BS: A Declaration of Impeachment

Subject: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 10:44 PM

Veterans for Peace has drafted a Declaration of Impeachment using nothing but excerpts from the Declaration of Independence (plus a few words in parentheses). It reads as follows, and should be read at picnics and protests on the Fourth of July.

---

…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

…all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations…design(s) to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

…The history of the present King (George)…is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny…To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

§ He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

§ He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

§ He has…deprive(ed) us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury…transport(ed) us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

§ He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us…

§ He is at this time transporting large Armies…to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

§ He has constrained our fellow Citizens…to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

A (President) whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

We, therefore…do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People…solemnly publish and declare, That these…Free and Independent (People)…are Absolved from all Allegiance to the (Bush Administration), and that all political connection between them and (this Administration), is and ought to be totally dissolved…And for the support of this Declaration…we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

---

From http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/12564

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 10:59 PM

YES...Nicely done...draft by your friends ...."VETERANS FOR PEACE."

Fortunately, their appeal was acted upon eight years ago.

This is more than a little late.

Silly-Willie (can't-keep-it in the pants) was impeached.

There has never before been, a more fitting tribute to a Democratic-Party (Kennedy included) spoke's-hole...than his trial.

If Clinton's mind had been on "the subject at hand" while speaking to Arafat on-the-phone; the Republicans would not be cleaning up Clinton's mess.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 11:03 PM

Dear Guest:

Let us know when you are right side up again, and have the courage of your own identity somewhere within reach.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 11:15 PM

You don't like Clinton do you, GUEST? Of course, that's not the point here.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: harpmolly
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 11:40 PM

Oooooohhhhh, that's just plain eerie. And he's even named George.

M

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 11:44 PM

From Eureka, California:

California Greens call for impeachment of Bush and Cheney
7/2/2006

The Green Party of California General Assembly recently approved a resolution calling for the impeachment and consequent removal from office of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for violating their constitutional oaths and committing "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Among the alleged violations listed in the resolution are:

+ Ordering warrantless searches and seizures of American citizens' personal communications, without oversight by the legislative or judicial branches of the government;

+ Authorizing and permitting torture against human beings;

+ Depriving American citizens of their constitutional rights regarding unjust imprisonment and speedy and public trials;

+ Launching an "illegal, unjust and undeclared war" against Iraq;

+ Authorizing the use of illegal chemical and radioactive weapons in military campaigns;

+ Intentionally deceiving the American people and the U.S. Congress in providing rationales for the war in Iraq;

+ Approving direct military attacks on civilians, civilian homes and communities in Iraq; and

+ Violating lawful signatory treaties, including the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Treaty of Rome and the Geneva Conventions.

The document calls upon the U.S. House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings.

"The governance of our country has entered an era where it has become debilitating to: (t)he worldwide reputation of its citizenry, (h)opeful prospects of building world peace, (p)rospects of material and social resources worldwide being used equally for the betterment of all lives of all living things on earth," the resolution states. "Whereas goals and values of Green Parties worldwide yearn to reverse these debilitating factors within governments and social structures. We purpose (sic) to energize this reversal through the legal means of impeaching those facilitating these debilitating factors."

Copies of the resolution will be sent to California congressional representatives and all members of the House Judiciary Committee.

More information on the Green Party of California and the full text of the impeachment resolution is available at www.cagreens.org.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 11:46 PM

From a Marin local newspaper:

Town Council to consider impeachment resolution
Staff Report

The Town Council meets Wednesday to consider a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

The council also plans to discuss sidewalk repair and appointing an artist in residence.

The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. at the Women's Club at 46 Park Road.

---

Hmmmm....road repair, impeachment, staff artist, same ole same ole...


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: 282RA
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 11:47 PM

What GUEST means is that Clinton should have attacked Iraq and gotten us into this horrible endless mess years ago so that his butt-buddy Bushie wouldn't be taking the heat. Generous to a fault, that's Dubya.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 11:49 PM

ANd from TIME mag, discussing the Berkeley resolution:

Posted Friday, Jun. 30, 2006
Many people may scoff at the decision earlier this week by the Berkeley City Council to put a resolution on the Nov. 7 ballot calling for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to be impeached. After all, 74,000 voters of what is often referred to as The People's Republic of Berkeley can't legally oust the President and Vice President. But Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates thinks his city is simply ahead of its time, as it has often proved to be in the past.

"Things happen in Berkeley that are seen as being quirky," Bates tells TIME. "But what we know is, those ideas that percolate in Berkeley today end up being conventional wisdom in the rest of the country tomorrow." Berkeley, after all, was the first city to start curbside recycling, ban Styrofoam and desegregate its public schools without a court order. Berkeley also took the lead in calling for municipalities to divest from South Africa during the Apartheid era.

Indeed, while Berkeley may be the first city to put an impeachment resolution to its people, numerous city and town councils have already passed such resolutions, including San Francisco, Santa Cruz, and Chapel Hill, N.C. State legislatures in Vermont, California and Illinois all have impeachment resolutions pending. To help raise awareness of the issue, there will be a series of teach-ins across the country this summer and fall, and a new film, "How to Impeach a President," will be screened — all part of the burgeoning impeachment effort called "Constitution Summer," led by a non-partisan coalition of students from the country's top law schools and universities.

"The President and Vice President are trampling on the Constitution," Bates says, summing up the city's collective view of the current Administration. "They're spying on people without warrants. They're arresting people and holding them without the opportunity to a trial. They're participating in a war where they basically lied to the Congress."

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 11:52 PM

Bush, Cheney raising ire in Fairfax
Tad Whitaker

Fairfax officials will vote Wednesday on whether to endorse a local petition calling for the impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Millie Barrett, a 33-year town resident, said she has collected more than 200 signatures since Thursday. Getting the council involved gives the petition legitimacy and makes it more likely to be considered by federal officials, she said.

"I want people to jump on the wagon and do it," she said. "Maybe someone in Congress will listen."

Barrett, 62, said she dove into progressive politics after retiring last July. She said she has signed every anti-Bush petition online, marched in peace rallies and even traveled to Washington, D.C., in September to protest alongside Cindy Sheehan.

"I've never been more upset with the country," she said. "I felt I needed to do more."

Barrett downloaded an impeachment petition that 23 other cities across the nation have adopted and began collecting signatures downtown.

"Most people can't sign it fast enough," she said.

Mayor Susan Brandborg said she is normally against the council discussing federal issues over which it has little sway, but she put the petition on Wednesday's agenda because she strongly believes in impeaching Bush. Brandborg expects a good turnout for the issue because so many people turned out three years ago when the council voted to ignore several provisions of the Patriot Act ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 11:54 PM

The right wing blog sneers:

Here We Go Again: CNN Raises the Specter of Bush Impeachment
Posted by Megan McCormack on June 30, 2006 - 15:45.
Once again, CNN has highlighted calls for the impeachment of President Bush. During the 4PM EDT hour of Thursday's The Situation Room, senior political analyst Bill Schneider reported on the liberal city council of Berkeley, California's decision to place a measure on the November ballot calling for the impeachment of the President and Vice President Cheney. Schneider highlighted the reasons for the city council's decision to go "one step further" than other liberal municipalities, such as those in Vermont, which passed resolutions calling for impeachment :

This week, the Berkeley, California city council went one step further and put an impeachment measure on the November ballot. The grounds? Lying about the case for war in Iraq, torture of detainees and unlawful domestic spying.

And in case you didn't get the point, the piece also showed video of an unidentified councilwoman denouncing Bush:

Unidentified Woman: "He's the worst president in the history of this country."

Schneider's story wasn't the only mention of the Berkeley city council ballot measure. During the 5PM hour, Jack Cafferty included it as part of his Cafferty File segment. Cafferty's question was this:

What does it mean that the citizens of Berkeley, California, will vote on whether to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney?

To answer Cafferty's question, a liberal city council voting to impeach a Republican president doesn't seem to mean much, except that it gives another opportunity for the mainstream media to bring the issue of impeachment back into the national discourse.

---

Well, I wouldn't be TOO confident.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 11:58 PM

More surprising still: The poll found fully 43% of voters in favor of actually impeaching the President, with just 50% of voters opposed. While only 18% of Republicans surveyed wanted to see Bush impeached, 61% of Democrats and 47% of Independents reported they wanted to see the House move ahead with the Conyers (D-MI) resolution.

The poll, taken March 13-15, [2006] had a 3% margin of error.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 11:59 PM

The above is from

www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Poll_ Americans_slightly_favor_plan_to_0316.html

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 06 - 11:59 PM

Oh, and from the current editorial in the Pasadena Weekly:

"Impeachment advocates are widely mobilizing in the US. Over 1,000 letters to the editors of major newspapers have been printed in the past six months asking for impeachment. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette letter writer George Matus says, "I am still enraged over unasked questions about exit polls, touch-screen voting, Iraq, the cost of the new Medicare … who formulated our energy policy, Jack Abramoff, the Downing Street Memos and impeachment."

David Anderson in McMinnville, Ore., pens to The Oregonian, "Where are the members of our congressional delegation now in demanding the current president's actions be investigated to see if impeachment or censure are appropriate actions?"
William Dwyer's letter in the Charleston Gazette says, "Congress will never have the courage to start the impeachment process without a groundswell of outrage from the people."

City councils, boards of supervisors and local and state level Democrat central committees have voted for impeachment. The city of Arcata voted for impeachment on Jan. 6. The city and county of San Francisco voted Yes on Feb. 28. The Sonoma County Democrat Central Committee voted for impeachment on March 16. The townships of Newfane, Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro and Putney in Vermont all voted for impeachment the first week of March.

The New Mexico State Democrat Party convention rallied on March 18 for "the impeachment of George Bush and his lawful removal from office." The national Green Party called for impeachment on Jan. 3. Op-ed writers at the St. Petersburg Times, Newsday, Yale Daily News, Barrons, the Detroit Free Press and the Boston Globe have called for impeachment. The San Francisco Bay Guardian, The Nation and Harpers published cover articles calling for impeachment.

As of March 16, 32 members of the US House of Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors to House Resolution 635, which would create a select committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush's impeachment.

Polls show that nearly a majority of Americans favor impeachment. In October, Public Affairs Research found that 50 percent of Americans said that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq. A Zogby International poll from early November found that 53 percent of Americans say, "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." A March 16 poll by American Research Group showed that 42 percent of Americans favored impeaching Bush.

---

Hmmmmm? 42%...isn't that a bigger number than his approval ratings? I think so, ya...




A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 12:01 AM

Screw Clionton....

Opps... Too late... Monika got to him first...

Yeah, time is well past when Bush should have to be forcwed into retirement... Should have gone a couple innings ago.... Seems every day is another day where he has been "CAUGHT" doing stuff that is against the law????

Hmmmmm?

Yeah, time for the crook to go...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 12:09 AM

NO. It is not time for him to go. It IS time for him to be impeached. Then the piece of shit can go.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 12:40 AM

02/23/06 Also on CSPAN tonight
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:sSQIY4ciKD4J:www.mcradiation.com/blog/+daschle+buchanan&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7&lr=lang_en
Last night I went down to the Tom McCall Forum at the Schnitzer, featuring Pat Buchanan and Tom Daschle. It was a lot of fun. Buchanan was firing on all cylinders, and he was very funny. As my dad pointed out, he's an old speechwriter so he's well versed in timing and all of that good stuff. There was a portion where the two were debating in a conversation style, asking each other questions. Daschle got rocked back on his heels twice by Buchanan. Buchanan's first question was "So, Tom, if you could do it over again would you have voted for the war?" Daschle gave a bumbling answer that elicited boos and hisses from the audience. Buchanan also asked Daschle if he was willing to call for impeachment based on the NSA surveillance program, and again Daschle stammered and talked in circles.

Overall, Buchanan clearly came out on top at the end of the night. Of course, the event wasn't about winning or losing--it was about having a serious discussion of what is working in our democracy, and what isn't. And even in that, Buchanan did a better job of bringing out some of the flaws in the process today. Buchanan noted how spineless Congress has become as an institution, and how the two parties have failed to articulate a direction for the country that the electorate can embrace.

Daschle was too busy criticizing Bush and "the Republican Congress" to actually step back and admit that the Democrats have some serious problems of their own.

I enjoyed the event, and I'll probably go again in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 12:43 AM

On June 6, Jim Bronke of Concord, Penn., addressed the Concord Township board of supervisors:

Township supervisors and friends, I come here today not as a Republican or as a Democrat but as an American citizen concerned for our way of life. I hope that you can view this package not as a political statement but as a plan for the future … Rules of the House of Representatives explicitly allow state and city legislatures to introduce resolutions. Our First Amendment guarantees any citizen, city, or state "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This is what I ask you to do with this motion.
Bronke requested that the board consider a motion to request an impeachment inquiry of the president of the United States. When a board supervisor told Bronke that the only path to impeachment was through U.S. senators and representatives, Bronke corrected the supervisor, stating that "there are multiple paths toward impeachment, this is another."

Bronke was absolutely right.


The Concord board is hardly national news. But taken in conjunction with the staggering number of state legislatures and city and town councils across the country that have passed impeachment resolutions, the lack of coverage of the movement is a conspicuous absence in mainstream media.

Illinois, Vermont and California state legislatures have impeachment resolutions pending. The Democratic parties of Vermont, New Hampshire, Alaska, Maine, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, California and Hawaii have all passed resolutions. Then there are the 18 city and town councils that have passed resolutions, with seven more resolutions (including Concord) pending, to say nothing of the 27 local political groups and parties across the country that have adopted impeachment resolutions.

(From ALterNet)

---

"A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

(From the Declaration of Independence)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 12:44 AM

02/23/06

Thank for keeping us up to date.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 09:58 AM

When you open the gate, the cows will get out.

Like the line item veto power which the GOP pushed and which Clinton (briefly) had, the Impeachment Gate was (re-)opened by the GOP and now the chickens (to mix metaphors) are coming home to roost.

Sometimes it's better to be King Log and not King Stork. In other words, to let sleeping dogs lie.





(Wow! Animal metaphors all over the place today!)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 11:48 AM

Maybe we shouldn't let lying dogs sleep...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 02:37 PM

Thanks for all of the updates. It is encouraging.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 08:06 PM

I think King George was a better ruler than the current George Bush

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 12:19 AM

They didn't declare him mad until it was too late, either.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 01:51 AM

We're proud to say that our representative is one of the thirty two supporting the Conyers resolution to investigate whether there are grounds for impeachment. That's why we love her so much. We sent her an email congratulating her for her courage.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 01:06 PM

Town puts Bush on hot seat

Tuesday, July 4, 2006

BY GEORGE KRIMSKY


Copyright © 2006 Republican-American

WASHINGTON, Conn. -- On the eve of Independence Day, a crowd of more than 100 people, some from nearby towns, overwhelmingly voiced their right Monday night to consider the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

With a turnout that surprised even the organizers, most of the speaking residents made it clear they disagreed with two of the three members of the Board of Selectmen who insisted that town meetings are only convened to decide local issues.

A resolution signed by 47 town residents at the conclusion of the meeting, which lasted more than two hours, urged selectmen to convene a special town meeting despite the rejection decision by the majority of the board June 15.

A second resolution, signed by 52 people, including residents from eight other towns, voiced support for a set of "Articles of Impeachment" passed around the room. The out-of-town residents, who were outnumbered by locals, said they came from Woodbury, Southbury, New Milford, Torrington, Litchfield, Plymouth, Warren and Roxbury.

One of them said they wanted to use the Washington decision as a "template" for their towns to take similar actions.

http://www.rep-am.com/story.php?id=9242

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 08:40 PM

Viewpoint: Impeachment groundswell is growing
By Joe Baker, Senior Editor and Frank Schier, Editor & Publisher        Print this page
George W. Bush
A resolution to impeach President George W. Bush is pending before the Illinois legislature. Similar resolutions await action in the Vermont and California state legislatures.
Democrats in Vermont, New Hampshire, Alaska, Maine, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, California and Hawaii all have passed impeachment resolutions. Seven more state resolutions are pending, and 27 local political groups and parties nationwide have adopted such resolutions, according to an article on AlterNet.org.

Such strong coast-to-coast support for a homeland regime change is really not surprising nor shocking. The evidence is overwhelming. A recent article in Rolling Stone magazine by Robert Kennedy Jr. clearly shows the 2004 election was stolen in Ohio. Besides his general and perhaps purposeful incompetence leading up to the mysterious 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction to lead the country into war in Iraq. While classifying more information as "Secret" than any previous administration, Bush continues today to run illegal wiretaps, approve torture, ignore the Geneva Convention, operate secret prisons overseas, assert military tribunals (recently struck down by the Supreme Court) and violate the separation of powers doctrine by using signing statements to pick and choose congressional legislation.

Most recently, he and his minions launched attack dogs on The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post for exposing his illegal and unconstitutional spying on financial and personal transactions. Previously, in the same primacy-of-secrecy and creditability-attacking spirit, the Bush administration also released the name of CIA operative Valarie Plame, which is a felony, as a political retaliation. See the in-your-face nature of these spurious assaults on the vital principles of "Freedom of the Press," "Freedom of Information" and "The Public's Right to Know" that they truly are.

Author and columnist Ann Coulter is the pin-up girl of the Bush attack dogs. Here's her bilious assault on the widows of the 9-11 attacks who called for further investigations: "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." Here's another gem from this Bush-supporting pundit: "I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo." One wonders what Susan B. Anthony would say about another of Coulter's thoughts: "It would be a much better country if women did not vote."

Further rejecting the traditional American philosophies of an open society and transparent government in the most dangerous way, the Bush administration's neo-con philosophy of pre-emptive attacks has brought back the spectre of nuclear war, particularly in respect to North Korea and Iran. Congress must recapture its war powers and begin proceedings against the Bush/Cheney regime, particularly in light of the new book by Ron Suskind, former reporter for The Wall Street Journal and 1995 Pulitzer Prize winner, The One Percent Doctrine, which shows how massively reactionary Cheney really is, and how he is fully in charge of U.S. foreign policy and more.

A recent Zogby poll asked Americans what would restore their faith and trust in government. The top reply was "personnel changes/impeachment." Polls by Ipsos, Zogby and American Research Group revealed support for impeachment between 43 percent and 53 percent. Among Democrats, the numbers skyrocket to 80-90 percent, while a consistent majority of independents support such a move.

David Swanson of impeachpac.org said: "For impeachment to have anything close to majority support despite opposition by both political parties and almost no positive coverage in the media is remarkable."

Onnesha Roychoudhuri, formerly assistant editor of AlterNet.org, said Dennis Loy Johnson of Melville House Publishing, who worked on a book laying out the legal case for impeachment, told him: "We've had more than one friendly mainstream journalist tell us they pitched a story to their editor and were told: 'Don't even go there.'"

In spite of the media blackout, residents of every state in the union have sent copies of Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush to their representatives. Johnson said such groups as Veterans for Peace, Goldstar Families and Republicans for Impeachment have responded. He quipped: "A lot of people were paying more attention in civics class than you think." ...

(From the Times of Rockford, Illinois)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 08:42 PM

From NYCIndyMedia of New York:

uly 05, 2006 03:26PM EDT [general.addtranslation] Download Article (PDF)
Impeachment Comes to Main Street USA

7/05 | The Iraq war is out, impeachment is in in the town of Willimantic.

By Ed Adelman

The boos from the crowd in Willimantic, CT were reserved for Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, who may find himself a man without a party come August 8 for his ardent support for President Bush and the War in Iraq.

Keywords: Analysis, National, Government, War & Peace, Political Theory, Elections, Activism,

So, just how does Impeach Bush play out on Main Street, USA?

One indication was the now famous 21st Annual July 4th Boom Box Parade along Main Street in Willimantic, CT. The 20,000 people of this former mill town in northeastern Connecticut town are a gritty, hardscrabble if economically depressed bunch, but they're also proud, resourceful and open-minded. The Boom Box Parade was born of necessity and civic pride when marching bands were cancelled for budget reasons, forcing an embarrassing postponement of a big parade. The community's creative response: put together a tape of parade music, play it on the local radio station and have marchers and audience bring their radios tuned to the station. Open enrollment--no pre-registration--just show up and march. It became a wonderful, all-American hodgepodge of scout and church groups, hopeful politicians, families looking for something fun to do before a barbecue, immigrant groups, historical groups, local businesses, political groups with a message and anyone with a desire to drive an antique car, tractor or lawn mower down Main Street with thousands cheering.

This year, about 20 of us marched behind a banner proclaiming "SAVE THE CONSTITUTION--IMPEACH BUSH," while carrying signs with specifics about Bush the terrorist, the liar, the shredder of habeas corpus, the promoter of fear and hate, etc. etc. Although we also announced that "Peace is Patriotic," we were anxious about our reception on this day, the granddaddy of Red, White and Blue holidays.

We needn't have worried. People in this blue-collar town don't like Bush. We got enthusiastic cheers from old and young, white, black and brown, flag wavers, bikers, students, hippies--Americans, all. Certainly, there were some thumbs down and boos, but far fewer than we expected. Passing by some of the more crowded areas, such as the Town Hall lawn, the ovations and cheers just grew as we passed. Informational flyers were willingly accepted, not just by those cheering, but by others who wanted more information about impeachment, which is making sense to more and more people.

Judging by our Main Street experience, it looks like the people are ready to take this step--they are fed up with lies, the arrogance of power, incompetence and manipulation by corporate interests. We just need the politicians who have the guts to get it rolling.
-----------

Ed Adelman is a special education teacher in Lebanon, CT. He lives in the town of Hampton, CT.

Addendum by Dave Lindorff

More Boos for Lieberman, Cheers for Lamont

There was also plenty of booing along the July 4 parade route in Willimantic, CT. as the state's embattled senior senator, Joe Lieberman, marched past. The New York Times, which reported on the event on page one of its Metro section on July 5, said that while there were a few people who hugged Lieberman or offered to sign his petition to run as an independent candidate in November if he fails to win his party's nomination, most people were booing him, calling him a "traitor" for even contemplating an independent campaign.

Overwhelmingly, the cheering was reportedly reserved for Lieberman's challenger, political novice Ned Lamont, who also attended the parade, accompanied by a float that depicted Lieberman being kissed by President Bush (a reference to an event that took place at the president's last State of the Union address, and which Lamont has made good use of in his ad campaign for the Aug. 8 Democratic Primary.

Lamont, who is focusing his campaign on Lieberman's strong support for Bush's Iraq invasion and for continuing war, is increasingly being considered a possible winner of the state's Democratic primary, which would be a remarkable upset of a senior senator who only six years ago was his party's vice presidential candidate....

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 08:50 PM

Is this House Resolution 635?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 12:42 AM

H.RES.635
Title: Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.

Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] (introduced 12/18/2005)      Cosponsors (36)
Latest Major Action: 12/18/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Rules.

Creates the Select Committee on Administration Predetermination to Go to War and Manipulation of Intelligence to investigate all relevant government agency actions and decisions relating to the Administration's: (1) intent to go to war before congressional authorization; (2) manipulation of pre-war intelligence; (3) encouragement and countenancing of torture; and (4) retaliation against critics.

Requires the Committee to report to the House of Representatives on: (1) the results of its investigation; and (2) any substantial and credible information which the Committee receives in carrying out its responsibilities that may constitute grounds for possible impeachment.

---

Related, but these various small towns are acting independently.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 12:47 AM

Thanks, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 11:30 AM

Democracy is a great thing when it works.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 11:40 AM

Amos, Amos, Amos - you and others, what a way to spend time on the fourth.

Very antecdotal to most; I really enjoyed "unidentified woman, 'He is the worst Preseident........" Not that is pretty convincing. I am really, really glad she informed me.

There is always discontent (and the malcontents to express it) everywhere one goes. Has been for 40+ years. Oh, I also liked boberts "....he has broken many laws,...crook.....has to go..."
If this were really true, then why is he still here?

Bush wins! "........50% does not want him impeached........"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 11:53 AM

By the way Amos, It is very apparent that you never call out a "GUEST" that agrees with you.

Just in case: malcontent noun
: a discontented person a : one who bears a grudge from a sense of grievance ot thwarted ambition b : one who is in active opposition to an established order or government :

(any order, any government)

And perhaps "a" means a lot here. If the shoe fits............

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 12:00 PM

Democracy is a great thing, when it works.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 04:10 PM

From the small-town press in Litchfield, CT:

WASHINGTON-You could hear a pin drop in the crowded meeting room of Bryan Memorial Town Hall Monday night as Paul Frenkel stood before the audience, which had gathered to discuss a grassroots call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

What was it about Mr. Frenkel's remarks that commanded such attention? As part of a cautionary tale about the stifling of the voice of the people, he recalled the silence of his townspeople in Hungary as the Nazis took away his family.
"When they took us away, the majority of citizens were silent. One gypsy lady was crying on the street, she was the only one. ... Why were they silent? Well, because it was not proper [to speak out]."
Urging the crowd to "speak your conscience," Mr. Frenkel was one of more than 120 people from across Litchfield County who came to town hall to voice support for the impeachment of President Bush, and to criticize the town government for refusing to allow an official meeting on the subject.

Last month, a group of citizens brought a petition to the Board of Selectmen, requesting that a special town meeting be called to discuss and vote on an official resolution calling for the impeachment of the president on charges that he has lied to the American people, illegally spied on civilians and conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, among other allegations. If the town formally backed a call for impeachment, the hope is that it would create a chain reaction process that prompts Congress to act.
The request for a meeting was denied 2 to 1, with Republican Mark Lyon and Democrat Nicholas Solley opposing it on the grounds that such a meeting would be "improper," and noting in particular that town meetings were not the appropriate venue for addressing national issues. Democrat First Selectman Dick Sears voted in favor of holding the meeting.

By law, the board must call a town meeting when a petition signed by 20 or more citizens is brought forward unless the request is deemed "unlawful, frivolous or improper." Prior to the board's decision, the town attorney advised that the petition and its request were legal.

During the unofficial gathering July 3, which one person called a spontaneous coming together of patriots, many attendees were vocal in their criticism of the board's decision. Three empty, overturned chairs were symbolically placed over a table at the head of the hall to signify the board's decision. None of the selectmen was in attendance.
"All of a sudden, someone in government says, 'I can't allow this to happen, no you can't speak'"-this isn't the country I came to. That's what enraged me," said Mr. Frenkel. A survivor of the concentration camps during World War II, Mr. Frenkel also distributed handouts of the Geneva Convention in regards to alleged inhumane treatment of prisoners by the Bush Administration.

Mr. Frenkel continued, telling the audience, "This is not Mr. Solley's hall. This is not Mr. Lyon's hall. This is your hall, this is yours." The room then erupted in applause.

Organizers said they have been in contact with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and are planning to appeal the board's decision. Also, many Washington residents in attendance signed a petition, which will be forwarded to the board, that read, "We respectfully disagree with the actions of the town Selectmen taken to deny calling a town meeting requested on the grounds it was improper, a standard shown to be irrelevant by the opinion of the ACLU and town counsel ... ." The petition goes on to request that a special town meeting be called to discuss backing a call that the impeachment process be initiated.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 04:26 PM

From the Marin county local press:

Fairfax council votes to oust Bush and Cheney
Tad Whitaker



Fairfax officials voted unanimously Wednesday night to endorse a local petition calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Only a dozen or so people turned out at the Town Council meeting, but those who did railed against the administration for going to war in Iraq, violating constitutional rights and fouling up a host of other issues.

Those sentiments were shared by all four council members at the meeting. Councilman David Weinsoff is on vacation.

"I'm going for this resolution with all of my heart," Councilwoman Mary Ann Maggiore said.

Fairfax's move follows a similar one in Berkeley, where the City Council voted unanimously last week to spend $10,000 and put an impeachment measure on the Nov. 7 ballot. The Fairfax resolution will not go on the ballot.

Millie Barrett, a 33-year Fairfax resident, spearheaded the local impeachment drive against Bush by collecting hundreds of signatures on a petition because she said she wanted to do something more than just attend peace rallies.

"This is a movement spreading throughout the country," Barrett said.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 04:30 PM

Elsewhere in the Connecticut small press:

The defeat in Washington, Conn., has far from deterred the resolution supporters, who held an informal meeting in Town Hall on Monday that attracted about 100 people from Washington and surrounding towns.

The resounding cry was for the impeachment debate — the majority of the resolution supporters are ardent opponents of the war in Iraq — to get a fair public hearing.

We the People organizer Sandra Canning said the large turnout emboldened her group, with a core of about a dozen people, to push forward on this issue. She said they have consulted with the American Civil Liberties Union and hope town leaders will rethink their earlier position.

The next Board of Selectmen meeting is July 13.

The meeting Monday night was "hugely touching and hugely inspiring,'' Canning said. "There is a tremendous human need to be part of this, and as in a revival meeting, people want to testify to how they feel about this issue.''

Though Canning has lived in Washington for only eight years, she said there were third-generation families at the meeting whose roots in the town go back to the 1760s.

"That's a powerful mix,'' Canning said of the group's diversity. "We can't crawl back into our cozy lives.''

Fellow organizer Ken Corner said the consensus of those who attended the meeting was to again try to convince selectmen to allow a special town meeting. Even if there are more town residents who oppose the idea of sending an impeachment resolution to Congress, Cornet said there needs to be a debate.

...


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 04:36 PM

BTW, whoever you are, your post makes no sense. If someone wgrees with you, why would you call them out?

"Hey! You gotta lotta nerve!! I agree with what you said, but who do you think you are, saying that?" LOL

Not exackly logical, if you see what I mean.

In fact, if people speak courteously and intending to communicate, I don't usually "call them out" except by offering alternative thoughts in similar vein. It's when folks get snide or deliberately obtuse or ad hominem that I tend to sharpen my tongue on their stony brains.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 10:45 PM

Very antecdotal, don't you think?

And while it was not a very good statement, being aware of those who seem to agree with you could demonstrate that you might not be the arrogant and egotistical ass that you come across as.

Meanwhile, Bush wins and will continue to do so as you waste so much time on these insignificant items. ".......only a dozen or so people turned out...." seems to be the consensus all over the US.
A lot of the "stony brain" disease going around both sides of the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 11:50 PM

Well, you're right in one respect. A lot of us humanist types were never prepared to see the country taken over by a dimwitted fascist, and I think it kind of left us surprised.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 06 - 12:15 AM

Impeach Bush

The man was lost and then he was found and now he's more lost than ever -- and he's taking us into the darkness with him. It's time to remove him.

By Garrison Keillor



These are troubling times for all of us who love this country, as surely we all do, even the satirists. You may poke fun at your mother, but if she is belittled by others it burns your bacon. A blowhard French journalist writes a book about America that is full of arrogant stupidity, and you want to let the air out of him and mail him home flat. You hear young people talk about America as if it's all over, and you trust that this is only them talking tough. And then you read the paper and realize the country is led by a man who isn't paying attention, and you hope that somebody will poke him. Or put a sign on his desk that says, "Try Much Harder."

Do we need to impeach him to bring some focus to this man's life? The man was lost and then he was found and now he's more lost than ever, plus being blind. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 06 - 09:38 AM

Amos, first of all, apologies are tendered for any vile statements I may have uttered while not in a contained frame of mind. Although, some were said in a meaningful but not hateful way. I am sure that you do not require my apologies and that is meant as a compliment to you.

A brief summary - I am not surprised that some of my favorites over the years (Garrison is one) speaks out like he does. It is a sign of the times and my age (mid 60's) which I believe is permitting me to notice more the comments of others. I am still engaged in full activities but seem to have more time to reflect. The most bothersome item for me is the media untruths, be it news or talk shows, I give you Randi Rhoades and Shaun Hannity. Don't listen at all now but did for comparative purposes. Both are a stain on our social fabric. Yes, I am a Conservative and yes, I am behind GWB although I cannot be labled a "Bushite" and I have my disagreements with him. AND, I am basically behind the efforts in Iraq. I am of the opinion that the results of this effort will not be accurately discerned for 10 or more years after the cessation of the fighting.

Maybe, just maybe, when that time arrives my plate will be brimming with 'Crow'. I seriously doubt that possibility but one must keep an open mind.

I bid you a good day, somewhat admire your straight line approach but respectfully disagree on your overall outlook.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 06 - 10:15 AM

Well, thank you Guest, for a courteous and straight message, readily understood.

ALthough (like the majority of US voters) I did not vote for him, I was willing to let Mister Bush show his stuff and get something done. He oscillated wildly between the dumbest and the most obnoxious extremes. His conclusion to invade Afghanistan was, perhaps, justifiable in light of what occurred. But the longn war in Iraq has no justification for its poor conception, it's incompetent analysis of the ground situation, its inept strategic plans, and the uncompensated harm ithas wrought in blood, treasure and repute. The man may, ten years hence, be seen as having done something positive, but I am pretty sure if so it will be sheer luck. On the domestic front he has been disingenuous, doouble-tongued, full of deceit and manipulation, and completely in love with his own photoshoots. Some might say, given the magnitude and thickness of his sins, he deserves to be shot out of hand. I'd be satisfied to see him impeached for the destructive impacts he has had or tried tohave.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 06 - 10:16 AM

By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter
Thursday, Jun. 8, 2006

STATE DEMOCRATS did more than listen to rousing speeches at their convention last Saturday at St. Anselm College.

They passed several resolutions — chief among them a call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush because he "has committed high crimes and misdemeanors as he has repeatedly and intentionally violated the United States Constitution and other laws of the United States."

Is that all? No.

Before voting overwhelmingly by a show of hands on that one, there was a strong voice vote to censure the President — a resolution submitted on behalf of one of the keynote speakers, "red meat" Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold.

The censure motion contended Bush authorized the illegal wire-tapping of "perhaps more than 1 million Americans."

State Democratic Party Kathy Sullivan acknowledged that the two, taken together, may have been "a bit of overkill," but, she said, "You've got people here who are very angry with George Bush."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 01:49 PM

From the Pasadena Press:

"gnoring the call to impeach Bush
By Peter Phillips

f a national movement calling for the impeachment of the president is rapidly emerging and the corporate media are not covering it, is there really a national movement for the impeachment of the president?
Impeachment advocates are widely mobilizing in the US. Over 1,000 letters to the editors of major newspapers have been printed in the past six months asking for impeachment. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette letter writer George Matus says, "I am still enraged over unasked questions about exit polls, touch-screen voting, Iraq, the cost of the new Medicare … who formulated our energy policy, Jack Abramoff, the Downing Street Memos and impeachment."
David Anderson in McMinnville, Ore., pens to The Oregonian, "Where are the members of our congressional delegation now in demanding the current president's actions be investigated to see if impeachment or censure are appropriate actions?"
William Dwyer's letter in the Charleston Gazette says, "Congress will never have the courage to start the impeachment process without a groundswell of outrage from the people."
City councils, boards of supervisors and local and state level Democrat central committees have voted for impeachment. The city of Arcata voted for impeachment on Jan. 6. The city and county of San Francisco voted Yes on Feb. 28. The Sonoma County Democrat Central Committee voted for impeachment on March 16. The townships of Newfane, Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro and Putney in Vermont all voted for impeachment the first week of March.
The New Mexico State Democrat Party convention rallied on March 18 for "the impeachment of George Bush and his lawful removal from office." The national Green Party called for impeachment on Jan. 3. Op-ed writers at the St. Petersburg Times, Newsday, Yale Daily News, Barrons, the Detroit Free Press and the Boston Globe have called for impeachment. The San Francisco Bay Guardian, The Nation and Harpers published cover articles calling for impeachment.
As of March 16, 32 members of the US House of Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors to House Resolution 635, which would create a select committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush's impeachment.
Polls show that nearly a majority of Americans favor impeachment. In October, Public Affairs Research found that 50 percent of Americans said that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq. A Zogby International poll from early November found that 53 percent of Americans say, "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." A March 16 poll by American Research Group showed that 42 percent of Americans favored impeaching Bush.
Despite all this advocacy and sentiment for impeachment, corporate media have yet to cover this emerging mass movement. The Bangor Daily News simply reported on March 17 that former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark has set up the Web site Votetoimpeach.org and that other groups are using the Internet to push impeachment. The Wall Street Journal, on March 16, editorialized about how it is just "the loony left" seeking impeachment, but perhaps some Democrats in Congress will join in feeding on the "bile of the censure/ impeachment brigades."
The corporate media are ignoring the broadening call for impeachment — wishing perhaps it will just go away. Television news and talk shows have mentioned impeachment over 100 times in the past few months, mostly, however, in the context of US Sen. Russ Feingold's censure bill and the lack of broad Democrat support for censure or impeachment. Nothing on television news gives the impression that millions of Americans are calling for the impeachment of Bush and his cohorts.
The Bush administration lied about Iraq, illegally spied on US citizens and continues war crimes in the Middle East. Despite corporate media's inability to hear the demands for impeachment, the groundswell of outrage continues to expand."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 06:04 PM

Cindy Sheehan's Other Son Drowns In New Orleans

WASHINGTON, DC—According to White House sources, President Bush is bracing for intensified criticism following Monday's report that the body of Tyler Sheehan, son of outspoken anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, was recovered from the receding floodwaters in New Orleans.
Enlarge ImageBush Braces As Cindy Sheehan's Other Son Drowns In New Orleans

Although the White House has not released a statement, a firestorm of controversy is expected to follow the death of the dynamic, well-liked young man, who was working on a levee-upkeep crew while completing the EMT-certification training he needed to become a firefighter.

"Tyler was the very picture of an American hero," said Jorge Guiterrez, an Ochsner Hospital orderly present when Sheehan evacuated dozens of patients from its intensive-care unit. "He pulled off-the-clock double shifts moving guys in wheelchairs, guys without arms, guys on dialysis—you name it, he got them on a bus to Baton Rouge."

Before Sheehan moved to New Orleans, he was a struggling coho-salmon fisherman in Oregon's Klamath Basin. However, when the Bush Administration relaxed federal protection of the endangered fish, Sheehan's catch became contaminated with mercury. He gave up fishing and moved to Oakland, CA, where he opened a free clinic, which lost its federal funding in 2002 for giving out oral contraceptives to poor women.

A recent transplant to Louisiana, Sheehan reportedly went above and beyond the call of duty to aid imperiled New Orleans residents, dispensing bottled water and first aid to dazed hurricane survivors between shifts at the breached Canal Street levee.

Sheehan was last seen Sept. 4, hours after he and his levee crew sustained injuries while attempting to shore up storm-weakened levee pilings. According to sources, contaminated water laced with slicks of petroleum from a recently deregulated, poorly fortified refinery ignited, causing third-degree burns among the workers. Survivors recall seeing Tyler, badly injured and without the life jacket and medical kit denied him by recent budget cuts, digging survivors out of the wreckage.

"I don't know how we would have gotten out of there without Tyler," said Dom Ghivarello, Sheehan's crew chief. "Once we got clear of the break, we had no way of getting to high ground without our utility truck, which was requisitioned by the Defense Department last month for use in Iraq. But Tyler threw me his truck keys and went back to help others. That's the last I saw of him."

Sheehan moved to New Orleans in 2004 to take a year off from the University of California at Berkeley, where administrators had temporarily suspended the stem-cell research program in which he was enrolled in hopes of helping to combat his younger sister Ruth's spinal meningitis. Friends report that his public spirit continued in the Big Easy, as he delivered meals to elderly New Orleans residents affected by recent Medicare cuts, and doggedly petitioned the Justice Department for the release of his life partner, Amin Sagheer, who has been detained without charge at Guantanamo Bay for nearly three years.

"He made service to his fellow citizens his number-one priority," Ghivarello said. "He made that vow back in 1998, when his best friend, a developmentally disabled black juvenile, was put to death in Texas for a crime he didn't commit."

Cindy Sheehan was unavailable for comment, as she was busy trying to contact her lone surviving son Teddy, a meteorologist studying global warming with the International Geophysical Foundation in Antarctica, who is believed to be marooned on a 45-square-mile chunk of the shrinking Ross Ice Shelf that broke off Tuesday morning.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 06:20 PM

That's a September 21, 2005 article from The Onion.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 06:41 PM

Guest, you should be disgusted with yourself.. Stealing a thread with such garbage.

Have you no decency?


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 06:55 PM

The Onion is Amos's favorite news source.

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

Go suck an exhaust pipe somewhere, OG.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 07:06 PM

Didja hear about the Queen of the Hells Angels?

She was so tough she could suck start a Harley.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 07:22 PM

The Washington, CT town-meeting flap caused by demanding a motion for impeachment is also being covered by the nearby New Milford press.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 11:26 PM

"So, just how does Impeach Bush play out on Main Street, USA?

One indication was the now famous 21st Annual July 4th Boom Box Parade along Main Street in Willimantic, CT. The 20,000 people of this former mill town in northeastern Connecticut town are a gritty, hardscrabble if economically depressed bunch, but they're also proud, resourceful and open-minded. The Boom Box Parade was born of necessity and civic pride when marching bands were cancelled for budget reasons, forcing an embarrassing postponement of a big parade. The community's creative response: put together a tape of parade music, play it on the local radio station and have marchers and audience bring their radios tuned to the station. Open enrollment--no pre-registration--just show up and march. It became a wonderful, all-American hodgepodge of scout and church groups, hopeful politicians, families looking for something fun to do before a barbecue, immigrant groups, historical groups, local businesses, political groups with a message and anyone with a desire to drive an antique car, tractor or lawn mower down Main Street with thousands cheering.


This year, about 20 of us marched behind a banner proclaiming "SAVE THE CONSTITUTION--IMPEACH BUSH," while carrying signs with specifics about Bush the terrorist, the liar, the shredder of habeas corpus, the promoter of fear and hate, etc. etc. Although we also announced that "Peace is Patriotic," we were anxious about our reception on this day, the granddaddy of Red, White and Blue holidays.


