 sj |
||
|
||
BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Donuel Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:40 PM Should George invade Iran, no matter what the premise, without the consent of Congress, our citizens or the UN; a combination of a constitutional crises, a coup and a unsettling reaction from China and Russia will occur. Impeachment will no longer be a timely alternative for a peaceful transition of power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Don Firth Date: 28 Mar 07 - 03:13 PM On the link to the Atlantic Free Press article, I got through on the first try. Great article, Amos! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 28 Mar 07 - 03:42 PM "Madison was prescient. The remedy for this High Crime against American democracy is impeachment. ". An interesting exposition of the Founding Father and his views on AGs and such. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 28 Mar 07 - 03:45 PM Grassroots Vermont Democrats urge impeachment of President BushMarch 27, 2007 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:59 AM From the Chatnooga, Tennessee, Chatanoogan letters page: Will Bush Sneak Troops Out In The Night? posted March 30, 2007 I do not understand all the Republican rhetoric about handing a victory to the enemy if a withdrawal date is set for the Iraq war. I do not understand why this is telling the enemy our game plan or strategy. Does Bush plan on leaving the troops over in Iraq forever? He keeps stating that the troops will come home when the job is done, whatever that means, but when he feels the job is done, or whoever the next President is, when he/she feels the job is done, and the withdrawal of troops is announced to the country, won't "the enemy" know our plans then as well? Won't that also be handing the enemy a victory? Isn't this also giving away our game plan? Unless Bush intends a permanent occupation of Iraq, this rhetoric makes no sense to me. Does he plan on sneaking all the troops out of Iraq in the middle of the night once he feels the mission is accomplished, for real this time, only to have the enemy wake up, scratch their heads and say, Now where did they go? Some may reply, well they won't come home until the enemy is defeated. Well since Iraq is in a civil war, it is hard to pinpoint exactly who the enemy is, don't you think? And the real enemy here is a mindset, the mindset of radical Islamic extremists who hate the West and Israel. This mindset continues from generation to generation. Thousands upon thousands of Iraqi citizens - including women and children - who had nothing to do with Sadaam's regime have died in this war. Perhaps we are actually helping the enemy by raising up a new generation that hates America and Israel with a passion never known before. Did anybody else see that special on the news about all the children in Iraq with extreme psychological and mental trauma because of the constant gunfire and explosions? There is little help for these children because the thin resources available are aimed at children missing skin and limbs. These children who wake up screaming every night have nowhere to turn. Thank God we liberated them. At this point, would it be unreasonable to impeach President Bush? Now of course some people do not understand what impeach means. It does not mean to be removed from office; it means to be brought to trial. Because this war was started based on two premises - the presence of WMDs and a connection to 9/11/01, and because neither of these have surfaced, is it unreasonable to bring the President before Congress and Senate on trial and force his administration to present the evidence used to establish these premises? Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. Bush's 2nd term has been an extreme letdown. I voted for him in 2004 and even supported going into Iraq like most of America. The only war I was alive for prior to March 2003 was the Gulf War, so in my mind, I imagined a similar experience for the Iraq War. Swift victory, quick results. Though I am traditionally Republican, I applaud the Democrats for forcing the President's hand on this issue. Vetoing this bill will be Bush's way of telling the nation, I will not negotiate. I will not move to the center. I will not bend, buckle, discuss, or acknowledge any authority in America except me. So now, what can the Democrats and my fellow disgruntled Republicans do? Count down the days until Jan. 20, 2009, and wait on the world to change. Sadaam is dead. Iraq has a new government. If their police and security is weak, that is their problem. I say not one more dollar, not one more death, bring our troops home. D. Thomas Jenkins |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 02 Apr 07 - 09:59 AM A series of five articles summarizing Bush's impeachable offenses begins withthis one. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 02 Apr 07 - 10:35 AM From Madison, Wisconsin: Editorial: Vote yes on impeachmentA Cap Times editorial, April 2, 2007 "April will be the cruelest month for the Bush administration, as the president clashes with Congress over the direction of his misguided war in Iraq, faces the prospect of a constitutional clash over his administration's abuses of the Patriot Act, and deals with the reality that his attorney general has lied to Congress and been caught up in an ugly political scandal. More and more people agree that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have both committed the high crimes and misdemeanors for which the founders of the American experiment created the sanction of impeachment. Even Republican legislators, such as Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, now speak openly of the prospect. Unfortunately, Congress will not press ahead until the overly cautious solons of Washington are sure that the people are ready. That is why Stoughton's April 3 vote on whether Congress should investigate the prospect of impeaching the president and vice president is so very important. Stoughton has the opportunity to join dozens of communities -- 38 in Vermont alone -- that have passed pro-impeachment resolutions as part of a grass-roots movement to tell Congress to get serious " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 05 Apr 07 - 06:03 PM A state legislator wants to see President Bush impeached. Mike Simonson reports that a resolution has been introduced in the Wisconsin assembly. Harkening back to the Founding Fathers, Representative Frank Boyle says Thomas Jefferson drafted the U.S. Constitution so leaders who misuse the power of the Presidency can be removed from office. Boyle says President Bush has broken the law in several ways. "Absolutely, no question about it. Not only has he violated the Constitution of the United States through undue wiretaps, he obviously fabricated lies to the American people to justify invading Iraq, causing tremendous harm to the American economy and to the American people." The Superior Democrat says Congress should begin impeachment proceedings. "The message that we need to send to the rest of the world who is watching us very closely is that we are a nation of laws, a nation of rules and we will adhere to those rules as a country." Other impeachment resolutions have been introduced in legislatures in Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Washington and Vermont. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: DougR Date: 05 Apr 07 - 07:32 PM Hey Amos, I see you got yourself another (almost) private thread. Right on! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Barry Finn Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:09 PM Not all that private! