President Bush told Gonzales that GOP officials were complaining that various U.S. Attorneys weren't pursuing "voter fraud" investigations aggressively enough. Rove also told Miers that the DOJ was not moving aggressively on "voter fraud."

This was a significant factor in the firings of U.S. Attorneys John McKay in Washington State, and David Iglesias of New Mexico. McKay was pressured by Republicans to bring voter-fraud charges regarding the 2004 Washington State gubernatorial race, in which Democrat Christine Gregoire was declared the winner after two recounts. "There was no evidence," McKay told the Seattle Times, "and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury." New Mexico GOP officials complained to Rove about the failure of Iglesias to indict Democrats for voter fraud; when the state GOP chairman asked Rove at a Christmas party, "Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?" Rove replied: "He's gone." And indeed, he soon was.

Vote suppression figured in a different way in the firing of Homer Cummins, the U.S. Attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas, who was dumped to clear the way for a Rove crony, John Griffin. According to the recently disclosed White House/DOJ e-mails, Bush Administration officials were concerned that if Griffin—a long-time Federalist Society activist—had to undergo a Senate confirmation hearing (which the firings were intended to bypass, using a provision of the Patriot Act), he would be questioned about his role as a GOP operative in the 2000 and 2004 campaigns, in Florida and elsewhere, challenging absentee ballots in African-American precincts.

Indicative of the way in which the White House was taken by surprise by the wildfire spread of this scandal, its explanations for the firings have been constantly shifting, but have all centered on claims—made by top DOJ officials under oath—that the U.S. Attorneys in question were dismissed for "poor performance." These ham-handed attacks on highly regarded Federal prosecutors have infuriated Republicans as well as Democrats. As one prominent former Republican U.S. Attorney, Joseph DiGenova of the District of Columbia, put it: "They have the right to fire them; they do not have the right to smear them."

Shutting Down a DOJ Investigation

While the White House and Gonzales were still reeling from the U.S. Attorney purge scandal, they were hit with another, seemingly out of the blue. According an article posted by the National Journal on March 15, it was upon the advice of Gonzales that Bush shut down an internal Justice Department investigation of the NSA (National Security Agency) domestic spying scandal, one year ago. Moreover, Gonzales had been informed at the time that the probe would examine his own role in authorizing the illegal spying program, while he was White House Counsel. It was clear that it would also have looked into why Gonzales had authorized the NSA program over the strenuous objections of senior career DOJ officials, who were in a battle royal with Dick Cheney's chief of staff Lewis Libby and Cheney's legal counsel David Addington, over the spy program as well as other abuses of Executive power.

The mechanism by which Bush shut down the investigation was simple: He ordered that security clearances be denied to investigators in the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Never before had OPR personnel been denied security clearances; the fraudulent nature of this action, was demonstrated by the fact that at the same time, lawyers in the DOJ's Criminal Division were given security clearances to investigate the leaking of the NSA program to the New York Times, and DOJ Civil Division lawyers were given clearances to defend the Administration against lawsuits and FOIA requests revolving around the unlawful eavesdropping program.

Almost immediately, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), fired off a letter to Gonzales, citing the National Journal report that Gonzales knew that his own conduct was about to be investigated when he recommended to the President that the investigation be shut down. Conyers demanded that Gonzales answer questions and provide documents on this matter, which Conyers said would amount to "an extraordinary abuse of authority."

Cheney Coverup Exposed

Then, on March 16, three major lies at the center of the Dick Cheney-orchestrated coverup of the Joseph Wilson/Valerie Plame case were utterly destroyed, in the hearing held by Waxman's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. This trio of lies, repeated endlessly by apologists for Cheney and the White House, are:

1. "Valerie Plame was not covert; there was no crime." Waxman opened the hearing by reading a statement he had discussed with CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden, and which, Waxman emphasized, was cleared in its entirety by the CIA.

Waxman stated unequivocally, that Valerie Plame Wilson was undercover during her employment at the CIA, that her employment status was classified, and that at the time of the July 14, 2003 Robert Novak column, "Ms. Wilson's employment status was covert."

"Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA," Waxman continued. "In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life," and, "maintaining her cover was critical to protecting the safety of both colleagues and others." And, refuting those who claim that she just had "a desk job," Waxman added that "any characterization that minimizes the personal risk Ms. Wilson accepted in her assignments is flatly wrong." The disclosure of her employment with the CIA "placed her professional contacts at greater risk," Waxman declared on behalf of the CIA, and "it undermined the trust and confidence with which future CIA employees and sources hold the United States."

Within the strict limitations imposed on her by her oath of secrecy, Plame herself testified that she had been a "covert operations officer," working in the CIA's Counter-Proliferation Division, and that during the period before the Iraq War, "I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policy-makers on Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction program." She added the critical point, that, "While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence."

And, she declared, "My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior government officials both in the White House and State Department," which may have "jeopardized and even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents, who in turn risk their own lives and those of their families to provide the United States with needed intelligence."

2> "Plame sent her husband on a junket to Africa." Plame provided a devastating refutation of the lies put into the Senate Intelligence Committee report by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and others. Plame testified that one of her colleagues had gotten a call from the Office of the Vice President about the alleged Iraq/Niger yellowcake claim. At that point, another CIA officer suggested sending her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson, on a mission to investigate this, and her supervisor asked her to raise it with her husband. Another colleague who was interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee later came to her, almost in tears, over the way his statements were distorted in the Intelligence Committee report, so as to give the impression that Plame had suggested Wilson be sent to Africa. He asked to be re-interviewed, but his request was refused.