We needn't have worried. People in this blue-collar town don't like Bush. We got enthusiastic cheers from old and young, white, black and brown, flag wavers, bikers, students, hippies--Americans, all. Certainly, there were some thumbs down and boos, but far fewer than we expected. Passing by some of the more crowded areas, such as the Town Hall lawn, the ovations and cheers just grew as we passed. Informational flyers were willingly accepted, not just by those cheering, but by others who wanted more information about impeachment, which is making sense to more and more people.


Judging by our Main Street experience, it looks like the people are ready to take this step--they are fed up with lies, the arrogance of power, incompetence and manipulation by corporate interests. We just need the politicians who have the guts to get it rolling. "

Ed Adelman is a special education teacher in Lebanon, CT. He lives in the town of Hampton, CT.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/3781/1/196/

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 11:29 PM

Meanwhile in Chicago:

..."With police and Secret Service blocking each side of the Drake, the majority of protesters gathered across the street on the southeast corner of Oak and Michigan avenues. Another 25 protesters assembled kitty-corner, raising signs urging passing motorists to honk.

Police said there were no arrests at the protest.

Munster resident Nick Egnatz, a leader of the Northwest Indiana Coalition Against the Iraq War, was joined by about seven other residents of the region wearing shirts or carrying signs proclaiming "Out of Iraq."

Egnatz, 60, an Air Force veteran who also represents Vietnam Veterans Against the War and Veterans for Peace, said protesters would have targeted the museum if they had known Bush was addressing the media there.

"Obviously the press conference was scheduled so we could not mobilize the protest," he said. "I've been told Bush is speaking on the second floor (of the Drake), so he should be able to hear us yelling and shouting."

Highland resident John Lesiowski, whose daughter, Nadine, 26, is serving her third tour of Army duty in Iraq, said "lies" Bush told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are enough to impeach him.

"I don't like the direction he's taking the country," Lesiowski said. "He ignores the Constitution and is so righteous because he talks to God."

....

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 11:33 PM

"

"Frankly my dear..."
Roger Moore blogs the latest on movies...

The lil'est voter
The King of the World don't need no stinking actors!
And the reviews are in...
Pink in the Movies? "I'm a HAZ-ard to MAH-seeeeelf"
If Labyrinth changed your life...
More...
                
TALK ABOUT ENTERTAINMENT

FEATURED DISCUSSION:
What do you think of theme park rides and movies?

WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING:
• I'd like to see Miami Vice the ride, but only if you get to dress up like Crockett. A wild boat chas... [more]
- Sentinel_Jud


Read more comments or post your own

MORE MESSAGE BOARDS:
NEWS | SPORTS | BUSINESSS
ENTERTAINMENT | LIFESTYLE
FROM SENTINEL ARTICLES
                
ENTERTAINMENT VIDEOS

BLOG: SOUNDBOARD
Jim Abbott blogs the latest in music...


Kynda member resurfaces with new band
Buffett not wasting away
An unlikely Deadhead
Blue Meridian homecoming
Praise for the Heathens
More...
CONTROL FREAK
Previews and reviews of the local gaming scene...

FIFA World Cup Tournament (video)
Free Play of Prey
Bush Age: Train Your President in Minutes a Day!
Doctors Don't Save People, Gamers Do (video)
Metal Gear Solid Digital Graphic Novel
More...
BLOG: HAL THE TV GUY

Check out what's new with the TV Guy...

The "Rock Star" blues
Who's going to win Emmys?
Emmys snub "Lost," Laurie
Chappelle's sad show
Larry King's big interview
More...
Attention must be paid
Elizabeth Maupin blogs the latest in theater...

What's rude?
Give me a break
A little more about the Fringe
A Problem Like Maria, part two
Lloyd Richards dies
More...
Shakespeare's Coffee
Rebecca Swain offers a different read on books...

More Summer Reading Links
Why I'm giving up bacon for good...
Cheeky or just offensive?
Cover charge and two book minimum
Summer lovin'
More...
Stephen Kiehl | The (Baltimore) Sun
Posted July 8, 2006

Pity the conservative rock fan.

So many musicians are ganging up on the president. Bruce Springsteen is on tour playing protest songs. The Dixie Chicks recently put out an album with a song -- "Not Ready to Make Nice" -- that finds them standing firm against President Bush. And The Rolling Stones last year released a song that called the president a hypocrite.

But to prove that there is still some music out there for conservative rockers, National Review has published a list of the 50 greatest conservative rock songs. The magazine's John J. Miller, who compiled the list, explains the criteria: "The lyrics must convey a conservative idea or sentiment, such as skepticism of government or support for traditional values. And, to be sure, it must be a great rock song."

At the top of the list is The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again," which Miller calls a theme song for "disillusioned revolutionaries" who have forsaken their naive idealism. Also in the top 10 are "Wouldn't It Be Nice" by the Beach Boys (for its pro-abstinence and pro-marriage message), "Gloria" by U2 and "Revolution" by the Beatles.

Not surprisingly, liberal rock fans weren't going to concede these tunes without a fight. After the list was posted online, liberal blogs quickly lit up with outrage and offered song-by-song deconstructions of National Review's choices.

Offered the Rude Pundit: "The entire list is sad and embarrassing, like watching Grandpa do the Macarena now, thinking that he's still hip, that he's been hip for the last 30 years. Because to come up with 50 songs, the readers and editors of the National Review had to neglect, almost entirely, the politics and lifestyles of nearly every single one of the music acts on the list."

At least one of the musicians (John Mellencamp, "Small Town") was an organizer and star of the 2004 Vote for Change tour that raised money to defeat Bush. U2 has not made a secret of its left-leaning politics. And Paul McCartney (whose Beatles have two songs on the list) has spoken out against the war in Iraq.

But, in an interview, Miller, who is the National Review's national political reporter, says he separated the artist from the song when making the list.

"The claim is not about the artist or their intention. The claim is about their song," Miller says. "I'm looking at the lyrics, just looking at the words on the page, and saying this is what they mean. I

Indeed, that's why Miller's list of 50 additional great conservative rock songs included "Let's Roll" by Neil Young, an artist who has a song called "Let's Impeach the President."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 11:38 PM

And here's a review of the latest album by an artist called Peaches, who entitles her latest work

Impeach My Bush.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 11:44 PM

Politics will be focus of CSNY tour

CAMDEN, N.J., July 6 (UPI) -- As befits its title -- Freedom of Speech '06 -- Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young's new tour will be a heavily political affair.
"We took advantage of the possibility of bringing so much focus, attention on things that need to be discussed," said Graham Nash. "It's a different buzz with CSNY, with all four of us."
Nash says the quartet has rehearsed all of the songs from Young's politically oriented new album "Living With War," including titles such as "Let's Impeach the President" and "Lookin' For a Leader." The 34-date trek, which starts Thursday in Camden, N.J., will also feature older favorites like "Wooden Ships," "Find the Cost of Freedom" and "Ohio."
Nash said he's also written a new song, "In Your Name," which deals with the idea of killing in God's name and may be debuted during the tour.
It's the first time CSNY has toured together since 2002.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: michaelr
Date: 09 Jul 06 - 12:22 AM

Amos, just who do you imagine will prosecute this impeachment? It would have to begin in DC, where there's not a spine left.

The idea is silly, anyway. The Bush cabal must be indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced to 3000 consecutive lifetimes in Guantanamo.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 09 Jul 06 - 12:42 AM

It is time to expose this Guest troll!

Elves do your stuff, mix the gue and stir the pot, expose this troll, and let him rot!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 06 - 04:24 PM

uly 9, 2006
By DANIEL BARLOW Staff Writer

BRATTLEBORO – Anti-war icon Cindy Sheehan will travel to Vermont later this month to lend her support to the state's grassroots effort to impeach President George Bush for misleading the country into the Iraq war.

Sheehan is scheduled to speak at rallies in Brattleboro and Montpelier on July 30 as part of a push for municipalities in Vermont and neighboring states to pass impeachment resolutions against the president.

Dan DeWalt, a Newfane selectman who organized a Town Meeting Day impeachment resolution, said Sheehan's appearance at the rallies will be a "call to arms" for the movement to remove Bush from office.

"We've sat on the sidelines too long and now it is time to act," DeWalt said. "I never intended to get a part-time job without pay impeaching the president, but that's what happened."

Seven Vermont towns, including five in Windham County, have passed resolutions at town meeting this year either calling for investigations into Bush or his outright impeachment for a number of perceived violations of his oath of office.

The town of Westminster may soon join those seven. Town resident Benjamin Mitchell is now circulating a petition calling for a special town meeting to vote on the impeachment question.

DeWalt, who kicked off the state impeachment movement earlier this year, said the effort had begun as a symbolic gesture against the direction of the country under the Bush administration, but said it has since become a concrete and concerted effort to make his removal from office a reality.

"What we saw a few months ago was the embryonic beginning of a revolution," DeWalt said. "Vermont is now part of the national stage on the issue of impeachment and the votes at our town meetings have been inspiring others across the country."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jul 06 - 08:48 PM

It was gracious of them. Maybe they'd like to keep what's left of your democracy before it's all gone.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 06 - 08:51 PM

In addition, perhaps rather than sneering condescendingly, you might want to reflect on how unusual it is for a township to take such hubris on itself. What could possibly be driving them?

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 06 - 09:21 PM

Bush may have broken law over intelligence

Associated Press in Washington
Monday July 10, 2006
The Guardian

The White House kept intelligence activities secret from the lawmakers responsible for overseeing them until whistleblowers revealed the programmes, the house intelligence committee chairman said yesterday.
A Republican congressman, Pete Hoekstra, said he had been told about the secret programmes by whistleblowers and had asked the Bush administration about them, using codenames.

Not briefing members of the house and Senate intelligence committees is against the law, Mr Hoekstra said. The committees were briefed after he complained. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 06 - 10:04 PM

A much earlier, but quite articulate Draft of Articles of Impeachment against George Walker Bush, for malfeasance and violation of duty, obligation and law in his conduct of the office of President.

Recommended reading if a bit past its sell-by date.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 06 - 10:07 PM

An excerpt is provided here from an article written in March

Bush's Last, Best Hope: the Democrats

A Popular Groundswell for Impeachment

By DAVE LINDORFF

The prevailing "wisdom" of our corporate media is that impeachment of President Bush is a left-wing fantasy. As a result, there is virtually no coverage in the media of either the majority sentiment for removing Bush from office or even of the key issues that make this president a poster child for impeachment.

Take the several polls by Zogby International on the impeachment issue. Last June, Zogby polled Americans across the country and found that some 42 percent favored impeaching the president if it were found that he had lied about the threat posed by Iraq in order to justify an invasion. That is a higher percentage of people in favor of impeachment than there ever was for the impeachment of former president Bill Clinton during his entire impeachment ordeal. Yet the poll was not mentioned by any major media news organization.

In November, Zogby repeated the poll. This time, 53 percent of respondents from all over the nation said they thought the president should be impeached and removed from office if he lied about the war. That poll to was totally blacked out.

A third poll early this year found 52 percent of Americans saying Bush should be removed from office if he broke the law and had the National Security Agency spy on American citizens without court warrants. Well, of course he did do that-the president has admitted he did so and says he will continue to do it--so the latest poll was really saying that 52 percent of Americans think he should be sent packing.

That poll too was largely ignored by the major corporate media.

Left-wing fantasy? Are we saying that the majority of Americans are left-wingers?

I don't think so.

But the media are not the only ones who are trying to dismiss popular sentiment for impeachment.

The leadership of the Democratic Party is doing the same thing.

While researching our book on impeachment (The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing George W. Bush from Office, St. Martin's Press, due out in late April), my co-author Barbara Olshanshky and I have found that members of Congress-even firebrands like Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)-have been strong-armed behind the scenes by the Democratic National Committee not to introduce an impeachment bill in the House. Rep. John Conyers, the ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, where such a bill would be considered, has submitted three bills that relate to impeachment-a proposal for a special committee to investigate possible impeachable crimes by the administration and bills to censure both the president and the vice president for refusing to answer questions from Congress on impeachment-related issues--but that's as far as the Democratic congressional leadership is willing to go.

As the Wall Streeet Journal reported in a March 6 article on the impeachment issue, Democratic Party leaders fear that party support for impeachment could lead to a backlash as happened to Republicans who supported Clinton's impeachment.

This is of course nonsense. The effort to impeach Clinton over his sexual escapades was always viewed by the majority of Americans, Democratic and Republican alike, as a farce and an embarrassment. As the Wall Street Journal notes, support for Clinton's impeachment never rose much above a quarter of the electorate--the hard right element of the Republican Party.

The issues that are driving popular sentiment for Bush's impeachment are much more serious:

* The conspiracy of lies that got the country into a war in Iraq that has already cost some $400 billion and that ultimately may end up costing over $2 trillion, and that has cost the lives of 2300 Americans and over 100,000 Iraqis.

* Obstruction of investigations into what the administration knew about the 9-11 attacks before they happened, and why nothing was done to prevent them.

* Undermining of basic Constitutional freedoms, from First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, assembly, press and religion to Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure and Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial, to the even more basic rights of citizenship.

* Abuses of power, including the blatant violation of the law in the case of the president's violation of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, the use of over 500 "signing statements" to simply ignore laws passed by Congress, and the ignoring of court orders, as well as the use of government power to attack individuals, as in the case of the outing of underecover CIA agent Valerie Plame in order to punish her whistle-blowing husband, ambassador Joe Wilson.

* Trampling of international law through the authorization of policies of torture of captives and the rounding up and deporting of law-abiding residents based solely upon their ethnicity and religion, all of which have made America a pariah in the international community and needlessly inflamed hatred of America across the Muslim world.

* A criminally negligent attitude towards governing that has brought us the disaster and needless death of hundreds of people in New Orleans, the fiasco of the Medicare drug "program" for seniors, and the chaos of post-war Iraq.

* A criminal know-nothing obstructionism with regard to the urgent crisis of global warming, which even the Pentagon has concluded threatens the national security of the United States far more than any rag-tag band of terrorists.

* A culture of corruption in Washington that makes earlier epic scandals like Teapot Dome look penny-ante, with over 60 Republican members of Congress (that's better than one in four!) linked to just one bribing lobbyist and with war-profiteering by Republican-linked corporations running rampant.

These are all issues that cry out for action, and for saturation coverage in the nation's media.

....

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 06 - 10:09 PM

Well, that certainly missed your expectations, did it not?

Sorta' like reading the back of a cereal box for the umpteenth time.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 06 - 10:10 PM

For some, impeachment should be the least of Mister Walker Bush' problems:

"...May 15, 2006

Playing Into the Hands of the Democrats

Impeachment is Too Good for Bush

By MICKEY Z.

There's talk of impeachment making the rounds these days ... and it's not just partisan hyperbole.

As Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky explain in their new book, "The Case for Impeachment," the legal argument for removing George W. Bush from office is clear, present, and urgent.

However, for those seeking peace and justice, there are two reasons why impeachment should only be judged as a means to an end:

1. Impeachment is too good for him Sure, the planet would breathe a sigh of relief should Dubya get the boot, but why let him off the hook so easily? As Lindorff and Olshansky state: "The evidence of ... constitutional transgressions, violations of federal and international law, abuse of power, and criminal negligence as chief executive ... are so blatant one might think conviction would be a foregone conclusion."

Well then, why stop there? "The call for impeachment trivializes the crimes," declares journalist Rosemarie Jackowski. "Where is the demand for war crimes trials?"

Good question..."

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 06 - 11:24 PM

Amos is on a roll. Again.

Does you wife miss you?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 12:24 AM

I guess this is what can happen when election results are falsified, as happened in both of the last two presidential elections. The majority of voters want him impeached because the majority of voters didn't vote for him. Democracy can be a great thing when it works.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: michaelr
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 12:41 AM

What I said. They're war criminals, and they're common criminals. And the Democrats are guilty by collusion.

But Amos, I ask again: who do you think will prosecute this?

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 12:48 AM

Diogenes would have his troubles in the American Congress wouldn't he?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 01:17 AM

No doubt some votes were falsified in favor of Democrats.

However, the rampant and systematic falsification of votes that favored the Republicans created the situation we have now... with the majority of voters knowing we didn't elect George W Bush to be the president of our country.

The president works for us, the voters and citizens of the United States. We are his/her boss. He/she is accountable to us. We decide who gets to be president. This is a Democracy. Don't ever forget that.

Bush became president through fraudulent election results. And he abused even the votes that he received legitimately. The people of this country are not happy with him. He serves at according to the will of the people. He and his handlers seem to not understand this. Perhaps they will eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 08:00 PM

Hardly my ruling. There is more than ample evidence that it happened.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 07:54 AM

What could be possibly driving them Amos? How about if all of the town councilpersons are Democrats?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 07:56 AM

Guess I lost my cookie. I'm in NY at the moment and will reset when I get back home. I wrote the last entry. DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 09:38 AM

Maybe the statistics (for example the incidence of discrepancy between exit polls and reported numbers) aren't persuasive. Maybe they are...shudder...Democratic statistics. Hell, maybe they are .. dare I say it ... terrorist statistics! Goddamn statistics with their left wing Commy bias. Oughtta be a law...



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 01:24 PM

I have yet to see "the ample evidence". Just because you 'feel' the results were falsified doesn't mean it happened.

Just because you have yet to see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you have yet to see it. I've seen it.

Give me one or two 'conviction' stories, please. Okay?

'Conviction' as in 'convicted' of a crime? Tell me this... Saddam hasn't been convicted yet. Does that mean he is innocent?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 03:20 PM

Kerry did not see the ample evidence and conceded.

If he was that blind and stupid I guess we are better off because he did not win.

"Earlier today, I spoke to President Bush, and I offered him and Laura our congratulations on their victory.

We had a good conversation, and we talked about the danger of division in our country and the need, the desperate need for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together.

Today, I hope that we can begin the healing.

Vote counting

In America it is vital that every vote count, and that every vote be counted. But the outcome should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal process.

I would not give up this fight if there was a chance we would prevail. But it is now clear that even when all the provisional ballots are counted - which they will be - there won’t be enough outstanding votes for us to be able to win Ohio, and therefore we cannot win this election. "

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 03:30 PM

Maybe Kerry should flipflop on this too.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 10:34 PM

Maybe he should - then his record will be perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 11:43 PM

CHARLESTOWN - A national debate on the war in Iraq spilled into Town Hall on Monday night, with members of the public calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

During public forum, several residents and a former state legislator expressed discontent over the Town Council's decision to remove a resident's petition from its June meeting agenda.

The request, filed by John V. Hardiman of Indian Trail, asked members of the council to consider a resolution supporting the president's impeachment.

---

Your bitter sarcasms and your practiced nastinesses don;t make the facts of Bush's administration go away or grow any less. Your problem is that you are unable to confront your own betrayal. When your head does pop out of the hypnotic rut is in, it will be painful for a while, but you will at least recover the ability to think for yourself.



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 11:55 PM

On Saturday night, April 29th, at the California State Democratic Convention, the hot ticket was to the Bush Impeachment Forum in the Crest Theater. The 900 seats were filled and folks were turned away at the door. The crowd was very enthusiastic and often interrupted the proceedings with cheers and standing ovations. Mike Malloy of Air America Radio was the moderator and clearly popular with the crowd. He gave some background on the history and process of impeachment and then led a forum discussion.

Joye Swan from the Progressive Caucus of the Democratic Party, and one of the chief organizers of the event, spoke first. She described the reluctance of moderate democrats to take a stand on impeachment but that may be changing. [The party adopted this impeachment proclamation by unanimous consent at the convention.]

Tim Goodrich from Iraq Veterans Against the War then described how he joined the US Air Force for patriotic purposes, not understanding the foreign policy behind his deployment. But he began to have doubts about Bush's leadership when he learned that the Air Force had been conducting intensive and secret bombing of Iraq since September of 2002. At the same time Bush claimed to be pursuing a diplomatic settlement in order to avoid war.

Elizabeth de la Vega, a former federal prosecutor, then affirmed that the charges of defrauding Congress about Iraq, torturing prisoners, and wiretapping were all definitely impeachable offenses. The only difference between the fraud that Bush and his team have perpetrated, and the fraud that is prosecuted in courts every day across America, is that Bush's fraud far exceeds the typical fraud case in its extent and the severity of its consequences.

Bob Fertik, President of Democrats.com and co-founder afterdowningstreet.org, described the current work of the impeachment movement, the city and state resolutions being passed, and the significance of the Section 603 of the Jefferson's Manual which says that impeachment may be initiated by charges transmitted by a state legislature. The crowd cheered when told that Ellen Tenney plans to personally submit an impeachment resolution from Vermont to the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, on Monday May 1st.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:01 AM

An interesting textbook for the slow of perception.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:05 AM

Excerpts from http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/:

Debt Created by Bush and GOP Congress as of:
June 30, 2006: $2,681,846,151,710.62

July 9, 2006
An Impeachable Offense
Congressman: failure to disclose the intelligence activities to Congress may be a violation of the law
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration was running several intelligence programs, including one major activity, that it kept secret from Congress until whistle-blowers told the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, the committee's chairman said on Sunday.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said on Fox News Sunday he had written a four-page to President George W. Bush in May warning him that the failure to disclose the intelligence activities to Congress may be a violation of the law.

July 7, 2006
Repeat after me: Gay soldiers are bad, Nazi's are good.
Neo-Nazis infiltrating the US military
"Neo-Nazi groups and other extremists are joining the military in large numbers so they can get the best training in the world on weapons, combat tactics and explosives," said Mark Potok, director of the center's Intelligence Project.

July 8, 2006
US navy sonar use causes whales to beach themselves
In her ruling, US District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper said there is "considerable convincing scientific evidence" that the high-intensity mid-frequency sonar, which the navy uses to detect quiet submarines, can kill and injure whales and other marine life.

July 8, 2006
US marines negligent in Iraq massacre investigation
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Top US Marine Corps officers in Iraq reportedly failed to properly investigate allegations that their own troops killed 24 civilians in the town of Haditha.

July 7, 2006
Gallup: Almost Two-Thirds Want Iraq Withdrawal
NEW YORK A new Gallup poll finds that roughly 2 in 3 Americans urge a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, with 31% wanting this to start immediately.

July 8, 2006
North Korea: Bigger threat under Bush
At his news conference, Bush took pains to counter a question based on intelligence information that North Korea has expanded its nuclear weapons capability in recent years. When a reporter cited such reports. Bush declined to dispute the basis of the question, but challenged the reporter: "Can you verify that?"

"We don't know -- maybe you know more than I do -- about increasing the number of nuclear weapons," Bush said.

In a series of congressional hearings last year, top U.S. intelligence officials, including then-CIA Director Porter Goss, testified that North Korea's nuclear capability had increased since 2002, when intelligence assessments estimated it possessed one or two nuclear weapons. Goss in the Feb. 16, 2005, congressional appearance said: "They have a greater capability than that assessment. ... It has increased since then."

July 9, 2006
Flip flopping amatures
Bush offers bilateral talks with N. Korea
U.S. envoy Christopher Hill was in Seoul on a tour of regional capitals to coordinate the international response to the North's test-firing of seven missiles on Wednesday. The tests caused an international outrage but also division over whether North Korea should be punished.

July 8, 2006
Bush rules out bilateral talks with N Korea
But he rejected conducting negotiations one-on-one, insisting that he needed China and other neighbors at the table so that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il did not make the United States appear to be the blockade to an agreement.

"One thing I'm not going to let us do is get caught in the trap of sitting at the table alone with the North Koreans," Bush insisted, rejecting the criticism by Democrats who say such talks would be the only way to break the logjam.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:08 AM

"Constitution Summer represents an emerging coalition of students and young people dedicated to defending the ideals of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights and to checking arbitrary abuses of power and authority, starting with a moderated, legitimate, mainstream, nonpartisan campaign to impeach President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, and their administration.

"Constitution Summer's is basing its call for the impeachment of the President and Vice President on four key crimes:

1) illegal domestic spying in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the 4th Amendment;
2) misleading the country into a war of aggression in Iraq based on fraudulent claims;
3) indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, and torture;
4) abuse of executive authority and subversion of the Constitution.

"It is the view of the members of Constitution Summer that each of these charges constitutes an impeachable offense, and that each has been substantiated to the extent that articles of impeachment can legitimately be brought.

"Constitution Summer is organizing youth and students, who constitute a powerful cultural catalyst, in order to bring this issue further into the mainstream by remaining true to the following:

1) ConstitutionSummer.org will function as a central organizing and publishing tool.
2) We will attach our message to culture through music, comedy, art, and theater.
3) We will remind elected officials of their oath to uphold the Constitution through media, educational events, demonstrations, and public events.
4) Remembering that all politics is local, we will put pressure on local elected officials to represent our voice through the generation of local resolutions and referenda.
5) We will make sure that our elected officials know that we want to be safe and free, and that we will not advance freedom abroad by abandoning it at home.
6) We will remain nonpartisan, issue specific, and true to our purpose and ideals.

"Constitution Summer originated at UC Berkeley, Yale Law School, Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, Georgetown Law School, Boalt Law School, George Washington University Law School, UC Santa Cruz, UC Santa Barbara, UC San Diego, the University of Michigan, and the University of Maryland, and it continues to grow."

See http://www.constitutionsummer.org/


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:33 AM

Here you go, Guest...

http://uscountvotes.org/

Kerry shouldn't have conceded, but since the Democrats are owned by the same people as the Republicans, I'm not at all surprised that he did.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 01:07 AM

This study in particular...

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: michaelr
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 01:28 AM

Amos, maybe I didn't make my question quite clear enough.

Who in Washington has the political will to seriously get behind a motion to impeach, in your opinion? It cannot be done without Congress appointing a Special Prosecutor, can it?

Please try to answer the question.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 09:19 AM

Berkeley CA ballot initiative to impeach Bush, Cheney - can voters impeach?

John Gibson gets credit for effort, but he failed to shoot down guest Steve Freedkin, chairman of the Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission. on The Big Story today 6/27/06. Gibson says the Peace and Justice Commission has introduced a ballot item for Berkeley voters to call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, not surprising from that "hot bed of liberalism."

Asked "what good" would that do, Freedkin first sets the record straight and says the ballot initiative is presented by a national organization, Constitution Summer, based primarily in law schools around the country. Their aim is to get a public conversation started so that people can start to understand the Constitution - what's in it, what are their rights, what is the balance of power, and how is this administration exceeding those.

Gibson asked for a list of the particulars, but interrupted after the first one to challenge Freedkin, saying he'd take them one at a time. This tactic served two purposes: first, it prevented Freedkin from reciting the laundry list of grievances, which sounds damning when heard (read) altogether:

1) illegal domestic spying in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the 4th Amendment;
2) misleading the country into a war of aggression in Iraq based on fraudulent claims;
3) indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, and torture;
4) abuse of executive authority and subversion of the Constitution...

---

Michael:

I don't know the answer; but as things evolve I believe someone will float to the surface. ;>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 09:59 AM

A good description of Amos is Pious. As in:

Professing or exhibiting a strict, traditional sense of virtue and morality; high-minded.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:59 PM

Bob Nichols, who is deeply concerned witht he ramifications of uranium-laden munitions among other issues, says, among other things:

"Upcoming war crimes trial

The chief Nuremberg war crimes prosecutor speaks knowingly and directly across more than 50 years to resolutely instruct American citizens on exactly what our duty is today, right now: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience … therefore have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring." [11]

The statement was affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and is now international law and, by extension, American law. It is our duty as Americans to prevent crimes against peace and humanity. The fascist administration now controlling America and the U.S. military cannot be allowed to continue these crimes. The world and international law holds us all accountable, and the price is dear.

It is time to impeach and imprison members of our government for their war crimes commensurate with their degree of complicity and guilt. If the House will not impeach and the Senate will not put them on trial; then we, all 300 million Americans, have a problem.

We all are citizens of this country and the world, and, as such, we must acknowledge the incontrovertible evidence of war crimes by the leaders of the American Expeditionary Forces in Iraq with the use of genocidal weapons. Bush and others crossed the line long ago when they lied to get us into the Iraq War.

They continue to lie about the damage being done with uranium weapons. One of the comforts history provides us is a road map out of unthinkable situations, to a more or less tenable, workable future.

The injured and maimed and families of the dead are due treatment and/or compensation, the cleanup must be initiated and whole countries rebuilt. That is the true legacy of the neocons, the new American Nazis.

What people can do

Every single day thousands of American military and government workers handle thousands of "sensitive" papers that "prove" the War Crimes of the American Government's senior political and military leaders.

These thousands of people could, if they wanted to, create havoc in the fascist administration by providing these incriminating papers and the "smoking guns" of innumerable crimes they hold to the public: A "paper blizzard" to teach a whole new generation that what's right is right.

About 40 years ago, it was thousands of pages of the "Pentagon Papers" that did the trick with the illegal Viet Nam War and President Nixon. Thousands more pages are needed now.

The neocon or neolib papers like the disgraced New York Times or the conservative phantom Washington Post no longer will do the right thing. The timid NYT took almost a year to publish the proof of illegal NSA government spying on American citizens. Bush then bragged about the illegal spying on network prime time television.

We do not need "timid" now. Far less than that forced Nixon to leave the president's office.

Do what you think best."

From this article.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 02:47 PM

David Swanson, writing for OpEdNews.com, says:

July 12, 2006 at 09:19:38

Republican Congressman Says Bush Should Be Removed from Office
   
by David Swanson
   

http://www.opednews.com

By David Swanson

A radio show reported yesterday that Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul said the following:

"I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President, and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office."

And this: "Congress has generously ignored the Constitution while the President flaunts it, the courts have ignored it and they get in the business of legislating so there's no respect for the rule of law."

And this: "When the President signs all these bills and then adds statements after saying I have no intention of following it - he's in a way signing it and vetoing - so in his mind he's vetoing a lot of bills, in our mind under the rule of law he hasn't vetoed a thing."

And Paul said the United States had entered a period of "soft fascism."

The report of these statements might surprise some people, especially people who rely on the corporate media for their news, but it fits with previous remarks by Congressman Paul, including these wonderful speeches recently made on the floor of the House of Representatives by Rep. Paul and Rep. Walter Jones, a Republican from North Carolina: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/12673

The report also comes from a media outlet that has repeatedly interviewed Paul, and they've posted a link to the audio of the interview here, although you have to join the site to hear it:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/100706impeachbush.htm

Rather than do that, I phoned up Congressman Paul's communications director in Washington this morning. More than confirming this report, I wanted to ask Rep. Paul why he would declare that the President should be removed from office, yet fail to introduce an article of impeachment or even sign onto Congressman John Conyers' (D., Mich.) bill, H. Res. 635, to create a preliminary investigation. I also thought I wouldn't mind knowing why Paul used the plural: "...these people should be removed from office." Whom would he include along with Bush? Cheney? Rumsfeld? Rice?

Paul did give something of an answer in the interview to why he would not act on his conviction that impeachment was merited, namely he asserted, without any evidence, that the Democrats, if they won a majority, would probably try to impeach Bush for the wrong reasons: politics and revenge. There are a couple of problems with this excuse of Paul's for his inaction:

1. Out here beyond the Beltway it's progressives who couldn't stand Clinton and have no use for defending him and spend their time these days attacking his wife who are pushing impeachment.

2. The Democrats, even if they have a majority, will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to attempt impeachment, having - as they do - significantly less in the way of spine than Congressman Paul, who is probably failing to realize entirely how timid and useless they are.

3. If a president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors - as we all know this one has - then whether some Members of Congress might support impeachment for impure reasons can in no way justify a failure to impeach. In persuading nonprofit groups to work for impeachment it is often necessary to explain to them that supporting such action by Congress is not partisan just because the President belongs to a party. Is it really necessary to explain to Congressman Paul that impeachment is not partisan just because Congress Members belong to parties? This is about defending the Constitution, and either you obey your oath to do so or you violate it."

...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 04:12 PM

C

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 08:49 PM

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: LOOK AT MISDEEDS

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com

Texas Congressman Ron Paul wants us to remember the real misdeeds of the President, and not his political party affiliation, if impeachment proceedings move forward.

According to an online news site report, Paul was interviewed this weekend by Alex Jones, and laid out his views on the potential for impeachment proceedings, reportedly saying, "I'd be surprised if they win both [houses]," but predicting that if there was a 10 or 15 vote margin, "that would be a political thing - it would be payback time."

He cautioned that instead of acting "under the umbrella of partisan vengeance," Congress should seriously consider impeachment, "for ceaselessly breaking the laws of the land," citing Bush's repeated violations of Constitutional protections, from wiretapping to the treatment of detainees at home (as well as Iraqis abroad). He also predicted that the underlying agenda behind the attempts to unify the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a single cooperative unit was becoming clearer each day: "I think the goal is one world government. We have not only the U.N. [but] the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, then we have all the subsidiaries like NAFTA and hemispheric governments, highways coming in. I just hope and pray that we can wake up enough people." - ST

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 10:43 PM

Town of Fairfax Urges Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney
Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2006-07-10 15:50. Impeachment
http://www.impeachbush.tv

The Town of Fairfax California voted unanimously last night to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney. Their resolution will be sent to representatives in Congress and to the House Judiciary Committee urging them to investigate and impeach the President and Vice President on a variety of charges.

The most serious charge was for intentionally misleading Congress about the threat from Iraq as justification for war. Other charges related to the torture and illegal detention of prisoners, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

The resolution also tied into local issues by describing how White House actions are negatively impacting Fairfax. The town was hit heavily by floods last winter. The resolution describes how there is less money available for disaster relief, and fewer National Guard troops available for emergency aid, because of the war in Iraq.

A sign of how strongly Fairfax supports impeachment is the fact that two resolutions were being worked on independently. A group of Marin County citizens had prepared a resolution and were planning to have it voted on in August after slowly building grass roots support. In the meantime, Millie Barrett of Fairfax, feeling a sense of urgency because of the ongoing war in Iraq, started her own resolution without realizing one was already in progress. She quickly collected 200 signatures and was able to get the resolution on the Town Council agenda for July.

When the two groups realized that they were both working on impeachment they immediately joined forces. Millie wanted to add Dick Cheney to her original resolution because many people signing the petition had expressed concern over having Cheney replace Bush. When she learned that the other group's resolution was very similar but included Dick Cheney, she graciously agreed to use it instead of hers.

At the meeting Wednesday night in Fairfax, David Glick read the text of the resolution he had prepared. Many people from the town spoke in favor of the resolution charging Bush with violating our Constitution.

Two people expressed opposition to the resolution citing concern over whether it was inappropriate town business, or that it would be ineffective. Larry Bragman, Vice Mayor, said that even though the resolution is largely symbolic, it was better to do something than to do nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 11:04 PM

LINK TO LIST OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED AND INTRODUCED AROUND THE COUNTRY

Here is a two-page citizen's guide to impeachment.

Here is a 10-page PDF booklet called A Guide to the Impeachment of George W Bush and Richard Cheney. It includes: What Is Impeachment? / Grounds for Impeachment of Bush and Cheney / Legal Basis for city and State Impeachment Resolutions / Why Cities and States Should Pass Resolutions / Model Resolution.

This guide to passing an anti-war resolution is a good model in most details for passing a pro-impeachment resolution as well.

Model Impeachment Resolution for City, Town, County, or State

Sample letter to city or town council.

About Jefferson Manual, Rules, History, Grounds, Impeachable Offenses, and further legal precedents

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 09:05 AM

SANTA CRUZ — City residents unhappy with the way President George W. Bush is leading the country may have the opportunity to vote for his impeachment in November.

Such a vote, which a group of community activists is seeking to put on the Santa Cruz ballot Nov. 7, would do nothing to actually remove the president from office. Instead, supporters say it would be something more than an opinion poll that would send a message to Washington, D.C.

"He's has broken so many laws, and he doesn't seem to take the laws seriously," said Sherry Conable, a member of Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, one of the local groups organizing the ballot initiative. "He's spied on American people without authorization; he's ignored the Geneva Conventions and the outting of Valerie Plame — all of these things are illegal."

Conable and others are asking the City Council to put a measure on the November ballot that calls for Congress to begin an immediate investigation into alleged impeachable offenses by the president.

Similar measures are already slated for ballots in Berkeley and communities in Wisconsin and Vermont.

At least one Santa Cruz council member, Tim Fitzmaurice, supports the idea, and is working on a formal proposal for the council to consider at its meeting July 25. Support from four of the seven council members is required to get the initiative on the ballot.

"Let me count the ways," Fitzmaurice said as reasons for Bush's impeachment. "At the top of my list is the war and the errors and deceptions in the way the war was promoted.

"A pre-emptive war is something I find reprehensible."

Supporters predict a Bush impeachment question in the general election would be an easy win in this left-leaning city of 55,000 residents.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 03:58 PM

From the Pasadena Weekly:

As part of a national day of action to build support for the movement to impeach President Bush, Green Party congressional candidate Bill Paparian will host an impeachment teach-in Wednesday at the Pasadena Hilton hotel.

Paparian, a former mayor of Pasadena, will be joined at the event by constitutional law attorney and past ACLU of Southern California President Stephen Rohde, Green Party state Assembly candidate Ricardo Costa and Iraq Veterans Against the War activist Chris McCray.

McCray will speak of his experience in Iraq as a cavalry scout for the Army's First Infantry Division.

"This imperial president has to be removed from office so we can preserve the Constitution and restore sanity to our country in both foreign and domestic affairs," said Paparian.

The Pasadena event and dozens of others throughout the country are being sponsored by the Center for Constitutional Rights and Melville House Publishing, which recently published a short book laying out a case for impeachment and produced the brief documentary "How to Impeach a President," which will be screened at all events.

---

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 07:35 PM

Santa Cruz residents could vote to impeach Bush

By Shanna McCord
SENTINEL STAFF WRITER
SANTA CRUZ — City residents unhappy with the way President George W. Bush is leading the country may have the opportunity to vote for his impeachment in November.

Such a vote, which a group of community activists is seeking to put on the Santa Cruz ballot Nov. 7, would do nothing to actually remove the president from office. Instead, supporters say it would be something more than an opinion poll that would send a message to Washington, D.C.

"He's has broken so many laws, and he doesn't seem to take the laws seriously," said Sherry Conable, a member of Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, one of the local groups organizing the ballot initiative. "He's spied on American people without authorization; he's ignored the Geneva Conventions and the outting of Valerie Plame — all of these things are illegal."

Conable and others are asking the City Council to put a measure on the November ballot that calls for Congress to begin an immediate investigation into alleged impeachable offenses by the president.

Similar measures are already slated for ballots in Berkeley and communities in Wisconsin and Vermont.

At least one Santa Cruz council member, Tim Fitzmaurice, supports the idea, and is working on a formal proposal for the council to consider at its meeting July 25. Support from four of the seven council members is required to get the initiative on the ballot.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 09:33 AM

Website Seeks to Impeach Bush


Grassroot website seeks impeachment of the President.

(PRWEB) July 14, 2006 -- A new grassroots website, whose sole purpose is to impeach President George Bush, has made its debut on the internet. The website, http://www.timeforchanges.com/ , seeks to gather signatures for a petition that will be forwarded to select politicians, as well as the White House itself.

who thinks that he does not have a say anymore. Now they can have their say   
The impetus behind this website is one Vashek Pokorny of Eatonville, Washington. "The President has overstepped his bounds", Pokorny said. "The war in Iraq is getting worse, and our personal freedoms are starting to disappear. What next – a personal crusade against Muslims throughout the world?"

The website looks to gather millions of signatures in order to make its statement heard in the Capital. "There are just too many problems throughout the world," Pokorny continued. "We have the ability and capacity to change things. All we need to do is make the effort, and the obvious start would be to impeach the President."

"We are engaged in a war that no one wants – least of all the Iraqis. Our personal liberties are slowly, but surely, being taken away. It seems that the only happy people are big business, especially oil companies who have posted record profits. And we all know how the Bushes made their money," Pokorny added.

The website is not limited to problems in the U.S. only. People from around the world can now let their voices be heard. Anyone, from any country with political instabilities, can post their concerns on the new website. "Our website is geared to accommodate the "average Joe" who thinks that he does not have a say anymore. Now they can have their say," Pokorny added. "It's about time that politics goes back to where it belongs – with the people."

http://www.timeforchanges.com/

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 11:03 PM

Teach to impeach
Events nationwide aim to educate public about impeachment
By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian

Posted July 14, 2006 at http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/072006/TeachImpeach.shtml

Here's an impeachment pop quiz: true or false?

If impeached, a public official is removed from office.
One U.S. president has been impeached.
Impeachment can occur only at the federal level.
The answers are: false, false, and false. Impeachment is the first of two distinct phases to remove a government official. Presidents Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached. Impeachment can occur at the state and federal levels.

Many in the United States don't know much about the impeachment process, according to organizers of a national day of impeachment teach-ins. So on Wednesday, they are seeking to change that.

Impeachment teach-ins have been organized in more than 100 U.S. communities, including three in Vermont — Waitsfield, Burlington, and Brattleboro — where they are precursors to a month-end impeachment organizing effort featuring anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.

The July 19 teach-ins will feature the premiere of a short documentary, How to Impeach a President, featuring lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights who have developed a legal case for the impeachment of Pres. George W. Bush.

The New York-based center, along with Melville House Books, has developed an impeachment how-to kit, including the video and a 144-page handbook, Articles of Impeachment Against George. W. Bush.

The pamphlet details four articles of impeachment on four separate charges: warrantless surveillance, misleading Congress on the reasons for the Iraq War, violating laws against torture, and subverting the Constitution's separation of powers.

"We were interested in making a book that would be like a handbook to the legal case for impeachment," said Melville House publisher Dennis Johnson. "We wanted an inexpensive handbook that the average person can buy to understand what's going on, the relevant rules and laws, and that the Constitution has a means in it to deal with exactly this kind of situation."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 11:40 PM

Neat site here, too.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 06 - 11:50 AM

America's bread and circuses
From staff reports

Lake County Record-Bee, Lakeport CA

Let's impeach the neo-cons before they do any more damage, or before Bush declares himself the Emperor of America for life ... He has already named himself the "Decider", probably because he has not yet learned to pronounce the word emperor.
The "decider" remark was a joke of course, but his claims of unprecedented and unchecked executive powers are not, and are about as un-American or as anti-American as anything could ever be, because they oppose the constitutional balance of powers upon which this government and this nation are founded.