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:45 PM It's a community service, man. I got it to do to compensate the community for not speaking out enough against W when he was running for President, or whatever he thought he was running for .... Pope ... Fuerher...hell, I have no idea. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:03 PM The Washington Times reports: "Impeach Bush chorus growing, Dems say By Christina Bellantoni The Washington Times April 5, 2007 Congressional Democrats say their constituents are clamoring for something even the most liberal lawmakers promise they won't pursue: President Bush's impeachment. "I get one call after another saying, 'Impeach the president,' " said Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat and one of Mr. Bush's most relentless critics on the Iraq war. "It's a simple process but a very divisive thing," Mr. Murtha said. "You've got to measure what it's going to do to the country, and at this point I don't see that happening. Instead we'll fight it out on the issues." Some members speculated that the Democratic takeover of Congress and passage of Iraq withdrawal timetables in both the House and Senate have emboldened liberals across the country who want to see the president embarrassed during his final 21 months in office. "The timing is all wrong," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat. "If this were the first two years of his administration I would advocate impeachment. A lot of people at home say impeachment, and I'm sure he committed a lot of impeachable offenses, but think about it practically." Mr. Nadler said impeachment hearings would be pointless and would only distract the country from the presidential election next year. Democrats say their constituents also want them to target such administration figures as Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's chief political adviser. Rep. Diane Watson, California Democrat, said she hears calls for impeachment from every crowd. "They say, 'Democrats: Do something. Get Cheney, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales.' They are saying impeachment. I am hearing that more and more and more," said Ms. Watson. She said she has been receiving "nothing but kudos" for being one of just a few Democrats to vote against the party's Iraq spending bill on the premise that Congress should not keep funding the war. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 09 Apr 07 - 11:18 AM From Indybay, a San Francisco independent journal: "It's Time to Impeach Bush and Cheney … Seriously by Paul Hogarth, Beyond Chron (reposted) Monday Apr 9th, 2007 6:39 AM Here in San Francisco, supporting impeachment is like preaching to the choir, but I am now convinced that it has gone from desirable to necessary. Now that Congress has voted to withdraw our troops from Iraq, the U.S. government is at an impasse. George Bush is "the Decider," and he stubbornly refuses to work with a new Congress that was elected to end this disastrous War. If anything, growing opposition will only make this President dig deeper into his heels. He's a lame duck who will never have to face the voters again, so why should he give in to the will of the people? Before the Democrats wimp out and drop their efforts to withdraw, we must ratchet up the pressure – and the logical solution at this point is to call for his impeachment. For months, political observers have noted the strong interest that voters have about the 2008 election – even though the first ballot won't be cast for another year. The reason is that voters are so sick of the Bush Administration that they have moved on. But with the President's approval ratings in Nixon territory (and likely to continue dipping further), why not just put the Administration out of its misery and impeach Bush and Cheney now? On April 5th, Beltway pundit Joe Klein wrote that the Bush Administration is in "epic collapse." According to Klein, the three latest developments from the White House – the showdown on Iraq, the scandal at Walter Reed Hospital and the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys – "precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (Iraq), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys)." More here. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 10 Apr 07 - 02:02 AM Another month gone and still no "Impeachment" Amos? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 10 Apr 07 - 02:52 AM Why are you asking, T. Practicing to be a cuckoo? You're pefectly right. Iraq has no stability and the US has no impeachment, yet. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 10 Apr 07 - 11:06 AM 10 States Introduce Impeachment By David Swanson From: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/20973 In 10 U.S. states, either this year or last year or both, the state legislature has introduced and considered, though not yet passed, a bill to petition the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach Bush and Cheney. The question, of course, is what in the heck is wrong with the other 40 states? We can't find a single state legislator with the decency to uphold the U.S. Constitution and at least introduce a resolution to impeach? Where are the states that created the Constitution? Where are Massachusetts and Virginia? What's holding up New York? Where in the world is Oregon? Is this all the pressure we can muster in the cause of justice? But let's give credit where it's due. These 10 states have acted: CA, HI, IL, MN, MO, WA, VT, NM, WI, TX. These 10 legislators who've taken the lead should be drafted to run for Congress (except for Ellison, whom we've already elected to Congress): Les Ihara, Jr. HI; Lon Burnam TX; Gerald Ortiz y Pino NM; Eric Oemig WA; Paul Koretz CA; Daryl Pillsbury VT; Karen Yarbrough IL; Jamilah Nasheed MO; Frank Boyle WI; and Keith Ellison MN. Special credit goes to Oemig and Ortiz y Pino who have come close to passing their bills. Of course, at the local level, dozens of cities and towns have passed these resolutions, and dozens more are trying. Vermont is far and away in the lead in the number of resolutions passed, but its Congress Member has not yet responded. While the national Green Party backs impeachment, so do at least 16 state Democratic parties. A list of all these resolutions, passed and pending, can be found at http://www.impeachpac.org/resolutions-list Last Congress, 39 Congress Members signed onto a redundant bill, a bill to conduct a preliminary investigation into grounds for impeachment. I call this redundant because an impeachment hearing simply is a preliminary investigation. There's no serious doubt that there are grounds to begin such a hearing. The problem is that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has ordered her party not to impeach, even though the Constitution says otherwise. Well, we've got news for you, Nancy. The public still cares about the rule of law, and we care less about your certainty that you can help elect a Democrat to take the throne in 2009 than we do about turning that throne back into a desk chair. On April 28, a crowd of 2,000 people will use their bodies to spell impeachment on the beach in San Francisco and then march to your house. The same day, your state's Democratic Party Convention in San Diego (where you'll be, pretending it's election season) will be going about the nation's business by backing impeachment. I plan to speak at an impeachment rally in front of Fanuiel Hall in Boston also on April 28th. And as it happens, President Bush will be speaking at a college graduation in Miami, Fla., on April 28, and he can expect to hear the cry for impeachment. Meanwhile, in Cleveland on A28, Congressman Dennis Kucinich will speak out for impeachment. In New York's Central Park on April 28th, a crowd will spell out the word IMPEACH