3. President Bush: "I want to get to the bottom of this." Despite repeated White House statements that anyone involved in the leaking of Plame's identity would be fired, the head of the White House Office of Security acknowledged that his office had never conducted any investigation of the unauthorized disclosure of Plame's identity—as is mandatory under various Executive Orders governing the handling of classified information. There was no investigation, no report, and there is nothing in the office's files to show that anything was ever done.

Impeachment: The Only Remedy

Under these extraordinary conditions, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) cut right to the quick in a speech on the House floor March 15, declaring that impeachment is the only way to deal with this Administration.

"This House cannot avoid its constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the use of Executive power," Kucinich began, and then proceeded to address the dire situation created by the action of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democratic leadership in removing language from the Iraq War funding bill, "requiring the Administration, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, to seek permission before it launched an attack against Iran."

"Since war with Iran is an option of this Administration, and since such war is patently illegal, then impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains," Kucinich aptly put it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:37 PM

The total population of the 29 towns that voted to impeach was 68,148. This information was obtained off the Internet and I believe most numbers are from the 2004 Census. Knowing that historically voter turnout is around 50 percent and that these numbers include children, etc., I will use a very generous 40 percent for possible voters bringing the number down to 27,259. Since the press chooses to only cite results where the proposition won overwhelmingly, I'll use that rate rather than research each individual town. I saw a rate as high as 80 to 20 percent, so if 80 percent voted in favor, we've now got 21, 807. The population of Vermont is 609,000, which means that in the looniest state in the union, about 3.5 percent supported the impeachment proposition. Nationwide, it works out to be 73 one thousandths of 1 percent.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:43 PM

94.316% of all people who use statistics in political arguments make them up as they go along.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 02:58 AM

400 Up!!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:01 AM

You da man, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 08:56 AM

Bush impeachment on the table, Hagel says
From the Associated Press
March 26, 2007


WASHINGTON — Some lawmakers who complain that President Bush is flouting Congress and the public with his Iraq policies are considering impeachment an option, a Republican senator said Sunday.

Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment.

But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.

"Any president who says 'I don't care' or 'I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else' or 'I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed' — if a president really believes that, then there are … ways to deal with that," Hagel said on ABC's "This Week."

The White House had no immediate reaction to Hagel's comments.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 12:03 PM

" ...The only insurance Bush has against the impeachment he so richly deserves, and that a majority of Americans devoutly wish to see him receive, is a craven Democratic Party leadership, which because of a profound lack of principle, an excess of self-interested political calculation, and an astonishing misreading of the popular will, is going to any lengths to avoid doing what the Constitution demands it to do: impeach a president who poses a clear and present danger to the survival of Constitutional government and the rule of law in America. "

From The Atlantic Free Press.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 12:14 PM

Amos - Thats a very bad link.

I agree with the quote, however. If the Democrats want to prove their worth, they must impeach Bush. So what if Cheney becomes President? He wouldn't have any more power than he already does and he doesn't have any more time than he already has. Congress is bound to uphold the constitution and they should do it regardless of politics or the consequences. They have a duty.

The cost of their inaction is our freedom from tryranny.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 12:21 PM

THe link is weird -- it seems to error out on the first try and then slowly load the right page if you hit it again, which tells me they have a local server with a slow processor.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:19 PM

Senate war bill features $20B in pork

"The Senate bill is $18 billion more than President Bush requested for military operations. The House bill, which passed last week, exceeded the administration's request by $21 billion and included money for spinach growers, peanut storage and citrus farmers.

If the Senate bill goes to conference committee as written, the two chambers may find themselves fighting over the best cuts of pork.

Coburn and his fellow pork foes will offer a series of amendments this week aimed at eliminating fat domestic spending or redirecting it to crucial needs for soldiers, sailors and airmen.

"Maybe this is what Democrats mean by 'phased redeployment'," Hart said.

Senate Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., Monday defended the extra spending, describing it as "common sense and good economics."

"Funding for the war is not the only critical need worthy of the supplemental spending," he said. The war "must not obliterate every other concern."

The $100 million for the political party conventions — $50 million for the Democratic convention in Denver and $50 million for the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn. — is included in a section described as "Katrina recovery, veterans' care and for other purposes."

The Senate Appropriations Committee noted that the committee provided roughly $50 million to help defray the costs of policing the 2004 conventions. A senate staffer pointed out, however, that the 2004 funding earned approval through the normal appropriations process rather than the less-stringent "emergency" process permitted for the current bill.

The new bill also includes $13 million for "ewe replacement and retention," $24 million for sugar beets growers and $95 million for dairy producers.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the bill contains "enough in each of the four food groups for a balanced meal."

And it includes $3.5 million for the Capitol's guided–tour program and $20 million for, in part, insect infestation control in Nevada, thanks to Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Among the other beneficiaries of the Senate "emergency" war bill is the tree assistance program, including, specifically, Christmas trees"

http://www.examiner.com/a-640957~Senate_war_bill_features__20B_in_pork.html