There is a growing, nationwide movement to impeach Bush and Cheney; impeachment resolutions have been introduced in state legislatures in Illinois, California and Vermont so far, and resolutions supporting impeachment have been passed in the following California cities, among other cities in the nation: Santa Cruz, Arcata, San Francisco, Berkeley, Sebastopol and Fairfax.

Perhaps the breaking of some domestic laws, the disregarding of the Bill of Rights and of congressional authority, the breaking of some international laws such as the Geneva Conventions, all of these things and more, which are said to warrant impeachment by people who are a lot more informed and knowledgeable than I am, could be eclipsed by a transgression which, in the myopic eye of the media, is supreme, if Bush and Cheney were to fool around outside of their marriages as did Clinton.

After all, who really cares about the Constitution when a president can be dragged into a soap opera, the supreme American entertainment! (Let them have bread and circuses, as the Roman Emperor Nero said with an arrogance which sounds familiar ... )

Raphael Montoliu

Lakeport

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 06 - 10:03 PM

From "OpEd News" - a private citizen's essay:

Gods Among Ordinary Men


by Charles Sullivan

http://www.opednews.com

When a man abuses the power that was entrusted to him by the people there is clearly a void between what the people want and what they receive. Such abuse stems not only from immense hubris, but from contempt for the people and for civil law. The president, we will recall, is a man who referred to the Constitution to one of his Whitehouse aides as "...just a god-damned piece of paper." Bush and his cacophony of neo-conservative fascists clearly hold the most sacred institutions of this nation in contempt, including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Bush regime's contempt for human rights and their disdain for the earth are systemic. They have resulted in a litany of abuses that would rival those of Hitler and Mussolini combined. Most of the key players cut their teeth in the Reagan regime where they perfected the dark arts. These abuses occur equally at home and abroad. Characterized by hypocrisy without bounds, they are reflected in a foreign policy that is putting the world in peril as never before. Those policies have resulted in imprisoning people indefinitely without criminal charges and without access to legal council, widespread torture, extraordinary rendition, unprovoked attacks upon sovereign nations, occupation, and unprecedented secrecy and domestic spying on law abiding citizens on a broad scale.

The Bush regime operates in unprecedented secrecy under the pretense of fighting a war on terror. They are, in fact, waging a war of terror and they and their corporate pay masters are the terrorists, not Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Their success depends upon keeping the people and thus democracy out of the equation.

Democracy, as opposed to the Plutocracy we have in America, operates in the open under the supervision of the citizenry. Democratic government is transparent, not secretive. In a democracy the people know what the government is doing and are active participants in the decision making process. Clearly that is not the kind government we have.

Mr. Bush's extraordinary contempt for the law is in part the result of his Plutocratic upbringing. It is reflected in his unprecedented use of presidential signing statements which, in effect, allow him to circumvent the law and do as he pleases. Don't like a law that keeps a corporation from spewing toxic waste into a river? Just issue a signing statement and ignore it. Bush has used presidential signing statements more than 750 times since his inauguration-more than all of the other presidents combined during the 230 year history of our nation. He has yet to veto any legislation that the corporate lobbyists have put before him.

Civil law is essentially a social contract that is supposed to guarantee justice to all of the people, regardless of their social position or economic status. What does it say about a president who flagrantly thumbs his nose at the law and routinely violates that social contract?

If the government does not respect the law why should any citizen? Why should the government operate outside of the law while the citizens remain subject to it?
If one group of people is forced to adhere to a specific code of conduct and another group is not, what will be the result? We have only to look around us for the answer.

The ruling elite believe they should enact the laws which the rest of us have to obey, which gives them dominion over us. It is imperative that the citizens see to it that the government, especially the president, obeys the law; or impeach him. Perhaps that is the very definition of patriotism. If the law does not apply to everyone equally and at all times, it should not be applied to anyone at any time. If that is the case, then let us have anarchy.

Bush and his cadre of neo-conservatives may think that they are above the law and that they can act with impunity and without consequences. They may think of themselves as Gods who operate above the strata of ordinary mortals, as the result of their socioeconomic privilege. That is because other people have always born the cost of their wrong doing.

When a president behaves as if the law does not apply to him in essence he is expressing his contempt for the people and the rules that govern civil behavior. That is why we have the enormous gulf between rich and poor, tax cuts for the wealthy, Iraq and the whole Middle East debacle.

George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the entire supporting Plutocratic cast, truly believe that they are better than the rest of us. Like the spoiled brats they are, each of them became who they are because no one ever held them accountable for their actions. We are not holding them accountable now and innocent people are paying the cost.

Not only should these Cretins be impeached, they should be permanently warehoused in an asylum for the criminally insane. Their visions of grandeur are getting a lot of innocent people in trouble, or killed. Other people should not be forced to incur the cost of crimes committed by their so called leaders. Make the criminals pay for their own misdeeds. Force them to take ownership of the reality they are forging.

Government that is not accountable to the people is a monstrosity. Some refer to it by its more common names: dictatorship and totalitarianism. That is what we will soon have if we are not careful.



Charles Sullivan is a photographer, social activist and free lance writer residing in the hinterland of West Virgina.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 09:50 AM

From a recent speech by David Swanson, "Containing the Military Industrial Complex":

...The Secretary of the Navy came from General Dynamics, and the Deputy Secretary of State from Raytheon and Boeing – a company that Karl Rove owned $100,000 to $250,000 worth of stock in. Then there are those, like James Woolsey, who serve on advisory boards to the Bush Administration, while simultaneously profiting from the policies they advise on. The LA Times had a lengthy article a year ago yesterday on the long list of people who helped promote a war on Iraq and then set up new companies to profit from it. Bush himself has an uncle and two brothers profiting from this war. But then he had a grandfather who profited from the Nazis and worked with one of Hitler's top funders. So there is a substantial family tradition to uphold. Speaking of which, well known people connected to the Carlyle Group include not just the bin Laden family, but also James Baker, Frank Carlucci, and George Bush the First. The Carlyle Group owns an arm of the British Ministry of Defense, a former branch of the Italian military, and the company in Santa Clara, United Defense, where Bush Jr. gave a speech after waddling across a flight deck to declare mission accomplished.

And then there is Cheney. As Secretary of Attack he paid Halliburton to write a report recommending shifting more work to companies like Halliburton, which got most of the work. Cheney then worked for Halliburton for 5 years and $44 million before going back to what he calls governing. But he continued to receive a salary and hold stock options.

We've moved beyond the sort of war profiteering that Truman called treason. We've moved into a threat to our democracy that is exactly what Madison and Jefferson meant by high crimes and misdemeanors. There is only one thing we can decently do, and that is to impeach the criminals and remove them from office.

And while it is obscene to put electoral considerations ahead of our duty to impeach, those who do so should attempt to remember that no matter how many times they're told impeachment is good for Republicans, all of the evidence points exactly the other way.

....

---

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: DougR
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 06:05 PM

Impeachment! Has he been sneaking into the White House galley with young female interns? Damn! I missed tht story in the NY Times.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 07:06 PM

Madison: Dump Bush, eat brats
By Doug Moe
MADISON MAY have dropped out of Money magazine's top 50 best small cities in which to live in America, but we are the No. 1-ranked city in the entire world when it comes to wanting to see President George W. Bush impeached.

I can make this startling - well, maybe not so startling - statement after spending much of Monday playing with a new toy from the wired minds at Google.

Google Trends, which you can access at google.com/trends, allows you, in Google's words, to "compare the world's interest in your favorite topics."

You can enter a phrase and see how often it has been searched for on Google. Better yet, you can learn in which cities the most searches originated.

On Monday, when I typed "impeach Bush" in on Google Trends, I got a list of the 10 cities where people have searched the most for that phrase.

Madison ranked first, followed by Portland, Ore., San Francisco and Seattle.

If you wonder, as I did, how Google knows where the searches originate, you can visit the "About Google Trends" link on the site and read the answers to nine questions about methodology and privacy issues.

Unlike me, you might even understand it. On Monday I was having too much fun finding out what Madison Google users were searching for to worry about it.

Madison showed up all over the place. Maybe the new city motto should be, "When in doubt, Google."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 07:09 PM

San Francisco Rep. Nancy Pelosi is the most dangerous liberal in America, who would open U.S. borders to immigrants and terrorists, raise taxes, retreat from the war on terror, and attempt to impeach President Bush if she wins the speakership of the House of Representatives in November.

That's the charge from current House Speaker Dennis Hastert in a sharply worded e-mail to Republican donors.

"You can be sure that under a Pelosi-led Congress, the conservative ideals of family values and an unwavering commitment to our troops will be ignored, while the interest of San Francisco liberals and trial lawyers will be heard loud and clear by Nancy Pelosi and her liberal friends," the letter reads.

The undated appeal asks for contributions from $50 to $500 in the next 48 hours to "help me make sure the Pelosi agenda doesn't become law."

Republicans have used Pelosi's liberal credentials before as a way to rally conservatives, though Hastert has mostly refrained from singling out the House Democratic leader.

"Let's be honest for a moment. This is a tough year for conservatives. Democrats and their friends in the media are anticipating a victory in November and unless we stop her, Nancy Pelosi will take over my chair as Speaker of the House and control Congress. I don't know about you, but that sure sounds like a nightmare scenario to me," Hastert's plea reads.

---

A prediction: look for the GOP-controlled elements of the press to do all they can to exaggerate Pelosi's weaknesses and dramatize her flaws with vitriol and falsification to the point of demonization. Mark my words. They's gonna Dean her if they can. A.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 07:12 PM

From a small-town press in Rhode ISland reporting on a town meeting:

"The changes in the bills were passed by the Chariho School Committee, but did not make it through any of the three town councils. Leaving some to think the Chariho Act has been violated. There were two different versions of the school budget bill, which added to the confusion. None of the bills were passed by any of the three town council's.
"We have been told by our legislators that they would not approve any legislation that was not approved by all three towns," said Deborah Carney, President of Charlestown Town Council. Carney went on to say,
"There is no guarantee this won't happen again. I'm not really concerned with the all-day referendum or disposal bill but the fact that the general assembly passed the bill despite protests from the town councils. Hopkinton openly protested the disposal bill and was ignored. No town got preferential treatment, we were all equally ignored."
"Right now the only thing we have are the words 'in each town', if those words are left off any bill passed out of the general assembly all three towns loose their individual veto power, and there is nothing stopping them from doing that."

Governor Carcieri's office said the bills were allowed to go into effect because they would still require voter approval.

In other events during the meeting was the motion by 83 year old resident John V. Hardiman of Indian Trail. He spoke to the council and asked them to motion a resolution for the impeachment of President George W. Bush. The driving force behind his the motion was to scale back the war effort in Iraq and "stop killing the kids".
Councilor Forrester Safford retorted, "You personally are putting young men and women in danger. Insurgents look at the propaganda.""

---

Curious that asking folks to stop killing each other is viewed as propoganda. Hmmmmmm.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 06 - 08:41 PM

From the Brattleboro, Vermont Reformer:

Impeaching a president
By ANDY ROSEN, Reformer Staff


Tuesday, July 18
BRATTLEBORO -- Area political organizers have scheduled an "Impeachment Teach-In" this week, hoping community education will accelerate efforts to hold President Bush accountable for his actions.
The event runs from 7 to 9 p.m. Wednesday in the community room at Brattleboro Savings & Loan on Main Street.

Organizer Dan DeWalt said the teach-in is designed to shed some light on the impeachment process, because there many public misconceptions about it.

Impeachment, he said, is not as drastic a measure as some people think it is. It's not an immediate removal from office, but a public process to hold officials accountable.

"This is a primer in one small aspect of our constitutional rights as citizens," DeWalt said of the teach-in. "There are certain things we can do to trigger a response."

He said this event will be an opportunity to learn about the types of recourse available to those who feel that President Bush has broken the law.

The teach-in is one of several being held around the country by the Center for Constitutional Rights, an advocacy organization.

It will feature a screening of the center's film "How to Impeach a President," followed by a discussion about the process, and the center's case for impeachment.

The center has outlined four separate charges against Bush.

One takes issue with his authorization of a domestic surveillance program. Another accuses him of misleading Congress in advance of the war in Iraq. A third alleges that Bush violated laws against torture, and the final charge says Bush has breached the constitutional separation of powers.

The discussion will be moderated by Jeffrey Taylor of Clarendon. A former U.S. Department of Justice attorney, Taylor wrote the "Rutland Resolution," adopted by that county's Democratic Committee.

One focus of that resolution was the role that state legislatures can play in the impeachment process.

DeWalt said if the Vermont Legislature passed an impeachment resolution, the U.S. House of Representatives would have to bring it up for discussion.

Several towns in the state, including Newfane, Brattleboro, Marlboro, Dummerston, Putney and Rockingham, have called for some action against Bush. So have most of Vermont's county Democratic committees, and the statewide Democratic committee.

A petition is also circulating in Westminster that calls for a town vote on impeachment.

DeWalt said residents of any town can call for such a vote by gathering signatures. In many small Vermont towns, he said, less than 200 voters would have to sign on to call for a special town meeting.

In a news release, the Center for Constitutional Rights calls the teach-in non-partisan. DeWalt said this event isn't about politics, it's about reining in the power of the executive branch.

"Impeachment is there to deal with a government that's abusing power," DeWalt said. "This is a crisis, so in my mind, impeachment is a fairly measured response, and it's a response that's outlined in the Constitution."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 04:27 PM

From Manitoba, a review of Crospy, Stills, Nash and Young in their current "Freedom Tour" -- or should that be French Tour?

"Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young shuffled onstage of the MTS Centre shortly after 7 p.m. on Friday, June 15 for the fourth show of their "Freedom of Speech '06" tour. A sold-out crowd comprised predominantly (but not exclusively) of balding quasi-hippies was clearly delighted by the performance, or, more specifically, by the presence of local favorite Neil Young — who used to live here, as we will never, ever tire of reminding ourselves.

Young, ever lovable and ever snarling, fresh from being awarded the Order of Manitoba (a ceremony which unceremoniously took place in the Manitoba Moose dressing room), clearly dominated the band both physically and musically: he looked the most comfortable on the stage and the gargantuan set list, when not democratically focused on CSNY songs, was full of rollicking numbers from his recent Living with War album, including opener "Flags of Freedom" and personal favorite "After the Garden."

Young's newest material was also accompanied by video screens featuring assorted Iraq-war imagery: portraits of fallen soldiers, tanks rolling into Fallujah and spoof-CNN-style graphics. For "Impeach the President" the band was backed by video (and audio) of George W. Bush saying, as he tends to do, an assortment of stupid things. Though the presentation wasn't subtle, there was a certain satisfaction to be had in witnessing the outpouring of Young's ire. In light of all this, CSNY classic "Ohio" felt genuinely relevant, though it also led some credence to the belief that without Young, CSN would be a nostalgia act and little else.
...[snip]...


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 05:32 PM

From the Contra Costa Times regarding a recent session of Berkeley's City Council:

"...In another matter, the council made Berkeley the first city in the country to ask its citizens to vote on whether to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney by approving a ballot measure for the November election.

The measure would be purely advisory, since only Congress has the power to remove a president or vice president.

This is the latest in a long line of national and international issues on which Berkeley has taken an early stand. In many cases, Berkeley's position eventually became majority opinion, including desegregating the schools, opposing the Vietnam War, ending apartheid in South Africa, and mandating curb cuts for wheelchairs.

The council also approved two other ballot measures.

One would allow conversion of rental units to condominiums, providing sitting tenants are protected and an affordable housing mitigation fee is paid to the city.

The other is an advisory measure supporting aggressive efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions...."

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 05:49 PM

July 19, 2006
Readers' voice section from the Charleston, WV, Gazette

"Since the DEP determined the terrible slide at Coonskin Park was "an act of God," I suppose that God was at the controls of the backhoe shown in the picture accompanying the article.
Considering the increase in dangerous criminals in this country, the billions spent in Iraq could be much better used for prisons and police. Crime is our No. 1 growth industry in the U.S.

If you are out there and you are pro-life based on your beliefs of the Bible then consider that God said he breathes your soul into you. When you breathe your first breath you get your soul.

Let's impeach Bush and Cheney. Let's have some good government.
The Republicans lie about the tax cuts. The fact is the tax cuts are jackpots for the wealthy and peanuts for the peons."

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 10:06 PM

Impeach the President of the United States
by William M. Cross, James C. Ryan, and Joseph J. Wojcik,

West Point Graduates Against the War

We have pledged to help reclaim the honor of the United States of America. Accordingly, we call for the impeachment of the president of the United States, George W. Bush.

Since lying in combat could needlessly cost the lives of fighting men and women, West Point graduates have been trained to live by a code of honor, that is, neither lying, cheating, nor stealing. Since the military forces of the United States are responsible to civilian authority, that is, the president of the United States, we expect that same honorable behavior from the commander-in-chief. Sadly, such has not been the case with President George W. Bush, nor with his vice president, nor with many in the civilian chain of command.

Furthermore, West Point graduates have been trained to lead by example. The example set by our civilian leadership has been deplorable and immoral, casting utter discredit upon the United States of America. Our organization, West Point Graduates Against the War, has described the lies told by President Bush, his vice president, and others in his command. We have cited the numerous laws, treaties, protocols, and conventions, including the Constitution of the United States, that this administration has violated. The time has come to hold the president of the United States accountable for these high crimes and misdemeanors. We call for the impeachment of the president of the United States, George W. Bush. Clearly, he is unfit to lead.

As West Point graduates, we bring a unique perspective to this issue. As we reflect upon our academy days, we remember that if a cadet was found guilty of an honor violation, there were direct consequences, that is, dismissal from the academy. Many hopes and aspirations of young potential officers were abruptly terminated by violations of the honor code, regardless of the "severity" of the lie.

Yet, our President, the commander-in-chief of our armed forces, having lied to the world about our need for entry into the war in Iraq, is still not being held accountable for his deceitful behavior. Incredibly, he is still allowed to perform his duties without rebuke, indeed without any negative consequences whatsoever, to him. Meanwhile, thousands of our young people have died, tens of thousands have been grievously maimed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been slaughtered, yet the president and his dishonorable ilk remain in command.

The deceit of President Bush continues to place our fighting forces, and our nation, in grave peril. The president must be impeached. We know of no other action but impeachment that can remedy this dire situation.

Time is of the essence.

William M. Cross, USMA 1962
James C. Ryan, USMA 1962
Joseph J. Wojcik, USMA 1962
Cofounders
West Point Graduates Against the War

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 06 - 10:32 PM

John Dean has been a student of impeachment, both at one remove and up close and personal as the first of Nixon's aides to come clean back in 1972-4.

Here is an interesting essay by John Dean on the present face of Conservatism and the scenario for impeachment compared to the past instances.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 05:05 PM

July 20, 2006 at 12:24:25

Wanna bring peace to the Middle East? Get the Burning Man crew on the job!
   
by Jane Stillwater


http://www.opednews.com

Let's dump the Bush bureaucracy. Whether by accident or on purpose, everything they touch falls apart. In the last six years, they haven't done one single thing to make America freer, more prosperous, more moral or even more safe. That's inefficiency!

Let's impeach the Bush losers and bring in a team of guys who know what they are doing -- the folks who bring us "Burning Man" every year.

Every year in September, these guys turn the Nevada desert into paradise. They can turn the deserts of the Middle East into paradise too. What's their secret? They CREATE instead of DESTROY. Is this such a difficult concept to grasp that it is totally beyond the Bush bureaucracy's mentality to even imagine? Duh, yeah.

America needs to learn how to use fire to create and inspire -- not just to burn stuff down and blow stuff up. There's a BIG difference between creating a powerful sculpture under the stars of the Nevada desert and setting it afire in the name of peace and creativity and art -- and what is happening in places like Gaza, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iraq. Pouring napalm on a five-year-old in Fallugah and watching it writhe in agony before it dies miserably in front of its mother's eyes or constantly bombarding the homes of innocent civilians in Beirut with thousands of TONS of missiles and bombs or setting a young girl on fire in some Iraqi village in order to cover up that she has been brutally raped by American soldiers? There's a big difference all right. Duh, yeah.

The Bush bureaucrats are destroyers. The Burning Man folks are creators. Who would you rather have running YOUR show?

PS: The apartment complex where I live is in the middle of a MAJOR rehab project. Just to keep the roofs from leaking and to bring the place up to code will cost six million dollars. Imagine how much more it will cost to re-build the inestimable numbers of buildings, shops and homes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Beirut, Haifa (yes, I said Haifa. What goes around comes around) and Gaza that the Bush bureaucracy and their cronies have destroyed. It will take generations to even begin to re-do the rabid destruction they have committed in just six short years. The mind boggles.

PPS: Here's a typical "conservative" radio talk show host quote: "Let's go over there and bomb 'em all to bits!" You may feel that way now, buddy, but will you still feel that way if someone retaliates and bombs YOU to bits too? I think not.

Bush's indiscriminate bombing spree is not making ANY of us safe -- and especially not Israel. Nope. Hiring the Burning Man crew is the only way out of this mess. And if the Burning Man crew was put in charge of fixing our shabby sorry failed Middle East foreign policy, even the most blood-thirsty neo-con "bring it on" lunatic in America would love it! All those macho adrenolin-rush fireworks? They'd be in hog heaven -- even if no one got hurt. And the Muslims would like it too. And so would the Jews.



http://jpstillwater.blogspot.com

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jane_sti_060720_wanna_bring_peace_to.htm

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 05:08 PM

Bush foes explore impeachment road
By Ben Broeren
"The British called impeachment 'the most powerful weapon in the political armory, short of civil war,'" said Buzz Davis, a member of Veterans for Peace. "But I do not want civil war."


Davis, along with David Schwartz, a UW law professor and member of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Ben Manski, a fellow with the Liberty Tree Foundation, presented arguments for impeachment of President Bush to a crowd of nearly 120 people Wednesday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The event was part of a national network of teach-ins organized by the center.

"Impeachment is the most patriotic thing we can do," said Manski. "It's a debate over executive power versus popular power. We are struggling over the soul of a nation."

In a video, the Center for Constitutional Rights proposed four articles of impeachment: warrantless surveillance and wiretaps, using torture and denying due process to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, misleading Congress into the Iraq war, and violating the separation of powers.

Schwartz said impeachment would begin if the U.S. House of Representatives found the articles adequate reason to investigate the president.

From the Madison, WI, Capital Times

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=91803&ntpid=4

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 11:49 PM

Top cities (normalized)         Number of searches at Google for "Impeach Bush":
        
1.        Madison, WI, USA        

2.        Portland, OR, USA        

3.        San Francisco, CA, USA        

4.        Seattle, WA, USA        

5.        Pleasanton, CA, USA        

6.        Irvine, CA, USA        

7.        Denver, CO, USA        

8.        San Diego, CA, USA        

9.        Sacramento, CA, USA        

10.        Minneapolis, MN, USA

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 11:10 AM

69 messages from Amos including 21 of the last 23.    Nice to have a dialog with yourself. (roses are red and violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I)

Name the 67 senators that will vote for impeachment.   (dream on)

If hell freezes over, folk music is played on top 40 radio, the earth stops spinning, Bobert buys an SUV, and Bush is impeached... I have two words for you

PRESIDENT CHEYNEY!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 02:00 PM

I'd like to see them both impeached on the same charges. They coudl blame each other.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 08:01 PM

Impeachment Teach-Ins Seek to Oust Bush, Sell Books
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
July 21, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - A coalition of liberal groups this week launched a nationwide campaign to educate Americans on impeachment and encourage them to support impeaching President Bush.

"Since 9/11 it has been clear that the principle enemy of democracy has been in the White House," said Bill Goodman, legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in the group's documentary "How to Impeach a President."

The group claimed that Bush should be impeached because of the warrant-less wiretapping program, alleged torture of Muslim detainees in U.S. custody, and because he "committed fraud on Congress."

In order to promote the video and its goal of impeaching Bush, CCR has teamed with AfterDowningStreet.org, CODE PINK and Iraqi Americans for Peaceful Alternatives to organize "teach-ins" in at least 27 cities around the country.

CCR is a civil rights advocacy group that promotes reparations for descendants of slaves and urges the government to lift the travel and commerce embargos against Cuba, among other causes listed on its website.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 09:00 PM

A brief dialogue from Slashdot:

""By denying security clearance to federal attorneys from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) seeking to gather evidence in the NSA illegal surveillance scandal, President Bush has effectively blocked the Justice Department's investigation into the matter of who exactly authorized the illegal actions to take place. The president is apparently able to strictly control who does and does not have security clearance to examine documents regarding the program, citing that giving more people access would endanger national security. His denial is the first of its kind in American history. To quote the article, 'Since its creation some 31 years ago, OPR has conducted many highly sensitive investigations involving Executive Branch programs and has obtained access to information classified at the highest levels,' chief lawyer H. Marshall Jarrett wrote in a memorandum released Tuesday. 'In all those years, OPR has never been prevented from initiating or pursuing an investigation.'"

---

He sure as hell wouldn't have done that had it been an opportunity to point the finger at any of his rivals. Even if he wasn't responsible, he's now responsible for the cover up. If American voters aren't happy with his decision they can always vote him out. I'm sure by the time of the next election there'll be some other bogeyman to deal with - presumably lebenese or syrian terrorists, angry at all the US built/paid for planes and tanks pounding lebenon.

---

If there was a vote for impeachment that the public could vote in, I would vote. But the only things I can do, is spread the word, and send a letter to my congressman. Then hope my congressman helps set up the process for impeachment. So, technically, the only way this is going to get started is if my congressman wants to discipline the president. Otherwise, everything I do and say is for naught.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 09:02 PM

Other thoughts on the subject from John Dean as discussed by David Swanson:

John Dean, former legal counsel to Richard Nixon, is 95% recovered from a long bout of conservatism, and he doubts that many others can make the same recovery, but I don't.

Dean's published two excellent books on the Bush-Cheney administration's abuses of power. The first was "Worse Than Watergate." The new one is "Conservatives Without Conscience." The title is a play on former Senator Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative," and Dean originally intended to co-write it with Goldwater.

In the new book, on pages 70 and 71, Dean lists in two columns the beliefs and characteristics of "Conservatives Without Conscience" and "Conservatives With Conscience". From my earliest memories, I have been disgusted by the very idea of conservatism, but - with the exception of one of the characteristics - I turn out to be a Conservative With Conscience. That is to say, a "Conservative With Conscience", as defined by Dean, turns out to be a progressive, a leftist, or even a - dare I say it? - liberal, or at least not in disagreement with those people.

If I were to list the characteristics of a progressive, I would add a number of things that are not in Dean's list, but I wouldn't need to change or remove the existing items. One almost gets the impression that Dean is clinging to the idea of an unshameful, non-destructive conservatism simply out of....well, conservatism. I say "almost", because there is an area in which Dean's thinking in this book clashes drastically with my own and with that of many on the left, an area in which he is still a conservative and an authoritarian. A "Conservative With Conscience" actually turns out to be a liberal without a movement, without populism, without any faith that masses of people can do anything to improve their lives.

Dean begins his book with a lengthy preface which ends with these words: "Much of what I have to report is bad news. But there is some good news, because while authoritarians have little self-awareness, a few of them, when they learn the nature of their behavior, seek to change their ways. Thus by reporting the bad and the ugly, it may do some good. At least that is my hope." Dean places his hope in actually saving members of the Bush administration from their authoritarianism, not in urging the public to force Congress to impeach them and remove them from office.

Dean stresses this point again in the final pages of the book: "It was not public opinion that forced Nixon from office....Nixon resigned 'because [Nixon's] attorney had forced the disclosure of evidence so damaging that it seemed certain he would be convicted of high crimes by the Senate.'...The reason Nixon did not go to trial was not his loss of support on Capitol Hill...but rather because he lost the support of his defenders, principally on the White House staff."

But the strength of the evidence disclosed does not dictate conviction in the Senate or even impeachment in the House or even the initiation of an investigation. Dean himself has noted elsewhere that Bush is the first president to have confessed to an impeachable offense (violation of FISA). You don't get much stronger evidence than a repeated public confession, but the current House and Senate are not prepared to act. Why? It's not, I would argue, because Cheney or Addington has failed to receive Dean's therapy. It's because - given the increased corruptness of our media and of our electoral system - there is an even greater need than there was under Nixon for millions of Americans to rise up in protest, and millions of Americans have failed to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 11:33 PM

Most Recent Posts from the Impeach Bush Coalition

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 11:37 PM

From the above link:

Add Obstruction of Justice to the List
Tuesday, July 18, 2006

"Well, we can now add "Obstruction on Justice" to the list of impeachable offenses. According to the AP and testimony by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, Bush personally blocked the Department of Justice's probe into illegal wiretapping.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that
President Bush personally blocked Justice Department lawyers from pursuing an internal probe of the warrantless eavesdropping program that monitors Americans' international calls and e-mails when terrorism is suspected."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 12:22 AM

From your last post, Amos - "...there is an even greater need than there was under Nixon for millions of Americans to rise up in protest, and millions of Americans have failed to do so."

I have a theory for that.

We used to all be bleeding heart liberals. It was fashionable for the middle classes who had been well educated. We ached for the Jews, we ached for the Blacks, we ached for Native Americans, we ached for the Japanese Americans who were sent to internment camps, we ached for the Vietnamese. We all put down our differences and joined forces to say STOP with one loud voice.

Now Blacks (African-Americans) are integrated and many have reached middle class, the Jews are aligned with the policies of the Bush administration, and the middle classes are fat and happy riding around in their SUV's, how many people are actually going to 'put themselves out' for someone else? Not many.

In fact, the 'dumbing down of America' by underfunding education and feeding them a steady diet of t.v. has created a generation of people who are totally self-centered. Add to this 911, control of the media, the climate of fear and any fascist would have a cake walk. That is exactly what George Bush is doing.

Don't get me wrong. Harper is doing it in Canada and Blair has done it in Britain.

Millions of people do not protest because millions of people don't give a damn.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 01:15 AM

Well, do what you can DV. Every spark makes a little difference,


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 06:18 PM

What do you think?
Email this story to a friend
         Printer-friendly format
         Tell us what you think? Write a letter to the editor




More Headlines
Winkie kills Tennessee handlerNurse's drug error caused teen's deathLegion on a mission to take care of its 'family'

Forums
Kevin Barrett: A matter of trust
Drug error caused teen's death?
Editorial: Jack Abramoff, Reed & Green
Shortage of horse exercise space troubles fair participants
Editorial: Bush and the stem cell lie
Bush foes explore impeachment road
By Ben Broeren
"The British called impeachment 'the most powerful weapon in the political armory, short of civil war,'" said Buzz Davis, a member of Veterans for Peace. "But I do not want civil war."

Davis, along with David Schwartz, a UW law professor and member of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Ben Manski, a fellow with the Liberty Tree Foundation, presented arguments for impeachment of President Bush to a crowd of nearly 120 people Wednesday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The event was part of a national network of teach-ins organized by the center.

"Impeachment is the most patriotic thing we can do," said Manski. "It's a debate over executive power versus popular power. We are struggling over the soul of a nation."

In a video, the Center for Constitutional Rights proposed four articles of impeachment: warrantless surveillance and wiretaps, using torture and denying due process to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, misleading Congress into the Iraq war, and violating the separation of powers.

Schwartz said impeachment would begin if the U.S. House of Representatives found the articles adequate reason to investigate the president.

Sam Johnson, one of several supporters of President Bush in the audience, countered that impeachment posed a threat to the two-party system.

"It is a conspiratorial action that is not helping our democracy," he said this morning.

He added that he thought impeachment is unnecessary because such things as the Abu Ghraib abuses and wiretaps are being addressed.

With regard to the lead up to Iraq, Johnson, who is vice president of Vote No to Cut and Run, said there are always problems weighing intelligence.

John Nichols, associate editor of The Capital Times, said war is not a reason to withhold judgment.

Manski told the crowd that they must take action by writing to their representatives and putting impeachment on the ballot.

Davis has contacted Democrats across Wisconsin to push for local votes in November to support impeachment.

The referendums will send a message to state legislators, he said. They can adopt a joint resolution requesting the U.S. Congress impeach Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

"All it takes is one state to demand it," Davis said.

(Madison, Wisconsin)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 06 - 06:21 PM

See also this press release.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 12:23 AM

Report: Presidents Washington Through Bush May Have Lied About Key Matters

December 4, 2002

WASHINGTON, DCâ€"In allegations likely to further erode Americans' faith in the office of the presidency, presidents George Washington through George W. Bush may have lied about key matters of national import during their tenures as chief executive, an independent-counsel investigation asserted Monday.

Implicated in the presidential-lying scandal are George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

The report states that the integrity of the presidency "may have been compromised by criminal misdirection, obstruction of justice, and deliberate clouding of the truth for political advantage and/or personal gain by as many as every president since the nation's inception."

While conventional wisdom holds that only two U.S. presidents, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, have ever openly lied about anything, the report offers substantial evidence linking all 42 presidents to deliberate acts of deception and dishonesty. Among its assertions are that Thomas Jefferson lied about impregnating one of his slaves; Ulysses S. Grant deceived Congress regarding his role in the Whiskey Ring scandal; Ronald Reagan intentionally withheld key facts in the Iran-Contra Affair; Warren G. Harding told untruths during the Teapot Dome scandal; James K. Polk, Martin Van Buren, and Chester A. Arthur fibbed about the details of trade pacts; and Franklin Pierce was less than forthcoming regarding details of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

"Shockingly, even William Henry Harrison, a president who was in office for a month and spent most of it on his deathbed, seems to have found time to lie during the famously lengthy inaugural address that would speed his demise," independent-counsel investigator James McManus said. "And so-called 'father of our country' George Washington is not exempt, either. A story familiar to any schoolchild tells us that, as a boy, Washington confessed to chopping down a cherry tree, saying, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Evidence suggests, however, that the entire tale may have been bogus from the start. This is doubly damning to the presidency's reputation, for it is not merely a lie, but a lie about not telling lies."

The report calls into question the integrity of the presidency at a particularly inopportune moment. Coming on the heels of alleged Bush Administration involvement in the Enron and WorldCom corporate scandals, as well as the "Monicagate" impeachment trial of former president Bill Clinton, the implication of every president in U.S. history will likely deepen the public's mistrust and further undermine the credibility of the nation's highest elected office.

"If these allegations turn out to be true, this country faces a crisis of confidence of unfathomable proportions," an anonymous Beltway insider said. "If the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth cannot be trusted to tell the truth, then who, in the name of God in heaven, can?"

Four of the 137 known presidential mistresses.

"We are shocked by these allegations," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. "The president wishes to assure the public that he has never lied, and that every one of these accusations of lyingâ€"from the 18th century all the way to the 21stâ€"will be thoroughly investigated and, we are confident, disproved."

Calling the report "just the tip of the iceberg," McManus said incidents of lying may plague the government at all levels.

"Every day, new evidence surfaces suggesting that this lying trend is more far-reaching than we ever imagined," McManus said. "It may well extend all the way to the offices of Vice-President, Speaker of the House, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Treasury, White House Press Secretary, secretary to the White House Press Secretary, Senator, Representative, State Assemblyman, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, County Board Supervisor, Alderperson, Mayor, Assistant to the Mayor, City Councilperson, Assistant City Councilperson, Comptroller, Town Coroner, County Librarian, and County Clerk."

On Capitol Hill, the report prompted calls for a thorough investigation of each and every allegation, from the possibility of Bush-Cheney lies regarding Haliburton during the 2000 presidential campaign all the way back to alleged lies told by the John Adams Administration regarding the Huron Indians in 1798.

"The idea that presidents and other elected officials have violated the public trust by telling lies is disturbing and deeply disappointing," U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said. "We are adopting a 'zero tolerance' position regarding the telling of untruths on the part of any politicianâ€"past, present, or futureâ€"and we will not rest until each and every lie-teller has been punished to the fullest extent of the law."

Added Hatch: "You have my solemn word on that."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 12:59 AM

LOL!!! Very funny, Nameless One.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 07:03 PM

From the Concord, New Hampshire, Monitor:

ealth and birth', PAUL HAGUE, Weare - Letter

By For the Monitor
July 22. 2006 9:30AM


P
resident Bush's veto (his first) of a bill to federally fund embryonic stem cell research is the latest misguided and ignorant decision by our fearless leader. Stem cell research will continue, but the medical benefits will be delayed because of insufficient funding.
If the Bushies have had one overarching principle in their governing, it is to increase wealth to the rich and power to the powerful.

Their ideal government is a plutocracy. Science, the arts and the rest of us have all suffered because of this principle. When will enough people wake up to this fact and demand that Congress impeach this lawless and corrupt administration?

Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to John Adams in 1813: "There is an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents - this artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy."

It's up to us to do the preventing. Back democratic and progressive candidates. Organize, get active. Vote in November for change!

---

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 06 - 11:47 PM

From David Swanson:

"In the long run, we can reduce the influence of authoritarian structures like religions and militaries, and improve early childhood care and education. In the short run, we can persuade many Americans that they have been misled. We're well on the way to doing so already. Investor's Business Daily recently warned that 25% of Republicans are planning to vote for Democrats this year, and that that could lead to – horror of horrors – impeachment.

Sunday, July 23rd, is the four-year anniversary of the meeting at #10 Downing Street that produced the Downing Street Minutes, which were made public about 15 months ago. A year ago on this date, citizens held hundreds of public forums and house parties around the country to increase awareness of the Downing Street Minutes, which showed that Bush and his gang of thugs intentionally lied about the reasons for attacking Iraq. Now, of course, dozens of other smoking guns have been stacked in the corner beside that one (and posted on the left side of http://www.afterdowningstreet.org ).

Those who continue to claim that Bush meant well and really believed his own hype are willfully blind. We should be so outspoken about Bush's and Cheney's lies and the need to impeach, remove, indict, convict, and imprison them that those still clinging to their blanket of faith in Bush's goodness see themselves as having been deceived.

On Wednesday, July 19th, hundreds of impeachment teach-ins were held around the country. At the one I spoke at, people expressed surprise at the size of the crowd and shock at the poll statistics I presented. People don't know the size of the impeachment movement. As they learn it, those who only join majority movements will join this one in greater numbers.

And as more and more of us become increasingly eager to take the necessary action to force change in Washington, we will make plans to occupy the place with an impeachment encampment. Here's a way we can do that: http://www.campdemocracy.org "

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 01:31 AM

Well it has that classic Amos ambiance dosn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 09:25 AM

"NEWS BRIEF: Impeachment Review Now Has 37 Co-Sponsors
By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor and National Correspondent, Atlanta Progressive News (July 23, 2006)

(APN) ATLANTA -- As APN's second print issue goes to press, H. Res 635 has a total of 37 sponsors and cosponsors. The bill, sponsored by US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for impeaching President Bush over misleading the public on the need to go to war; retaliating against public officials who disagree with him; and encouraging torture.

The most recent co-sponsors are US Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Jesse Jackson, Jr., (D-IL), and Hilda Solis (D-CA).

Over 18% of US House Democrats now support the impeachment probe; over 8% of all US House Representatives now support the probe.

The best represented states on H. Res 635 are California (9), New York (6), Illinois (3), Massachusetts (3), Minnesota (3), Georgia (2), and Wisconsin (2).

The current 37 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Jackson, Jr., (D-IL), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Rep. David Wu (D-OR).

"Congressional oversight is a responsibility that should be taken seriously. There are questions that need to be answered no matter where those answers lead," Rep. Fattah said in a statement prepared for Atlanta Progressive News.

"

Atlanta, GA "Progressive".

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 06 - 04:05 PM

Further insight: Wiretapping Unbound.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 11:48 AM

WASHINGTON: The powerful American Bar Association charged president George Bush with flouting the constitution and undermining the rule of the law by assuming power to disregard selected provisions of bills he signs.

An 11-member bipartisan panel of the bar association said in a report that Bush had used the provision of "signing statements" far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to over 800 provisions in more than 100 laws as they infringed on his prerogatives.

The panel said these uses of power by the president amounted to "veto" and deprived the Congress of the opportunity to override the veto.

A signing statement is a statement attached to a legislative bill when the president signs it to make it a law. Usually, such statements pertain to instructions to law enforcing agencies on how to use the law.

The panel cited laws relating to ban on torture and other national security laws, where Bush had, through the signing statements, reserved the right to disregard them.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 11:56 AM

Specter seeks to challenge Bush's power on bills

By Thomas Ferraro
Reuters
Monday, July 24, 2006; 6:46 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top Senate Republican said on Monday he will challenge U.S. President George W. Bush's practice of claiming a right to ignore or not enforce sections of bills that he signs into law.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said he plans to introduce legislation this week that would give the U.S. Congress the right to bring a lawsuit against Bush's "signing statements."

Bush has used these statements to reserve the right not to enforce certain provisions of laws if he believes they impinge on his authority or interpretation of the Constitution.

An American Bar Association task force issued a report on Monday that said Bush has flouted the U.S. constitution by issuing more than 800 signing statements to highlight provisions of laws he might not enforce, more than every previous U.S. president combined.

ABA President Michael Greco noted that under the Constitution there is a balance of power in which Congress is to pass bills and the president is to sign or veto them, and give lawmakers an opportunity to override any veto.

"By using a signing statement to ignore an entire or portions of a new law, the president undermines this entire system of checks and balances," Greco told reporters in releasing the report. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 01:29 PM

From the Washington Post:

...

A New York Times editorial this morning states: "The A.B.A. called Mr. Bush's use of presidential signing statements 'contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers' and recommended that Congress enact legislation clarifying the issue.