on the grass. Another thousand people will do the same at Coney Island, and then spell it out with pizza pies on the boardwalk. Both events are being organized by military mothers with sons who served in Iraq. A pilot will fly a banner saying "IMPEACH!" around NYC and take aerial photographs of the human murals. Up in Minneapolis on A28, citizens will be spelling out "IMPEACH!" with canoes on a lake. That evening they'll form the letters with bed sheets lit from below so that people will be able to read it from planes passing overhead. In our nation's capital, 1,000 people will form a human mural to spell out IMPEACH! at the base of the Washington monument. Remember Washington, the guy who chose NOT to be king? In fact, events are being planned for April 28th all over the country and outside of it, and you can find one or create one at http://www.a28.org Here are a few of the reasons we have no choice but to take this step: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/articles |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:58 PM From the latest in a long line of "cut 'n pastes" from Amos. We get the following attributed to a Mr David Swanson: "In 10 U.S. states, either this year or last year or both, the state legislature has introduced and considered, though not yet passed, a bill to petition the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach Bush and Cheney. The question, of course, is what in the heck is wrong with the other 40 states?" Oh they have introduced and considered have they Mr Swanson? In which case Mr Swanson the question should be, "Why have they not proceeded with the impeachment process." - TRUE Amos? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 10 Apr 07 - 04:07 PM The problem is not at all whether there is sufficient grounds to impeach Mister Bsuh, and probably Mister Cheney as well. The problem is that the power to do so is in the hands of people like Nancy Pelosi, who has (understnadably) what she feels are more pressing issues to handle, given the dog's breakfast state of affairs that Mister Bush has continued to create. The only other source of such a movement is the individual states, and as Mister Swanson points out, ten States have been considering the action. Their reasons for not pursuing it further probably vary widely from State to State. There's no question it would be a disruptive action, even if the disruption seems well worthwhile to some folks. Understandably, others disagree. A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: dianavan Date: 10 Apr 07 - 04:30 PM It would probably cost a bundle of money, too. Naw, lets wait until we can try them for war crimes. http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-preface.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff Date: 10 Apr 07 - 05:54 PM Well, the Clinton Impeachment only cost the taxpayers 400 million. What's a few hundred million when Bush has wasted Trillions of dollars and over a million lives. Peter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 11 Apr 07 - 09:15 AM "Published - Wednesday, April 11, 2007 Impeach Bush and Cheney By RONALD M. FITZPATRICK | La Crosse, WI . One of the rationales that the Bush administration is citing for the continued occupation of Iraq is that: "If we don't fight them over there we will have to fight them here." Presumably the "them" are the terrorists/insurgents who are killing Americans with roadside bombs. To suggest that Americans should be afraid of a bunch of anti-American extremists who are setting up roadside bombs 8,000 miles away from the United States is utterly absurd. To put 150,000 Americans in harm's way so that we can be safe from these roadside bombers is insane. Somehow the United States managed to survive the threat of nuclear annihilation by the Soviet Union for 40 years, but now we're supposed to be afraid of a bunch of psychopaths whose technology and weaponry consists of roadside bombs is utterly mind boggling. Who is profiting from our soldiers dying? Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Titan, Blackwater and CACI! It's despicable. Bush and Cheney should be impeached immediately" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 11 Apr 07 - 11:34 AM "Somehow the United States managed to survive the threat of nuclear annihilation by the Soviet Union for 40 years, but now we're supposed to be afraid of a bunch of psychopaths whose technology and weaponry consists of roadside bombs is utterly mind boggling." The above statement is contained in something of RONALD M. FITZPATRICK's of La Crosse, WI. I have not got the foggiest clue who he may be, but I would venture to suggest that Mr Fitzpatrick, pull his head out of his arse and review what the threat to his country is and how it can best be deterred (believe me you will not eliminate it). Point 1 Mr Fitzpatrick The US and the rest of the democratic free world survived the threat of nuclear annihilation by the Soviet Union because by and large it was shielded by the deterrent capabilities of the US (Second and third strike capabilities that made MAD work). If they had attacked the Soviet Union would have been obliterated, so it was never worthwhile - NATO Alliance, whosoever attacks one member attacks all - that has subsequently proved to have been a one-way street in the minds, words and actions of most European nations. Point 2 Mr Fitzpatrick As far as your "bunch of psycho's" go: "Worst attack in American History" - Words used to describe the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. American casualties were 2403 dead and 1178 wounded. That took the political will of a nation, an entire Fleet and thousands of men to accomplish. Now let's see what a "bunch of psycho's", 19 to be exact, could manage. 2,973 people dead, another 24 missing presumed dead, the date was 11th September, 2001. That took a hand full of anonymous terrorists, who thought it might be a good idea and less than $500,000 to accomplish. What your Prseident is saying is absolutely correct, you use your armed forces to fight them whenever and wherever they can be found, otherwise they will arrive on your doorstep. And when they do arrive they will be bringing something a damn sight more exotic and leathal than a road-side bomb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: dianavan Date: 11 Apr 07 - 12:37 PM point #2 - Japan was a nation. Terrorists are not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 11 Apr 07 - 02:52 PM Posted: Wednesday, 11 April 2007 1:15PM Angry Nyack Residents Seek to Impeach Bush, Cheney NYACK, N.Y. (1010 WINS) -- A group of Nyack residents said they are fed up with President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and are calling for the Nyack Village Board to approve a resolution supporting their impeachment. "We live in a constitutional democracy, but the normal checks and balances seem to be missing," said Nyack resident David Balsam. "We now have a president and vice president who have twisted intelligence to mislead Congress into authorizing an unnecessary war; have approved electronic surveillance without legally required warrants; promoted the torture of prisoners, in violation of law and treaty. . . and that's just for starters!" The "Nyack Impeach Group" believes that this effort is about constitutional accountability for all presidents and government officials, current and future. "In essence this is a nonpartisan initiative," said Nyack resident James Ross. "The only way to ensure that a future president -- which could be Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani -- does not continue these abuses is to impeach Bush now." The group is seeking support from members of the larger New York community and is hoping that this will help expand the growing national movement demanding accountability in government "Don't Tread on Me"...eh, Mister Bush? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 11 Apr 07 - 08:29 PM Economic bloodbath required for Bush's impeachment It was George Santayana who felt patience and courage are necessary human virtues to our existence. And for many of us waiting for the impeachment of George W. Bush is certainly very trying with our patience… virtuosity aside. Congressional legislators of both parties probably have it right to keep impeachment off the table. It would be a very unpopular thing to bring about when much of the nation, politicos as well as citizens, have been complicit to the happenings in Washington either by condoning the administration's deceit, or by being part of it. Americans are just not quite ready to put themselves on trial. Accusing Bush and Cheney of high crimes and misdemeanors on the Iraq war is nothing short of passing sentence on ourselves. Some of us can clamor to the four winds for the malefic-duo's impeachment, but we know that it won't do any good. We can reason that it might be the only way to get our credibility restored in the world, and our sense of morality retrieved, but the truth is that people don't seem to much care. We can also appeal to our inner humanity by pointing to the pain, death and destruction brought about by these wars of choice that we are engaging in, but the compassion strings simply won't play in tune with our pharisaical congregations during Sunday's sermons. Continuous deceit and criminality in government just don't seem to warrant a high profile trial in the United States these days, and a handful of righteous congress people will never garner the support of their peers to get the vehicle started; much less to get anywhere with it. There is, however, a sure-fire way to get Americans up in arms. All that's needed is a reality check on the economy, and that may not be long in coming. And when that light goes on, people will forget their share of the blame, setting aside any thoughts of greed and waste, and start pointing fingers at the Bush Administration that got us there. Bush could easily become the Herbert Hoover of 2008 sans the brains or the compassion, even if the recession does not go into full bloom until the November election. A river of blood that has been Iraq appears not to have faced Americans in a big way, but waking up to an economic bloodbath in late 2007 or early 2008 could easily enlist over two-thirds of the population in rebellion against a government that has been not only deceitful but incompetent and wasteful as well. At that time, even if Bush has only a few months left in his presidency, there will be calls for his head to roll… and there could be a major popular outcry for impeachment; and many of the religious, social and fiscal conservatives will repudiate him… if for no other reason than self-preservation. The Fed is still painting a rosy, if cautious, picture of the short term economy, somehow dismissing, or at the very least downplaying, the true impact that the housing slump will have on the overall economy. But just as housing inflated to unsustainable values with 5, 10 or 15 trillion dollars of "hot air," it will deflate much the same way, and we could be in for more than just a 3-5 year down cycle, experiencing something similar to Japan's real estate purge which lasted over a decade. Home ownership, politically- touted for reaching almost 69%... is a wrong statistic to give when in "real equity" of land-brick-and-mortar actually owned (without fluff) Americans likely had a greater overall stake in their homes four decades ago. Deceit as to the real state of the economy has been comparable to that given by the White House and Pentagon on the war, with both Fed and administration "ideologically" joining forces to achieve a form of political stability likely to bring dire future results. And in terms of economic blame, high crimes and misdemeanors were committed not just by Bush Son, but also by the Fed's pontiff of almost two decades, saxophonist turned economic-wizard, Alan Greenspan. Housing price-meltdown is likely to occur by late summer this year with repercussions in Wall Street within the following two quarters as corporate earnings start to deteriorate with little or no geographical padding for multi-nationals since the recession will have a global face. When all that happens, there will be no economic tools left for the Fed to use, or misuse, and fiscal and monetary policy won't be able to save the day; or at least postpone the inevitable a little longer as it has been doing in the past, allowing crises to be passed on to future generations. Without trying to appear as a latter-day Nostradamus on economic forecasting, I have had a contrarian view for at least a decade from that espoused by most mainstream economists, the American Association of Realtors and "for the most part" laughable monotonic choir at CNBC. But if results are in the pudding, I will say that I had the dot-com bubble burst perfectly pegged in both timing and severity almost two years before; and it's starting to look as if my predictions two years ago on the current housing fiasco are happening true to course. I also indicated at that time that its sibling, commercial real estate, would undergo a comparable collapse two quarters thereafter in an arena that will appear even bloodier. On that sad economic note, however, we will find some form of consolation by getting Messrs. Bush and Cheney impeached, and perhaps even some members of their retinue of political and corporate hacks indicted. And we might even find the courage and display the patriotic cojones to turn over some of these folks, who have masked themselves as public servants, to the International Criminal Tribunal at The Hague to be tried for war crimes. That will go a long way into restoring our credibility with the international community, and serve as a moral down payment on what we owe Iraq for the crimes we have perpetrated against them. Patience and courage, George Santayana asks of us to attain virtuosity. We're trying. From here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:43 AM "...the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. American casualties were 2403 dead and 1178 wounded. That took the political will of a nation, an entire Fleet and thousands of men to accomplish." I believe dianavan that I mention the fact that Japan is a nation above. Mr Fitzpatrick compared the threat posed by a nation, the USSR during the Cold War, while dismissing the threat of (in his own words) "a bunch of psychopaths whose technology and weaponry consists of roadside bombs is utterly mind boggling". I responded by pointing out that the damage initially inflicted by a nation - Japan's attack at Pearl Harbour - "Worst attack in American History". Was knocked into second place by a bunch of psychopaths whose technology and weaponry consisted of box cutters. OK now create access and opportunity for them to arm themselves with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. What damage could they do then - please tell me how or why such a threat does not exist, or should be dismissed as readily as Mr Fitzpatrick, and many on this forum seem to think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: dianavan Date: 14 Apr 07 - 04:02 AM I am saying that you can declare war against a nation but not against criminals who exist in every country in the world. What are you going to do, send "your armed forces to fight them whenever and wherever they can be found"? I don't think you have enough military to invade every country in the world. Can't you see how ridiculous that is? Not only that, terrorist are