"We agree on both points, even though we fear that if Congress passes a bill, Mr. Bush will simply issue a new signing statement saying he also does not intend to follow it."

Hamdan Revisited

Georgetown University Law Professor David Cole writes in the New York Review of Books to remind us of the significance of the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision.

"The Justice Department has maintained that the President can order torture, notwithstanding a criminal statute and an international treaty prohibiting torture under all circumstances. President Bush has authorized the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, despite a comprehensive statute that makes such surveillance a crime. He has approved the 'disappearance' of al-Qaeda suspects into secret prisons where they are interrogated with tactics that include waterboarding, in which the prisoner is strapped down and made to believe he will drown. He has asserted the right to imprison indefinitely, without hearings, anyone he considers an 'enemy combatant,' and to try such persons for war crimes in ad hoc military tribunals lacking such essential safeguards as independent judges and the right of the accused to confront the evidence against him.

"In advocating these positions, which I will collectively call 'the Bush doctrine,' the administration has brushed aside legal objections as mere hindrances to the ultimate goal of keeping Americans safe. It has argued that domestic criminal and constitutional law are of little concern because the President's powers as commander in chief override all such laws; that the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties that regulate the treatment of prisoners during war, simply do not apply to the conflict with al-Qaeda; and more broadly still, that the President has unilateral authority to defy international law. In short, there is little to distinguish the current administration's view from that famously espoused by President Richard Nixon when asked to justify his authorization of illegal, warrantless wiretapping of Americans during the Vietnam War: 'When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.'

"If another nation's leader adopted such positions, the United States would be quick to condemn him or her for violating fundamental tenets of the rule of law, human rights, and the separation of powers. But President Bush has largely gotten away with it, at least at home, for at least three reasons. His party holds a decisive majority in Congress, making effective political checks by that branch highly unlikely. The Democratic Party has shied away from directly challenging the President for fear that it will be viewed as soft on terrorism. And the American public has for the most part offered only muted objections.

...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 01:56 PM

Amos, I watched the live coverage on Cspan, last night, of the ABA Task Force presenting their findings and recommendations to the press. It was brill. I was really pleased they stressed the importance of the press getting the word out to the American people.

You can find more about the ABA's statements, etc. about half-way down, in the center of the CSpan site in Featured Links. (It leads to a pdf.) It was really excellent.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 04:09 PM

Thanks, Kat!

On the web today:

From Dave Lindorff: 10 Reasons to Impeach
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Dave Lindorff
OpEdNews.com

The Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been playing a leading role in battling the Bush administration's attacks on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and international law, has declared today to be Impeachment Day, with teach-ins scheduled around the country.

Seems like a great occasion to offer up 10 reasons for impeaching the president, as presented in Barbara Olshansky's and my new book The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office.

The case for impeachment just grew much stronger, with the US Supreme Court's powerful decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. In that decision, the justices didn't simply say that the President was wrong and in violation of U.S. and the international law in arbitrarily claiming that the Guantanamo detainees were not subject to the Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War. The five-justice majority, which included conservative Anthony Kennedy, declared the President's bogus claim to have "special powers" as commander in chief in "time of war" to be just that--bogus. (...) (See link for list of major grounds for impeachment).

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Jul 06 - 08:32 PM

Thought this was worth a read:

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Civil war won't end until troops leave Iraq

By PATRICK COCKBURN
THE INDEPENDENT

On a bend in the Tigris River in north Baghdad people try to prevent their children from seeing the headless and tortured bodies that drift ashore every day. The number of civilians being killed in Iraq may top 1,000 a week in July after reaching 3,149 in June.

I have been visiting Baghdad in peace and in war since 1978 and I have never seen this city of 6 million people so paralyzed by fear. The streets are empty in the middle of the day because Sunni and Shiite Muslims are terrified of running into a checkpoint manned by members of the other community who may kill them after a glance at their identity cards.

Civil war is raging across central Iraq. Baghdad, a city whose population is almost the same as London, is splitting into hostile and heavily armed districts. Minorities, be they Sunni or Shiite, are being killed or forced to flee. People dare not even take their furniture in case this might alert their neighbors to their departure and lead to their deaths. Sunni no longer let the mostly Shiite police enter their districts.

"If this isn't civil war," a senior Iraqi official said last weekend, "I don't know what is."

It is at this moment that the new Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, arrived in London to see Prime Minister Tony Blair and to deny Iraq is sliding into civil war. He spoke confidently about disarming militias. He has now gone to the U.S. to see President Bush, and, if he follows the ignoble and cowardly tradition of Iraqi leaders visiting the U.S. over the past three years, will most likely repeat what he said in London.

"When our so-called leaders go to Washington they always produce a rosy picture of what is happening in Iraq for the Americans, though they know it is a lie," sighed one veteran Iraqi politician.

Iraqi leaders are not what they seem. They live in the Green Zone, the heavily fortified enclave guarded by U.S. troops, in the heart of Baghdad. Many never leave it except for extensive foreign travel. Eighteen months ago, an Iraqi magazine claimed to have discovered that at one point the entire cabinet was out of the country at the same time.

The government remains reliant on the U.S. One former minister told me: "There is a culture of dependency. Part of the time the Americans treat us as a colony, part of the time as an independent country."

Al-Maliki became prime minister only because the U.S. and Britain were determined to get rid of his predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Al-Maliki is inexperienced, personally isolated without his own kitchen cabinet, guarded by U.S. guards and heavily reliant on shadowy U.S. advisers.

The quasi-colonial nature of the Iraqi government may not be obvious to outsiders who see that it has been democratically elected. But its independence has always been a mirage.

For instance, its own intelligence organization should be essential to a government fighting for its life against a violent insurgency. At first sight, Iraq might appear to have one under Maj.-Gen. Mohammed al-Shahwani, but it has no budget because it is funded directly by the CIA, to the tune of $110 million to $160 million a year and, not surprising, it is to the CIA that it first reports. Not surprising, Iraqis will need a lot of convincing that Al-Maliki is not one more U.S. pawn.

In theory he should be in charge of a substantial army force. The number of trained Iraqi soldiers and police has grown from 169,000 in June 2005 to 264,000 this June. But the extra 105,000 armed men have not only made no difference to security in Iraq but that security has markedly deteriorated over the past year. The reason is that the armed forces put their allegiance to their own communities -- Kurd, Sunni or Shiite -- well before their loyalty to the state. Shiites do not believe they will be defended from a pogrom by Sunni units and the Sunni feel the same way about Shiite units.

This is why the militias are growing in strength. Everybody wants an armed militia from their own community to defend their neighborhoods. In any case, the largest political parties making up the present Iraqi government -- the Kurds and the two biggest Shiite religious parties -- all have their private armies, which they are not going to see dissolved.

Not only is Al-Maliki's suggestion that the militiamen might be stood down untrue but also the trend is entirely the other way. The army and police are themselves becoming sectarian and ethnic militias. This makes absurd Bush's and Tony Blair's claim that at some stage the U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces will be strong enough to stand alone.

Al-Maliki's visit to Washington has more to do with the White House's domestic political agenda than with the dire reality of Iraq. The Bush administration wants to have live Iraqis say in the lead-up to mid-term elections in November that progress is being made in Iraq. A frustration of being a journalist in Iraq is that the lethal anarchy there cannot be reported without getting oneself killed in the process.

Can anything be done to lead Iraqi out of this savage civil war even if it is now too late to stop it? Friction among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds was always likely after the fall of Saddam Hussein. But what has divided the communities most is their differing attitude to foreign occupation. Ending that is essential if this war is to be brought to an end.
Patrick Cockburn writes for The Independent in Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 12:25 AM

Wanta Explains Details Of Massive 4.5 Trillion Dollar Recovery
In Monies Allegedly Stolen By Bush And Clinton Crime Families
By Greg Szymanski
7-19-6

In one of the major stories of the century, former Ambassador Leo Wanta provided details of a massive 4.5 trillion dollar settlement reached as a way to get back into U.S. coffers at least part of the 27.5 trillion stolen by the Bush and Clinton crime families in the biggest bank heist in world history.

The vast sum of money, used illegally by corrupt insiders inside the U.S. government, was amassed by Wanta as part of a plan he and several other financial whizzes devised on behalf of President Ronald Reagan to destabilize the Soviet currency, bringing a quick end to the Cold War.

Wanta, jailed illegally for over a decade, began trying to recover the money when released on house arrest more than a year ago.

Although working with limited resources and trying to recover the 27.5 trillion which more than doubled over the years, Wanta on June 12 entered into an agreement to stop his search, obtaining 4.5 trillion as 1.575 trillion will be placed into the U.S. Treasury after taxes and other expenses are paid.

Further, Wanta said based on private interest investments based on the original money made at the end of the Cold War more that 192 billion a day can be generated for American taxpayers on a daily basis, money he said that could wipe away America's 8 trillion dollar debt in rapid fashion.

"It is a done deal. For any disbelievers, I am ready with all the paperwork," said Wanta Wednesday on Greg Szymanski's radio show, The Investigative Journal, this interview and its archived broadcast available at www.gcnlive.com "Right now the only thing holding up the money being placed into the U.S. Treasury is a hold put on by the Federal Reserve.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 10:13 AM

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Impeachment would lead
to Republican redemption


Some congressional Republicans have made a show lately of opposing President Bush. We suspect it is for show only, with elections in mind, because the opposition never seems to come to anything. The only thing Republicans could do now to reclaim credibility after supporting Bush for so long would be to impeach him.

Lawrence Manes

Augusta

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 10:27 AM

From a current review of Crosby Stills Nash and Young:

"Reviews of CSNY's current dates mention shimmering renditions of the airy ballad "Guinnevere" by Crosby and Nash; "Long Time Gone" (highlighted by dueling solos from guitarists Stills and Young); the 40-year-old "For What It's Worth," recorded by Buffalo Springfield; and the still-relevant "Ohio," about the government's tragic attempt to stifle student protest at Kent State. The audiences at the shows span multiple generations.

"This tour isn't about playing it safe," says Nash, who lives in Encino. "It's about involving people in the process of rediscovering their power, to awaken people (to the knowledge) that they have the ability to put pressure on their elected officials to start impeachment proceedings. They have to realize it could happen."

Aside from politics, the CSNY dates are also a celebration of some ageless music as well as a famously gnarly four-way collaboration that has somehow withstood the years.

"We recognize our strengths and we're amplifying them," Nash says. "We know what happens when we get weak. This is unifying the four of us in a way that hasn't happened before."

"


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 04:10 PM

"In Fiasco, his damning new book about the Bush administration's tragic bungling of Iraq, Thomas Ricks quotes a colonel assigned to the Coalition Provisional Authority unforgettably describing his team's mission as "pasting feathers together, hoping for a duck." Just how many more Americans have to die in the vain attempt to turn feathers into a duck?" (Arianna Huffington)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 08:25 PM

Hug a tree, impeach a Bush
Wednesday 26 July @ 17:35:06
by Kaythlyn Stone

Daniel Fearn is hoping you'll hear about the "Blackout of National Shame" and start turning your lights off at home every Wednesday from 9 to 9:30 p.m. What's that about?

The lights out protest is the latest of many ideas Minneapolis resident Fearn has presented, hoping one will be the tipping point that ignites people to actively support impeachment. Fearn is aiming his message at anyone dissatisfied with the hard right turn the country has made under President George W. Bush.

Fearn, a former Marine sergeant, is an impassioned proponent of impeaching Bush, and one of a growing number of dedicated impeachment activists taking their work to the national stage. The impeachment coordinator for Veterans For Peace Chapter 27 in the Twin Cities, Fearn is also hoping the national VFP leadership will adopt his "Impeach for Peace and Justice" campaign on a national scale. In the meantime, the campaign and others like it are generating intense interest around the country.

Like many progressives, Fearn is fed up with the war, the Patriot Act and domestic spying, torture, tax breaks for the wealthy, lobbyists' influence over legislators, conservatives' stranglehold on all branches of government, and with Bush's consolidation of power. But instead of fighting on numerous fronts, Fearn believes the country can only change course through impeachment.

He grew up in a household headed by an "Eisenhower Republican," says Fearn. "Eisenhower coined the term Military-Industrial Complex, and warned us to watch out. At that time it was assumed people had the power."

Fearn believes that people can take their power back through impeachment. "We have to save ourselves," he wrote on the IFPJ website. "Stop deluding yourself that there is any other solution to our Bush and Cheney problems besides impeachment. Impeachment is the only way."

His website contains calls to action, numerous downloadable posters, and the how-to guide for do-it-yourself lobbying, "The Citizen Lobbyist."

Fearn recently teamed up with Impeach for Peace, a national effort maintained by Minnesota members of World Can't Wait. Mikael Rudolph (Twin Cities organizer for World Can't Wait), and Fearn share resources, ideas and a belief that there can be no peace, no justice without impeachment.

Impeach for Peace members, consistent with the revolutionary flair of the World Can't Wait organization, have two incidents involving activists under consideration for possible action by the ACLU and a Minneapolis attorney specializing in First Amendment rights. One member was prevented from handing out impeachment leaflets at "Grand Old Days," an annual street party in St. Paul; a couple others were told by law enforcement officers that they couldn't display an impeachment banner on a highway overpass, even if they were holding the banner.

Impeach for Peace is seeking court orders to guarantee freedom of speech at future Twin Cities protests, including the Oct. 5 rally at the Federal Building in Minneapolis. World Can't Wait has designated October 5 "A Day of Mass Resistance" and events are being planned in cities nationwide.

Says Rudolph: "For those paying attention to the comprehensive assault on democracy in America and the U.S. Constitution that is being waged by this White House, the time for the national debate as to 'Why?' impeach President George W. Bush has long passed. The only remaining question is 'How?' The appropriate time is Now!"

Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who would become president of the House of Representatives should the Democrats take control of that body in November, said recently that impeachment would not be on the table if Democrats take the majority of the House seats this fall. It is, however, already on the table of many U.S. citizens and all signs point to an expanding movement. More examples:

Progressives in Minnesota hoped to make an impeachment resolution part of the state DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor) party platform. Impeachment resolutions were passed at numerous precinct caucuses this spring, but delegates to the state convention failed to put an impeachment resolution in the state DFL platform.

The Democratic party of Wisconsin added "Support for Congress to begin immediate impeachment proceedings against President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for sacrificing Americans' civil rights in order to wage the war against terror" to its party platform during the state convention last month.
The Berkeley City Council voted a couple weeks ago to add impeachment of Bush and Cheney on the municipal ballot this November. Among at least 21 towns and cities passing impeachment resolutions are Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro, Newfane and Putney, Vt., San Francisco, Santa Cruz, and Arcata, Calif., and Chapel Hill, N.C.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced H. Res. 635, a resolution creating a committee to investigate the Administration's possible impeachable offenses. Among the 36 co-sponsors are Minnesotans Oberstar, Sabo and McCollum.

ImpeachBush.org, the long running campaign with the black and yellow artwork, may have been the first national impeachment group on the scene. Since 2003 the group has amassed about 730,000 signatures for its citizens' referendum to impeach Bush, and placed newspaper ads in the New York Times, USA Today, Boston Globe and the San Francisco Chronicle.

The Green Party of the United States called for Bush's impeachment back in June 2005 when the Downing Street Memo, proving Bush used deception to start the war in Iraq, came to light. The Green Party has reiterated that call many times since then. ||

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,michaelr
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 08:42 PM

Guest, 12:25 --

Wanta provide some background on that incredible story?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 09:42 PM

Thanks for that latest posting, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 10:39 PM

Looks like it is from this guy....


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 06 - 10:51 PM

From http://www.consortiumnews,com, excerpted:

Review of 'The One Percent Doctrine'
By Peter Dale Scott
July 27, 2006

The One Percent Doctrine is an important book. On a factual level, it is a hard-edged narrative of the conflict between DCI George Tenet's CIA, representing what author Ron Suskind calls "the old world of evidence," and Vice-President Dick Cheney and the Pentagon, the proponents of "a new day of action."

But Suskind is writing on behalf of those at State and CIA -- plus "a host of generals at Defense" -- whose conclusion is that the systematic ignoring of "the basics of analytical due diligence" presents "institutional dangers for the government and for the country" (328).

The book's title derives from a remark by Cheney at a White House meeting in November 2001, that even a "one percent chance" that al Qaeda might acquire a nuclear weapon demanded, not analysis, but response. In Suskind's gloss:

"Justified or not, fact-based or not, 'our response' is what matters. As to 'evidence,' the bar was set so low that the word itself almost didn't apply. If there was even a one percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction…the United States must now act as if it were a certainty. This was a mandate of extraordinary breadth." (62)

Cheney's "one percent doctrine"marginalized the CIA, whose inconvenient facts (there was no al Qaeda-Iraq connection, Saddam was not purchasing uranium ore in Niger) were seen as obstructive; and marked the agency as a target for White House displeasure and ultimately retribution.

The book can be construed as a well-argued case for impeachment of the Vice-President, and possibly also of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Both men are accused of misdirecting the country and even at times of frustrating the clearly expressed will of President Bush, who in this book emerges as far closer to Tenet than many of us had believed. Condoleezza Rice is criticized chiefly for her failure as National Security Adviser to establish a robust process of policy coordination, leaving Cheney and Rumsfeld to prevail.   (...)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 06 - 02:13 AM

Wanta was sentenced to 22 years in prison. (Better he had killed a few people than that he owed taxes.) Afterward, on Sept. 21, 1996, Wanta wrote a mysterious letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton, referring to "U.S. President Bill Clinton's Short Term Notes and IMF Sale of Bullion." In the letter Wanta referred to his own "de-stabilization of the Soviet Union Rubles (SUR)" and noted that he "prevented the Soviet & Italian Mafiosa from the Soviet Funds in favour of our U.S. Treasury & Metals Accounts in excess of US$ 150 billion".

Wanta then threatened: "Until by legal release from the un-consitutional/ false incarceration in Wisconsin--as a diplomat & non-resident--I am legally interested in the corporate placement of short-term notes & I.M.F. gold bullion/troy ounce delivery contract. Thank you for your kind assistance in this timely situation."

Wanta's letter (or letters) got results. On Jan. 10, 1997, Wanta received a reply from Erskine Bowles at the White House.

                         Mr. Leo E. Wanta
                         c/o Kettle Moraine
                         Correctional Institute
                         P.O. Box 31
                         Plymouth, WI 53073

                         Dear Mr. Wanta:

                         Thank you for your
                         letter. I appreciate
                         hearing from you.

                         To give your concerns the
                         proper attention, I have
                         forwarded your letter to
                         the Office of Agency
                         Liaison within the White
                         House. You can be certain
                         that your concerns will
                         be carefully reviewed.

                         Again, thank you for
                         writing.

                         Sincerely,

                         Erskine B. Bowles

On February 1, 1997, after Bowles had checked with W.H. Agency Relations, Leo Wanta was released on $90,000 bail.

So here's what we know about Wanta so far: Extradited from Switzerland on a triviality. Sentenced to 22 years on the same triviality. But then sprung after references to "Bill Clinton's short-term notes" and the White House checks with Agency Liaison.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 06 - 11:47 AM

"Can you name the one country on earth where the government can steal elections, strip away basic rights, spy on citizens, and launch wars based on lies, but where the people do not take over the nation's capital in protest?

If you said the United States, you'll be wrong on September fifth when Camp Democracy begins on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.   
http://www.campdemocracy.org

At long last, Americans are preparing to say "Enough is enough," and to do what Ukrainians, Mexicans, or any other people not drugged into acquiescence would do when things got this bad: occupy the capital city to demand peace, justice, and accountability.

The goal of the many organizations and individuals working to prepare for Camp Democracy is to provide a space for everyone who is fed up with lies and criminality to come and demand change. In fact, at the suggestion of Cindy Sheehan who will come to Camp Democracy following Camp Casey (Aug. 16 – Sept. 2 in Crawford, Texas), we're calling it Camp Democracy at Fort Fed Up. Our demands will not be for anarchy or disorder, but for a restoration of the rule of law. This is a tough-on-crime movement. We just have a different notion of who the criminals are. And when we get tough, we use nonviolence.
...

This morning I was a guest lecturer at a college course on modern history. We spent two hours discussing impeachment, impeachable offenses, and where the Bush Administration's actions fit in history. This is where I think they fit: as a significant threat to end the oldest democracy on the planet. Never before has an American president offered anything close to this wide-ranging assault on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the powers of the legislative and judicial branches of government.

Here's a sampling:

* Illegal spying in violation of FISA and the Fourth Amendment, openly confessed to, openly promoted in signing statements, known to involve phone calls, phone records, internet use, bank records, and observation of legal nonviolent activities.
* Illegal detentions in violation of the Fourth Amendment, International law, U.S. Law, and a recent Supreme Court ruling.
* Rounding up of thousands of citizens and legal residents for detention or deportation.
* Torture, maintenance of secret camps, and extraordinary rendition, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, International Law, US Law, and openly promoted in signing statement and administration policy papers.
* Illegal war – launched illegally under international law, launched in violation of the U.S. Constitution which requires that the Congress declare war, and launched on the basis of feloniously misleading Congress and the American public.
* Use of a variety of illegal weapons.
* Illegal targeting of civilians, journalists, and hospitals.
* Illegal seizure of another nation's resources.
* Illegal use of funds in Iraq that had been appropriated for Afghanistan.
* Leaking of classified information in order to mislead the Congress and the public, and in order to punish truth tellers.
* Leaking of identity of an undercover agent.
* Retribution against whistleblowers.
* Use of signing statements to reverse 750 laws passed by Congress.
* Production of phony news reports at home and abroad.
* Dereliction of duty in neglecting global warming, hurricanes, hunger, AIDS, and warnings of 9-11 attacks.
* Facilitating Israel's attacks on Lebanon.
* Obstruction of investigations by Congress, the 9-11 Commission, and Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.
* Stealing elections.

When is it enough? When does it become clear that history will view us as those who let it all go to waste, as those who sat by as they came for the Muslims and then they came for the immigrants and then they came for the next group on the list, as those who saw the nation sliding into fascism and let it slide… or as those who rose up and resisted and restored what was most worth saving in a system of government based on the rule of law?
...
(From www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/3904/1/200/

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 06 - 11:50 AM

These days, Peaches hot on the impeachment trail
By Tom Lanham, CONTRIBUTOR



IT WASN'T the usual after-hours party invite she regularly receives in her adopted hometown of Berlin. But techno-punk diva Peaches, intrigued, decided to RSVP anyway. Which is how she wound up onstage at New York's Hammerstein Ballroom on March 20, appearing alongside Michael Stipe, Rufus Wainwright, Margaret Cho, Susan Sarandon and Cindy Sheehan in "Bring'Em Home Now!" a Veterans for Peace benefit concert opposing the war in Iraq. And she prepared something very special for the occasion.
Peaches — once a mild-mannered Toronto music teacher named Merrill Nisker — likens the jaw-dropping response to her "Bring 'Em Home" performance to the gasps Stephen Colbert recently received during his unexpected skewering of President Bush.

The song she'd penned was stamped with her typically ribald wit. Titled "F— or Kill," it objects to soldiers' overseas deployment and ends with her snarling over and over again, "Impeach Bush."

Steve Earle had opened the show with a protest ditty. "And he was so heartwarming," recalls Peaches, who hastily added "F— or Kill" as the opening track of her then-nearly-completed third album, dubbed "Impeach My Bush."

"But that style folks were already used to, in a good way. So I think my message really came through, because no one expected to hear that from me. And no one had ever heard that from me before. But sex is really just a natural, important thing in our lives, and when someone like Bush refuses to fund groups because they use condoms to educate people instead of telling them to abstain from sex, well, that's a person who is helping to spread AIDS."


.........

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 06 - 08:41 AM

Amos. The cut and paste wonder of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 11:25 AM

Impeach Bush

It has been proven that President Bush has lied to Congress, the American people and the leaders of the world. He has made this country and the world more dangerous, not safer.

He continually subverts the Constitution to achieve his goals and then has the audacity to say he supports the spread of democracy, while he slowly takes away our rights and freedoms here in the U.S.

He believes he is above the law, and his Republican friends in Congress seem to agree. There has never been a more solid case for impeachment in the history of this country.

Joseph Jisa, Lincoln

(From the Lincoln, Nebraska, Journal STar)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 12:33 PM

It's absurd how Bill Clinton's sexual encounter gets the blame for a failed GOP foreign policy.

Lying about an illicit sexual affair is considered more important than the lies told to American citizens to trick us into murderous agression in Iraq.

Strange priorities here.

Impeachment can't be accomplished with a GOP congress.

I don't know if the Dems get in that it will be accomplished.

I believe it's up to the World Court and the UN to censure the Bush mishandling of the Iraqi occupation.

In the meantime, Hezbollah becomes more powerful and the Taliban grows strong again. Israel overreacts throwing the balance off even more.

Impeachment requires a fair-minded and impartial political governing body which we just don't have.

Wish it would work.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 01:40 PM

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/spsy.jpg


I hear you, Frank.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 05:28 PM

Again, thanks, Amos, for the links, etc., esp. the last one. Have printed it out and plan to put it on my car.

Guest, cite your sources for the Wanta scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 07:16 PM

"...Such self-serving hyperbole is now under serious assault, and Franks and his bosses, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush, are being exposed as the military failures and strategic frauds they truly are.

In his new book, "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq," Thomas E. Ricks, the Washington Post's senior Pentagon correspondent, presents a detailed account of the failure to properly prepare for the war in Iraq and the nearly total absence of any thought about what might happened after Saddam Hussein's government collapsed.

Ricks' book is a scorching indictment of the political and military leaders responsible for the mess in Iraq and blows away Gen. Franks' glowing self-assessment.

Ricks does not mince words: "It now seems more likely that history's judgment will be that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003 was based on perhaps the worst war plan in American history."

Thomas Ricks is neither an ideologue nor a smug Monday-morning quarterback. He's certainly not a Bush-basher nor a liberal peacenik. He's been covering the Pentagon -- first for the Wall Street Journal and now the Post -- for 23 years. He has a deep and abiding respect for the military.

His criticism -- richly researched and comprehensive -- is an important contribution to our understanding of just how thoroughly incompetent Bush, Rumsfeld and their sycophants in uniform truly are. It's stunning. They knew the United States would prevail militarily, but what to do following "mission accomplished" in Iraq was a mere afterthought.

Ricks lays it out in his very first paragraph: "President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 ultimately may come to be seen as one of the most profligate actions in the history of American foreign policy. The consequences of his choice won't be clear for decades, but it is already abundantly apparent in mid-2006 that the U.S. government went to war in Iraq with scant solid international support and on the basis of incorrect information -- about weapons of mass destruction and a supposed nexus between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda's terrorism -- and then occupied the country negligently. Thousands of U.S. troops and an untold number of Iraqis have died. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, many of them squandered. Democracy may yet come to Iraq and the region, but so too may civil war or a regional conflagration, which in turn could lead to spiraling oil prices and a global economic shock."

That paragraph should be memorized and some brave member of Congress ought to include it in articles of impeachment. Ricks proceeds to describe the failure to plan the occupation and the inability of Rumsfeld and his equally incompetent minions to understand how to deal with the insurgency.

In fact, Ricks makes the case that many tactics in the American military operation in Iraq actually fueled more violence. U.S. troops broke into homes, rounding up tens of thousands of civilians, most of whom were innocent. They used indiscriminate artillery fire on the insurgents, killing and wounding more civilians, used promiscuous violence at checkpoints, enraging local populations and, in effect, helping insurgent recruitment."

---

http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gallagher274.html

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 07:23 PM

Why, they're even talking impeachment down in Huntsville, Alabama, not to mention Newfane, Vermont.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 07:25 PM

History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure."

— the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, 1989

Are we to understand that the legislative solution to the constitutional crisis precipitated by Bush II is to sue the administration?

Senators proposed reviewing signing statements that President Bush attaches to legislation signed into law. Congress could have the right to sue.

Remember Sen. John McCain's anti-torture amendment introduced to have the Army Field Manual upheld and prevent "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in U.S. custody?

Bush signed it, then dissented in a signing statement. This is like crossing one's fingers, claiming to be truthful. Those little white lies add up.

Bush's sole veto was for stem cells. However, he has issued more than 750 signing statements affecting labor, immigration, civil rights, the armed forces, environment and whistleblower protections. (Watch the Voting Rights Act extension!)

Some in Congress think his excessive signing statements are a deliberate attempt by the executive to negate the legislature. That's unconstitutional.

Finally, the nonpartisan American Bar Association is analyzing the legality of this contradictory practice. Congress follows the ABA's lead.

If these signing statements are to be considered a breach of contract with Congress, then that leads to the courts and litigation.

If Congress proceeds with the breached-contract approach, however, it needn't tally individual bills when the worst breach involves the Constitution which the president swore to uphold.

Constitutional remedies to an errant executive are censure and impeachment. But our spayed and neutered Congress has more bark than bite.

That said, senators proposed legislation to "authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional."

Senators are building a case for the executive's obvious contempt for the legislature.

Indeed, the White House wants Congress to adopt the Roman dictum Inter arma silent leges ("In time of war, the laws are silent."). That is a dangerous proposition that Congress must reject but to which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is dedicated.

• Last week, Justice Department and intelligence officials asked Congress to approve new laws allowing the government to continue the warrantless domestic spying. Lawmakers earlier objected to Bush deliberately circumventing the post-Nixon FISA court. Not long ago, Gonzales testified — though not under oath — that Congress gave its implied consent and that Bush acted within the Constitution as commander in chief. This argument is legally flawed.

• The White House wants Congress to strike down a 1978 law governing surveillance. Again the apparatchiks seek approval after they've done something wrong. Congress mustn't become complicit in Bush II's fear-mongering and extrajudicial antics.

• Despite a recent Supreme Court rebuke, the Bushvolk since produced a plan to prosecute detainees through military tribunals similar to those deemed unlawful by the high court. They've circumvented FISA, and now they want to bypass the high court. Not until State, Justice and Defense department officials colluded were military lawyers consulted last week. Military lawyers objected rightly to being left out of the loop.

• Gonzales approached Congress last week to nullify the War Crimes Act approved about decade ago which upheld the Geneva Conventions and criminalizes torture. The Bushvolk asked Congress for a shield to further violate human rights and tarnish the military.

There is but one shield, and we, the people, have it: the Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 07:50 PM

Apologies if this has already been posted: Do-it-yourself-impeachment

(Sorry for the incorrect link. Now fixed.)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 09:02 PM

Kat:

Check that link? It seems to go to an Irish Freedom Fighter's Blog...

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 10:06 PM

Thanks, Amos. That was from a post about a poet's song. Link is now correct.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: DougR
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 01:27 PM

Larry K.: Amos loves to have threads for his very own, didn't you know?
What is the poor lad to do when the Republicans continue to hold majorities in both the House and the Senate in November? Sad, sad. As an aside, the last photo I saw of the senior member of the Supreme Court pictured him as looking pretty frail. Bush may have a shot at nominating another Conservative to the Court before his term is up. If that happens, watch out Canada, you are going to be invaded by Mudcatters!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 06:00 PM

Your folly, as usual, good DougR, is that you don't notice the actual source of the posts involved; I am merely providing pointers to a large field of angry unrest which is beginning to show itself across the breadth of the nation. I have written only a few of these posts originally, myself -- I am mostly just reporting the views that others have written, to whom I (almost) always include attribution.

You keep some very strange bedfellows, I will say that for you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 06:55 PM

Dream on, DougR.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 10:12 PM

Said Amos smiling down from Mount Olympus:

It's for your own good.

Oh look at the womenfolk frollicking in the sunlight in various stages of dishabille. Loyal subjects all.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 11:37 PM

Old Guy, you sound like you have just come out from under anesthesia, or sedation, or smoking some strange stuff.

Try this on for size: CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 11:41 PM

Then you need some of it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 11:46 PM

July 31, 2006 at 13:27:47
Time for California to Impeach Bush and Cheney


by David Swanson


http://www.opednews.com

Next week marks a pivotal moment for the California Impeachment Resolution (AJR39). Advocates will be lobbying legislators in the California Assembly and holding a press conference on Tuesday August 8th at 9:30 am with Assembly member Paul Koretz (author of AJR39) and various other legislators, advocates and celebrities. At the press conference, we hope to present thousands of names on a petition to the California legislature.

Please sign the online petition in support of California Assemblyman Paul Koretz' Assembly Joint Resolution, AJR39, to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

We hope to reach at least 1,500 signatures by Friday of this week. With your help, I think we can do it.

You must reside in California to sign the petition. Go to:
http://www.gopetition.com/online/8849.html

For further information, please contact Susie Shannon at [phone] or e-mail [e-mail]

Thank You.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 11:50 PM

Rep. Conyers Preparing Articles of Impeachment
July 31, 2006 05:21 PM EST


By Sher Zieve – Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) is said to believe that the Democrats will retake the US House of Representatives in November 2006. As one of his first acts, he has announced that he plans to work toward the impeachment of President Bush.

Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, is reported to be preparing Articles of Impeachment against the president. He has also introduced House Resolution 635, which begins an investigation into the Bush Administration for potential impeachable offenses.

From The Conservative Voice website. Hmmmmm?


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 11:52 PM

Ramsey Clark Plans 'Emergency March' to Stop Israel

(CNSNews.com) - Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, along with various anti-war and Muslim groups, has announced plans for a "National Emergency March on Washington" to stop what he described as U.S. funding of the "Israeli war machine." Clark claimed that U.S. funding to Israel, which is battling Hizballah terrorists in southern Lebanon, is grounds for impeaching President Bush. "If we'd acted on impeachment before now, Lebanon wouldn't be subjected to this misery," said Clark at the National Press Club last week. "If we fail to act now, who is next?" The National Council of Arab-Americans, Partnership for Civil Justice, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, and the ANSWER Coalition are planning to march near the White House on Aug. 12. Full Story

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 11:55 PM

A Question Of Impeachment

Richard Harris Smith

July 30, 2006
This is not another "peace-nik" attack on George Bush, though international events which have unfolded on his presidential "watch" gave rise to the compelling question raised here.

The three serious attempts, over the last 140 years, to impeach an American President have all been based on alleged domestic peccadilloes that might fall under the catch-all constitutional provision for removing a Chief Executive found guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

So far as I'm aware, no impeachment proceeding has ever been initiated because of a President's conduct of foreign relations - not even against President Lyndon Johnson during the highly-unpopular Vietnam War.

That's probably because it would take the broadest stretch of the imagination to construe even the most flagrant presidential mis-conduct in the international arena as a "crime".

And therein lies the problem.

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution at a time when the newly-minted American Republic had no role at all in global affairs - at a time, indeed, when democratic patron saint George Washington solemnly warned his countrymen to beware of any and all "foreign entanglements."

Even if the most far-sighted American statesmen of the late 18th century had had the clairvoyance of a Nostradamus, they could hardly have foreseen the current state of the earth - and the American planetary bid for political, economic and cultural hegemony. Nor could they have had any inkling of the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction literally capable of destroying all human life.

Today, it is a sad reality that the ineptitude or even well-intentioned fatal errors of the President of the United States in international affairs could trigger that destruction. And the trigger could be pulled in a matter of months, weeks, days - even minutes.

Our political system assumes that there is always time, within the four year span of a presidential administration, for the voters eventually to rid themselves of any occupant of the White House deemed to be merely misguided or incompetent. But dramatic world events no longer unfold in years. Waiting for a presidential election may be too late. Armageddon may overtake the balloting.

Three years ago, the voters of the state of California removed an elected Governor from office by the process called Recall. The ousted official was not guilty of any "high crimes" nor any "misdemeanor" more serious than alleged administrative incompetence. There is no comparable constitutional provision at the federal level.

But given the present perilous state of the world, and if and when a presidential administration appears to be utterly incapable of preventing that peril - perhaps there should be.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 09:33 AM

IRAQ -- ROBERTS STONEWALLS ON RELEASE OF PREWAR INTELLIGENCE REPORT: Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is continuing to stall the completion of a report examining the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence. The investigation "remains in limbo after almost three years" and has "virtually no chance" of being finished by the midterm elections in November. Despite saying nine months ago that "his report was near completion and there was no need for the fuss," the committee has only completed two of the report's five sections. The other three sections, which will probe the administration's handling of prewar intelligence and whether it manipulated evidence in its case for war against Iraq, have yet to be drafted. This latest stalling tactic is just another notch in Roberts' long record of hindering progress on the report. Last November, he dismissed the necessity of investigating the administration's use of prewar intelligence, stating, "I don't know the relevancy of that." Later that month, three committee members wrote a letter to Senate leaders noting that Roberts was not conducting a thorough investigation, including his refusal to pursue "additional interviews and documents." Roberts' continued stonewalling of the report's release has earned him the an appropriate nickname: chairman of the Senate Cover-up Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 12:08 PM

If some diabolical anti-American mastermind had been trying, behind the scenes, to destroy this nation by secretly installing in the White House and Pentagon agents who would deliberately sink the ship of state, he or she couldn't have come up with a subversive wrecking crew more adept at the job than the Bush administration. The nation is being bankrupted by tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy and by a pointless, and endless trillion-dollar war. At the same time blood enemies are being produced with every bomb dropped, every innocent victim kidnapped and locked away in America's gulag, every child shot at a roadblock.

Clearly, though, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et al, are not the secret agents of some malevolent foreign enemy of America. Nor is their vile reign of terror around the globe and their gutting of the Constitution here at home, simply a matter of stupid policy-making. They are, rather, home-grown enemies of American democracy, bent on subverting the country to their own ends of unbridled power.

Their goal in all this is not the stated one of "spreading democracy" at the point of a gun--a clearly ridiculous notion in any case. Rather, the goal is destroying democracy here at home, in order to establish a one-party dictatorship.

From this perspective, it is clear that far from trying to "protect the homeland," the Bush administration is happy to weaken American defenses, as it has been doing, and to manufacture enemies--whether states like Iran and Syria, or stateless organizations like Al Qaeda and Hezzbolah. The more the better. Far from trying to prevent another 9-11, one senses that this administration would like nothing better than for there to be another strike against Americans before the coming congressional elections--a second "new Pearl Harbor" as it were--to justify a full-scale crackdown on dissent, opposition, and independent thought.

George Orwell long ago imagined a world deliberately kept in a perpetual state of war, where the citizenry would accept totalitarian rule in the name of patriotism and security. We are now entering such a state. The yellow "support the troops" ribbons mindlessly pasted on the trunks and rear doors of half the cars, vans and SUVs in America are testimony to a sheep-like acceptance of the official administration line that war is good and in America's interest. I saw one such ribbon today that was particularly credulous. It read: "Remember 9-11. Support our Troops." This despite the fact that our troops are not fighting anyone who remotely had anything to do with 9-11.

We are not far from that Orwellian condition.

July 31, 2006 at 09:42:54

Making the U.S. Safe...for Dictatorship
   
by Dave Lindorff

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 11:53 AM

From Op-Ed NEws.com, July 27:

"...In anticipation of the House being taken back by the Democrats in the Fall, grass root planning must begin to push for impeachment proceedings now. Impeachment is the last recourse of a democratic and civil society to make right an onerous wrong.

As blood runs unabated in Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, Asia and now Lebanon fueled by religious zealots and greed-driven military industrialists, small organizing committees will be forming across the country to tap resources from the many political factions opposed to this administration. The common cause: impeachment of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

If for one day only in world-wide events we pull away from our own strategic causes, be them left, right, center, or progressive, and resolve to depose of this social pathogen for the good of the U.S. and indeed the world, it will speak volumes of our resolve to see that George W. Bush's last act of his tyrannical presidency will be his resignation.

Make this August 9th 2006 a memorable date. Know that impeachment is not a moot point. That there is evidence and intent. And that the first order of business of the new Congress must be to impeach George W. Bush before more lives are lost and irreparable harm to the world goes beyond the point of repair."

Related links:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html
http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/grounds.html

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 12:22 PM

Stop the presidential power grab
CONGRESS MUST NOT CAVE TO WHITE HOUSE ON OVERSIGHT OF DOMESTIC EAVESDROPPING
Mercury News Editorial

"When President Bush's secret wiretapping program first came to light, Sen. Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican from Pennsylvania, was one of the few in the president's party to be troubled it.

Now Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has done an about-face despite the fact that the program appears to violate the Constitution, circumvents the law on secret-intelligence wiretaps and is clearly a unilateral power grab by the president. Working with the White House, Specter has crafted a bill that would rubber-stamp the program. Worse, it would essentially embed into federal law the notion that the president has the power under the Constitution to conduct electronic surveillance on anyone he wants, indefinitely and without judicial oversight, making a mockery of the right to privacy. The bill could come before the Senate Judiciary Committee as early as Thursday and must be defeated.

Specifically, the president's secret program authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and e-mails of ordinary Americans without court approval. It clearly violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a law that created a secret court to review and authorize intelligence wiretaps requests.

Once the program came to light, Bush claimed it was necessary because FISA did not provide enough flexibility to monitor terrorists. Yet neither Bush nor his advisers ever provided evidence that FISA, which Congress has modified twice since the Sept. 11 attacks at the request of the administration, was inadequate. And senior FBI officials testified before Congress in 2002 that the law worked well...."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 04:22 PM

Hmmm. If I didn't know better, I might come to the conclusion (after reviewing the contributors to this thread) that Amos is a bit obsessed.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 06:16 PM

Doug:

No, I am not. But I have a strong interest in seeing criminals brought to justice, especially when they are posing as leaders.

I contribute to this thread things on its topic that are written by others. It may disturb you that there is so much talk out there; maybe there is some merit to it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 03:03 AM

From Litchfield, CY County Times:

Petition on Impeachment Not Quietly Going Away
By: Rebecca Ransom
08/03/2006
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
WASHINGTON-A group of activists is going back to the Board of Selectmen this month to re-petition for a special town meeting on adopting a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

Members of the informal group are currently in the process of collecting signatures on a second petition seeking a session that could put the town on record as the first municipality in the state asking that the appropriate elected officials begin an impeachment process.