much more mobile than a national military force. Its plain foolish. You also have to take into account that invading other countries actually creates terrorism. What you are saying is that you wish to destroy what you have created. Sort of like the Golom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 14 Apr 07 - 05:22 AM Nowhere near as ridiculous as sitting back and doing nothing dianavan. How do you effectively proceed against those plotting attacks of the 911 type against you, if such people are treated as common criminals. Until such time as they have successfully carried out their attack, detection and prosecution would be extremely difficult especially if those doing the planning are doing so outside your jurisdiction, sentencing would be a farce and would only suceed in delaying the operation. Or do you advocate that you wait until after the attack. In his State of The Union Address the President of the United States of America got it exactly right. Relentless pursuit of those responsible for the attacks of 11th September, 2001 combined with a foreign policy that will successfully deter regimes and rogue states from providing sanctuary, sponsorship, training facilities and material support to international terrorist groups. When the first attempt was made on the World Trade Centre, the USA was not involved in Afghanistan, was not involved in Iraq. The terrorists and their recruiters were active long before the events of 2001 and 2003. The necessary actions in both countries may act as a magnet for those wishing to take up arms against the US, if so all well and good, because it runs counter to what those terrorists actually want to be doing. They are being sucked in to fight battles not of their own choosing. In Iraq the Sunni Arabs are finally turning against the foreign Jihadists, in Afghanistan the Taleban are having to drag men from refugee camps to make up numbers, the local tribes are turning against them on the Pakistani side of the border. They are losing men in south-east Afghanistan at a rate they cannot afford, all their "heavy weapons" teams are ex-Pakistani Army Pashtuns and they are taking the heaviest casualties. The BBC has been predicting a massive Taleban Spring offensive in Helmand - Now April 14th and it hasn't materialised yet, two engagements over the last two days have cost the Taleban 70 dead and goodness knows how many injured. For those who think that all should have been light and roses in Afghanistan and Iraq by now (five and four years respectively after intervention) just consider that the stabilisation force duly mandated by the UN for operations in Bosnia is just now in the process of winding down and leaving the country - Fifteen years after they first entered. You still don't explain why the threat posed by such terrorist groups should be dismissed. Your man has it right, irrespective of who had been in the White House the cards would have fallen pretty much the same way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 14 Apr 07 - 01:06 PM Impeach Bush, or get out of the way Reformer.com Friday, April 13 "There will be a time when future generations will look at us and wonder why President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not removed from office. They will look at us and question why, when confronted by the most corrupt and incompetent administration ever witnessed in the United States, nothing was done to stop Bush and Cheney. "They will look at the craven behavior of the Democrats, too afraid to take on the president when it mattered. They will look at the Republicans, so intoxicated with power that they backed their president to the hilt, even as he ran this country off a cliff. They will look at the press, and how too many journalists were cowed into parroting the words of the administration. They will look at the voters, and shake their heads in disbelief that a number of Americans voted for all this -- the electoral equivalent of the chickens voting Colonel Sanders president. 'And they will look at Vermont, and how a bottom-up impeachment effort with broad support ran into a brick wall of indifference in Montpelier as well as Washington. "History will not look kindly on House Speaker Gaye Symington for her insistence that her chamber must focus on "important matters" and that the House "does not have the time" to deal with impeachment. History will not look kindly on Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, who has talked loudly about impeaching Bush and Cheney, but won't pursue the issue as long Symington says no. Even though an impeachment resolution, like any other Vermont law, can start in either chamber, Shumlin is using decorum and the "we don't have time" argument as an excuse to duck this important issue. History will not look kindly on Sen. Bernard Sanders, and his successor in the House, Peter Welch, as well as Sen. Patrick Leahy, for treating impeachment as if it were a barrel of toxic waste. Short-term political considerations apparently are more important than the Constitution, which they took an oath to uphold and defend. Nearly 40 towns voted for impeachment at their town meetings this year. There is little support for Bush, Cheney and the war in Iraq that they lied us into. The list of the administration's failures at home and abroad is long and embarrassing. Yet Symington, Shumlin, Welch, Sanders and Leahy feel no sense of urgency to hold Bush and Cheney accountable. We believe this is unacceptable and that both the Vermont Legislature and Congress are shirking their responsibilities. There is time to deal with impeachment and we believe nothing is more important. When the story of our time is written by future historians, there will be but one question asked: When confronted with the malevolence and mendacity of the Bush administration, how did the people in positions to do something about it react? Does Vermont want to go down in the history books as standing up to the worst president ever? We, the people of Vermont, have the chance to affect the outcome of this story. We must seize this opportunity." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 15 Apr 07 - 05:00 AM And just whose ramblings were those Amos? You know what they say about opinions don't you Amos? They're like arseholes, everybody has one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 15 Apr 07 - 08:35 PM T, I am sure if they were opinions with which you agreed, they would not be dismissed as "ramblings", with its negative conotations, but as "reflections", or "thoughts" or even "insights". However, in either case they are certainly rhetorical writing, a type you mus surely recognize. It is my "opinion" that a significant portion of the right-wing world view has been built on rhetorical presentations designed more to be restimulative than to be informative. But, that's just one asshole's opinion! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 16 Apr 07 - 10:29 AM "..The Iraq intervention has also been compared with the war in Vietnam. On March 18, 1968, Robert F. Kennedy spoke against U.S. policy in Vietnam. His critique could apply to the Iraq affair today. He said, "We are entitled to ask -- we are required to ask -- how many more men, how many more lives, how much more destruction will be asked, to provide the military victory that is always just around the corner, to pour into this bottomless pit of our dreams?" Kennedy added, "But this question the administration does not and cannot answer. It has no answer -- none but the ever-expanding use of military force and the lives of our brave soldiers, in a conflict where military force has failed to solve anything in the past . . . It is long past time to ask: what is this war doing to us? Of course it is costing us money -- fully one-fourth of our federal budget -- but that is the smallest price we pay. The cost is in our young men, the tens of thousands of their lives cut off forever. The cost is in our world position -- in neutrals and allies alike, every day more baffled by and estranged from a policy they can not understand." Kennedy concluded, "Higher yet is the price we pay in our innermost lives, and in the spirit of our country . . . The costs of the war's present course far outweigh anything we can reasonably hope to gain by it, for ourselves or for the people of Vietnam." ("The American Reader: Words That Made A Nation," edited by Diane Ravitch, HarperCollins Publishers, 1991.) In order to learn from history rather than repeat past mistakes, and to give our current national situation context, it helps to remember the lessons of Vietnam, Nixon's imperial Presidency, the Iran-contra affair and a period when monarchs were above the law -- the era that gave birth to our Constitution. When evaluated in the context of all these events, Bush's runaway Presidency, his administration's crimes against the people of this country and the repercussions of those actions appear so egregious that impeachment isn't merely Congress's option, but its constitutional duty. ..." From "Impeachment: A duty, not an option" By Carla Binion |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 17 Apr 07 - 03:32 PM "...Shortly after the Watergate break-in, President Richard Nixon and his loyal chief of staff H.R. Haldeman spoke in the old Executive Office Building. Their conversation was taped, but 18.5 minutes were erased. This gap incriminated Nixon in the cover-up which eventually led to his impeachment and resignation. Likewise, there is a suspicious 16-day gap in the email records between the Justice Department and the White House just before seven of the U.S. attorneys were fired in December. Moreover, many of the communications about the matter were conducted using email accounts of the Republican National Committee instead of government accounts, possibly in violation of the Presidential Records Act. The Los Angeles Times reported that senior Justice Department officials prepared documentation to justify the firings after the dismissals. One Justice Department official threatened to "retaliate" against the eight fired U.S. attorneys if they continued to publicly speak about their dismissals. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who heads the Justice Department, denied he was involved in discussions about the firings. But Sampson testified that Gonzales was consulted at least five times and signed off on the plan to fire the U.S. attorneys. "I don't think it's entirely accurate what he [Gonzales] said," Sampson told the Senate Judiciary Committee. Gonzales is reportedly sweating bricks over his own testimony before that Committee, slated for April 17. As a result of Gonzales' stonewalling in response to the House Judiciary Committee's request for documents, committee chairman Rep. John Conyers has subpoenaed the records. If the Justice Department defies the subpoena, the Judiciary Committee, and the full Congress, could cite the department for contempt of Congress, and a federal grand jury could issue criminal indictments for obstruction of justice. The White House has indicated it will not allow Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to testify under oath. Why the resistance unless they intend to lie? Alberto Gonzales should be fired, not just for malfeasance in the U.S. attorney affair, but also for advising Bush to violate the Geneva Conventions which led to torture and abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody. Recall that Gonzales told Bush the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and "obsolete." Those were the same words the Nazi lawyers used at Nuremberg to describe the Geneva Conventions. Firing Gonzales may temporarily stanch the flood of accusations about the U.S. attorney matter. But the corruption, the lawbreaking, and the cover-up go deeper -- all the way up to the Oval Office. Hopefully, Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers will put impeachment back on the table. ..." From "U.S. Attorneys and Voting Rights: The New Watergate" By Marjorie Cohn,president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law school . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:02 PM Impeach or face history's judgment Editorial, Article Launched: 04/17/2007 Tuesday, April 17 There will be a time when future generations will look at us and wonder why President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not removed from office. They will look at us and question why, when confronted by the most corrupt and incompetent administration ever witnessed in the United States, nothing was done to stop Bush and Cheney. They will look at the craven behavior of the Democrats, too afraid to take on the president when it mattered. They will look at the Republicans, so intoxicated with power that they backed their president to the hilt, even as he ran this country off a cliff. They will look at the press, and how too many journalists were cowed into parroting the words of the administration. They will look at the voters, and shake their heads in disbelief that a number of Americans voted for all this — the electoral equivalent of the chickens voting Colonel Sanders president. And they will look at Vermont, and how a bottom-up impeachment effort with broad support ran into a brick wall of indifference in Montpelier as well as Washington. History will not look kindly on House Speaker Gaye Symington for her insistence that her chamber must focus on "important matters" and that the House "does not have the time" to deal with impeachment. History will not look kindly on Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, who has talked loudly about impeaching Bush and Cheney, but won't pursue the issue as long Symington says no. Even though an impeachment resolution, like any other Vermont law, can start in either chamber, Shumlin is using decorum and the "we don't have time" argument as an excuse to duck this important issue. History will not look kindly on Sen. Bernard Sanders, and his successor in the House, Peter Welch, as well as Sen. Patrick Leahy, for treating impeachment as if it were a barrel of toxic waste. Short-term political considerations apparently are more important than the Constitution, which they took an oath to uphold and defend. Nearly 40 towns voted for impeachment at their town meetings this year. There is little support for Bush, Cheney and the war in Iraq that they lied us into. The list of the administration's failures at home and abroad is long and embarrassing. Yet Symington, Shumlin, Welch, Sanders and Leahy feel no sense of urgency to hold Bush and Cheney accountable. We believe this is unacceptable and that both the Vermont Legislature and Congress are shirking their responsibilities. There is time to deal with impeachment and we believe nothing is more important. When the story of our time is written by future historians, there will be but one question asked: When confronted with the malevolence and mendacity of the Bush administration, how did the people in positions to do something about it react? Does Vermont want to go down in the history books as standing up to the worst president ever? We, the people of Vermont, have the chance to affect the outcome of this story. We must seize this opportunity. — Brattleboro Reformer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 17 Apr 07 - 08:25 PM 'Doonesbury' Character Calls for Bush's Impeachment By E&P Staff Published: April 17, 2007 4:45 PM ET NEW YORK Today's "Doonesbury" comic comes right out and says it: "Impeach Bush now!" The strip shows the Mark Slackmeyer character looking at reader e-mails as Mike Doonesbury stands behind him. One e-mail from "M.R." of Austin says: "What's up with criticizing Bush day after day? Give it a rest already!" To which Mike responds: "Actually, M.R., we're not as relentless as you think. Despite Iraq, Katrina, wiretapping, torture, etc., in the last year there's only been a total of 55 strips ripping the president!" Then Mark says "Impeach Bush now!" -- causing Mike to add: "Okay, 56." Garry Trudeau's "Doonesbury" runs in about 1,400 newspapers via Universal Press Syndicate. (From "Editor and Publisher" mag online |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 20 Apr 07 - 11:38 AM BOSTON (Reuters) - The Vermont state senate passed a symbolic resolution on Friday calling on the U.S. Congress to impeach U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over their handling of the unpopular Iraq war. The resolution, passed by a 16 to 9 vote, urges Vermont's representatives in Washington to introduce a resolution in Congress requiring the U.S. House Judiciary Committee to start impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney. Vermont's congressional delegation has shown no serious interest in the idea, and the new Democratic-controlled Congress has also steered clear of the subject. Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold's call last year to censure Bush -- a step short of an impeachment -- found scant support on Capitol Hill, even among fellow Democrats. Vermont, known for its colonial inns, maple sugar, autumn foliage and century-old dairy farms, has been at the vanguard of a grass-roots protest movement to impeach Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 21 Apr 07 - 01:32 AM The spate of articles calling for impeachment seems to be swelling to a low roar. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 21 Apr 07 - 11:56 AM MONTPELIER -- Without a single speech, the Vermont Senate voted 16-9 early Friday morning to support a resolution urging the initiation of impeachment proceedings in Congress against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Senators listened as the resolution was read, then Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, who was presiding in Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie's absence, called for the vote. All 16 supporters were Democrats. Three Democrats joined six Republicans in voting against the resolution. Senate Republican Leader William Doyle of Washington County said later that the charges didn't meet the test set out in the U.S. Constitution. The resolution lists three reasons the Vermont Senate was urging Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., to introduce, and Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to support a resolution to require impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney: The nation's top leaders had carried out their duties in ways that raised "serious questions of constitutionality, statutory legality and abuse of public trust." In leading the nation to war in Iraq and continually advocating its continuation, Bush and Cheney have cost the country much of the good will extended in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. Their leadership on matters of individual privacy and personal liberty have raised constitutional questions of great concern to citizens. The state's congressional delegation responded Friday saying that although they shared many Vermonters' frustrations and anger at the Bush administration, they said it was premature to pursue impeachment. "There are a number of investigations taking place regarding the actions of the Bush administration, including how and why we invaded Iraq, no-bid contracts, the firing of U.S. attorneys by the attorney general, the assault on constitutional rights and the use of Republican Party e-mails in the White House," the delegation said in a joint statement. "Before we talk about impeachment, it is imperative that these investigations be allowed to run their course and we should then follow wherever the facts lead." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Stringsinger Date: 21 Apr 07 - 12:13 PM Impeachment is a no-brainer. Bush violated International Law by pre-emptively striking a country that had no intention of striking the US. That in itself should be enough. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 21 Apr 07 - 01:36 PM They could also be charged with criminal assault with a blunt instrument with intent to maim or kill. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 22 Apr 07 - 02:48 AM Exactly what International Law did the United States of America break Frank? Can you provide a reference so that I can read it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 22 Apr 07 - 11:41 PM Media should back impeachment By CHARLES YOUNG, Holmen, Wis. "I'm wondering where the concern, anger and outrage are regarding what's happening to our Constitution and democracy? The media seem silent except for the bloggers. Where is our "fourth estate," and why aren't they speaking to the groundswell of grassroots efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney for their many high crimes and misdemeanors? This administration has done more damage to our Constitution and democracy than any terrorist has ever done. Multiple reasons for impeachment abound from misrepresenting the facts so as to get us into this illegal, immoral war, to spying on U.S. citizens, violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress, and committing treason by exposing the identity of a covert CIA agent. There are more reasons, but the Tribune limits prevent me from listing them all. Other than reporting state Rep. Frank Boyle's proposed legislation to impeach Bush, and recent referrals to impeachment in Doonesbury in the Tribune's comic section, little has been written in our local paper. All of our leaders have sworn to protect and defend our Constitution and our democracy, and so far they are a miserable, pathetic, incompetent bunch of failures and a huge disappointment, with few exceptions. Sens. Russ Feingold and Harry Reid are showing some sign of standing up to the tyranny. U.S. Rep. Ron Kind and Sen. Herb Kohl are silent on impeachment and protecting what they swore they would protect." (From the Lacrosse, WI, Tribune |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 23 Apr 07 - 12:48 PM An Indictment of Bush, Cheney, et al. Kucinish to file Articles of Impeachment on Cheney. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Teribus Date: 23 Apr 07 - 06:26 PM Should be about anytime now then Amos?