In June, selectmen denied the petitioners' request 2 to 1 on the grounds that the meeting being sought would be "improper," largely because municipalities have no formal role in national issues. Republican Mark Lyon and Democrat Nicholas Solley voted against the request. Democratic First Selectman Dick Sears was in favor of allowing the town meeting.
"We will give [the Board of Selectmen] reasons why this is proper ... why this is important for the town," said petitioner Ken Cornet.

In seeking the meeting, the petitioners claim the president should be impeached on the grounds that he has "subverted the Constitution," illegally spied on American civilians, "conspired to commit the torture of prisoners" and "formally declared his intent to violate the laws enacted by Congress by appending a signing statement to legislation that asserts his right to carve out exceptions to legislation as he sees fit."
In challenging the selectmen's reasons for denying the first petition, Mr. Cornet noted that in the 1980s many towns across the country, including Washington, passed resolutions declaring the municipalities "nuclear free zones."
"There have already been resolutions on national events. It has already happened. It is already precedent," he said.
At a meeting in July, Mr. Sears suggested a compromise to the petitioners and officials-to call a special Board of Selectmen meeting instead of a town meeting. At that session, Mr. Sears said, the audience could debate the topic and vote on "a motion that the citizens present at the meeting endorse the goals in the petition presented." Mr. Sears said he borrowed this model from the towns of Cornwall and Salisbury, which held similar meetings to debate the war in Iraq.
According to Mr. Cornet, the group is choosing not to pursue that option at this time. "The whole point is that we want it to be official. Otherwise, if we just have a discussion, those who don't care won't come out and it's my personal feeling that people have to get involved in what's going on. ... . The last few weeks are evidence that we cannot just let politicians go off and do what they want," he said, referring to the violence in Israel and Lebanon.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 09:22 AM

By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian

Posted August 4, 2006

BRATTLEBORO — From veterans to grandmothers, more than 50 activists representing some 100 organizations in five states turned out for a Vermont meeting unified by a single goal: a quick and concrete plan to end the war.

And if it takes impeachment to get there, they said at a follow-up rally on the Brattleboro town commons, then so be it.

"It's time to move this to a higher level of national consciousness," said organizer Dan DeWalt, a Newfane selectman and the activist behind the impeachment town meeting resolutions that passed in seven Vermont communities earlier this year.

Participants at the July 30 meeting said that although they didn't agree on every point, there was unanimous support of a "Declaration of Peace" now circulating throughout the country and planned to culminate in a week of grassroots activism and nonviolent civil disobedience in Washington starting Sept. 21 if a hard deadline for withdrawal is not met. (See sidebar).

The declaration, already endorsed by nearly 200 individual U.S. peace groups including United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of 1,400 organizations, "is a pledge to take nonviolent steps for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops — and to engage in peaceful protest if a comprehensive, concrete and rapid plan for an end to the U.S. war in Iraq is not established and begun by Sept. 21, 2006, just days before Congress adjourns for the fall elections," according to the website http://declarationofpeace.org.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 11:28 PM

Seriously Amos, You better check this out.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 05:59 PM

ush violating Constitution

Martin H. Berman
Boca Raton
Posted August 6 2006

         E-mail story
Print story
Most e-mailed
News on your cell
RSS news feeds




MOST E-MAILED
(last 24 hours)
1.        State failures leave policyholders without a net
2.        Hurricane aid up for grabs. Interested?
3.        Minorities become a majority in Broward
4.        Online markets offer textbooks at good prices
5.        Mobile home park residents face option of buying land or moving away
See the complete list ...

        Subscribe today to the Sun-Sentinel
and find out how to get one week extra!
Click here or call 1-877-READ-SUN.


LocalLinks



Not long after George W. Bush was sworn in as the president, action was taken by him that led me to write my first letter about his presidency. In it, I stated that he had declared war against the world. Treaties the United States had entered into under previous administrations were abrogated. Laws passed by the Congress and signed into law by him were not enforced. He destroyed the largest surplus of money we had by giving tax reductions to the wealthiest people and corporations in the nation and at the same time raised the national debt limit three times in order to run the government.

Now, six years into his administration, a group of people -- conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats and independents -- has determined that he is violating the Constitution. He has had the telephones of American citizens tapped without a court order. He has gone into the records of Internet companies, telephone companies and banks, violating the privacy of many. His "bring 'em on" attitude coupled with his disdain of Old Europe split our nation from those nations he is now trying to cuddle up to.

His insulting behavior toward the United Nations has come back to haunt us and now he needs the United Nations, Old Europe and those other nations in the Middle East to assist his administration in escaping the quagmire of Iraq that he so willingly rushed into.

It is time Congress began impeachment procedures against him.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:31 PM

The Democrats' Impeachment Road Map
It's finished, ready to go — and waiting for November.

By Byron York

There's a word you won't find in the text of Democratic Rep. John Conyers's new "investigative report" on the Bush administration, "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance." And the word is…impeachment. Yet the 350-page "Constitution in Crisis," released last week, is, more than anything else, a detailed road map for the impeachment of George W. Bush, ready for use should Democrats win control of the House of Representatives this November. And Conyers, who would become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee — the panel that would initiate any impeachment proceedings — is the man who could make it happen.


While it's absent in the body of the report, the I-word does appear a few times in Conyers's 1,401 footnotes, which include citations of authorities ranging from the left-wing conspiracy website rawstory.com to the left-wing antiwar sites democracyrising.us and afterdowningstreet.org to the left-wing British newspaper the Guardian to the left-wing magazines The Nation and Mother Jones to the left-wing blogosphere favorite Murray Waas to the New York Times columnists Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, and Frank Rich to former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal to the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh. (Sources for "The Constitution in Crisis" even include one story co-written by the disgraced Internet writer Jason Leopold.) Relying on such material, Conyers has created what might be called the definitive left-wing blogger's history of the Bush administration. "I would like to thank the 'blogosphere' for its myriad and invaluable contributions to me and my staff," Conyers writes in the report's introduction. "Absent the assistance of 'blogs' and other Internet-based media, it would have been impossible to assemble all of the information, sources and other materials necessary to the preparation of this report."

But Conyers's report is more than the world's longest blog post. Far more seriously, it is the foundation for possible articles of impeachment, detailing charge after charge against the president. "Approximately 26 laws and regulations may have been violated by this administration's misconduct," Conyers wrote Friday in a message posted simultaneously on the DailyKos and Huffington Post websites. "The report…compiles the accumulated evidence that the Bush administration has thumbed its nose at our nation's laws, and the Constitution itself."

---

Excerpted from National Review Online

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:40 PM

One other little excerpt from the above:

"On the war, Conyers argues that the Bush administration's case for war, its decision to go to war, and its conduct of the war have been, in essence, an exercise in criminal fraud. The report lists four laws which Conyers says the president violated in the run-up to the war:

Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. 371)
Making False Statements to Congress (18 U.S.C. 1001)
War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)
Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. 1301)

On the question of committing a fraud against the United States, Conyers argues that President Bush, intent on "avenging [his] father and working with the neo-cons," made the decision to go to war in Iraq before asking Congress for the authority to do so. That is the heart of the alleged fraud; every act that followed, Conyers writes, was part of the crime — even if those actions do not, at first glance, appear to be criminal acts. "'Defrauding the government' has been defined quite broadly and does not need an underlying criminal offense and alone subjects the offender to prosecution," Conyers writes in a legal analysis section. "While this statute is similar to obstructing or lying to Congress…it is broader. It covers acts that may not technically be lying or communications that are not formally before Congress."

Besides the alleged fraud, Conyers also contends that the administration's preparations for war — the moving of military equipment and personnel to the Gulf region — violated at least two other laws. "Our investigation has found that there is evidence the Bush Administration redeployed military assets in the immediate vicinity of Iraq and conducted bombing raids on Iraq in 2002 in possible violation of the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, and laws prohibiting the Misuse of Government Funds, 31 U.S.C. 1301," he writes. And key elements of the president's case for war, Conyers says, violated yet another statute. "We have found that President Bush and members of his administration made numerous false statements that Iraq had sought to acquire enriched uranium from Niger," the report continues.

"In particular, President Bush's statements and certifications before and to Congress may constitute Making a False Statement to Congress in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 06:40 PM

The minority staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Congressman John Conyers (D., Mich.) has released an in depth report on the crimes attributable to the Bushwah League.

One reviewer says:

"Day of reckoning is coming
Submitted by deepseas on Tue, 2006-08-08 17:16.
This report is invaluable, and will make the case against these crooks much smoother when the day of reckoning arrives.

Make no mistake in thinking BushCo will get off for their crimes. It may not be as soon as we'd like - it may even take years to happen. But happen it will because the American people won't stand to see them get away with this once the majority realize how their country and respect was stolen right under their noses. Many conservative Republicans are trying to distance themselves from these rogues. When the ship sinks, they don't want to go down with it, or even be associated with the disaster created from the neocons' greed.

Folks like Richie "Right Wing Kook" Rich will soon discover that:

"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." – Dwight Eisenhower, 34th US president

This is not about who wins; it's about what is humane and right."

See http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/constitutionincrisis.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Mr Snerdly
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 08:42 PM

Bush Eats Baby, Republicans Defend President

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Republicans across the nation are scrambling to defend President George W. Bush after he ate a baby during a visit to the White House kitchen early last evening.

Eye witnesses report that the president left the White House residence at around 8:05 p.m. eastern time wearing what appeared to be a crudely stitched "woman suit made from actual women".
He then entered the White House kitchen where he ate a baby with a side order of "a Cobb Salad containing raw puppy heads".

"I'm a baby eater. An eater of babies," the president told reporters this morning in the Rose Garden. "That's my job. My job is to tell the American people what I eat. And I eat babies and puppies while wearing suits of women. At least you know where I stand."

The presidential "Suit of Women" has been confirmed as having been fashioned from obese D.C. area residents who were coaxed into a nondescript van driven by Bush and his senior political advisor Karl Rove.

The women were forced to, "Put the lotion on their skin or else they get the hose again," says an anonymous White House source. The skins of the women were then harvested and sewn together into a costume which, when worn, makes the president appear to be an actual woman.

Photographs of the suit, which is allegedly flattering to the president's groin region, have yet to be released to the public.

Officials have not yet confirmed the identities of the women or the baby, but it has been confirmed that the president dropped the two-week-old child into a blender, set the device for "liquefy", then drank it down in only a few short gulps. He then decapitated several puppies, dropped them into a bed of lettuce and, "Scarfed it down like a Viking," said a White House kitchen employee.

REPUBLICANS DEFEND AND SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT

"Our goal isn't to play the blame game during an on-going investigation because the investigation is going on in an on-going kind of way indicative of an investigation," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters. "There's a time for that and that time isn't now."

Republicans, however, are already calling for an investigation into the "inaction" of the White House kitchen staff for allowing this to happen.

"I'm not going to engage in the blame game. That baby was stupid for not running away and calling 911 for assistance," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX). "And I've seen the president's woman suit up close and I can tell you, it's better than mine. Never-the-less, the kitchen staff should be held accountable for letting this happen on their turf."

"I'm not going to engage in the blame game. That baby was stupid for not running away and calling 911 for assistance," said Republican Senator Trent Lott. "And I've seen the president's woman suit up close and I can tell you, it's better than mine. Never-the-less, the kitchen staff should be held accountable for letting this happen on their turf."

"I'm not going to engage in the blame game. That baby was stupid for not running away and calling 911 for assistance," said conservative Fox News host Sean Hannity. "And I've seen the president's woman suit up close and I can tell you, it's better than mine. Never-the-less, the kitchen staff should be held accountable for letting this happen on their turf."

"That baby was stupid for not running away and calling 911 for assistance," said formerly unknown conservative talk radio host Studs Pepperoni. "And I've seen the president's woman suit up close and I can tell you, it's better than mine. Never-the-less, the kitchen staff should be held accountable for letting this happen on their turf."

"Those women should be penalized for allowing themselves to get so fat and thus ripening themselves for skin harvesting," Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) commented on a Pennsylvania cable access show. Santorum had no comment on the puppies.

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh blamed former president Bill Clinton, "Folks, the eees-syooo here has nothing to do with babies or women or blenders or puppies. This has everything to do with Bill Clinton -- you know something folks -- Snerdly is telling me to cut it, but -- ummmm -- the nigg -- you know, I mean babies -- Clinton had eight years to stop babies from being ingested."

BLOGOSPHERE REACTION

While progressive bloggers are calling for the immediate arrest and impeachment of the president, denizens of the right-wing blogosphere immediately weighed in with their thoughts on the presidential crisis.

"Whiny libs are fags." -GOPawesome420.

"Shut up traitors attaking the prez is just showig your faggy lib colors." -Dittofan56.

"You lost, we won, get over it you whiny homos." -Nospinguy57.

BUSH FAMILY REACTION

The president's mother, Barbara Bush told reporters during a visit to Texas, "Those puppies were going to be used as fishing bait anyway, they're much better off now. BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHA! HA!"

"It hurts me to the core that the liberal elite have begun to attack my boy," former president George H. W. Bush said Friday. "I know my boy and he's a compassionate, caring person. He could've eaten the baby alive, but he took the care to blend it up first. Round and round doing that thing a blender does down there."

LIKE A MERRY-GO-ROUND

Congressman Tom DeLay added this morning, "I bet the baby thought it was an amusement park ride. The blender must've been like a merry-go-round then the president's throat was like a fun water slide."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 02:49 AM

Ellison calls for Watergate-style hearings on Bush administration
Last update: August 10, 2006 – 12:01 AM
        Minneapolis Star Tribune

Rep. Keith Ellison called Wednesday for Watergate-like congressional hearings into what he called the expansion of executive authority by the administration of President Bush.
The Minneapolis DFLer made the announcement on the 32nd anniversary of the resignation of President Richard Nixon. "They had a Congress that was willing to ask the hard questions and hold the executive responsible," he said.

Ellison called "unacceptable" an expansion of the executive branch's power during the Bush presidency.

He stopped short of calling for impeachment, saying a body of evidence first must be accumulated through hearings.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Old Guy
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 08:56 AM

Half of Americans Still Believe In WMDs - They Saw Them on TV
Center for Media and Democracy

August 9, 2006

A recent Harris Poll reports found that while "the U.S. and other countries have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, surprisingly more U.S. adults (50%) think that Iraq had such weapons when the U.S. invaded Iraq. This is an increase from 36 percent in February 2005."

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25622&l=i&size=1&hd=0

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 09:24 AM

"Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer."

   John F. Kennedy

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 08:52 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration drafted amendments to the
War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from
possible criminal charges for authorizing any humiliating and
degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen
the proposal.

The move by the administration is the latest effort to deal with
treatment of those taken into custody in the war on terror.

At issue are interrogations carried out by the CIA, and the degree to
which harsh tactics such as water-boarding were authorized by
administration officials. A separate law, the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, applies to the military.

The Washington Post first reported on the War Crimes Act amendments
Wednesday.

One section of the draft would outlaw torture and inhuman or cruel
treatment, but it does not contain prohibitions from Article 3 of the
Geneva Conventions against "outrages upon personal dignity, in
particular humiliating and degrading treatment." A copy of the
section of the draft was obtained by The Associated Press.

Another section would apply the legislation retroactively, according
to two lawyers who have seen the contents of the section and who
spoke on condition of anonymity because their sources did not
authorize them to release the information.

One of the two attorneys said the draft is in the revision stage, but
that the administration seems intent on pushing forward the draft's
major points in Congress after Labor Day.

"I think what this bill can do is in effect immunize past crimes.
That's why it's so dangerous," said a third attorney, Eugene Fidell,
president of the National Institute of Military Justice.

Fidell said the initiative is "not just protection of political
appointees, but also CIA personnel who led interrogations."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:48 PM

Excerpted from "The Ether Zone

---

A CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT
I PRAY IT'S NOT TOO LATE

By: Norma Sherry



Impeachment is a serious indictment. In our recent history, President Richard M. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached for lying, covering up and ordering very un-presidential orders. It was a very sad day and for many of us it was the end of our idealism and trust. Then, there was the act of impeachment of President William H. Clinton, in which he was later acquitted because his crimes did not rise to the level of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" as required by our Constitution. However, he was caught lying and covering up about a distasteful and unprofessional presidential act in and around his desk in the oval office. Two presidents, two vastly different extremes, but both were caught and both were duly chastised. One was removed from office; the other remained, but his presidency was forever stained.

Today, we have a president, George W. Bush, who has lied to the American people, caused an unnecessary war and in so doing has disrupted, ruined, and killed many American service men and women. He has single-handedly destroyed our reputation around the world, grown our national debt to an astonishing figure that none of us will see repaid in our lifetimes, and he has, by his actions, killed, maimed, and destroyed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children. He has, by his negligence and disdain for the clear and evident science, altered our ability to save our planet from the ravages of global warming. He has undermined and destroyed our natural resources by his wanton neglect and insistence that he alone is the 'decider'. He has allowed his oil rich cronies hold us hostage to obscene fuel increases while they fill their coffers with even more obscene financial gains. Perhaps even more awful is his following in his father?s footsteps in allowing and standing silent as we continue to build, sell, and drop munitions with depleted uranium, which will forever alter all who eat, breathe, or drink in its remains. He has destroyed our Constitution and Bill Rights; ignored the Geneva Convention perpetrating and blessing torture and unlawful imprisonment. He's allowed spying on American citizens with illegal wiretaps.



What does it take folks to get your ire up? It boggles the mind that with all the evidence that this president should be impeached that in fact, he has remained above the fray. How is it possible? Are political lines so vital that we as citizens are less concerned for correcting wrongs and punishing wrong-doers than we are for supporting our political party? We weren't always so blindsided. Certainly, when President Clinton was brought up on charges, even his most strident supporters did not defend the indefensible. Compared with the crimes perpetrated upon this nation by this sitting president and past criminal actions by past presidents it is unconscionable that 40% of American citizens still stand by and support President George W. Bush. I ask again, how is it possible?

We are living in tenuous times. Some even believe the end times. But then again, storytellers of biblical prophecy have always warned of impending doom. But one doesn't have to consult the Bible to see the world around us is in serious trouble: sadly, much of which is imposed upon the populace by the few and mighty. Pollution threatens our ability to breathe fresh, clean air. Global Warming is real and a very serious problem. Warmongers bully and hold nuclear weapons in the balance. The Middle East is in crisis. Starvation, torture, murder, destruction of the human race is happening every day in Somalia and Darfur. Disease and lack of vital nutrition and drinkable water threaten the lives of millions around the world. Here at home are homeless families living in cars without gasoline, food banks unable to feed all the hungry, abused children, beaten down and downtrodden parents no longer able to meet the demands of keeping their families safe and healthy. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Old Guy
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 10:25 AM

The Prez is less trustworthy than Bankers but more trustworthy than the Media.

Harris Poll August 8, 2006

WHO WOULD YOU GENERALLY TRUST?

"Would you generally trust each of the following types of people to tell the truth, or not?"
.......................Would..Would Not..Not Sure
.......................Trust....Trust....Refused
.........................%........%.........%
Doctors.................85.......12.........3
Teachers................83.......15.........2
Scientists..............77.......19.........4
Police officers.........76.......21.........3
Professors..............75.......19.........6
Clergymen or priests....74.......22.........4
Military officers.......72.......26.........3
Judges..................70.......24.........5
Accountants.............68.......28.........3
Ordinary man or woman...66.......26.........8
Civil servants..........62.......32.........6
Bankers.................62.......34.........3
The President...........48.......47.........4
TV newscasters..........44.......51.........5
Athletes................43.......47........10
Journalists.............39.......58.........3
Members of Congress.....35.......63.........3
Pollsters...............34.......54........12
Trade union leaders.....30.......60........10
Stockbrokers............29.......63.........8
Lawyers.................27.......68.........5
Actors..................26.......69.........5

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Aug 06 - 09:08 PM

From the Amador, CA Ledger-Dispatch

Abuse of power?
Friday, August 11, 2006
- Billie Shields, Railroad Flat
As American citizens we are in a state of sloth. We accept breaches of the Constitution without raising an eye. As an American citizen it is our duty to defend our constitution and what it stands for. We didn't elect a king or dictator, but a president who should be held accountable for his actions. If we don't uphold the rights that each of us has as a citizen and if we don't keep the balance of power, then we will lose the rights and freedoms that have been fought for, for the last 300 years.

It's not a matter of Democrat or Republican, it's a matter of preserving our country and what it stands for at its highest level.

When Richard Nixon abused power, Congress held a serious, bi-partisan investigation that resulted in articles of impeachment. Strong evidence suggests that George Bush and Dick Cheney launched an illegal war and lied to Congress, spied on Americans without court approval, leaked classified information, produced phony news reports, imprisoned without charge and tortured targeted civilians and used illegal weapons. Ask your Congress member to co-sponsor House Resolution 635 for an investigation.

Billie Shields
Rail Road Flat

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 04:42 PM

David Swanson writes:

...nd I heard two familiar lies escape Bush's lips yesterday, when he said our enemy was Islamic fascists, and when he said Americans are safer now than before 9-11. The origin of our danger lies not in the murderous intentions of a small number of Muslims, but in the massive crimes of the gang of thugs pushing our country in a fascist direction. And we are decidedly less safe with each passing year, our nation is more hated, terrorist incidents are more frequent.


Polls suggest that most of the U.S. troops in Iraq want to come home, but Bush says we should support the war to support the troops. Meanwhile it is the military holding the chickenhawks back from putting nuclear options on the table. Bush is using our troops for his power and profit. I've seen veterans for war make a point of pride out of being used. I recently spoke on a panel in San Diego and mentioned that Suzanne Swift had been lied to by recruiters. Paul Hackett was on the panel and said "You know, that's life."


Actually that's death for some of the young men and women who have been lied to and sent to Iraq. I'll tell you what's life. Life is doing what Ricky Cousing is doing, what Lt. Watada is doing, what everyone must summon the courage to do. And life is impeachment. This war cannot be ended except by removing Bush and Cheney from office.


So, we need to keep passing impeachment resolutions in towns and cities and pushing for passage of one in a state legislature. And we need to push impeachment if we are going to win. Beginning August this month.


We do not need to choose between impeachment and elections; we need to promote impeachment if we are going to win any elections.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 11:15 AM

From the New Jersey Courier-Post:

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Re: "Congress sends stem cell bill to veto-wielding Bush" (C-P, July 19).

President Bush has no problem sending U.S. troops to Iraq, where more than 2,500 have died and thousands have been injured. That's not counting innocent civilians.

It was obvious the congressional vote to override Bush's veto on funding was orchestrated to come up short of the votes needed.

Bush had a hand-picked audience to give him a standing ovation when he vetoed the bill.

The man is a blight on our country and should be impeached. His disregard for the Constitution should be enough grounds.

They had a lot less on President Clinton, but the Republicans pushed for impeachment. Where are all those law-and-order officials now?

BOB PARR Pennsauken

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:33 AM

Bush rating up sharply: poll
Published: Monday, 14 August, 2006, 01:14 PM Doha Time

WASHINGTON: Confidence in President George W Bush's handling of domestic security rose sharply in the wake of the British foiling of a plot to blow up aircraft, a new poll by Newsweek showed yesterday.

Fifty-five percent of people surveyed on Thursday and Friday – coinciding with the news that Britain had arrested two dozen people who had allegedly plotted to blow up several US-bound aircraft – said they trusted Bush's handling of homeland security, Newsweek said.

That was a jump from 44% in Newsweek's May poll.


http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=102450&version=1&template_id=43&parent_id=19

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:59 PM

New Poll Shows Most Americans Want Democrat For Congress
by Joe Gandelman
A new Wall Street Journal poll shows growing support for Democratic Congressional candidates:
A new poll shows an uptick in support for a Democratic candidate in the next Congressional elections.

When asked whom they would vote for "if elections for Congress were held today," 45% of U.S. adults said they would vote for the Democratic candidate and 30% would vote for the Republican, the Harris Interactive poll shows. In a similar poll in April, 41% supported a Democratic candidate for Congress and 37% supported a Republican.

http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1155505512.shtml

By Donna Cassata, Associated Press Writer | August 11, 2006

WASHINGTON --Republicans determined to win in November are up against a troublesome trend -- growing opposition to President Bush.

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted this week found the president's approval rating has dropped to 33 percent, matching his low in May. His handling of nearly every issue, from the Iraq war to foreign policy, contributed to the president's decline around the nation, even in the Republican-friendly South.

More sobering for the GOP are the number of voters who backed Bush in 2004 who are ready to vote Democratic in the fall's congressional elections -- 19 percent. These one-time Bush voters are more likely to be female, self-described moderates, low- to middle-income and from the Northeast and Midwest.

Two years after giving the Republican president another term, more than half of these voters -- 57 percent -- disapprove of the job Bush is doing


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/08/11/poll_bush_may_be_hurting_republicans/?p1=MEWell_Pos4

---

From Political Wire:


Harris Interactive Poll: If elections for Congress were held today, 45% of Americans say they would vote for the Democratic candidate and 30% would vote for the Republican. Women favor the Democratic candidate by a 50% to 28% margin.

President Bush's approval rating is just 34%.

Newsweek poll: "Right now 53 percent of Americans would like to see the Democrats win control of Congress, compared to just 34 percent who want the Republicans to retain control."

President Bush's approval rating is 38% in this poll.

http://donklephant.com/2006/08/13/ahhhthe-polls/

---

Say, Woody, what paper d'ye read?


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:07 PM

Bush facing a new slide
Posted by Mark Silva at 1:45 pm CDT, updated at 3:05 pm CDT

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/08/bush_facing_a_n.html

The most pressing political question about President Bush these days – will he be an "asset'' for congressional candidates on the campaign trail, or "an albatross around the neck of any Republican'' – finds a new answer in a poll conducted this week by The Associated Press and Ipsos Public Affairs.

Pollsters don't use words like asset – the White House's word for the president's role in the fall campaigns – or albatross – the description that a Democratic operative offered recently. But the pollsters do ask voters if their congressional vote this fall will be, in part, an expression of opposition to the president. And the share of voters saying yes has jumped from 20 percent last month to 29 percent in this week's AP/Ipsos survey – "driven,'' the AP reports today, by double-digit increases among males, minorities, moderate and conservative Democrats and Northeasterners.


The president still has the power to raise money within his party, like the $500,000 that Bush raised for Republican candidate John Gard in the 8th Congressional District of Wisconsin this week. And the $750,000 that he raised for the Republican National Committee today at the Broken Spoke Ranch in Texas, where Bush welcomed about 350 supporters who already had each raised at least $15,000 for the party. It's an annual rite of thanks for big fundraisers. This marked his last planned outing from his own ranch before he returns to Washington this weekend.

But his power at the polls is another question, and the AP/Ipsos poll suggests that power is waning.

The AP survey also found that Bush's overall job approval has fallen to 33 percent, returning to a low-point that he reached in May. The latest Gallup Poll on this question still has Bush's job approval at 40 percent, up from the 31-percent low that Gallup found in May. But a new Gallup will be out soon.

The president's handling of nearly every issue – from the war in Iraq to foreign policy in general – has contributed to the newest decline, "even in the Republican-friendly South,'' the AP notes.

....Hmmmmmmm....

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:35 PM

http://www.gg2.net/viewnews.asp?nid=3369&tid=countryNews&catid=UK%20News

George Bush's rating on homeland security up sharply: poll
GG2.NET NEWS [14/08/2006]

News : Popular
Popular

CONFIDENCE in President George W Bush`s handling of domestic security rose sharply in the wake of the British foiling of a plot to blow up aircraft, according to a new poll by a leading magazine on Sunday.

Fifty-five percent of people surveyed on Thursday and Friday - coinciding with the news that Britain had arrested two dozen people who had allegedly plotted to blow up several US-bound aircraft - said they trusted Bush`s handling of homeland security, the magazine said.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:38 PM

http://www.nbc4.tv/politics/9677460/detail.html

A post-plot Newsweek poll showed a slight up tick in the President's dismal job approval rating and an 11-point jump in Americans' opinion of his handling of terrorism and homeland security. The poll shows, too, that voters trust Republicans to do a better job than Democrats on the issue.

So Democrats will hit hard on Administration "failures" -- such as an Osama Bin Laden still at large, the mess in Iraq and the tinderbox that is the Middle East. They'll focus on poll results that indicate that on handling almost every other important issue but terrorism -- Iraq, health care and the economy, Americans trust Democrats to do a better job than Republicans. According to Newsweek, the "only non-security issue where the GOP comes close is immigration," where public opinion is split.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 10:49 PM

My, my...I guess half a brain is better than none, but not by much.

LIke I said, you can find any poll you want out there, but no-one puts W's rating over 40%. Let's not argue that "big improvements are happening" because it went UP to 40%. That's jes' pathetic.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 Aug 06 - 07:03 PM

ote to impeach
        Printable version of this article
        Email this Article
EDITORIAL Mainstream media reporters and pundits, as well as our cynical colleagues at the SF Weekly and the rest of their corporate alt-weekly chain, love to bash the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the city councils of other Bay Area cities for passing resolutions on big questions like war, human rights, or impeachment.
We don't share that view. Resolutions take almost no time or effort to pass, yet they are important barometers of popular political sentiment, tools that are particularly important given how both major political parties have shown more willingness to listen to their corporate backers than their lowly constituents. People need avenues to make their voices heard without the filters imposed by the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties.

That's why we're happy that citizens in both San Francisco and Berkeley will get a chance to vote this November on the question of whether Congress should initiate impeachment proceedings against President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for their many high crimes: fraudulently leading the United States into war, illegally spying on Americans, torturing enemies, claiming unconstitutional executive power, violating binding treaties, and engaging in war crimes and profiteering, among others.

Berkeley and San Francisco will be the first major American cities to allow a popular vote on this question. The Guardian in January was one of the first publications in the country to lay out in detail the impeachable crimes of the Bush administration ("The Case for Impeachment," 1/25/06), joining a chorus of activists, scholars, and legal experts who say this is the only way to slow the country's slide into empire and penetrate the Bush administration's veil of secrecy.

Our congressional representatives have been terrible on this issue, showing more concern with seeking partisan advantage than upholding the Constitution. Rep. Nancy Pelosi has said the Democrats won't pursue impeachment even if the party retakes Congress this fall. But maybe they'll listen to the people directly telling them that we want Congress to finally launch a serious investigation into the many crimes perpetrated by the Bush administration.

This is a vote that the world wants to see us take

From http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=1359&catid=4&volume_id=147&issue_id=245&volume_num=40&issue_num=46.

A

Subject: The Resumé of W
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 10:59 PM

In case you wonder why some folks think about such a heretical idea as impeachment, consider the gent's qualification. The following sent by a friend:

"I thought it would be wise to forward this to show how liberals process
things. It is clear, we must do something about liberals. They just don't
understand how important simplicismic approaches to all complexified matters
can be. Read this, but don't think too much about it. Voters should never think
too much.

RESUME

GEORGE W. BUSH
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington , DC 20520

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE

LAW ENFORCEMENT

I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for
driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and
had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record
has been "lost" and is not available.

   MILITARY

I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I
refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use.
By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat
duty in Vietnam

   COLLEGE

I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I
was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the
oil business in Midland, Texas , in 1975. I bought an oil company, but
couldn't find any oil in Texas The company went bankrupt shortly after
I sold all my stock.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart
deal that took land using taxpayer money. With the help of my father
and our friends in the oil industry, including Enron CEO Ken Lay, I was
elected governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil
companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During
my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in
America. I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of
billions in borrowed money. I set the record for the most executions
by any governor in American history. With the help of my brother, the
governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court,
I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT

I am the first President in U.S history to enter office
with a criminal record. I invaded and occupied two countries at a
continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week. I spent the U.S.
surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury. I shattered the
record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history. I set an
economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month
period. I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month
period. I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history
of the U.S. stock market.

In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost
their jobs and that trend continues every month.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest
of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire,"
Condoleeza Rice, had a Chevron oil tanker named after her. I set the
record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President. I am
the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most
corporate campaign donations. My largest lifetime campaign contributor,
and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest
corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S History, Enron.

My political party used Enron private jets and corporate
attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my
election decision. I have protected my friends at Enron and
Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money
was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent
investigating one of the biggest corporate rip- offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S history
and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was
revealed. I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.
I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded
government contracts. I appointed more convicted criminals to
administration than any President in U.S. history. I created the
Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history
of the United States government.

I've broken more international treaties than any President
in U.S. history. I am the first President in U.S. history to have the
United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission. I
withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law. I refused to allow
inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby
have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention. I am the first
President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors
(during the 2002 U.S. election). I set the record for fewest numbers
of press conferences of any President since the advent of television. I
set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year
period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over
the worst security failure in U.S. history. I garnered the most
sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and
less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the
world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to
simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people),
shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of
mankind.

I am the first President in U.S. history to order an
unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a
sovereign nation I did so against the will of the United Nations, the
majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community. I have cut health
care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for
active duty troops and their families-in-wartime. In my State of the
Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then
blamed the lies on our British friends I am the first President in
history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the
biggest threat to world peace and security. I am supporting development
of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD. I have so far failed to
fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden [sic] to justice.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in
my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view. All
records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt
companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. All
records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended
regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable
for public review. I am a member of the Republican Party."

---

I swear I am not making this up....



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 07:32 PM

Judge orders halt to Bush wiretapping plan

The White House on Thursday suffered another major blow in its strategy for the "war against terror" when a federal court ruled that its controversial warrantless eavesdropping programme was unconstitutional.

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered the Bush administration to immediately stop the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Programme", which she said violated the rights to free speech and privacy. She added that the programme also contravened the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to obtain a warrant from a special intelligence court before it can intercept communications of Americans.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the decision was "a landmark victory against the abuse of power that has become the hallmark of the Bush administration".

"Government spying on innocent Americans without any kind of warrant and without Congressional approval runs counter to the very foundations of our democracy," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, which brought the lawsuit against the government.

President George W. Bush authorised the eavesdropping programme after the September 11 attacks on the US. The highly classified programme allowed the NSA to intercept the international phone calls and emails of Americans with links to suspected terrorists.

The White House argued that Mr Bush had the authority to authorise the programme, saying it was a crucial tool in the "war on terror". But Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, and many Democrats criticised Mr Bush for not seeking Congressional approval.

Judge Taylor rebuked Mr Bush in her ruling, writing: "It was never the intent of the Framers [of the Constitution] to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregarded the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

"There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution".

---

There ya go, George-me-lad.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 09:20 PM

From the Santa Barbara Independent:

S.B. Considers Impeachment
By Nick Welsh, August 17, 2006
by Nick Welsh
About 250 people crammed into the Faulkner Gallery in the downtown library last Tuesday to hear three speakers lay out the case for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Lisa Hajjar, a professor of law and society at UCSB, argued that the most compelling legal argument was Bush's authorization of warrantless?—?and apparently illegal?—?wiretaps of thousands of American citizens. She also contended that the administration had lied to Congress about the reasons for waging war on Iraq, and that that deception constituted high crimes and misdemeanors. And she argued that the administration has knowingly and intentionally encouraged the systematic torture of suspected combatants in the "war on terror," and in so doing has violated countless international treaties to which the United States is a signatory. Richard Falk, a Yale professor of international law, acknowledged that the impeachment process would be traumatic for the nation, but argued that even if Congress chose not to impeach, the exercise would help salvage American democracy.

"Only by the activism of the American people will we be spared a future that will destroy all that is great about this country," he said.

im Lafferty with the National Lawyers Guild added a note of skepticism, arguing that even if the Democrats controlled the House and Senate, they would never impeach Bush. The real problem, he said, was not Bush but a national policy of imperialism to which both parties have actively subscribed since the end of World War II. Organizers of the event explained afterwards that they plan to take a resolution calling for impeachment of the president and vice president to the Santa Barbara City Council sometime in September.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 12:32 AM

A video from "After Downing Street" on the impeachment effort.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:39 AM

From Capitol Hill Blue :

Bush Leagues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge's ruling may provide grounds to impeach Bush
By CHB Staff
Aug 18, 2006, 07:57

If a judge's ruling that declares President George W. Bush's domestic spying program unconstitutional holds up under appeal, the President will be guilty of violating federal law at least 30 times and that could provide grounds for impeachment, says a leading Constitutional scholar.

Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University and a recognized expert on constitutional law, says the ruling Thursday by a federal judge in Detroit raises "serious implications for the Bush administration" and indicates that the President "could well have committed a federal crime at least 30 times."

"This ruling is a bad situation that just got worse for the White House," says Turley. "These crimes could constitute impeachable offenses."

Turley knows a thing or two about the impeachment process. He worked with Special Prosecutor Ken Starr on the investigation that led to impeachment proceedings against former President Bill Clinton.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, in a stinging indictment of Constitutional abuse by the Bush Administration over its use of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens by the National Security Agency, ruled the program violates the Administrative Procedures Act, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the First and Fourth amendments to the Constitution and ordered an immediate halt to the practice.

"There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution," Taylor wrote in her lengthy opinion.

The White House went into immediate attack mode, claiming Taylor is an activist judge appointed by a Democratic president (Jimmy Carter) and vowing to appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.

A Republican National Committee press release declared: Liberal judge backs Dem agenda to weaken national security.

Turley says such tactics are typical for the Bush White House.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 06 - 05:20 PM

The Santa Barbara City Council was a little surprised at the number who turned out to discuss a movement to impeach. Maybe the good folks of the Golden Coast are onto something.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 06 - 04:11 PM

August 25, 2006 at 07:32:21

Impeach George "Dubya Gump" Bush Now!
   
by Ben Marble, M.D.


http://www.opednews.com

George "Dubya Gump" Bush is without question the single worst president in the history of our nation. Let's recap. He took the largest surplus in the history of our nation and converted it to the largest deficit in a short 3 years. Worse than that he has managed to turn pretty much the entire world against us (remember after 911 when the whole world was on OUR side????). He recently admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, though, if you ask the BUSHEEP they are still convinced they had 'womd'. So he basically admitted that he started a war based on LIES that his administration propagated. For example:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." The Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.-George "Dubya Gump" Bush September 12, 2002

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.-George "Dubya Gump" Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.-Colin Powell February 5, 200

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.-George "Dubya Gump" Bush March 18, 2003


Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.-Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.-Ronald Donefailed March 30, 2003

The quotes go on and on and on....The point is why hasn't this asshole been impeached yet????? The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the American public (for re-electing him and electing a republican majority) AND the limp dick Democrats in charge. If a blow job was enough to get impeachment proceedings rolling against Slick Willy then what the hell are the leaders in congress waiting for???
Does George "Dubya Gump" have to shoot a baby in the head on national TV for you fucking idiots to get the point???? The US population deserves better than this. It is time for Dubya Gump to go!
cya
ben
ps The Dick Cheney must go too!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 10:17 AM

From Norman, Oklahoma:

Published: August 27, 2006 12:23 am            

Group seeking to impeach Bush stage in Norman

The Norman Transcript

By Althea Peterson

Transcript Staff Writer

Back in 1973, hundreds gathered in Washington to have President Richard Nixon impeached.

Now, remnants of the same group are in Norman with a similar cause.

Drivers at the corner of Flood Avenue and Symmes were greeted with a "drive-thru impeachment" table, encouraging drivers to stop and sign a petition to impeach President George W. Bush. The group, "Committee to Impeach the President," has traveled through Washington D.C., Virginia, Texas and Oklahoma so far.

Jim Goodnow, 67, of Terlingua, Texas, said after protesting Nixon's presidency in the '70s, he never thought he would have to resurrect the group once again.

"You're seeing history made in Norman," Goodnow said. "This is the first and only drive through impeachment location."

The "drive-thru impeachment," which could be noticed from far away because of the large tour bus in the driveway, had several drivers stop to sign Saturday evening.

Andrea Farnan, 18, of Norman, said she was volunteering to help promote the petition because she wants to increase awareness.

"I think it's important that people know what is going on," Farnan said. "There's a lot of censorship going on right now, which is wrong. Back during Vietnam, people weren't afraid to speak out against the war."

Goodnow certainly remembers those days. Inside the tour bus, which has many American flags, has pictures of the original Committee to Impeach the President group, which worked against Nixon.

"Who would have ever thought we'd go through this again?" Goodnow asks. "This is Deja vu."

The committee will stay in Norman through Friday at the same location to collect more signatures before heading to Washington D.C.

---

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 10:49 AM

Impeachment Not on Media's Radar

Dave Lindorff

www.thiscantbehappening.org
Sunday, August 27, 2006

Reader Response to C-Span and NPR Book Events Demonstrates Wide-Spread Interest in Impeachment Issue

Before Barbara and I got a chance to get any real national attention for The Case for Impeachment outside of programs on Air America, the best the book did on the Amazon sales ranking was about #3500.

Then last weekend, we had the opportunity, over a period of two days, to air a 7.5-minute interview on NPR, and a 75-minute presention on C-Span's "Books TV" program. Suddenly the book leapt in the rankings to #42, well ahead of #400, Greg Palast's best-selling Armed Madhouse, and even #80, Ann Coulter's Godless, and closing in on #27, Al Gore's best-selling Inconvenient Truth!

It makes you wonder what would happen if the mainstream media, like the NY Times, Washington Post and LA Times, and liberal publications like the Nation, In These Times, Salon, Slate, the Progressive, Harper's, the New Republic and others, or shows like "Fresh Air" and "Democracy Now," would stop ignoring the book and instead review it.