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 23 Apr 07 - 06:40 PM Yep. Never know when it's gonna blow, buddy. Albert probably thought he was doing okay, too, a few weeks ago, A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 23 Apr 07 - 09:04 PM "The Vermont State Senate passed a resolution last week calling on the House of Representatives to launch formal impeachment proceedings against President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. It is an idea whose time has come. Bill Gallagher, the Reporter's national correspondent, has argued repeatedly and convincingly that Bush and Cheney lied to the American people about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the role of the White House in revealing the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, the circumstances surrounding the friendly-fire death of star football player Pat Tillman in Afghanistan and any number of other matters of life and death. Just last week, on the very day that Bush told an audience of enthusiastic supporters that withdrawal from Iraq would lead to more bloodshed and chaos, the Department of Defense reported that four American servicemen had been killed there. That, along with more than 100 Iraqi civilians reported by the various news agencies. He is living in a fantasy world that has caused many observers to wonder if, in fact, he is mentally ill. Of course, the same right-wing toadies who hounded President Bill Clinton to impeachment over lies about a sexual escapade now say that the lies of Bush and Cheney fail to meet that level of egregiousness. Black is white and up is down if lying about consensual sex can somehow be considered worse than the lies that have led to the slaughter of more than 3,300 brave American soldiers over the past four years. Newspapers and television news outlets numb their customers' minds with endless coverage of the death of some drug-addled show-business non-entity like Anna Nicole Smith, the firing of a hack disc jockey or the madness of a screwed-up Virginia college student who killed 32 people. As of Saturday morning, 65 Americans had been killed in Iraq this month alone. Why isn't Katie Couric running montages of their photos on her newscast? They were about the same age as the Virginia Tech students, with many of the same hopes and dreams and families left to grieve. Could it be because the man responsible for those killings isn't some South Korean madman with a grudge against the world -- but is, instead, the president of the United States?" Niagara Falls Reporter www.niagarafallsreporter.com April 24 2007 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:21 AM CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION TO IMPEACH BUSH & CHENEY! June Caldwell California Chronicle April 24, 2007 Interview with MARCY WINOGRAD, point person for the STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION TO IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY, to be introduced at the CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, April 27 - 29, 2007 in San Diego. Thank you for this interview at such a historical time! April 28, 2007 has been dubbed "Impeachment Day" nationwide. This California Resolution for Impeachment appears to be just one piece of a national movement that can no longer be called a 'fringe group'. Please describe the Impeachment actions that are occurring on April 28, 2007 – including the resolution, Beach Impeach, and marches in San Diego and elsewhere in the country. MW: April 28th is a national day of Impeachment actions, virtually all of them listed at A28.org Inside the San Diego Convention Center, delegates will unfurl "14-foot wide Impeachment is on Our Table" banners, march through the halls with our Impeach Bush & Cheney t-shirts, and greet House Speaker Pelosi and the Presidential candidates with signs calling for impeachment. Across the street from the San Diego Convention Center, in Martin Luther King Park, hundreds, if not thousands, of people will gather to demand impeachment and further away, on the sand abutting San Diego's blue Pacific, an Impeach on the Beach activity will involve people forming the letters IMPEACH with their bodies in the sand. What do you hope to accomplish with these actions? MW: We hope to demonstrate that there is a huge grassroots movement in support of investigation, oversight, and accountability in the form of impeachment. Speaker Pelosi may feel she can't talk about impeachment because she is third in line to the Presidency, but we, the people, must put impeachment in the center of the table because we are the deciders and we have had enough of this lawlessness. We must provide both pressure and support for Congress to pursue indictments against these war criminals, Bush and Cheney -- lest we set a precedent for a unitary executive free to launch wars based on lies and suspend constitutional rights at will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Stringsinger Date: 24 Apr 07 - 11:29 AM The people of Vermont have spoken. Their state reps. Bernie Sanders, Gaye Syminton, and Peter Welch are trying to to squelch the impeachment resolution. They may not be re-elected. Vermont may be the state that saves the United States. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Donuel Date: 24 Apr 07 - 12:21 PM Maybe Kucinich can get together with Dick Cheney on a hunting trip and sort this out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment From: Amos Date: 24 Apr 07 - 01:04 PM Devy Kidd is an interesting writer; she is full of scorn for Democrats and Republicans, Clinton, Bushians, and others. An excerpt from her recent essay on impeachment: "The Internet is awash with columns, articles and blogs on impeaching Bush and Cheney. I would respectfully submit that one of the most cohesive, articulate and legally on point is by Elizabeth De la Vega, a former federal prosecutor. Ms. De la Vega did what I did in McVeigh's Second Trial: She writes the case against Bush and Cheney in the form of an indictment and allows the American people to be the grand jury. Impeachment is dead serious and should not be undertaken without careful consideration, but it cannot be ignored because of party loyalty or denial. Ms. De la Vega is not some bug eyed "Bush hater." This woman, like millions of us, know the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are based on lies and this cannot stand for our magnificent republic. I encourage you to set aside some time to read her work: 1, Elizabeth de la Vega, Indicting Bush 2, United States v. George W. Bush et al "Be careful what you wish for" is very appropriate here because if Bush and Cheney were to be impeached, the next in line for the presidency is another Marxist (political ideology is communism), Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Just the thought of this female becoming the president of these united States of America is so repulsive, so sickening, I simply run out of words. Should Bush be impeached? I believe it is the only choice because no one is above the law. Should Cheney be impeached? Yes, and I believe he would be criminally charged in the 911 mass slaughter if a real, impartial grand jury with some brains were able to do a thorough investigation of that day and that means subpoenas. Will either Bush or Cheney be impeached or will the real rulers of Washington, DC and our lives, allow them to stay in office and go through another pretend election in November 2008? Only time will tell. Everyday Bush and Cheney remain in office, more of our precious military are being slaughtered in this unholy invasion/empire building exercise in the Middle East and other places around the world where we should not be. Bush should be charged with crimes against humanity for not stopping the use of depleted uranium against the people of Afghanistan, Iraq and our own soldiers. Pelosi has already shown to her constituency that she serves her money masters and is incapable of any leadership, foreign or domestic. Every American must make up their own mind as to whether or not Bush and Cheney should be impeached based on the facts and evidence. The pain America will experience in the next few years is going to be excruciating. I wish it were going to be different, but because of America's indifference and blind loyalty to the Democrat and Republican parties, forsaking truth and accountability, the situation has escalated to a dangerous level; the road ahead is going to be difficult and challenging. However, I believe that the millions of us who know the truth will stay the course and continue to fight to stop the destruction of this republic no matter how impossible the odds. We have no choice. " While I am fairly certain Pelosi is no Communist, I admire the fervor and cutting clarity of Devvy Kidd's article, which can be found here. A |