But ignoring "The Case for Impeachment" is just part of a larger censorship going on around impeachment, as I explain in this story which is appearing in the current issue of Extra!, the publication of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting:


Adultery Was Serious; This is Just the Constitution

There is a growing grassroots campaign demanding the impeachment of George W. Bush. Across the nation, towns and cities have been passing pro-impeachment resolutions. Websites promoting impeachment keep springing up. In several states, bills have been introduced in state legislatures that, if passed, would become formal bills of impeachment in the U.S. House of Representatives, requiring initiation of impeachment hearings under congressional rules dating back to the early 19th century.


Starting last fall, several polls (Zogby, 10/29=29/05, 1/9=12/06; Ipsos, 10/6=9/05) reported that a majority of Americans thought Bush should be impeached if he lied the country into war in Iraq or if he authorized warrantless spying on Americans. Those poll results were reported all over the Internet, but they barely made it into any mainstream corporate news reports. Indeed, impeachment itself is getting short shrift in the media, despite all this impeachment organizing activity.


When the House Judiciary Committee's ranking minority member, Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich.), introduced a bill in December calling for creation of a select committee to investigate "possible impeachable crimes" by Bush, the dramatic move received virtually no mainstream coverage beyond an AP wire item (12/21/05). Even as the number of Democratic House members co-sponsoring that bill rose from an initial handful to 39, it has received scant attention. The first time impeachment made the front page of the Washington Post was March 25, 2006, when that paper finally ran a story on the wave of town government resolutions across the country. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Aug 06 - 04:06 PM

"Time to talk impeachment

The Bush administration is a shambles. Name me one good thing he has done for the American people since he came into office.
He has caused more problems for the U.S. than he has done good. He has set the U.S. back instead of forward.

As an "armchair" historian, I believe he will go down in history as the worst president we ever elected.

The Republican conservative right should be held accountable at the ballot box for helping elect this idiot as president of the United States, and as soon as Democrats take over the House/Senate in 2006, impeach him to prevent any more damage."

Len Eagleburger, Springfield, in a letter to OpEd News

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 10:49 AM

Amos, I know you will enjoy this...turn up the volume, but make sure there are no tender ears nearby:-): Click Here.

(ITMFA = Impeach the Mother Fucker Already - Courtesy
of Dan Savage of Savage Love fame...)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 06 - 12:57 PM

Thanks, Kat -- I got it earlier from Wyo -- nearly died laughuiing, especially the sing-along!!

From the current edition of OpEdNews.com:

August 28, 2006 at 18:09:45

Let the Hearings Begin
   
by Mick Youther


http://www.opednews.com

George W. Bush may not be on the November 7th ballot, but this may be the most important election of his life. Americans, by a 3 to 1 margin, want the Democratic Party to regain control of Congress; and unless the Republicans manage to pull off another miraculous vote count, that could mean big trouble for the Liar-in-Chief.

• "...this President and his Administration must be held accountable for their misdeeds. If we in the House of Representatives, as the body charged with oversight of the executive branch, do not hold him accountable, then we have no legitimate claim to governing this country." --Bob Barr (R-GA), 11/5/97

Noble words, indeed-unfortunately, they were used to justify the impeachment of the wrong President. Congressional Republicans spent 6 years and 60 million taxpayer dollars investigating Bill Clinton, before impeaching him for lying about a personal indiscretion that had nothing to do with his official duties. That Republican hypocrisy has now been surpassed by their failure to impeach, or even investigate, George W. Bush. That is why Republicans "have no legitimate claim to governing this country" , and deserve to be voted out of office.

With Democrats in control, maybe Congress can stop worrying about flag burning, gay marriage, and tax cuts for the rich-long enough to focus on more important matters, like the long-overdue Congressional hearings on the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush Administration.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and some other Democratic leaders have made conciliatory noises about how they are not interested in pursuing impeachment if the Democrats were to gain control of Congress this fall. They must be joking.

An MSNBC online poll with over 300,000 responses finds that 86% of people believe that "President Bush's actions justify impeachment" (as of 8/21/06). A more scientific poll (Zogby International) found a more modest majority (52%) of respondents who "want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval." (1/16/06) This is twice the number of Americans (26%) that supported the impeachment and removal of President Clinton.

Just because the Republicans failed to do their Constitutional duty to remove a President who had become a menace to America and the world; doesn't mean the Democrats should do the same. They should start the investigations.

• "And it is our highest duty today to vote for this inquiry so that if the result is there are no impeachable offenses we can move on, but if there is more to be done, then we can assure that the rule of law will not be suspended or ignored by this Congress." --Asa Hutchinson (R-AR), 10/8/98 (right words-wrong President, again)

Democratic-led hearings are not payback for the ridiculous impeachment of President Clinton. It is what the Constitution demands when a President acts as if he were above the law. It is the people's representatives fulfilling their Constitutional duty to investigate and remove a President, when necessary-just like the 93rd Congress did when Nixon came to believe, "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

• "Compared to Spygate, Watergate was a kindergarten picnic. The Bush administration's lies, felonies, and illegalities have revealed it to be a criminal administration with a police state mentality and police state methods. Now Bush and his attorney general have gone the final step and declared Bush to be above the law. Bush aggressively mimics Hitler's claim that defense of the realm entitles him to ignore the rule of law." --Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury, 1/2/06

• "A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law-and repeatedly violates the law-thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office. ...President Bush has thrown down the gauntlet and virtually dared Congress to stop him from violating the law, nothing less is necessary to protect our constitutional system and preserve our democracy." --Former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, member of the House Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach President Richard Nixon, The Nation magazine, 1/11/06

I believe history will find that the Watergate hearings and the resignation of Richard Nixon was one of America's finest hours. It proved that the system worked.

• "The system has thus far failed during the presidency of George W. Bush-at incalculable cost in human lives, to the American political system, to undertaking an intelligent and effective war against terror, and to the standing of the United States in parts of the world where it previously had been held in the highest regard." --Watergate hero, Carl Bernstein, Vanity Fair, 4/17/06

So: Lights...camera...action. Let the hearings begin." ...

---

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Aug 06 - 11:08 PM

Monday 22 August 2005

    With the message that people can protest a war while supporting troops and veterans, a handful of speakers -including a Gold Star mom - addressed an anti-war rally in Salt Lake City Monday, the same day President Bush was in town.

    Bush spoke to more than 6,000 people at the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, while three blocks away about 2,000 people gathered to protest Bush administration policies and the war in Iraq.

    Barbara Wright, 56, drove five hours from her home in St. George to attend the rally at Pioneer Park.

    "There's a lot of reasons I'm unhappy. Predominantly due to the war, but also about the economy, Social Security," Wright said.

    Her father, a World War II veteran, was unable to come with her, but she said he would have come along for the same reasons.

    "So I'm here for him too," she said.

    Several people attending the protest boasted that they were from military families or had served in the armed forces.

    Salt Lake resident Hugh Musser, 74, said he was a Korean War veteran who came to the protest because of "the lies about this war and the reasons we went into it."

    "I'm so opposed to our administration. I'm not politically motivated, I'm an independent. I think we have really lost our democracy," Musser said.

    The featured speaker was Celeste Zappala, a co-founder of Gold Star Mothers for Peace with Cindy Sheehan, who made news camping outside Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch in hopes of meeting with the president.

    Zappala's son, Spc. Sherwood Baker, 30, was killed in Baghdad on April 26, 2004. He was a member of the Pennsylvania National Guard which was deployed to help provide security for a survey group looking for evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, she said.

    Zappala said she was overwhelmed by the number of people who showed up at Pioneer Park.

    "I expected and hoped that 100 people would come out. This place is overflowing with patriotic Americans," she said.

    She said she has traveled over the past 16 months speaking out about the war because of a promise she made at her son's funeral.

    "My sweet and noble son was the 720th American soldier to die in the hideous miscalculation called the war in Iraq," Zappala said. "I vowed to him I will not be quiet."

    Zappala and members of her family have spent the last week in Crawford, she said, hoping the president would take time to answer one question from families who have lost loved ones in the war.

    "What noble cause is it? What noble cause is it that has taken the lives of our best Americans? What noble cause is it this month?" Zappala said. "Why do the architects of this war not risk the lives of their children?"

    One of the event's organizers, Aaron Davis with a group called Veterans for Peace, said he filed a permit for a gathering of 1,000 people. Thirty minutes into the three-hour event Monday, he said he knew there would be that many and more.

    "Not only is our message today support our troops and bring them home now, but treat them right when you bring them home," said Davis, who said he served as a Marine from 1972 to 1976.

    Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, who called for a strong showing from Utahns at the protest in an e-mail he sent last week to local activists, addressed both the VFW convention and the protest.

    Anderson was booed in his speech to the veterans at the Salt Palace Convention Center about two hours before Bush's speech. After, he said challenging political leaders is being supportive of the troops.

    "The message we want to send is that we are behind our troops, we care very much about our troops. That if their lives are going to be put on the line, they are going to be put in harm's way, that we're told the truth and our nation hasn't been told the truth," Anderson said.

    Chants of "Rocky!" followed Anderson as he took the podium at the anti-war rally.

    "Those who take a stand ... who stand up to deceit by our government. Those are true patriots. You are true patriots," Anderson said.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 08:58 PM

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954.
"We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that
conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.

    "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven
by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and
our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful
men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to
defend causes that were for the moment unpopular."

    And so good night, and good luck."

Edward R. Murrow

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 02:45 PM

Impeach Bush- Letter


For the Monitor


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 06. 2006 8:00AM


Re the story about the two professors desiring the impeachment of Mr. Bush, I suggest you read two books that expand on that theme and back it up with lots of documentation:

• Inside Job: Un-Masking the 9/11 Conspiracy by Jim Marrs.

• The War on Freedom by Nafeez Mosdeddeq Ahmed.

I have read the first and am halfway through the second and find it even more convincing.

Mr. Bush should be impeached for malfeasance, conspiracy to commit murder, murder, conspiracy to violate his oath of office, and for foreknowledge of criminal acts that he had a part in planning and funding.



HOWARD L. WILSON
Andover

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 03:54 PM

This morning a Mudcatter sent me a clip of Pete Seeger calling for Bush's impeachment. How long has it been out?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 04:11 PM

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 04:12 PM

That is to say, I dunno...but if you email it to me I'll post it with a link here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Sep 06 - 05:55 PM

Thanks, Amos. I just realized that I could do the same.

Pete Seeger Here

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 12:33 AM

Former Pink Floyd Guitarist Implores NYC Concertgoers to Impeach Bush

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 01:08 PM

From http://bridgenews.org/news/092006/morrisseau :

Saturday, Septmber 23— Former Army Lieutenant and candidate for Congress in Vermont, Dennis Morrisseau, today called for the arrest of President Bush and Vice President Cheney by the American military "if necessary" to prevent an unauthorized attack upon the nation of Iran.

The antiwar Vietnam vet is a Republican, but he has won approval from the State of Vermont to run on the ballot line "Impeach Bush Now," rather than Democrat or Republican.

"American forces are apparently already active inside Iran, and Naval forces have received orders to deploy to that country," Morrisseau said. "The President has NO AUTHORITY to attack the nation of Iran whatsoever, in the absence of a full, formal Declaration of War on Iran by the sitting Congress."

Morrisseau said any order for an attack upon Iran or to deploy naval forces to its coastal waters is illegal, and called upon officers of the American military to "First, refuse to obey such an order. If the president persists and insists on ordering our forces into combat in or over Iran without a formal Declaration of War, then I call upon you, General Pace, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and upon such other military officers as clearly see their duty in these circumstances to detain both the President and Vice President, until such time as the Congress shall act."

Letter to General Pace of the Joint ChiefsMorrisseau, who was court-martialled for opposition to the Vietnam War in 1968, said he has written to General Pace to ask for the intervention of the military. "In spite of my opposition to the Vietnam War and the court-martial which we ultimately defeated, I was a good soldier who had the respect of my superior officers throughout the ordeal. And they had mine!" Morrisseau said. "There are many many, very, very decent people in the active duty military. I know this," he said " people who love their country and democracy too, and hate war."

Morrisseau wrote that "Iran is no present threat to us or anyone. Their right to enrich uranium under treaties signed by us for the production of nuclear power is clear: and that is all they have so far done. An attack upon that nation now by us, acting alone will constitute an illegal war of aggression under international law. It is illegal under our law as well. I urge you to so advise the President," Morrisseau wrote to Pace, "and urge that he take no such actions. In particular, he must not act in the absense of a full, formal, responsible War Declaration by Congress. That is the Constitutional requirement."

If he and Cheney persist, Morrisseau wrote, "than the country must rely upon you, Sir, and our armed forces generally, to resist all illegal orders by Bush or Cheney, and take the gentlemen into custody if necessary."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:13 PM

Another reason to think hard about impeachment:

Salon on Habeas Corpus

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 04:55 AM

And, if impeachment doesn't happen, let's at least make sure the shrub has a job post-2008 elections:

Bush's Next Job

By Bill Ferguson, Knight Ridder Newspapers Salt Lake Tribune

6/16/2006

Every great career eventually comes to an end, and when you're the
President of these United States , you only get eight years (at most) to accomplish everything you set out to do. Then you're an ex-president for the rest of your life. I'll bet that ex-presidents, like most retired people, find it to be something of a shock to have all that time on their hands when they leave the working world. So they find things to do. They work on their memoirs. They build libraries. They give speeches. They support their favorite charitable causes.

But what about our current President? His term will be up before he knows it, and then it's back to private life. I'm afraid the transition will be especially difficult for Dubya. He is a man of action, and I worry about how he'll adjust to a life out of the spotlight. I think that we, as a nation, owe Bush more than the customary parting gifts of an enormous pension and round-the-clock Secret Service protection when he leaves office. I think we can do better for him. I think we should put him to work, and I know just
where he ought to go. Iraq

There is no question that Iraq will be the legacy of President Bush's
tenure, and there is also no doubt that there will still be a lot of work to do there when he leaves office. I believe we should allow Bush an opportunity to stick with the job even after his term expires. The next president should appoint George W. Bush to be a special envoy to Iraq and charge him with the responsibility to oversee all American interests there, advise the new Iraqi government, and maintain the morale of American troops who are carrying out the war effort. The position should be a permanent one, and he would not leave until the "hard work" of helping Iraq to establish a working democratic government has been accomplished. Or until he leaves this mortal soil, whichever comes first.

But I do not believe Bush should go to Iraq alone. He needs some trusted advisors by his side at all times, and the first two names that immediately spring to mind are Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. These men have been instrumental in the planning and execution of the Iraq campaign from the beginning, and I can only imagine how much more effective their work could be if they were onsite 24/7, right where the action is, getting their hands dirty in the cause of spreading freedom to that dark corner of the world.

I know this assignment would be dangerous. The three senior freedom
fighters would be huge targets for the forces of evil in Iraq , and there is a real possibility that one or more of them might meet with an untimely demise in that chaotic environment. But as Bush has reminded us time and again, the price is high, but our cause is just. Freedom is not free.

I expect that all three men would be ready and willing to undertake their assignments in the battle zone, despite the extreme danger they would face. This would be a chance to show the world that they are willing to put their own lives, not just the lives of others, on the line for what they know to be right. So let's start a campaign to send the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team to Iraq in 2008. They deserve the opportunity to "finish the job" in Iraq , and the sight of the three of them tooling around the streets of Baghdad in a lightly armored Humvee would do a lot to improve the morale of all Americans.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross" -Sinclair Lewis

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 06 - 11:07 AM

From mid-Illinois:

Letter: It will be worth every dime to impeach Bush


By BRAD DARR, Charleston

Hugo Chavez has been sniffing out the devil. If he has an aversion to sulfur he had better stay out of Washington, D.C. Besides, our fearless leader has more pressing concerns than any resemblance he may possess to mystical demons of the netherworld, especially if the Democrats win Congress in November.

We humble subjects of the regime may find ourselves funding an extensive and expensive impeachment process. It will be worth every dime. The families of nearly 3,000 American service men and women killed in Iraq deserve the truth.

We all deserve the truth, especially in times of war. Lie to me about your girlfriend, your real estate deals, or maybe even your two-bit night burglars. But, do not lie to me when you want my son or daughter to put their life on the line for our country .

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 09:15 PM

From the Charlotte Observer:

8:31 pm | War rally at park peaceful
MARCIE YOUNG
[e-mail]
An afternoon rally held one week after police clashed with anti-war protesters uptown remained peaceful Saturday at Charlotte's Freedom Park.

Event organizers, including members of the Green Party and the Action Center for Justice, feared a repeat of last week's Human Rights Fest, where Charlotte-Mecklenburg police arrested six protesters at Trade and Tryon streets.

Police say last week's rally got out of control when protesters refused to follow orders, swore at officers and placed a burning newspaper near an officer's feet. Protesters say officers violated their First Amendment rights. At least one man was hit with a stun gun and another protester, David Crane, said he suffered a broken rib and punctured lung.

Organizers said Saturday's rally, which called for the impeachment of President Bush, attracted at least 50 more participants than last week's event, including some of those arrested.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 11:38 PM

I've posted this to another thread, but i think it is appropriate in this one, too:

In Case I Disappear
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 29 September 2006

I have been told a thousand times at least, in the years I have
spent reporting on the astonishing and repugnant abuses, lies and
failures of the Bush administration, to watch my back. "Be careful,"
people always tell me. "These people are capable of anything. Stay
off small planes, make sure you aren't being followed." A running
joke between my mother and me is that she has a "safe room" set up
for me in her cabin in the woods, in the event I have to flee
because of something I wrote or said.

I always laughed and shook my head whenever I heard this stuff.
Extreme paranoia wrapped in the tinfoil of conspiracy, I thought.
This is still America, and these Bush fools will soon pass into
history, I thought. I am a citizen, and the First Amendment hasn't
yet been red-lined, I thought.

Matters are different now.

It seems, perhaps, that the people who warned me were not so
paranoid. It seems, perhaps, that I was not paranoid enough.
Legislation passed by the Republican House and Senate, legislation
now marching up to the Republican White House for signature, has
shattered a number of bedrock legal protections for suspects,
prisoners, and pretty much anyone else George W. Bush deems to be an
enemy.

So much of this legislation is wretched on the surface. Habeas
corpus has been suspended for detainees suspected of terrorism or of
aiding terrorism, so the Magna Carta-era rule that a person can face
his accusers is now gone. Once a suspect has been thrown into
prison, he does not have the right to a trial by his peers Suspects
cannot even stand in representation of themselves, another ancient
protection, but must accept a military lawyer as their defender.

Illegally-obtained evidence can be used against suspects, whether
that illegal evidence was gathered abroad or right here at home. To
my way of thinking, this pretty much eradicates our security in
persons, houses, papers, and effects, as stated in the Fourth
Amendment, against illegal searches and seizures.

Speaking of collecting evidence, the torture of suspects and
detainees has been broadly protected by this new legislation. While
it tries to delineate what is and is not acceptable treatment of
detainees, in the end, it gives George W. Bush the final word on
what constitutes torture. US officials who use cruel, inhumane or
degrading treatment to extract information from detainees are now
shielded from prosecution.

It was two Supreme Court decisions, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v.
Rumsfeld, that compelled the creation of this legislation. The Hamdi
decision held that a prisoner has the right of habeas corpus, and
can challenge his detention before an impartial judge. The Hamdan
decision held that the military commissions set up to try detainees
violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva
Conventions

In short, the Supreme Court wiped out virtually every legal argument
the Bush administration put forth to defend its extraordinary and
dangerous behavior. The passage of this legislation came after a
scramble by Republicans to paper over the torture and murder of a
number of detainees. As columnist Molly Ivins wrote on
Wednesday, "Of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have
ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this
bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken
place."

It seems almost certain that, at some point, the Supreme Court will
hear a case to challenge the legality of this legislation, but even
this is questionable. If a detainee is not allowed access to a fair
trial or to the evidence against him, how can he bring a legal
challenge to a court? The legislation, in anticipation of court
challenges like Hamdi and Hamdan, even includes severe restrictions
on judicial review over the legislation itself.

The Republicans in Congress have managed, at the behest of Mr. Bush,
to draft a bill that all but erases the judicial branch of the
government. Time will tell whether this aspect, along with all the
others, will withstand legal challenges. If such a challenge comes,
it will take time, and meanwhile there is this bill. All of the
above is deplorable on its face, indefensible in a nation that
prides itself on Constitutional rights, protections and the rule of
law.

Underneath all this, however, is where the paranoia sets in.

Underneath all this is the definition of "enemy combatant" that has
been established by this legislation. An "enemy combatant" is now no
longer just someone captured "during an armed conflict" against our
forces. Thanks to this legislation, George W. Bush is now able to
designate as an "enemy combatant" anyone who has "purposefully and
materially supported hostilities against the United States."

Consider that language a moment. "Purposefully and materially
supported hostilities against the United States" is in the eye of
the beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be
astonishingly impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers
given to Bush by this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely
detain, and refuse a hearing to any American citizen who speaks out
against Iraq or any other part of the so-called "War on Terror."

If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be
deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against
the United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration
against Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation
could befall you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that
senators or House members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize
him, or organize investigations into his dealings could be placed
under the same designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the
power to lock them up.

By writing this essay, I could be deemed an "enemy combatant." It's
that simple, and very soon, it will be the law. I always laughed
when people told me to be careful. I'm not laughing anymore.

In case I disappear, remember this. America is an idea, a dream, and
that is all. We have borders and armies and citizens and commerce
and industry, but all this merely makes us like every other nation
on this Earth. What separates us is the idea, the simple idea, that
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are our organizing
principles. We can think as we please, speak as we please, write as
we please, worship as we please, go where we please. We are
protected from the kinds of tyranny that inspired our creation as a
nation in the first place.

That was the idea. That was the dream. It may all be over now, but
once upon a time, it existed. No good idea ever truly dies. The
dream was here, and so was I, and so were you.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Sep 06 - 11:41 PM

September 29, 2006

A video has surfaced from Iraq that appears to show troops abandoning a civilian truck convoy during an attack by insurgents. This has the Virginia National Guard under scrutiny.

The video begins with a supply convoy taking a trip north of Baghdad. Preston Wheeler a Haliburton driver was shooting the video. It was a routine mission until the convoy took a wrong turn and was attacked by insurgents.

Wheeler's truck was disabled and he saw his military escorts leave the scene. Then insurgents killed one of the other drivers in cold blood. Three drivers were killed that day.

Wheeler said he felt abandoned and waited 40 minutes before rescued.

"Why didn't the gun truck behind me stop? If the gun truck in front of me stopped and secure that area, then guys would not be executed if the military had followed their protocol, which they call it," said Wheeler.

But a formal investigation by the U.S. military found the soldiers did follow their training by not stopping until they could safely counter-attack.

"They didn't leave the scene. They pulled up out of the kill zone and established a security defensive line so that they could continue to fire and protect the convoy." sad Lt Colonel Michelle Martin, spokesperson for the Multi-National Force-Iraq .

The investigation also concluded that the military's action saved the lives of two contractors including Wheeler.

The Virginia Guard officials confirmed that its 1173rd Transportation Company was on active federal status at the time and under a higher command. That company is based in Martinsville and Rocky Mount, Virginia.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 06 - 04:20 AM

A BROOMSTICK REVOLUTION

The Bush junta has stolen two presidential elections, and now has dismantled the most basic rights of citizens under the guise of "fighting the war on terror". Our country, our heritage, our Constitution has been taken over by ruthless people, who care only about power and money.



The shameful "Military Tribunal" bills passed by Congress last week shows that its members, of both parties, are utterly craven and corrupt. The Democrats could have organized a Senate filibuster of the bills that Gitmo-ize us all, but they didn't even try. Both parties are in league with the "devil in the White House", to quote Hugo Chavez.



We need a clean sweep in Congress this November, getting rid of all the incumbents who are not actively opposing the tyranny being imposed upon us. We need to vote in true Representatives of "we the people", who will make it the first order of business to impeach Bush and Cheney.



This is our very last chance to remain a free people.



The Longhouse Coalition is collecting all candidates for Congress, of whatever party, who will serve the people rather than the super-rich. Our members are Democrats, Independents, Greens. We are up and running. We will not split the "left", as we are reserving seats for good incumbents and candidates. With Creator's help, we'll replace this rotten Congress of pandering politicians with a group of people who are dedicated to peace, freedom, and the wellbeing of "we the people".



The Solidarity Movement in Poland was able to replace the oppressive Communist regime with a people's government, that was put into office peacefully and legally, through the electoral process.



Our situation is identical. A core group of 6 internet activists have been planning the Longhouse Coalition for a year, and worked tirelessly to put it into effect. The bandwagon is rolling! Many people are now working together to recruit candidates, both on the ballot and write-ins. Our numbers are growing rapidly.



To learn details, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/longhouse_coalition_info/

The files there contain our platform, an introduction to our strategy, list of member candidates- all of whom have endorsed the platform-, a list of seats we have reserved for candidates who have not yet joined, and other important information



Some highlights of the platform:

1) IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY

2) Peace- leave Iraq and Afghanistan, support UN peacekeeping forces, uphold international peace treaties like the Geneva Conventions and the Nonproliferation Treaty, defund the military.

3) Environment- join the Kyoto treaty, switch to clean, renewable energy, clean up pollutants, get rid of toxics.

4) Land- return a portion (30-45%) of National Forests to Native Americans to redress a historic wrong, change the tax structure to favor small farmers over agribusiness.

5) "Moral issues" - prochoice- make birth control more available, legalize all natural substances.



This is a battle for life, for survival of a habitable planet. We can no longer ignore global warming and the threat of nuclear war. It's a spiritual battle, has to be if we are to avoid the literal Armageddon, nuclear holocaust, with which the warmongering plutocrats keep threatening us. The organizers of the Longhouse Coalition are in constant prayer to our Creator.



We are thankful that Creator has blessed us with a Constitution that safeguards human rights and dignity, and enables us to live in peace. We are using the tools given us by the Founding Fathers- the right of any citizen to run for Congress, and the right of the people to impeach members of the Executive Branch who commit high crimes and misdemeanors. What we are doing is peaceful, legal and democratic.



Where does the name come from? The Longhouse was the meeting place of the Iroquois Federation, where they made their laws. Ben Franklin attended many of their meetings, and brought the principles of Iroquois government to the Constitional Convention. The emphasis on human equality and protection of basic people's rights in our Constitution come from the original Longhouse, or Haudenosaunee. In fact, "we the people" is a Native American, not a Europen concept- England and European countries were still ruled by kings and aristocrats in 1776. Thus our Congress is a direct descendant of the Longhouse.



To learn more, email us at [e-mail] with your questions, comments, assistance.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eastbayimpeach

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 03:24 AM

A few things on that vote. I watched it & it was pretty much a party line vote, the dems were over run by reps, 35 to 65. Of course there were a few out to lunch dems like Joe Liberation D-Conn that towed the Bush line.
And MoveOn.org is doing much the same as the Longhouse Coalition on trying to keep the public aware of who is worth backing in the coming elections, hopefully these & other groups can start pooling or sharing their resources & potential & come as one under a big umbrella, in the end we all want the same thing, the above & more.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 10:39 AM

Tuesday, October 3, 2006
New Paltz board: Impeach Bush



NEW PALTZ — Impeach Bush? Yes, says the New Paltz town board.

The board voted 5-0 last week in favor of a resolution calling for the impeachment of the president. Grounds for impeachment listed in the resolution were taken from a list of 13 legal violations compiled by groups who also support Bush's impeachment.

"I'd say it's an unfortunate time in our history that we have to do this," Councilman Jim Bacon said.

While a majority vote in the U.S. House of Representatives is required to initiate a trial and a two-thirds vote by members present in the U.S. Senate is necessary for a president's removal from office, town resident Bob Hughes said the resolution sends a message to those at the state and federal levels.

"It becomes collective with the growing number of resolutions," he said. "It brings nationwide attention to the legal actions possible."

Hughes had presented the resolution to the board.

Sixteen state political action committees and 24 cities and towns across the United States have approved the resolution.

In New York, the Town of Woodstock, the City of Plattsburgh and Village of New Paltz have all passed similar resolutions.

(From the Pughkeepsie, New York, Journal)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 01:15 PM

From Keene, New Hampshire:

Alleged constitutional abuses discussed at Keene school meeting

By MARTHA ALLEN, Enterprise Correspondent



KEENE VALLEY — Discussion of alleged abuses of the United States Constitution by the Bush administration grew intense Tuesday evening in the Keene Central School auditorium, where about 50 people gathered for a public informational meeting.

Some people in the audience compared the talk to a high-school civics class.

The meeting was hosted by the Ad-hoc Committee of Concerned Citizens of Keene: Lorraine Duvall, Baird Edmonds, Barbara Kaufman, Martha Lee Owen, Adrienne Ratigan and Monique Weston.

The AHCCC approached the Keene town board during its regular August meeting to ask board members to pass two resolutions asking the U.S. House of Representatives to investigate abuses of the rule of law by the current administration. The resolutions addressed "civil liberties and the separation of powers" and "war and terrorism."

The board declined to vote on the resolutions at that time, but agreed to hold a public informational meeting and suggested that meanwhile the AHCCC might work to put the resolutions before the voters on the ballot in November.

Lorraine Duvall, AHCCC chair, told participants at the informational meeting that the group has learned that it is illegal in New York state for citizens to put issues before the public on a ballot, although this has been done at the local level in other states, including Vermont and California. Eight Vermont towns and eight California towns have held meetings to protest constitutional abuse by the Bush Administration, as have the New York towns of Plattsburgh, Woodstock and New Paltz, she said.

The plan now, she explained, is to get as many Keene voters'
signatures as possible to present to the Keene town board at its monthly meeting Oct. 10, asking its members again to pass the two resolutions. By her reckoning, 300 signatures would represent a majority of Keene voters.

Board member Marcy Neville spoke from the audience.

"The resolutions are asking for an investigation. People (in Keene) are asking for us to vote on their behalf," she said. "I did
take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and I think that our Constitution is being flushed down the toilet."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 01:37 PM

Another good reason to impeach: Iraq for Sale

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 11:24 PM

And about 100 more under the rubric, "You might be a Republican if...."


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 09:02 AM

AP reports:

...Hundreds of people called the Bush administration's policies a crime and held up yellow police tape in front of the White House on Thursday amid a nationwide day of protest against the president.

The 500 demonstrators were among many who gathered for similar events in more than 200 cities to protest Bush on issues ranging from global warming to the war in Iraq.

"We are turning the corner in bringing forward a mass movement of resistance to drive out the Bush regime," said organizer Travis Morales with the activist group World Can't Wait.

Some dressed in costume, including a hooded prisoner in an orange jumpsuit, a devilish rendition of President Bush and two grim reapers. One man wore a red cheerleader outfit with "Radical" emblazoned on the jersey.

The demonstrators held up yellow police tape along a three-block stretch in front of the White House.

Thousands of protesters clogged New York City's streets as they marched from the United Nations headquarters. Some people lay down in the middle of the street, while others carried signs saying "Expose 9/11" and "This war should be over." They also handed out fliers reading, "Drive out the Bush regime."

Lydia Sugarman, 82, of Manhattan, said she believed in the power of demonstrating.

"That's how we got our civil rights," she said. "If we didn't protest we wouldn't be Americans."

...

World Can't Wait was founded in 2005 and has organized several marches since then, including a nationwide protest coinciding with Bush's State of the Union address in January, according to the group's Web site. Supporters listed on the site include Edward Asner, Ed Begley Jr. and Jane Fonda and activists such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton and Cindy Sheehan.

...

The march through Seattle's streets was peaceful as protesters chanted, waved signs and wore costumes mocking administration officials. One woman dressed as a pageant queen with a sash that read, "I Miss America."

In Portland, Ore., at least 10 people were detained because they did not follow police instruction to get out of the street during a protest march through downtown.
...
An estimated 800 people, mostly college age, chanted "Impeach Bush" and carried signs, including one that read: "We Can't Wait for 2008."

Hundreds marched in Los Angeles, carrying caskets draped in U.S. flags to a federal courthouse, where protesters held a mock marriage of church and state.

In Asheville, N.C., dozens of University of North Carolina students walked out of classes. In Chicago, thousands of people flooded Michigan Avenue waving anti-Bush signs.

...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 09:34 AM

From the Times:

...While foreign investors were putting up most of the $1.5 trillion the federal government has borrowed since 2001, they were also snapping up hundreds of billions of dollars in private sector securities, transactions that have been a big source of the easy money that allowed Americans to borrow heavily against their homes.

The result, as The Wall Street Journal reported last week, is that for the first time in at least 90 years, the United States is now paying noticeably more to foreign creditors than it receives from its investments abroad. That is a momentous shift. It means that a growing share of America's future collective income will flow abroad, leading to a lower standard of living in the United States than would otherwise have been achieved. Americans deserve better than this financial mess.

---

Bankruptcy...intellectual, ethical, emotional, political AND fiscal.. seems to be the common denominator of this Administration's track record.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 09:56 AM

October 6, 2006 at 03:00:17

UNTIL WE STAND UP TO IMPEACH BUSH WE WILL NEVER REGAIN POWER

by thepen

http://www.opednews.com

ACTION PAGE: http://www.peaceteam.net/pnum306.php

With all the talk lately about "woulda, shoulda, coulda", it's time to again remind our members of Congress that they have ALSO failed in the oversight of our runaway dictator under the guise of president.

Yet again this week, in signing the new Homeland Security spending bill, Bush felt obliged to attach a signing statement with what has now become a stock disclaimer reserving the right to interpret it "in a manner consistent with the president's Constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch." THERE IS NO SUCH AUTHORITY!!!

The administration's own legal counsel now admits that these signing statements are INTENDED as an illegal line item veto, a stealth and profoundly unconstitutional seizure of power, an utterly blatant disregard of the authority of Congress to make law. And yet the president is not still confronted by the Congress he so belittles.

To confront the president. THAT is the first thing that must happen. And that is why it is so important that we get as much exposure for the new Lie/Die TV spots of the Peace Team, calling the Bush administration out on their Iraq lies. First we must confront. And only then will the rest of our friends and neighbors see for themselves just how far Bush has gone to abuse the power intended by the founders.

By getting as many of the Lie/Die spots on the air as possible, and now 12 members of the Peace Team have already produced their own versions, we can get the word out that there ARE candidates with courage, who WILL stand up to the Bush administration. Only by standing up now and not backing down can we win the votes of those who also are troubled by the Bush lies, but who need to see our strength before trusting us with the necessary corrective power. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 11:03 AM

From Shortnews.com:

"Thousands Participate in Mass Anti-Bush Demonstrations

More then 200 cities participated today in a nationwide protest of President Bush. From Seattle to New York protesters executed their rights to free speech and called the Bush Administration's policies a crime-- and called for his impeachment.   

Thousands flooded Chicago with an estimated 800+ chanting "Impeach Bush" and "We Cant Wait for 2008" in Oregon. Dozens walked out of class at UNC. A variety of protest organizers had much to say.   

"We are turning the corner in bringing forward a mass movement of resistance to drive out the Bush regime." said one. Others were just happy to participate. "That's how we got our civil rights; if we didn't protest we wouldn't be Americans."

"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 02:43 PM

NewsFlash Home | More Oregon News

Protesters march through downtown Portland
10/5/2006, 4:07 p.m. PT
The Associated Press   

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — At least seven people were detained during a protest march through downtown Portland streets Thursday afternoon, one of several such rallies nationwide against the Bush administration.

Police, some afoot and others on bicycles and horses, monitored the marchers, who had a permit. Some officers were in riot gear.

The crowd numbered 700 to 800, most of college age. The throng made several stops, including the federal courthouse and the offices of The Oregonian newspaper.

The protesters who were detained apparently did not follow police instruction to get out of the street.

Protesters chanted "Impeach Bush" and carried signs, including one that read: "We Can't Wait for 2008."

There were reports of similar rallies in New York and Chicago. The Portland chapter of the group sponsoring the rally called itself the "World Can't Wait PDX."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 06:49 PM

From the upper left-hand corner of the country:

The Seattle Times
Friday, October 06, 2006

Administration foes step out statewide
By Tan Vinh
Seattle Times staff reporter

(with 8 photos - click links above photo on right)

Scores of anti-war activists, environmentalists and high-school students marched from the University of Washington campus to Capitol Hill and then to downtown Seattle Thursday, berating President Bush for everything from his management of the Iraq war to the handling of Hurricane Katrina.

Across the state, more than 250 related demonstrations were held, including rallies in Bellingham, Everett, Tacoma, Olympia, Wenatchee and Spokane, said organizers of the National Day of Mass Resistance. They said protests also were held as far away as Switzerland and Nepal.

The rest of the story HERE

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 01:33 PM

The Genius of John Nichols (excerpt:

"With "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism," John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States. Unlike several recently published books, this is not an argument for impeaching Bush, not a list of charges, not a rough draft of articles of impeachment. Rather, "Genius" is a history and portrait of the practice of impeachment, a practice that has been used far longer, far more often, and with far greater importance than most of us imagine.

Nichols makes an overwhelming case that the regular use of impeachment is necessary for the survival of our constitutional government, that impeachment proceedings usually have beneficial consequences even if unsuccessful, that promotion of impeachment is not nearly as politically risky as is failure to do so when it is merited, that a move to impeach Bush in the U.S. House would be greeted with enthusiastic public support, and that failure to impeach Bush would contribute to an ongoing dangerous expansion of executive power from which our system of government might not recover.

Did you know that articles of impeachment have been filed against nine U.S. presidents? Did you know that in seven cases, Republicans or Whigs were either the chief sponsors or major supporters of impeachment? Did you know that Republicans, in a minority, concerned about the rule of law and the presidential seizure of wartime powers, launched a major effort to impeach President Truman, an effort that ended only when the Supreme Court took up the same concerns and ruled against Truman (and Congress and the President obeyed the Supreme Court)? Did you know this effort benefited the Republicans in the next election?

Did you know that Republicans who put the Constitution above a Republican president cast the votes that sealed President Nixon's fate? Of course, they did so only after the Democrats had acted.

While Nichols covers the history of impeachment from the 1300s on, including recent efforts to impeach Prime Minister Tony Blair, obsessed with the present as I am, I want to pull out a few of Nichols' remarks on the recent history of the Democratic Party in the United States. These will not mean as much in isolation; you really must read the book. "

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 01:35 PM

Dennis Morrisseau
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
Running AT Congress (in VT)
[phone] [e-mail]
www.2LTMorrisseau.com
www.impeachbush.tv/editorials/dmorso_050819.html
PO Box 177, W. Pawlet, VT 05775



www.2LTmorrisseau.com

The Lieutenant is a candidate for Congress in Vermont running under this ballot line: Impeach Bush Now. He has called for impeachment of both Bush & Cheney. He is recruiting other "decent and able Citizens" to run for Congress with him, without regard to political party. The goal is to remove all present incumbents from Congress, again without regard to party. He call's this effort "Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion".

(From Op-Ed NEws)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Urbane Guerrilla
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 03:01 AM

Phooey. Veterans For Peace is more correctly called Veterans for Losing the War With the Shitheads Immediately.

If you won't fight against anti-democrats (which is NOT what the Republican Party is, whatever its several failings) who assume they can outlast the democratic states of the world, who the hell WILL you fight, and why are you such a lazy ass?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 03:14 AM

Urbane Guerrilla, are you a vet & could you explain who the shitheads are & who are the lazy asses? You not making yourself clear enough. I can tell where you're coming from but maybe with your type of verbal assassinations you can go elsewhere.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 09:20 AM

Ugh, UG. Looking in a mirror?

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 04:41 PM

Impeaching a populist democratic president is fine.
However if you try to impeach a right wing president, gunfire will be the predominant and indiscriminant means by which right wingers will cast their vote against Impeachment supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 04:46 PM

YEah, and they eat little babies, too... :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 08:06 PM

Viewpoints: Impeach Bush? Maybe Not.

by James J. Devine

People clamoring for the impeachment of President George W. Bush over his myriad failures, poor judgment and declining credibility would do well to consider some of the alternatives to a Bush presidency.

In 1947 the rules for the current Presidential Order of Succession were established. Below is the list of who would take over as President in the event that Bush should be unable to hold office:

• Vice President Richard Cheney

• Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert

• President pro tempore of the Senate Ted Stevens

• Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

• Secretary of the Treasury Henry M. Paulson, Jr.

• Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld

• Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

• Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne

• Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns

• Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez

• Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao

• Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt

• Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson

• Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters

• Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman

• Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings

• Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson

• Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff

Bush's immediate successor, Vice President Richard Cheney appears largely responsible for spreading misinformation that led to the ill-fated American invasion of Iraq and the treasonous exposure of an undercover CIA agent.

Third on the list, House Speaker Dennis Hastert is under fire in connection with a possible cover-up of former Rep. Mark Foley's inappropriate conduct with congressional pages. Hastert's office was notified before 2005 about Foley's inappropriate behavior, according to Kirk Fordham, a former aide to Foley who resigned last week as chief of staff to Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 12:24 AM

From http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/15/18320547.php

In Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney, edited by Dennis Loo and Peter Phillips, left-wing professors, journalists, and activists present a 300-page, 12-count indictment.

It is for the most part a sound indictment. A conservative American constitutionalist who loves his country can find little in the case for impeachment to take exception to.

Despite the strength of the case for impeachment, I do not think it will happen, because Bush has convinced Americans that his crimes against truth, the U.S. Constitution, and the Geneva Conventions are necessary measures in the "war against terrorists." As long as Americans understand 9/11 as an attack on America by "Islamo-fascism," the executive branch will have wide latitude in usurping liberty.

Seymour Hersh in his book Chain of Command asks,

"How did eight or nine neoconservatives redirect the government and rearrange long-standing American priorities and policies with so much ease? How did they overcome the bureaucracy, intimidate the press, mislead the Congress, and dominate the military? Is our democracy that fragile?"

"How indeed?" ask the editors of Impeach the President. Their answer seems to be that the Democrats have been intimidated and "truth and facts have been barricaded off from reaching most of the American people." The editors have faith in the American people to do the right thing if only they can find out the truth.

It is refreshing to see that the Left, unlike the neoconservatives, believes in the American system. However, as Claes Ryn indicates in his book America the Virtuous, it would appear that the American system has been eroded over the decades by the rise of the new Jacobin ideology known as neoconservatism.

In columns available on Antiwar.com on Oct. 12, Leon Hadar and William S. Lind point out that the Democrats are as neoconized as the neoconized Republicans. There is no difference.

At a recent conference hosted by the journal The National Interest, it was the Democrat Will Marshall, president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute, who sounded like Richard Perle and William Kristol, not the Republican Stefan Halper, who served in the Reagan administration. Halper presented a devastating critique of Bush's neocon foreign policy.

The problem is not that the Democrats are intimidated. The problem is that the Democrats are part of the problem. The editors of Impeach the President indirectly acknowledge this fact when they report that Congress "looked the other way" when Bush acknowledged that he lied to cover up his felony of illegally spying on U.S. citizens and declared the real criminal to be the NSA official who blew the whistle. Democrats, no less than Republicans, have permitted the Bush regime to violate the separation of powers and the rule of law. A branch of government that no longer defends its power is a branch of government that no longer believes in its power. Just as the Reichstag faded away for Hitler, the U.S. Congress has faded away for the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Urbane Guerrilla
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 01:19 AM

Barry, that sort of challenge is one I can easily answer: I spent nine years in my country's service in the Naval Security Group and have two awards Navy Expeditionary Medal to show for it, one for service in support of the unsuccessful Iranian hostage rescue mission -- we thought we were going to war that morning; the other for secretive spooky doings off the coast of a then-hostile nation.

You?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 10:16 AM

From The Olympian:

"It's time to talk about impeachment. With his latest push to make torture legal, and retroactively excuse the criminal acts of persons in his administration, President Bush has proven once again that his continuation in office is destructive to all that is truly American.

He and his agents lied us into an ill-conceived and completely unnecessary war in Iraq. He authorized illegal wire-tapping of American citizens, and illegal and immoral detention and torture of thousands in many places around the world. He treats core American values, the concepts of "the rule of law" and "checks and balances," as luxuries to be dispensed with as soon as times get tough. This most secretive administration has consistently and aggressively pushed to make the executive branch unilaterally dominant.

Beyond criminal behavior is the issue of incompetence. Examples are numerous, from the failure to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden and adequately maintain support for Afghanistan, the complete lack of foresight and planning for the aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, to the utter incompetence shown before and after hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This administration has demonstrated that they are not up to the task of governing.

We need to change directions. President Bush's refusal to hold any of his staff accountable means we must hold him accountable. It is the responsibility of our legislators and all of us as citizens to take back control of our national government.

If we truly believe in the Constitution, we can't wait for 2008."

Ken Brown, Olympia

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 10:18 AM

From the Oakland (CA) Tribune:

"Berkeley residents won't just vote on taxes next month,they also will weigh in on impeaching the president and vice president, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and tightening an already restrictive landmarks preservation ordinance.
Of the 17 local measures on the Alameda County ballot Nov. 7, Berkeley has more than one-third. Berkeley measures E, F G, H, I and J all need a simple majority to pass. Here is what they would do, if passed:

Measure H would make Berkeley the first city in the nation to petition the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

"Berkeley is a place where things begin," said Mayor Tom Bates when the measure was approved for the ballot. "It was the first place in the nation that called for divestment from South Africa. It was the first city in the nation to have curb cuts for disabled people. We were the first city in the nation to have dog parks and the first city in the nation to really protest the Vietnam War." ...

"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 02:32 AM

From the Wisconsin State Journal:

...Few other states allow such homegrown referendum efforts. Last April, voters in 24 of 32 Wisconsin communities - including Madison, Baraboo, Mount Horeb, Evansville and La Crosse - supported anti-war referendums.

The referendum is a local tool, and state election authorities do not keep track of which municipalities have scheduled war-related questions. But at least 13 communities are known to have such ballot questions. In addition to Ozaukee County, those include Boscobel, Fox Point, Lake Delton, Middleton, Milwaukee, Pittsville, Racine, South Milwaukee, the town of Springdale, Viroqua and Wauwatosa.

Referendums in Wisconsin Rapids and Pittsville call for an impeachment investigation of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. An anti- war referendum had been scheduled in Glendale, but a court decision last week resulted in the vote being postponed until April.


From CBS News coverage of the Virginia senatorial campaign:

Webb on Monday called John Warner a friend and said he believes his positions hold more in common with John Warner's than Allen's.

Webb noted that John Warner recently offered a sober assessment of the situation in Iraq and said the Bush administration may need to consider a "change of course" if the Iraqi government cannot stabilize the situation in the next few months. Webb has consistently criticized Bush's decision to invade Iraq and his handling of the war and subsequent occupation.

Webb also cited John Warner's support for embryonic stem-cell research, which Allen has opposed.

But Allen's spokesman noted that John Warner and Allen recently have staked out similar positions on Iraq.

"George Allen made it clear that he and Sen. Warner absolutely agree on Iraq," Wadhams said.

Webb and Mark Warner fielded questions Monday at a town hall forum in Greenspring Village, a well-heeled retirement community of nearly 2,000 near Springfield that is its own voting precinct and routinely has among the highest voter turnout in the state. Last year, Democrat Tim Kaine carried the precinct by about 20 points, similar to his margin of victory in the rest of Fairfax County.

Most of the questions from the audience of nearly 300 were about Iraq. When one resident asked whether Webb would vote to impeach Bush, Webb responded that he would do "everything in my power to bring accountability to what has happened on a variety of fronts in this administration." When the resident pointed out that Webb had not answered the question, Webb simply smiled in response.

ANd from a whimsy piece by David Wallichinsky:

People who come of age when the president is a Democrat are more likely to identify with the Democratic Party for the rest of their lives, and people who come of age when a Republican is in the White House are more likely to become life-long Republicans. The only major exception was during the Nixon years, when support for the Democrats increased...the only exception, that is, until now. The Pew survey shows that the Americans who are currently most likely to support the Democrats are those in the youngest age group, those who reached the age of 20 during the presidency of George W. Bush. In other words, George W. Bush is the greatest recruiting tool the Democratic Party has ever had. No wonder the Democrats don't want to impeach him.
So the question is: Is George W. Bush really a Democratic mole who has infiltrated deep inside the ranks of the Republican Party in order to destroy that party from within? If this is the case, he is doing a great job.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Oct 06 - 02:46 AM

Urbane Guerrilla, I thought as much, it really shows. Now you just need to get over it, get on with a life & you'll see things more clearly.
Good luck

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 10:23 AM

From Wisconsin:

Impeachement Resolution Meeting
WSAW Staff


Wisconsin Rapids will hold a town meeting to discuss a referendum that calls for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Both Wisconsin Rapids and Pittsville voters will have the question on their November ballots.
The meeting will be Thursday (10/19) at the McMillan Memorial Library in Wisconsin Rapids, starting at 6:30 p.m. It's sponsored by the "Wood County Impeachment Coalition" and the "Wisconsin Impeachment & Bring Our Troops Home Referendum" groups.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 06 - 03:17 PM

From Richmond:

Loud, angry voices greet Bush
Hundreds of demonstrators turn up near Science Museum to vent anger at president

BY MARK BOWES
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER Oct 20, 2006



They came to protest President Bush, Sen. George Allen, the Iraqi war, the National Security Agency surveillance program and most everything else conservative and Republican.

They were mostly young and mostly white, and at times very vocal and very profane.

For several hours yesterday, a few hundred people gathered across the street from the Science Museum of Virginia to voice their displeasure in words and signs with Bush.

"Bush and Allen sitting in a tree, K-I-L-L-I-N-G!" the crowd chanted at one point as they awaited the presidential motorcade.

Raunchy signs -- many using language not permitted in a daily newspaper -- were as plentiful as the slogans.

When one man tried persuading protesters to be civil and tone down the hostility, he was shouted down with a crude anti-Bush chant.

Several took a more tactful approach, such as a well-dressed man in a corduroy sport jacket who quietly held a sign describing Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld as a war criminal.

"I'm a swing voter," said the man, Kerry Riley, who lives nearby. "I voted for Ronald Reagan and [am] proud of many Republican people in office, but not the likes of Dick Cheney, President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove. I think they keep real bad company."

The Virginia Anti-War Network helped organize the protest, which drew 150 to 400 people at various stages, according to organizers and police estimates.

The purpose, said network spokesman Garrie Rouse, was "to get the message out that there are people that are opposed to Bush, the administration and what he represents. That's the main thing...."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 04:43 PM

Between the Lines' Scott Harris
Saturday, Oct. 21, 2006 at 5:38 AM

[e-mail]   BETWEEN THE LINES c/o WPKN Radio 89.5 FM Bridgeport, Connecticut

...Violations of US Constitution~Interview with Elizabeth Holtzman, former congresswoman, conducted by Between the Lines' Scott Harris

Former Watergate Era Congresswoman Advocates Impeachment of Bush for Violations of U.S. Constitution

Interview with Elizabeth Holtzman, former congresswoman, conducted by Scott Harris

As the prospects dimmed for continued Republican control of Congress in November's election, President Bush signed into law the controversial Military Commissions Act of 2006, affecting the treatment of U.S. held terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Naval base in Cuba and elsewhere. In comments made before signing the bill on Oct. 17, President Bush dedicated the legislation to the memory of the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11th.

The bill permits the exclusion of a defendant from his trial if classified evidence is being presented, and the admission of hearsay and coerced statements as evidence. The law prohibits a detainee from filing a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of their detention in federal court. Another feature of the bill retroactively provides immunity from prosecution for U.S. personnel who engaged in harsh interrogation tactics from September 2001 to December 2005, while giving the president unilateral power to decide what constitutes a violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions outlawing torture and cruel treatment.

The law also expands the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" to include anyone who directly or indirectly supports hostilities against the United States and gives the president the power to declare U.S. citizens enemy combatants, subject to indefinite detention. The law is already being challenged for what critics maintain are serious violations of the U.S Constitution. Between the Lines' Scott Harris spoke with former four-term New York congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who served on the House judiciary Committee during impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon. She explains why she opposes the Military Commissions Act and why she believes the president should be impeached.

Former four-term New York congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman erved on the House Judiciary Committee during impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon. She is the author of "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Handbook for Concerned Citizens," published by Nation books. Related links:


Center for Constitutional Rights at
http://www.ccr-ny.org

National Lawyers Guild
http://www.nlg.org

Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org

Amnesty International
http://www.amnesty.org

People for the American Way at [phone] or visit their website at
http://www.pfaw.org

LISTEN to this week's half-hour program of Between The Lines by clicking on one of the links below:
http://www.btlonline.org
*


*
"Between the Lines," WPKN 89.5 FM's weekly radio news magazine can be heard Tuesdays at 5:30 p.m. ET; Wednesdays at 8 a.m. ET & Saturdays at 2 p.m. ET (Wednesday's show airs at 7:30 a.m. ET during fundraising months of April & October).
*

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 04:47 PM

See also Musical Bush Bashing.

Now it's a music thread!


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 06 - 04:59 PM

A thoughtful interview by David Swanson with Dennis Loo, who wrote a handbook on Impeachment.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 02:58 PM

"If Clinton's mind had been on "the subject at hand" while speaking to Arafat on-the-phone; the Republicans would not be cleaning up Clinton's mess."

Okay, GUEST, here's how the Republicans are cleaning up "Clinton's mess."   Fasten your seat belt.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 12:08 AM

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 (UPI) -- U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has pledged not to pursue impeachment of President George W. Bush if Democrats win the November election.

"Impeachment is off the table," said Pelosi in an interview aired Sunday on CBS "60 Minutes."

Asked if that was a pledge, Pelosi said it was.

"Yes, it is a pledge," she said. "Of course it is."

Pelosi called impeachment "a waste of time," and suggested Republicans -- who have controlled the House for 12 years -- would make political hay out of it if Democrats tried to impeach Bush.

"Wouldn't they just love it if we came in and our record as Democrats coming forth after 12 years is to talk about George Bush and Dick Cheney? This election is about them. This is a referendum on them. Making them lame ducks is good enough for me."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:52 AM

Local effort to impeach Bush continues
By Jennifer Huberdeau, North Adams Transcript
10/23/2006 06:28:33 AM EDT
Monday, October 23
NORTH ADAMS (VT) — The effort by two local men to put a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush on the City Council agenda Tuesday night, Oct. 24, has failed, but Eric Buddington and Peter May aren't giving up.
They said yesterday that they plan to present the resolution during the open forum session at the end of the meeting, which begins at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall.

"We had thought for a couple of days that (Councilor) Richard Alcombright was going to put it on the agenda," Buddington said Friday night. "It appears that now he is not. He was going to put it on the agenda, even though he didn't support it. But he later said it didn't make sense for him to put something on the agenda if he didn't support it."

Buddington said both he and May will speak during open forum, knowing they will be limited to 2 minutes apiece, if recognized by Council President Gailanne M. Cariddi. Both men want Bush impeached on the grounds that he led the nation into war on false pretenses, has violated the Geneva Convention by allowing the torture of prisoners and has illegally allowed the wiretapping of American citizens by government agencies.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:47 PM

These Guys are singin' right along with Amos:

Youth Unite and Fight! - Young Communist League, USA - Who We Are!
                
Top level Issues & Ideas Now Mobilizing

Author: YCL
        
| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |


"Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction.
No universal selfishness can bring social good to all."
—Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois African American scholar, activist and Communist

CAPITALISM
What do you call a system that promotes selfishness, exploitation, racism and police brutality, sexism, and homophobia? A system that wages unjust wars for profit, that robs young people of jobs and education, devastates our communities with drugs and poverty and destroys our environment?

What do you call a system that puts people out on the streets, lets children go hungry and leaves the sick and elderly without care? A system that allows a small minority to become obscenely wealthy and powerful, while the majority of people live in poverty and powerlessness?

Do you call it inhumane? Unjust? Crazy? You can call it that, or you can just call it capitalism.

Most young people think there's something wrong with "the system." There is. What's wrong is the system of capitalism itself. Under capitalism, the wealth produced by working people goes into the pockets of a small minority—the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

SOCIALISM
What do you call a system that promotes community, economic justice and equality, peace among nations, and outlaws racism, sexism, and homophobia?

What do you call a system that houses the homeless, feeds the hungry, takes care of the sick and elderly, rebuilds our cities and schools, provides jobs and education to all and puts the power of the government into the hands of the multi-racial working class?

Do you call it humane? Just? Rational? You can call it that, or you can just call it socialism.

We can build a system where the wealth produced by the people is owned by the people and services the people. That system is called socialism.

WHO WE ARE
The Young Communist League, USA is a multi-racial, working-class organization made up of youth who believe we can build a better world. We come from a variety of backgrounds, just like the young people of our country: we are employed and unemployed workers, we are high school and college students, we are Black, white, Latino, Asian, and Native American, we are gay and straight, we are women and men.

We struggle together for a socialist USA, for jobs for youth, against racism and oppression, for peace, for women's rights, for the right to an education for all, and more. We struggle for immediate reforms and at the same time we fight for a more fundamental revolution.

The ruling class has always tried to "divide and conquer." As communists, we understand that the real enemy is not each other—it's capitalism.

The capitalist class exploits working people and promotes division and confusion. The enemy is not unions, it is not immigrants, nor any other scapegoat. It's the corporations and banks that close factories, cut wages and benefits, and force people, especially youth, to work for minimum and sub-minimum wages or join the military in order to get an education or an income.

The enemy is not overseas. It is not the people of Iraq, Cuba, Venezuela, or China. The enemy is the ruling class right here at home. The ruling class profits from imperialist military interventions, while the sons and daughters of the workers of each country do all of the killing and the dying.



TIME FOR SOME ACTION!
The YCL knows how to fight. We are out in the streets marching, protesting and knocking on doors. We are working in our communities and building winning coalitions. We know that young people need to be united with the working class and the labor movement, and with the movements for racial and gender equality.

The YCL is a school of struggle, where we organize and educate each other to fight for our rights, to understand our world and how to change it. The YCL has solutions. The capitalists say that our solutions won't work, but that's because they bene•t from the existing arrangement of our world.

It is possible to solve the crisis facing young people. Together, we can:

    * Provide free, quality education and good jobs to all.
    * Outlaw racism, sexism and homophobia and promote understanding and peace.
    * Rebuild our communities. Provide recreation, sports and cultural opportunities for all.
    * End the drug and violence epidemic that is destroying our generation.
    * Tax the super-rich and corporations and shift the military's massive budget to social programs that benefit the people.
    * End all wars and acts of aggression. Build peace and international solidarity!



We struggle for socialism because it offers young people a future. Under capitalism it is possible to win small victories, but only under socialism will they be lasting. Socialism has real solutions to the problems of capitalism. But it won't come by itself. It will come through the struggles of the people and those who consciously work for it.

The united strength of working people of all races, of women and men, of gays and lesbians, of seniors, of youth and students, can solve the crisis of capitalism. It's time for some action!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 12:20 AM

Guy:

Go shoot yourself, buddy. Your hateful twisting is getting old, as are your Joe-McCarthy style tactics.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 11:16 AM

From the Salem, Oregon StatesmanM/i>

"Soon, George Bush will have caused as many U.S. deaths as were suffered on 9/11. Such tragic loss might be necessary in a just, defensive war -- which the Iraq war is not.

The Bush administration used 9/11 so they could attack Iraq, create a puppet state and control Middle East politics and oil. Completely misunderstanding the nature of the region, their blunders have had the exact opposite effect: made the oil supply more unstable, created more terrorists, made Shiite Iran dominant and markedly increased the danger for the U.S. and the world.

I'm proud of our brave troops, doing a magnificent job under extremely difficult circumstances. However, this lieutenant colonel, USMC (retired) bitterly resents the 23,000 casualties, taken by my comrades-in-arms because of Bush's unnecessary rush to war.

The president preaches democracy to others but constantly curtails it with illegal king-like powers, undermining the constitution with warrantless searches, due-process restrictions, approving torture and rendition, destroying habeas corpus, etc.

How much more can real patriots take? Impeach the president. Vote out the congressional members who support war or freedom restrictions. Defend the Constitution. Save our checks and balances. Remember, one more Bush-nominated Supreme Court Justice and our democratic republic is lost.

-- Josh Reese, Salem"

---

"How many more need to die before Bush is satisfied?

October 30, 2006

Mr. Bush, as president, is directly or indirectly responsible for thousands of deaths in Iraq, many of them U.S. soldiers. History will probably record him as being the worst president in the country's history.

How many more people will need to die before his pride and arrogance are satisfied?

-- Charles Faulk, Salem"


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 02:11 PM

..."The Bible does indeed make a clear distinction between good and evil, but the moral majority's issues are not the Bible's issues. The Bible stresses loving one's neighbor, sacrificing for others as Jesus did for us, showing compassion and mercy, forgiving, fulfilling one's responsibilities, charity to the poor, justice, truthfulness, humility.

Bush and Cheney are evil people, as are those around them. They murder, cheat, lie and steal, shamelessly and ruthlessly. They have amassed huge private fortunes through the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, at the expense of the American people, the lives of American soldiers, and of countless Iraqis and Afghanis, not to mention the great harm done by nuclear pollution, the destruction of the US reputation internationally, etc.

Now Bush and Cheney have forced through legislation that gives them absolute power and suspends the rule of law. They have utterly corrupted the Congress, and cowed the people into submissiveness through control of the media and "the war on terror".

We all must choose between good and evil. We like to think that people are a mixture, but there are those who make wicked choices consistently, and attain predatory positions of power where they do great harm. These people are evil, through and through. Perhaps they are redeemable, but it would take public repentance and an effort to undo some of the mischief and make reparations- highly unlikely, in the case of Bush and Cheney.

All public officials, including candidates for Congress, have to take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Congress has a Constitutional duty to bring impeachment proceedings against blatant evildoers, Constitution-shredders, in the White House. Only 39 brave Congresspeople, out of 435, have signed on to Conyers HR 635, which would start the necessary investigation into impeachable offenses."...

From this page.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 02:15 PM

And from San Francisco's own Fog City Journal:

"...SAN FRANCISCO (BCN) - Mandatory sick pay, boosting the salaries of city leaders and a $450 million school bond measure are a few of the 11 ballot measures San Francisco voters are set to decide on in this year's general election.

The propositions range from policy changes to new taxes, from proposals with no fiscal impact to ordinances that could increase the cost of government by millions of dollars.
...
Proposition J would create a formal policy calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney."

Hmmmmmm

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Old Guy
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 09:46 AM

Amos:

I am just pointing out that the American Communist Party has the same ideology as yours.

They share your agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Old Guy
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 10:19 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Mark Foley Scandal
From: Amos - PM
Date: 19 Oct 06 - 10:51 PM

ETHICS
Character Counts...
...Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi writes, "These past six years were more than just the most shameful, corrupt and incompetent period in the history of the American legislative branch. These were the years when the U.S. parliament became a historical punch line...a stable of thieves and perverts who committed crimes rolling out of bed in the morning and did their very best to turn the mighty American empire into a debt-laden, despotic backwater, a Burkina Faso with cable." The current congressional leadership has put its self-interest above the common good and has refused to clean house or pass meaningful ethics reform legislation.

Here is the ethical Matt Taibbi's recipe for horse sperm pie:

Equine Custard Cream Pie
1 ready-made pie crust
3 egg yolks
5 oz. fresh horse semen
3/4 cup sugar
1 1/2 cups whole milk
1/2 teaspoon coarse (kosher) salt
1 tablespoon butter (at room temperature)
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/2 cup heavy whipping cream

for the topping:
1 cup fresh or frozen (thawed) strawberries
2 tablespoons sugar
1/4 cup milk

In a medium saucepan, beat the egg yolks.
Stir in the horse semen and sugar until well blended. Add the milk
and salt. Simmer on low heat for 5 to 7 minutes, until the custard
mixture begins to bubble and froth. Stir in the vanilla extract.
Keep in refrigerator for 2 to 4 hours to cool and Using an electric mixer,
whip the cream until the formation of stiff peaks.
With a spatula, gently fold the whipped cream into the cooled custard.
Final mixture should be semi-liquid, with the consistency of fairly runny pudding.
Pour the custard-cream mixture into the pie crust, filling almost to the top.
Using the tines of a fork, poke the surface of the custard repeatedly in order to form
tiny, meringue-like peaks. Keep in refrigerator until ready to serve.
To make the topping, mash the strawberries (raspberries may also be used) with a fork
or puree in a blender. Stir in the sugar. Add the milk gradually while stirring,
as much as the mixture will accept without becoming excessively runny.
Just before serving, pour the topping onto the pie in whatever pattern you desire.
Be sure not to cover the entire surface of the custard!
The topping is primarily a decorative accent, after all you
want your victim, assuming his palette is sufficiently well developed,
to be able to taste the horse sperm you took such pains to procure.

Good luck!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 12:23 AM

From the Boise, Idaho, Weekly, an excerpt from this piece .

Nice speech. But voters want Democrats to do more than talk next spring if they regain majority control. All of the Bush-era attacks on freedom and decency must go: the MCA, Detainee Treatment Act, Terrorist Surveillance Program Act legalizing spying on our phone calls and e-mail without a warrant, and the USA-Patriot Act. Concentration camps at Guantánamo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib, as well as the CIA's "secret prisons" in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and the vile program of "extraordinary renditions" (torture outsourcing) should be closed at once.

Impeach Bush. I was one of the few lefties to say it at the time: Bill Clinton deserved to be impeached. He lied under oath and he lied to the American people. George W. Bush makes Clinton look like a rank amateur. He stole two presidential elections, at least in part by hiring thugs to prevent black people from voting. He repeatedly told lies to deceive the public into fighting a disastrous, losing war. It's late and it's insufficient punishment, but if Bush doesn't merit impeachment, who does?

This year, casting your vote for a Democrat isn't enough to end the neo-fascist nightmare. The real work begins next spring, if and when Democrats assume control of Congress. It's up to us to hold them accountable--and vote them out if they let us down.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Old Guy
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 12:46 AM

Hey Amos, how come they didn't impeach FDR for doing worse?

Reason: there wern't so many Liberal Crybabys back then.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 12:47 PM

From NewsMax.com

Some congressional leaders will push for President Bush's impeachment now that the Democrats have taken control of the House and possibly the Senate, former New York Mayor Ed Koch predicts.

"I expect that [Rep. John] Conyers as chairman [of the House Judiciary Committee], now with great freedom, will do anything he can to commence such impeachment or investigatory activity, and we'll see whether Pelosi will prevent it," Koch says.

Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in line to become the first female speaker of the House of Representatives in U.S. history, has said that impeachment proceedings against Bush are "off the table," according to a report in The Washington Post.

With the resounding Democratic victory on Tuesday, however, Conyers, D-Mich., is set to take over the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee.

Earlier this summer, Conyers issued a 350-page "investigative report" on the Bush administration that was widely viewed as a road map for Bush's impeachment if the Democrats took control of the House. Conyers charged that the Bush administration had violated "approximately 26 laws and regulations."

The Judiciary Committee would initiate any impeachment proceeding.

---

Maybe, Old Guy, it was because FDR was pulling the country out of trouble into which it was pushed by rampant greed, and only got into a war footing when it was unavoidably pushe don him, by aggressors outside the country; and then, aimed it at the aggressors who started it.

Bush planned his war against Iraq from the first month he was in office, before 9-11, and had no similar justification, except for the butterflies in OPEC's stomach and the desire of Americanoil cartels to take certain oil shipments away from Aquitaine. And as far as rampant greed, Mister Bush has demonstrated repeatedly he is on its side, the "haves and the have-mores" as he so eloquently expressed it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 04:19 PM

Hi Amos
Nancy can't look as if she's pushing impeachment as Speaker she'd be 3rd in line to be President. So a "Push the Bush" (along with the VP) may look like a conflict of interest & self serving at the very least. BUT a push by a united front would be so fine. The Lame Ducks would be gone with their due in tow, she'd be the nations 1st female President & the whole government would be top heavy with Dem's. It would be very hard to make a case against the Dem's come the 2008 elections (as long as they took the bull by the horns & started reforming) & maybe at that time the republican party will be only a memory. I'd like to see Hillary & Obama run together in 2008 but I'd take the above scene as a better alt.

Nice metting you at the Getaway, BTW.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Rich (bodhránai gan cookie)
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 05:44 PM

I'd just as soon leave him in office now.   With the house and possibly the senate out of his back pocket, he can't do much damage any more. More importantly, we gained lot of ground because folks are pissed at Bush. I'd just as soon we still have Bush for people to be pissed off at in 2008.


my $.02,

Rich

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 05:54 PM

A delight for me, Barry. Loved hearing you sing and seeing you look so hale!

It remains to be seen whether the task is deemed worth the effort, politically. Lose one year of Bush and get a year of Cheney, barring a heart attack or hunting accident...


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 06:17 PM

"there wern't so many Liberal Crybabys back then" and what would you know about it?

Last time I looked, CNN News the only crybabies around are Consurvatives and in the W.H. on public view for all to see.


Boy that was worth the wait!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 06:30 PM

Champaign-Urbana Votes to Withdraw from Iraq and Impeach Bush-Cheney; Other Illinois Cities Vote to Withdraw from Iraq

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot-and-robert-naiman/champaignurbana-votes-to_b_33644.html

Final results from the Champaign County Clerk's office, 100% of precincts reporting:

Withdraw US Troops and Bases from Iraq ("orderly and rapid"):
Champaign
Yes No
9888 7104
58% 42%

Urbana
Yes No
5729 3029
65% 35%

Champaign-Urbana
Yes No
15618 10134
61% 39%

Impeach Bush/Cheney for War, Torture, Illegal Surveillance:
Champaign
Yes No
7877 9140
46% 54%

Urbana
Yes No
5171 3614
59% 41%

Champaign-Urbana
13049 12755
50.6% 49.4%

In many Republican precincts in Champaign - as judged by the vote in the Secretary of State's race - the majority voted in favor of withdrawal from Iraq.


In 32 of Champaign's 38 precincts and in 22 of Urbana's 23 precincts a majority voted in favor of withdrawal. As we were tallying the votes at the County building, Republican Rep. Tim Johnson gave a press conference on his victory in the Congressional election. He acknowledged that the US position in Iraq was a "quagmire" and that Americans would not tolerate the status quo for another two years.

In the spring the Urbana City Council passed a resolution in favor of withdrawal. At the time, peace activists claimed that the council was reflecting majority sentiment in Urbana. This completes the argument.

Other Illinois cities voted to withdraw from Iraq:

DeKalb-yes 58%
Geneva-Yes 52%
Aurora-Yes 58%
Riverside-Yes 62%
Downers Grove-Yes 55%
Whiteside 58%
Springfield 59%
Berwyn 70%
Oak Park 75%

-Robert Naiman, Just Foreign Policy

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Old Guy
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 07:04 PM

Pelosi: 'Impeachment is Off the Table'

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 07:48 PM

Keep them fingers crossed, amigo. If half of your icon's malfasances ever surface, he'll be likely hung for war crimes. :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Old Guy
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 08:14 PM

Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President

By Charles Babington
Washington Post ( Bobert's favorite el pinko rag ) Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; Page A06

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 09:15 PM

Please, hold your breath....


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Old Guy
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 09:27 PM

You hold yours.


RAW STORY
Published: Monday October 23, 2006

In an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pledged that impeachment of President George W. Bush was off the table should Democrats gain a majority next month.

Pelosi speculated that Republicans would "just love" the "waste of time" such proceedings would be. "Making them lame ducks," she concluded, "is good enough for me."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 11:37 PM

I saw the original story, days ago, OG. I understand what you are saying. But as your furless Liter has demonstrated, constant reassessing is the price of running around in circles.

It is possible that certain investigation will reveal crimes, which will require a reassessment of Mister Resident's residency.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 02:13 PM

I would just add that Bush has to be impeached for his fascistic insanities.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Old Guy
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 10:39 PM

Who is your furless leader, Bubba, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 11:58 PM

Thanks, OG -- but neither of the above.

He has to be impeached because he is insane.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:50 AM

A letter to the editor
Dear Editor: One of several reasons for electing Democrats to the upcoming Congress was to make sure that President Bush and Vice President Cheney would have to account for all the crimes they have committed against this government and against the people of the United States - as well as the world.

If nothing is done to impeach them for their fraudulent, horrendous behavior, we essentially are saying that we will let any vice president and president get by with any impeachable offense as we do not want to ripple the waters - we don't want to cause any problems, because it may be difficult - or it may cause people not to vote for Dems again.

That would not be the case. In order to retain the majority, the Dems need to show they can be tough when needed.

What these two top men have done is commit treasonous actions toward our country! This Congress is constitutionally required to investigate this administration if there is any reason to believe they have committed fraudulent acts in their tenure of governing. This is not at anyone's option - this is your constitutional responsibility.

This is not about getting even with the Republicans for impeaching Clinton - that impeachment had nothing to do with how Clinton was running his administration.

This has to do with running the government - committing acts of treason, lying in order to go to war, spying without any warrant on the American people, cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war, people imprisoned with no charges brought against them for years and being brutalized while in prison - and hundreds of other laws of our country being disregarded - as if they are kings and the laws don't apply to them.

As soon as the 110th Congress is sworn in in January '07, isn't it time that Congress do its job of cleanup?

Help us get back our democracy. We and the people of the world are counting on you!

Janet Olsen
Waunakee

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 05:19 AM

Amos,

The copy of the letter written by Janet Olsen of Waunakee, that you posted signifies what? We are supposed to take it as a true representation of fact? All it actually is, is a collection of Janet Olsen's opinions nothing more, nothing less.

Taking a look at Janet Olsen's opinions and the points raised in here letter result in the following comments:

"One of several reasons for electing Democrats to the upcoming Congress was to make sure that President Bush and Vice President Cheney would have to account for all the crimes they have committed against this government and against the people of the United States - as well as the world."

I wonder if Ms Olsen asked whoever it was she voted for if they were going to Washington DC hell-bent on impeaching the President and Vice-President. From my recollection of the election coverage over this side of the Atlantic at no time did I hear any candidate or party mention implementation of impeachment proceedings as being one of the results of their being elected. So where does Ms Olsen get idea that the new Congress was elected to "make sure" of impeachment - utterly ridiculous, pure wishful thinking on the lady's part, but absolutely no basis in fact.

Ms Olsen accuses the President and Vice-President of "fraudulent, horrendous behavior", again this is purely her opinion, because no charges have ever been levelled.

Ms Olsen then goes on:
"What these two top men have done is commit treasonous actions toward our country!"

Really? In what way? Again purely opinion. I would venture to guess that Ms Olsen does not elaborate, due to the inconvenient lack of evidence to support her preposterous accusation.


"This Congress is constitutionally required to investigate this administration if there is any reason to believe they have committed fraudulent acts in their tenure of governing. This is not at anyone's option - this is your constitutional responsibility."

One point that Ms Olsen should look at, and possibly accept, is that "This Congress", having looked, does not have any reason to believe that any fraudulent acts have been committed - hence no action will be taken.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Leadfingers
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 06:49 AM

300 !!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 11:28 AM

Amos I agree with you the man is nuts.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 11:34 AM

I have seen nothing to indicate the Congress has looked and found nothing actionable. I've seen the Democratic party principals assert they will not, at present, pursue impeachment as an issue. There are two reasons for this, that I can think of. One is to keep it as a reserve to provide leverage with the Executive. The second is to allay backlash until som eindependent investigation raises the issue so it does not look as partisan as it would otherwise.

The letter posted is just a representative of many that get sent in to papers across the country.

HEre's another, this time from Detroit:

"...Now that such success has eluded the United States for going on four years and the end is not yet even in sight, what do you tell the troops with whom my friend Joe is embedded? What do you tell them are the grand aim and lofty purpose for their bearing arms in the teeth of danger? What clear vision shall be theirs as they face death day in and day out?

Don't even try 9/11. That had nothing to do with the wasps nest of Iraq and the ancient Shiite and Sunni resentments into which we blundered and by which we and they are now being overwhelmed.

That is why the growing clamor for withdrawal is being heard. If we don't know beyond blind stubbornness why we're there and nobody can seem to articulate a clear and sensible purpose for our being there, then we should get out. And as for the threat that civil war would break out if we left, well ...

How to save face from this embarrassment? Impeach President George W. Bush. He would probably not be convicted, but the high-profile debate would be a healthy airing of grievances. What Bush has wrought makes Bill Clinton's juvenile peccadillo and lies about it look pretty mild.

An impeachment proceeding would tell the world that we are in the process of soul-searching, of making amends for accepting the manifest unfairness and possible illegality of the 2000 election, and for not turning out in greater numbers in 2004 when Bush might have been ousted.

The American electorate was aroused this year. Putting down the mighty from their seats has begun. Next? The exaltation of the humble and meek.

HARRY T. COOK is an Episcopal minister, journalist and author. He is the rector of St. Andrew's Church in the Detroit suburb of Clawson. Write to him in care of the Free Press Editorial Page, 600 W. Fort St., Detroit 48226 or [e-mail]."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 08:52 AM

Amos,

While the letters posted by yourself here may be representative of many that get sent in to papers across the country, they still only reflect the opinions of those writing them. That does not mean that what is stated in those letters is true. In the second example the contentions and opinions of HARRY T. COOK, Episcopal minister, journalist and author, are ludicrous and so full of holes that it makes a collander look seaworthy.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 09:51 AM

I dunno, T.... the nation under Bush has embraced some very dodgy policies, including pre-emptive invasion. This is bad imperialistic policy. Your perception that Cook's rhetoric is full of holes may depend on what you are comparing it to, as a background.

Men have died, women have died, families have been destroyed, because of courses selected by W and his cohort that may have been the wrong course of action, choosing force and violence in response to situations out of a lack of imagination, a blundering unawareness of consequences, a lack of ethical fiber, or just glaring stupidness.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 07:14 PM

Jim Bronke: For country's sake, let's impeach Bush
A letter to the editor
Dear Editor: Impeachment isn't an issue of Democrats v. Republicans. It's about our country. What we are.

We are not about what Bush has done. We are not about violating international law. We are not about murdering people. We are not about using depleted uranium weapons that leave the radioactivity around for 1 billion years.

We are about law and order. It is right for incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to not pursue impeachment herself. That would be a conflict of interest. She would be in line for the presidency.

But it is right for her to support it when it is the will of the people. And it is the will of the people. The Democrats do listen more to the will of the people and they will come around. Even Nancy Pelosi.

It is time to impeach and one less day of Bush in office is one more day that we can bring back America.

Jim Bronke
Everett, Wash.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 11:11 AM

Jesse Jackson offers a rational assessment of why impeachment should be seriously considered.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/159751,CST-EDT-jesse05.article

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

..."

A

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

From TomPaine.com, an excerpt:

Why Impeachment Is Crucial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

A

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

12-11-06 Associated Press reports:

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

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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


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


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

"

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

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

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

Towns consider removing president

December 17, 2006
By DANIEL BARLOW Staff Writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why President Bush Must Be Impeached

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



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

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

(More at this page.)

A

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

From the Roanoke, Virginia, Times:

Impeach Bush before he does even more harm

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

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

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

BOB SCHNEIDER
BLACKSBURG

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

Livingston, Michigan's local paper includes this letter:

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


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

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


Sally A. York

Brighton"

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

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

A

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

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


A

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

some support for the cause from Keith Olbermann

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

A


A

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

It is so easy even a Scientologist can understand it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting reading.

Old Guy, go subscribe to mayhem somewhere.


A

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

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


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

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

— Victor M. Corbett, Chico

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

From ABC7News:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe another country should try him for war crimes.

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

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

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

From The Detroit Free Press:

ROCHELLE RILEY: Impeach now to end war

January 7, 2007
BY ROCHELLE RILEY
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond politics

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

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

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

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

Enough already

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

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

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

When is enough enough? ...

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

You're Blowin' My High

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats are Reverting to Form
by DAVE LINDORFF

From the Baltimore Chronicle:

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


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

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

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

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

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

---

A

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately this young Army Lt has been badly advised.

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

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

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

Amos decides what is moral?

What are his qualifications for being a judge of morality?

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

Another view on the possibility and reason for impeachment:

"January 12, 2007 at 04:25:40

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

by Gustav Wynn




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

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

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

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

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


...

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

Teribus:

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

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

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

Remember the purple fingers?

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

You are 100% wrong.

Cheers

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

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

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

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

A

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

Looks like Amos is running short on misrepresentations.

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

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

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

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

A

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

Arne - 12 Jan 07 - 04:58 PM

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

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

"SECURITY COUNCIL EXTENDS MANDATE OF MULTINATIONAL FORCE IN IRAQ UNTIL


31 DECEMBER 2007, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1723 (2006)


Also Calls for Review of Force by 15 June 2007,

Earlier Termination of Mandate if Requested by Iraqi Government



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



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



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

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

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

T:

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

A

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

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

Arne - 12 Jan 07 - 04:58 PM

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

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

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

Vermont towns urged to support Bush impeachment

January 15, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the full article here.

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

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

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

Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

Dean: No Impeachment Plans for Bush

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

I think we heard that the first time.

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

A

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

From Impeachment: The Case in Favor

Elizabeth Holtzman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impeachment march

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

Here's a link to the story and video:

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

---

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

by Rob Kall

Entire piece with photos is here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

A

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

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 Bush

March 27, 2007

MONTPELIER, Vt. --Grassroots Vermont Democrats want the Legislature to demand an investigation into whether President Bush should be impeached. But the top Democrat in the House says she's not interested in spending time on the issue.

The Democratic State Committee met over the weekend and overwhelmingly backed a resolution, currently pending in the House Judiciary Committee, that calls for the impeachment of the president and Vice President Dick Cheney.

There were between 40 and 50 Democrats at the meeting and only about a half-dozen voted against the resolution.

Democratic Committee Chairman Ian Carleton said rank-and-file Democrats want the Legislature to act on the resolution because they believe the president has been "deceitful and untruthful to the American people" about the war in Iraq.

"At this point it is beyond debate that President Bush and members of his administration have committed impeachable offenses," Carleton said. "First and foremost is misleading the country into this unacceptable war."

The party vote follows the adoption of similar resolutions in 39 Vermont communities.

"The vote this weekend called for prompt action on the resolution," said Rep. Richard Marek, D-Newfane, a member of the state committee who abstained from the impeachment vote because he is a co-sponsor. "The next session will be too late." (From Boston.com 3-27-07)

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 impeachment

A 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

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 02:25 AM

"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."

If that is the level of it Amos, then neither Bush nor Cheney, or indeed any member of the current Administration need worry. Accusations and charges solely amount to trendy, left-wing, "right-on" chatter. I believe that if you are going to instigate any form of legal action against anyone you first of all need some form of charge of substance with clear evidence to back up those charges. In all the "cut 'n' pastes" supplied by Amos (That make up about 80% of this thread) there is only opinion based on lies, misrepresentations, myths and half-truths.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 02:58 AM

I am sure that is only one of many charges. As for lies and half-truths, I am surprised you even think you can see them now.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 03:01 AM

Here ya go....


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 09:53 AM

Political posturing Amos that most admit will get no-where, and suceed in doing nothing except paralyse the United States of America politically for the next two years.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 10:02 AM

Given that we have been going to hell politically for the last seven, an interlude of paralysis while we find our moral bearings might be in order, old chum. The first thing you want to do when you have dug yourself into a deep hole is to stop digging.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 10:47 AM

From a letter to the Napqa Valley Register:

"...It was reported in the news that President Bush was horrified when he learned of the shooting on the Virginia Tech campus that took 32 lives.

Why the horror, George? Under your "democracy at the end of a gun" guidance, massacres like that have been occurring daily for the past five years in Iraq.

I just started reading a new book from the library, "The Deserter's Tale" by Joshua Key, the story of an American soldier who walked away from the war in Iraq. Key enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2002 and went to Iraq with the 3rd Armed Calvary Regiment. In the book, Key relates the war he found himself participating in was not the campaign against terrorists he had expected. Instead, he saw Iraqi citizens beaten, shot and killed or maimed for little or no provocation. Nearly every other night, he participated in destructive raids on homes he was told were harboring terrorists — never finding evidence of terrorist activity. When he returned home on leave, Key knew he could never return to Iraq, so he went into hiding and eventually sought asylum in Canada (A total of 3,196 active-duty soldiers deserted from the U.S. Army in 2006).

Support our troops — bring them home now! And impeach the pompous, irresponsible, fascist-minded simpleton in the White House!"

Al Cardwell / Napa

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 10:49 AM

Unfortunately Amos the prize is so great that the politicians in the US at present are so interested in self-promotion and keeping clear of sensitive issues (This impeacment gambit is being used solely to keep a rank outsider's hopes alive and name on the Democrat ticket that would otherwise have slipped into obscurity months ago).

Get bogged down in this and it could well lose the Democrats the next Presidential election. The US currently has troops engaged abroad, you have a House of Representatives and Senate bickering about funding and attempting to impose conditions on those armed forces, or more correctly on their Commander-in-Chief, for purely political reasons. From abroad it looks bad, it demonstrates amazing weakness and an incredible lack of resolve.

The situation has got nothing to do with holes, its got to do with fighting an enemy who has attacked you - in that case you don't stop until you have won, or at least effectively discouraged them. For that you need national unity, purpose and leadership - not petty personal party politics.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 01:16 PM

Wise words, Teribus.

Why do you suppose we chose an enemy that had not?

We prosecuted the Taliban because they gave aid and comfort to Bin Laden. Iraq was completely independent from Al Qeda AND from Osama bin Laden. Granted it had a gruesome regime in place, but so does Somalia.

In other news:

The following is a petition form from a site called Democratic underground:

"Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney

I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:
1) The Offense of Lying and Inducing America to Support a War

President Bush and Vice President Cheney intentionally misled the Congress and the American people regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war against Iraq, and intentionally conspired with others to defraud the United States in connection with the war against Iraq in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371.

2) The Offense of Reckless Indifference to the Lives and Welfare of American Troops

President Bush and Vice President Cheney failed to provide US soldiers with bulletproof vests or appropriately-armored vehicles and had no serious plan for the aftermath of the war, thus demonstrating a complete disregard for the welfare of the troops and the need for proper governance of a country after occupation. The result has been a never-ending war that will cost U.S. taxpayers over $1 trillion with over 3,000 U.S. soldiers killed and over 21,000 wounded.

3) The Offense of Torture in Violation of U.S. Laws and Treaties

President Bush and Vice President Cheney conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the "Federal Torture Act," Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention.

4) The Offense of Wiretapping Surveillance in Defiance of the Law

President Bush and Vice President Cheney admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805.

These provisions are detailed in "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens," by former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman. ".

The suspension of habeas corpus and the erosion of constitutionally provided separation of church and state are two other items that could be mentioned.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 01:32 PM

Bush committed an impeachable offense when he went into Iraq, the first time officially the US used a pre-emptive strike.

If the Democrats don't get behind the Impeachment, they don't deserve to win the next election.

As for the "enemy", the real enemy is that apathy here at home.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 05:10 PM

Ah! Welcome back Mr. Hamilton,

Exactly what International Law did the United States of America break Frank? Can you provide a reference so that I can read it.

Or is the question a bit too tough for you? Or are you being asked to substantiate and give flesh and bones to something that you really know is a myth? There is no such "International Law" is there Frank?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 05:15 PM

AN act of military aggression on a unilateral basis, without declaration of war, is a violation of international law, I believe. Do you think it is not?

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 05:31 PM

The British Attorney General carefully concluded :

"36. Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):


must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;
be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.
That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

(signed) ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 March 2003 "

---

Discussion of some subsequent violations of Conventions can be found here,for example.

A Spanish judge adjudicated the situation thusly:

"Baltasar Garzón, the Spanish judge who sought to prosecute Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet, has called for US President George W. Bush and his allies to be tried for war crimes over Iraq. Writing in El Pais on the fourth anniversary of the invasion, Garzón stated, "Today, March 20, marks four years since the formal start of the war on Iraq. Instigated by the United States and Great Britain, and supported by Spain among other countries, one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history began.

"Breaking every international law, and under the pretext of the war against terror, there has taken place since 2003 a devastating attack on the rule of law and against the very essence of the international community. In its path, institutions such as the United Nations were left in tatters, from which it has not yet recovered." "Instead of commemorating the war," Garzón continues, "we should be horrified, screaming and demonstrating against the present massacre created as a consequence of that war."

He then writes that George W. Bush and his allies should eventually face war crimes charges for their actions in Iraq: "We should look more deeply into the possible criminal responsibility of the people who are, or were, responsible for this war and see whether there is sufficient evidence to make them answer for it." "For many it would be merely a question of political responsibility, but judicial actions in the US are beginning to emerge, as is the case of the verdict passed on one of vice-president Cheney's collaborators, [I. Lewis Libby] which point in a different direction." "There is enough of an argument in 650,000 deaths for this investigation and inquiry to start without more delay," he added.

Garzón then turns his scathing criticisms towards the former Spanish Prime Minister, José María Aznar, who followed British Prime Minister Tony Blair in supporting Bush's war of aggression against Iraq. "Those who joined the US president in the war against Iraq have as much or more responsibility than him because, despite having doubts and biased information, they put themselves in the hands of the aggressor to carry out an ignoble act of death and destruction that continues to this day."

---

Francis Boyle, professor of law at the University of Illinois discusses later illegailities:

"On 19 March 2003 President Bush Jr. commenced his criminal war against Iraq by ordering a so-called decapitation strike against the President of Iraq in violation of a 48-hour ultimatum he had given publicly to the Iraqi President and his sons to leave the country. This duplicitous behavior violated the customary international laws of war set forth in the 1907 Hague Convention on the Opening of Hostilities to which the United States is still a contracting party, as evidenced by paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). Furthermore, President Bush Jr.'s attempt to assassinate the President of Iraq was an international crime in its own right. Of course the Bush Jr. administration's war of aggression against Iraq constituted a Crime against Peace as defined by the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950) as well as by paragraph 498 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).

Next came the Pentagon's military strategy of inflicting "shock and awe" upon the city of Baghdad. To the contrary, article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defined the term "War crimes" to include: ". . . wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. . ." The Bush Jr. administration's infliction of "shock and awe" upon Baghdad and its inhabitants constituted the wanton destruction of that city, and it was certainly not justified by "military necessity," which is always defined by and includes the laws of war. Such terror bombings of cities have been criminal behavior under international law since before the Second World War: Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Tokyo, Dresden, London, Guernica-Fallujah.

On 1 May 2003 President Bush Jr. theatrically landed on a U.S. aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego to declare: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." He spoke before a large banner proclaiming: "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." As of that date, the United States government became the belligerent occupant of Iraq under international law and practice.

This legal status was formally recognized by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003. For the purpose of this analysis here, the relevant portions of that Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003) are as follows:


Noting the letter of 8 May 2003 from the Permanent Representatives of the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the President of the Security Council (S/2003/538) and recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of these states as occupying powers under unified command (the "Authority"),
5. Calls upon all concerned to comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907; . . .

In that aforementioned 8 May 2003 letter from the United States and the United Kingdom to the President of the Security Council, both countries pledged to the Security Council that: "The States participating in the Coalition will strictly abide by their obligations under international law, including those relating to the essential humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq." No point would be served here by attempting to document the gross and repeated violations of that solemn and legally binding pledge by the United States and the United Kingdom from that date until today since it would require a separate book to catalog all of the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and grave human rights violations inflicted by the United States and the United Kingdom in Iraq and against its people.

Suffice it to say here that no earlier than President Bush's 1 May 2003 Declaration of the end of hostilities in Iraq, and certainly no later than U.N. Security Resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003, both the United States and the United Kingdom have been the belligerent occupants of Iraq subject to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) or respectively its British equivalent, the humanitarian provisions of Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the customary international laws of war. I do not take the position that the United States is the belligerent occupant of the entire state of Afghanistan. But certainly the laws of war and international humanitarian law apply to the United States in its conduct of hostilities in Afghanistan as well as to its presence there. "

---

According to this analsyis there are only two provisions in international law for one nation to use force against another: self-defense and Security Council mandate. Otherwise the exercise of force against another nation is illegal.

The analysis goes on to demonstrate that both defenses in the case of Bush are badly flawed.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 06:41 PM

The following is a press release sent to the national and international media by ImpeachBush.org. The second half of the press release includes a statement from Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General.

A nationwide grassroots movement to impeach George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and other high officials was launched on January 18, 2003. Ramsey Clark called for the impeachment of President that day when he addressed a crowd estimated to be nearly a half million strong on the Mall in Washington D.C., in what the Washington Post described as the largest anti-war protest since the end of the Vietnam War.

As President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actively deceiving the country with false propaganda aimed at justifying an unprovoked war of aggression, Mr. Clark on January 18 announced the formation of the VoteToImpeach.org and ImpeachBush.org web sites He stated that the active preparation for the launch of a war of aggression against Iraq constituted an impeachable offense. He asked people to join an on-line referendum.

As of today, nearly 900,000 people have voted for impeachment with ImpeachBush.org web site.

The impeachment movement that Mr. Clark started has evolved into one of the most dynamic grassroots movements in recent U.S. history.

On April 23, 2007 the Vermont State Senate voted in support of the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. One week earlier, elected officials in Vermont said the impeachment resolution didn't stand a chance. Then their offices were flooded with emails, faxes, and phone calls, and the tide turned.

Scores of cities around the country have witnessed impeachment resolutions carry in the City Council.

On April 28, impeachment actions will be taking place from New York City to San Francisco and every place in between.

Polls taken by Zogby have indicated that 52% of the American people support the impeachment of Bush if he lied to Congress about the reasons for going to war in Iraq.

The ImpeachBush.org movement has placed full page newspaper ads in the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Boston Globe and many other newspapers. When President Bush speaks at the Coast Guard Graduation on May 23 in New London, Ct. there will be a large crowd of protesters calling for his impeachment. When Dick Cheney speaks three days later at the West Point Graduation Ceremony he will be met too by a big crowd calling for his impeachment along with that of President Bush.

Today as the rumblings for impeachment are starting to reverberate inside the House of Representatives, the only place where Articles for Impeachment can set the impeachment process into motion, Ramsey Clark issued the following statement.

Ramsey Clark's statement to the media

"We have seen that Congress can be moved. The Bush Administration is reeling from its own wrongdoing. The horror its war of aggression has wreaked on the people of Iraq and thousands of U.S. service members must trouble the sleep of every sentient American. The Surge is only adding to the death and destruction.

"All over the country supporters of impeachment are intensifying their efforts. Our focus must be on Congress, and the priorities of full troop withdrawal and the impeachment of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other culpable officials within the Administration.

"In recent weeks, tens of thousands of people have sent letters or called their elected representatives in Congress. On the statewide and local level people have been demanding local officials take a stand. Large scale pro-Impeachment demonstrations took place on March 17 at the Pentagon and in more than 1,000 other protests marking the 4th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war.

"The crimes committed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney are numerous. The Bush Administration's war of aggression, its assault on human dignity at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, demeaning the Geneva Conventions and Habeas Corpus, invading the privacy of any American it chooses, corrupting the rule of law in the Department of Justice and others.

"President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be held accountable as it is proscribed in the Constitution, Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office or impeachment for and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

"The authors of the Constitution were serious about impeachment and intended that the carefully prescribed procedures and principles of impeachment written into the text be faithfully executed. We, the growing impeachment movement that is sweeping this country from one end to the other, will make the members of the House of Representatives become as serious and courageous about impeachment as the Founding Fathers were."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:07 AM

...A listing of the many impeachable offenses can be found at MaineImpeach.org and on a growing number of websites and blogs — just search the phrase "impeach Bush" and be amazed. They include committing fraud by presenting false evidence to Congress and the American people that led to this war of aggression, which itself is a violation of the Geneva Conventions; as well as condoning torture of U.S. prisoners, suspension of habeas corpus, illegal wiretapping of Americans, and dereliction of duty and gross negligence in the scandals surrounding Katrina and Walter Reed Hospital.

Another strong motive to remove Bush and Cheney from office can be found in the agenda of the Project for a New American Century (search the web), drafted in 1997 by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Armitage, Libby and Wolfowitz.

This policy document clarifies the grand plan behind the Bush regime to consolidate more power in the executive branch than any other presidency in history, and the pursuit of U.S. domination over world resources. Connect the dots that lead from the refusal to pull troops out of Iraq, to the ongoing battle to force the Iraqi government to sign over the management of its oil resources to American and British oil giants, to construction of permanent military bases in Iraq — all testimony to the plan for "war without end" and world dominance.

If Congress fails to act to impeach, there is strong evidence that the president will be emboldened to start another war against Iran, again on the basis of lies, deceptions and exaggerations.

In response to objections that in a time of war no one should challenge the commander-in-chief, a young Congressman in 1847 wrote: "That the President must be allowed to make wars as they choose and to go unquestioned and unchallenged during the course of that war destroys the whole matter of the American experiment, and places presidents where kings have always stood, and I will not put our President there or our Republic in that circumstance." (Abraham Lincoln on the impeachment of President Polk)

These words are still vital today. ...

---

From "Village Soup", a local paper in Maine. Complete article here.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:21 AM

From ABC News:

Capitol protestors campaign to impeach Bush
By Michael Rowland

American anti-war activists and other opponents of the Bush Administration are trying to drum up a nationwide campaign to impeach the President.

A rally at the US Capitol overnight attracted a diverse coalition of administration critics, all united in the view that George W Bush has abused his powers and lied to the American people.

One of the key speakers was Cindy Sheehan, who has been railing against Mr Bush ever since her son was killed in Iraq.

"The only solution to end this war is to impeach them, impeach the liars, impeach the murderers, and get our troops home," she said.

Joining the array of East Coast liberals at the rally was Rocky Anderson, the Mayor of Salt Lake City, in solidly Republican Utah.

"I think impeachment is an incredibly appropriate and important remedy at this stage in our nation's history," he said.

"We're not the kind of nation that goes around kidnapping, disappearing, torturing people, that engages in aggressive war in violation of our constitution."

Despite Mr Bush's unpopularity, most Americans do not seem to support the call to impeach him.

Mr Anderson says he thinks that is starting to change.

"I was on the other side until not too long ago, [thinking] it's a pretty radical remedy and that's probably not the way we ought to go, and we don't need that kind of divisiveness," he said.

"I am completely turned around on this. People more and more are coming up to me and saying, 'You know, you're absolutely right,' - even Republicans, long-time Republicans, are saying, not only is he hurting our party, this man is destroying our country."

Also at the rally was Daniel Ellsberg, the man who, by leaking the so-called Pentagon papers in 1971, helped trigger the downfall of president Richard Nixon.

"The impeachment clause was actually written into the constitution with officials like Bush and Cheney in mind," he said.

Democratic leaders in the US Congress are not willing to launch impeachment proceedings, but at least one congressman has broken from the pack.

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kuchinich has filed impeachment papers against Vice-President Dick Cheney.

"Who stands with me? The Washington Post today glibly suggested no-one, I'm all alone," he said.

"Well let me tell you, no-one's with me but the people on this."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:36 PM

House rejects impeachment resolution

Published: Thursday, April 26, 2007
By Nancy Remsen
Free Press Staff Writer

MONTPELIER -- Duncan Keir of Huntington took a day off from his timber-framing business Wednesday to join a crowd of more than 350 people from 102 communities who tried to persuade members of the Vermont House of Representatives to pass a presidential impeachment resolution.

The resolution, which urged Vermont's lone member of the U.S. House of Representatives to set in motion impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, passed the state Senate on Friday, but failed to win approval in the House on Wednesday afternoon by a vote of 87-60.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070426/NEWS01/704260309/1009/NEWS05

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Susan A-R
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:14 PM

Alas. At least the VT Senate did the right thing.

Susan of Montpelier VT

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:51 PM

Will someone please post a list of those who voted in favour of impeachment and those who opposed it?

I think the Democrats should pay at the polls for this.

Vote Dem if the Dem voted in favour of impeachment.

Vote Green if the Dem opposed it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 01:36 AM

Not a great supporter of democracy then Dianavan? You know, reasoned debate on an issue then a straightforward vote, the result of which demonstrating the majority decision. For you, and those like you it would appear to have to be "My way, or No way."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 03:18 AM

How does my statement in any way indicate that I don't support democracy? I say get out and vote but make your vote actually say something.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 09:53 AM

From an essay on Consortiumnews.com:

"Washington's Bloody Make-Believe

By Carla Binion
April 26, 2007


Editor's Note: It's taken years for Washington's insider crowd to grasp that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney launched the Iraq War based on lies and distortions. But the idea of demanding serious accountability still remains too hard to accept.

In this guest essay, journalist Carla Binion says it's time to finally bridge the gap between Washington's land of political make-believe and the bloody reality that it has caused:

It's astonishing that members of Congress are either unaware George W. Bush and Dick Cheney lied the nation to war with Iraq, or they are aware of the fact and don't care. A Congress grounded in reality would have unequivocally acknowledged the administration's lies long ago and taken appropriate action - almost certainly impeachment.

If we say the pre-war lies don't matter and the country should sweep them under the rug and only focus on the best way out of Iraq, what we're really saying is that the truth itself doesn't matter.

If we say we should look away from the fact that thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died for a lie, we're saying the lost lives don't matter, the war-injured and maimed don't matter, America's honor and integrity don't matter.

The logic-free anti-impeachment excuse is that the nation can't handle running the country and impeachment simultaneously. John Nichols wrote in The Nation recently, (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070507/nichols) "[House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi fears that impeachment would distract from the Democratic legislative agenda and provoke an electoral backlash."

However, the bottom line is, the country can't afford to let Bush and Cheney get away with deceiving us into a costly and bloody war. Decisions on a matter of this weight shouldn't be based on fear, whether fear of an impeded agenda or threat of backlash.

According to Nichols, such fears are unwarranted. He mentions the Watergate Congress was able to carry out a complex agenda in addition to conducting impeachment proceedings against Nixon. Nichols also points out that "Democrats had one of their best years ever at the polls after pressuring Nixon out of office."

The public would likely reward congressional Democrats for their courage if they impeached Bush and Cheney. Impeachment proceedings will shed additional light on the administration's malfeasance, and the increased exposure would likely cause the country to support the Democrats' efforts.

Though Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) filed articles of impeachment against Cheney on April 25, he hasn't gained support from certain members of Congress. According to an article by the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer declined to support Kucinich's efforts. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic caucus, said, "Dennis can do what he wants; I'm not going to support it."

It's ironic that Kucinich is dismissed, while Hoyer and Emanuel are actually the ones with the frivolous position. What could be more superficial and feckless than Hoyer's and Emanuel's writing off the idea of impeachment without first examining the abundant evidence for it?

The case for impeaching Bush and Cheney has already been made by prominent public figures, including former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman. In a January 2006 article for The Nation, Holtzman says, "A President can commit no more serious crime against our democracy than lying to Congress and the American people to get them to support a military action or war."

Holtzman continues, "Given that the consequences can be death for hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of people - as well as the diversion of vast sums of money to the war effort - the fraud cannot be tolerated." Members of Congress should read the entire Holtzman article.

Impeachment opponents say Bush and Cheney haven't committed documented impeachable offenses. However, Michael Schudson writes in Watergate In American Memory, "A president can be impeached not only for directly engaging in criminal acts but for failing to fulfill his oath of office, failing to see in good faith that the laws of the land are executed. There is no legal 'bar' to interpreting impeachment in this light."

Any member of Congress who doubts the Bush administration lied and fixed the intelligence around the Iraq policy should read the many books and articles which detail the deceptions. In Worse Than Watergate, John Dean, former counsel to President Richard Nixon, says, "The evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense."

Dean states, "Bush deliberately violated the very authorization he sought from Congress, which was not merely a serious breach of faith with a trusting Congress, but a statutory and constitutional crime." He reminds us that Bush lied to Congress at a classified briefing when he claimed Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons and was able to use them via unmanned drone aircraft against the United States.

..."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 09:54 AM

Salt Lake mayor flays Bush, Cheney in D.C. rally

By Suzanne Struglinski
Deseret Morning News
      WASHINGTON — President Bush has demonstrated an "unprecedented" abuse of power and needs to be impeached, Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson said at a rally Wednesday on a terrace outside the Cannon House Office Building.
Karen Bleier/AFP/GettyMayor Rocky Anderson speaks at impeachment rally. Also on the podium are Cindy Sheehan and Daniel Ellsberg, right.       A day after Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, introduced a resolution in the House calling for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, Kucinich joined Anderson and about 50 other activists — including war protester Cindy Sheehan — at their rally. Also in attendance was Daniel Ellsberg, the whistle-blower who in 1971 leaked to newspapers classified documents known as the Pentagon Papers, which revealed information about casualties in the Vietnam War.
      Anderson and the other activists outlined their reasons why Congress should move forward with proceedings to impeach Bush and Cheney.
      "They have betrayed our Constitution in the most fundamental way," Anderson said. "Impeachment is absolutely critical."
      Using similar lines from his speeches at anti-war rallies in Washington earlier this year, Anderson said that prior to Bush and Cheney coming into power, the United States looked down on other nations that tortured people, violated treaties or otherwise disregarded laws. But under this administration, the United States is becoming "just like them," the Salt Lake City mayor said.
      "We are going to stand up for the most fundamental patriotic values," Anderson added.
      The mayor said impeachment proceedings would send the message to other nations that torture, kidnapping and wiretapping are "not American values."
      "Imagine how others in other countries view us," Anderson said. "These are frightening times."
      Kucinich, who is also running for the Democratic nomination for president, said Wednesday that he may not have the support from other members of Congress just yet, but he does have the support of "the people." As he spoke, the crowd behind him raised their hands to show that they want the impeachment resolution to move ahead....

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 04:53 PM

From CQ Today: 'Impeach Cheney' Not a Battle Cry Democrats Are Ready to Embrace

By Martin Kady II, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY
Published: April 24, 2007

His quixotic bid for the White House has rarely caused headaches for Democratic leaders in Congress because it's been largely ignored. But now Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich is giving Speaker Nancy Pelosi a reason to reach for the aspirin.

Months after Pelosi, D-Calif., defused impeachment talk from the left wing of her party, Kucinich, D-Ohio, plans to file articles of impeachment Tuesday against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Pelosi's office isn't amused. "Nothing's changed. It's off the table," insisted Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami. "We're focusing on tough issues like bringing the war in Iraq to a responsible end and energy independence."

Kucinich gave a preview of his impeachment crusade on YouTube in March, when he accused the Bush administration of illegally "threatening aggressive war" against Iran in violation of the U.N. charter.

Kucinich press secretary Natalie Laber declined to say which "high crimes or misdemeanors" would serve as the constitutional basis for Cheney's impeachment, and she would not release the documents her boss plans to file.


http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/04/24/cq_2619.html

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 05:09 PM

Mr. Teribus,

The Bush Administration is yet to be tried at the International Court of the Hague.
The only problem is that Bush does not recognize International law. Nor does he recognize the Geneva Conventions which are a form of Internation Law and not a myth. International law is also covered in the UN charter. There is no question that a pre-emptive strike on a foreign country is in violation of that charter.

It is true, however, that Bush attempts to create his own laws to aggrandize his regal position. The true myth is that Bush and PNAC can act as saviors for the world while lining the pockets of himself and his cronies.

Thank you for welcoming me back.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 02:40 AM

Who else has yet to be tried at the International Court of the Hague?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 08:20 PM

CA Greens endorse nationwide impeachment actions Saturday; State Party approved 2006 resolution calling for removal of Bush, Cheney, Gonzales

Members of the Green Party of California - which approved its own impeachment resolution in 2006 calling for the removal of Pres. George W. Bush, and other members of his administration, for "high crimes and misdemeanors" - endorsed Saturday's nationwide impeachment actions.
Among other actions Greens will be participating in Saturday will be creating the "I" in IMPEACH at the "Beach Impeach" action in San Francisco. The Santa Clara and San Mateo Greens will coordinate that work.

"(Vice-President Richard) Cheney should be impeached as called for by Democrat Dennis Kucinich because it would be due justice for the stooge of the big business and war machine. Cheney's removal would pave the way to impeach Bush," said Shane Que Hee, GPCA Platform Co-Coordinator.

In its 2006 resolution, the GPCA called for the impeachment of Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, then Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, citing the "deception" used by the Bush Administration to start the Iraq war, the use of illegal chemical and biological weapons by the U.S., the targeting of civilians with military weapons, the torture of prisoners and violation of international treaties prohibiting those actions.

The resolution also condemns the increasing attacks on civil liberties in the U.S., specifically citing warrantless searches - including recent revelations of NSA spying on citizens, and the use of "indefinite detentions" of U.S. citizens without the right to a speedy and public trial.

The resolution specifically noted that the Bush Administration used "deliberate deceptions (by) repeatedly, consciously, and with forethought, lying to the American people and the U.S. Congress by providing false and deceptive rationales for an unjustified and illegal war in Iraq."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 03:11 PM

From CapitolHilBlue.com:

"...President George W. Bush could face impeachment if he continues to refuse to deal with Congress on setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Democratic Congressman John Murtha said Sunday.

Appearing on CBS News's Face the Nation, Murtha said impeachment is "one of the options" for dealing with Bush's refusal to accept a timetable for withdrawal of troops from the President's failed war in Iraq.

Murtha's comments came after Secretary of State Condi Rice told host Bob Schieffer that Bush will not only veto any Iraq funding bill that sets a timetable for withdrawal but would also reject any bill that sets "benchmarks" for the Iraqi qovernment.

Rice said the president would not agree to a plan that penalizes Baghdad if the Iraqi government fall shorts. To do so, she said, would remove the ability of Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and other leaders to do their jobs.

"What we don't want to do is to tie our own hands so that we cannot act creatively and flexibly to support the very policies in Iraq that we're trying to enforce," Rice said.

Rather, Rice said, it makes sense to give Iraq's leaders time to meet the goals they have set. She said Bush has made clear to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that people in the United States have limited patience.

"The United States is paying in blood and treasure," Rice said. "The Iraqi leadership is being told — and I think they understand — that the kind of Iraq there is going to be is up to them. We can't give them a united Iraq."..."


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 02:16 PM

"A top US congressional Democrat has raised the possibility of George Bush's impeachment in a bid to force him to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Representative John Murtha, chairing the House Subcommittee on Defense which holds the purse strings of the US military, made the comment Sunday in response to repeated threats by the president to veto legislation that calls for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by the end of next March.

"There's three ways or four ways to influence a president," Murtha said on CBS's "Face the Nation" program. "One is popular opinion; the election; third is impeachment and fourth is, and fourth is the purse."

Asked specifically if Democrats, who now control the US Congress, were seriously contemplating the impeachment option, the congressman, who is close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, responded, "What I'm saying, there're four ways to influence a president ... And one of them is impeachment."

Some of the fiercest critics of President Bush have long charged he has illegally manipulated intelligence in order to accuse the Iraqi government of ex-president Saddam Hussein of secretly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and thus create a pretext for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq by US experts, but the White House has strongly denied the intelligence manipulation charge. "

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 03:10 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2131539854655700584

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 03:38 PM

Since Dickey failed to provide any information about his mysterious link, it styles itself as:

The complete and unedited video of Congressman John Murtha's January 7, 1980 meeting with the FBI's undercover Abscam investigation. At ... all » Abscam's W Street townhouse in Washington, D.C. With FBI Special Agent Anthony Amoroso, informant Mel Weinberg, and Howard Criden.

You may recall that the Republican hooligans did everything they could to drag Murtha's name through the mud back when he came out in support of John Kerry. This of course is completely relevant tot he issue of this thread..somehow...maybe? Please? I don't see the link between current events and 27-year-old trumped up bushwah, but I am sure Dickey could explain it.



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 08:44 PM

From Ithaca, New York, the Journal reports:

"Protesters call for Bush's ouster
By Linda Stout
Journal Staff

ITHACA — Repeated calls to impeach President George W. Bush were loud and clear Saturday afternoon on The Commons in a rally featuring local activists and musicians.

Organizers said that they plan to take a petition to the Tompkins County Legislature's May or June meeting, urging county legislators to ask Congress to impeach Bush. Organizers collected about 150 more signatures to add to the 1,000 they obtained prior to the rally.

        
While people, many holding "Impeach Bush" signs or wearing shirts printed with slogans like "Impeach King George," listened and clapped in the cold mist, there was little counter protest.

A young man with a tall plush American flag hat quietly shot video and was seemingly part of the crowd until he held a sign that said, "Impeachment is a waste of time."
The rally, a brainchild of Fay Gougakis of Ithaca, was organized by a local group calling for impeachment on constitutional grounds. Members of the same group organized the March 17 March for Peace, an organizer said.

One organizer said a tourist on The Commons expressed an interest in taking a similar protest to his home in Sarasota, Fla., and that a group in nearby Broome County will similarly petition its county Legislature to call for the president's impeachment.

Some speakers also called for the impeachment of National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and of Vice President Dick Cheney, citing the introduction of H.R. 333 to impeach Richard B. Cheney by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Ohio...."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 07 - 10:36 AM

And from San Francisco:

"Feminists Say Impeach Bush and Cheney Now: Act on Bush's War on Women
by Feminist Issues Group - SFGreen Party
Monday Apr 30th, 2007 5:07 PM

The Bush Administration declared a war against women the day it was sworn in, said feminist leaders of the San Francisco Green Party (SFGP) today. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney need to be impeached immediately, urged the Feminist Issues Group (FIG), a working group of the SFGP. While pressure from the grassroots to impeach Bush and Cheney continues to build, FIG criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her failure to act and for declaring the impeachment issue "off the table".

Green Party members, who have been calling for impeachment since 2003, took part in Beach Impeach over the weekend. "It was one of many pro-impeachment events that have taken place in Pelosi's backyard," said Erika McDonald, FIG Co-Founder and local Green Party Spokesperson.

Feminist leaders pointed to the international gag rule, attacks on reproductive rights, health misinformation and discrimination as reasons why women across the US and around the world are paying the price for the misogyny of Bush and his allies.

"In addition to the catastrophic war, women are the main caretakers for the young and old. We have seen our domestic budget slashed, wages decrease, violence increase, and our lives and liberties diminished," said Vicki Leidner, Chair of FIG. "The party is over. These people have got to go," said Leidner.

Members of FIG expressed disappointment and disgust at Congress's failure to hold Bush accountable. "Members of Congress who take orders from corporate paymasters are incapable of upholding the Constitution any more than the Administration. Six years of lies and denials of global warming puts every life on this planet at risk. This deceit has consequences for every living thing. It is up to the people to demand impeachment. It will take the ever-increasing numbers of people in third parties or declining to state a party and those disgusted with the behavior of their respective Republican and Democratic parties to unite. Impeachment IS on the table - that is the democratic and political process," said Leidner. "

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 07 - 11:06 AM

And from Kennebec, Maine:

Betrayers of the oath



Monday, April 30, 2007


from the Kennebec Journal


There has never been an executive duo more deserving of impeachment than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. They have sponsored a campaign to deceive Congress and "We The People" not only into an illegal war of aggression, but they have systematically embarked on a campaign to shred the very Constitution they took an oath to defend. There is strong evidence of unethical if not illegal behavior by multiple staffers and appointees who carry out the wishes of these two executives.

I agree with the premise of Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler's book "War Is a Racket" and these two have exploited every facet of that Racket. Maj. Gen. Butler contends that as long as a few can make huge profits from war, then we will be subject to continual war. Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler was a two-time Medal of Honor recipient and is well known by all United States Marines.

Our servicemen and women are dying in Iraq so private oil companies can obtain rights to Iraqi oil. The American taxpayer is not only financing this quest for private profit, but also paying extremely high costs for this energy at home. We are being robbed by those who do not honor their oath.

Impeachment is the only answer. It is the duty of those who honor the oath they have taken.

Timothy G. Bickford

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 07 - 11:18 AM

Meanwhile, down in Washington, D.C.:

Green Party Leaders Join and Lead Events on April 28 Calling for Impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney

WASHINGTON - April 27 - Green Party leaders called Rep. Dennis Kucinich's (D-Ohio) filing of articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney an important first step towards holding the Bush Administration accountable for numerous impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors.

"The Green Party endorsed a resolution in 2003 calling for impeachment of President Bush, and Green leaders have expanded the call to include Mr. Cheney, who is clearly the brains behind many of the White House's worst and most illegal actions," said Carl Romanelli, Pennsylvania Green candidate for the US Senate in 2006. "The chief obstacle to impeachment has been the Democratic Party leadership, which has indulged and enabled the Bush Administration's abuses of power every step of the way."

Greens across the US plan to participate in various events in Washington, DC, and across the US calling for impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney this coming weekend .

In Utah, the Desert Greens Green Party of Utah and People for Peace and Justice of Utah have organized an 'Impeach' rally at noon on April 28 at the Federal Building in Salt Lake City, 100 South State Street.

The Green Parties of Santa Clara and San Mateo (California) will participate in a Beach Impeach action, and will gather to create the 'I' in 'IMPEACH' on the beach .

The Green Party of the United States passed a resolution in July, 2003, urging impeachment of President Bush .

The Green Party's impeachment page can be visited at . A Green petition for impeachment is at .

After the initial illegal invasion of Iraq, said Green Party leaders, the crimes of the Bush Administration began to mount precipitously:

* manipulation of intelligence to deceive the public into supporting the war (fraudulent claims about Iraqi WMDs, collusion between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, attempts by Saddam to obtain nuclear weapons materials)

* cover-ups of the administration's knowledge of information about the impending 9/11 attacks

* encouragement of torture and 'extraordinary rendition' of prisoners to exact information

* denial of habeas corpus and due process

* warrantless surveillance of US citizens

* hundreds of 'signing statements' purportedly exempting the Bush Administration from over 1,000 federal laws

* censoring and tampering with scientific research to conceal the seriousness of global warming

* threats to attack Iran despite Iran's lack of any real threat to the US."

The effects of these crimes and abuses of power include:

* the deaths of more than 3,300 US service members and 650,000 Iraqi citizens, as well as countless more injured because of the US invasion

* anger and hostility towards the US and US citizens throughout the world, especially in Muslim nations

* broken treaties and alienation of US allies

* damage to US democracy and entrenchment of the administrations' theory of 'unitary executive power'

* danger to captured US service personnel and citizens in retaliation for torture committed at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and other sites

* a possible regional or global conflict if the US attacks Iran

the US treasury plundered for the benefit of arms makers, oil companies, and other corporate profiteers like Halliburton and Blackwater

s* evere damage to public health and the environment in coming decades because of the White House's failure to address climate change

Greens also noted that some of the Bush Administration's crimes were carried out with the cooperation of Democrats and Republicans in Congress..."

More at http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0427-05.htm.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 07 - 06:49 PM

While down in Atlanta, they do it with candles:

(APN) ATLANTA – About 20 Atlanta activists met at sundown at Freedom Park to spell out the word IMPEACH with an array of candles on a hill at a major intersection, Freedom Parkway and Moreland Avenue.

So for about 90 minutes, motorists and pedestrians coming from at least three different directions got a message: impeach.


The event completed a day of impeachment rallies and marches in Atlanta and indeed nationwide. In Atlanta, activists met to rally at Freedom Park at 11am, and later marched as the impeachment contingent in the annual Inman Park Parade, a local community parade.

Numerous cars honked in support this evening. One man walking by stopped to get a closer look.

"What are you trying to spell out?" he asked.

"Impeach," one activist replied.

"Hell yeah," he said back.

One Atlanta resident stopped by to find out more about what was going on. "I drove by and was like that was so cool. It looks amazing from the street," Erin Routson said.

"I thought [the events] were really great. We definitely put the whole thing out there," Tracie Stern of Atlanta World Can't Wait said.

Protester Nick Prakash with World Can't Wait said he was there "to get the word out on impeaching Bush. He think's he's God or King. He thinks he's absolute. Abu Ghraib, the Iraq war, a possible Iranian War. Stealing two elections, contempt for the Constitution, getting rid of habeus corpus," he said.

"They committed a conspiracy of fraud against the American people," activist Gloria Tatum said of Bush's deceptive case to invade Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 02 May 07 - 09:39 AM

Coney Island 'impeach' draws a thin crowd

Sunday, April 29th 2007, 4:00 AM

Only 150 protesters and not the 1,000 that had been hoped for spelled out 'Impeach' on Coney Island beachfront.

A national protest designed to support a nascent movement to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney failed to draw much of a crowd in Coney Island yesterday.

The organizers of "Impeachment Summer" had been hoping to draw 1,000 supporters to Coney Island and then use their bodies to spell out "IMPEACH" in large letters across the beach. But just 150 demonstrators showed up, forcing the organizers to form much smaller letters.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/04/29/2007-04-29_coney_island_impeach_draws_a_thin_crowd.html

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 02 May 07 - 10:10 AM

"Our Great List of Scandalized Administration Officials
By Justin Rood - December 4, 2006, 7:11 PM

A number of readers have sent in tips to help the folks at Powerline, who recently admitted to having trouble remembering administration officials (beyond Scooter Libby) who had been accused of corruption or resigned in the face of scandal.

How could you foresake us! cry our old pals Claude Allen, David Safavian, Brian Doyle. Who could forget former FDA commissioner, Lester Crawford? After the jump, you'll find our partial (but fast-growing) list. If we're missing a name, please send it along!

Indicted / Convicted/ Pled Guilty

* Scooter Libby - Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff - resigned after being indicted for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and Making False Statements in connection with the investigation stemming from the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

* Lester Crawford - Commissioner, FDA - resigned after only two months on the job. Pled guilty to conflict of interest and making false statements.

* Brian Doyle - Deputy Press Secretary, DHS - Resigned in wake of child sex scandal. Pled no contest to 32 criminal counts.

* Claude Allen - Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy- resigned, pled guilty to shoplifting from Target stores.

* David Safavian - former head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget - convicted of lying to ethics officials and Senate investigators about his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

* Larry Franklin - intelligence officer, Defense - resigned, pled guilty to passing secrets to Israel.

* Roger Stillwell - desk officer, Interior Department - pled guilty to failing to report Redskins tickets and free dinners from Jack Abramoff.

* Frank Figueroa - senior DHS official, former head of anti-sex-crime Operation Predator - pled no contest to exposing himself to 16-year-old girl in Florida mall. Girl says he fondled himself for ten minutes. Figueroa forfeited his badge, gun, and access to databases; employment status pending internal DHS review.

* Darleen Druyun - senior contracting official, U.S. Air Force - pled guilty and sentenced to nine months in prison for her role in the Boeing tanker lease scandal.

* John Korsmo - chairman, Federal Housing Finance Board - pled guilty last year to lying to the Senate and an inspector general. He swore he had no idea how a list of presidents for FHFB-regulated banks were invited to a fundraiser for his friend's congressional campaign. On the invites, Korsmo was listed as the "Special Guest." Got 18 months of probation.

* P. Trey Sunderland III - chief, Geriatric Psychiatry, Nat'l Institute of Mental Health - admitted to a criminal conflict of interest charge for failing to report $300,000 received from Pfizer, Inc. *As of 12/11/06, still employed by NIMH."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 02 May 07 - 10:11 AM

"Resigned Due to/Pending/After Investigation

* Carl Truscott - Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau - resigned. A report by the Justice Department's Inspector General found that Truscott wasted tens of thousands of dollars on luxuries, wasted millions on whimsical management decisions and violated ethics rules by ordering employees to help his nephew with a high school video project.

* Joseph Schmitz - Inspector General, Defense - Resigned amid charges he personally intervened to protect top political appointees.

* Steven Griles - Deputy Secretary at the Interior Department - resigned, currently under investigation by the Justice Department for his ties to Jack Abramoff.

* Susan Ralston - assistant, White House - resigned amidst revelations that she had accepted thousands of dollars in gifts from Abramoff without compensating him, counter to White House ethics rules.

* Dusty Foggo - Executive Director, CIA - stepped down following accusations of corruption in connection to the Duke Cunningham scandal. Under investigation.

* Janet Rehnquist - Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services - resigned in the face of allegations she blocked a politically dangerous probe on behalf of the Bush family.

* Ken Tomlinson, Board Chairman, Corporation for Public Broadcasting; member, Broadcasting Board of Governors - resigned at the release of an inspector general report concluding he had broken laws in spending CPB money to hire politically connected consultants to search for "bias" without consulting the board. At BBG, a separate investigation found he was running a "horse racing operation" out of his office, and continuing to hire politically-wired individuals to do "consulting" work for him. He's still there.

* George Deutsch - press aide, NASA - resigned amid allegations he prevented the agency's top climate scientist from speaking publicly about global warming.

* Richard Perle - Chairman, Defense Policy Board - resigned from Pentagon advisory panel amid conflict-of-interest charges.

* James Roche - secretary, U.S. Air Force - resigned in the wake of the Boeing tanker lease scandal, after it was revealed he had rather crudely pushed for Boeing to win a $23 billion contract.

* Marvin Sambur - top contracting executive, U.S. Air Force - Druyun's boss, Sambur resigned in the wake of the scandal. Investigations cleared him of wrongdoing.

* Philip Cooney - chief of staff, White House Council on Environmental Quality - a former oil industry lawyer with no scientific expertise, Cooney resigned after it was revealed he had watered down reports on global warming.

* Thomas Scully - Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services - shortly after Scully resigned in 2003, an investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General found that Scully had pressured the agency's actuary to underestimate the full cost of the Medicare reform bill by approximately $100 billion until after Congress passed the bill into law. Scully was also charged wtih conflict of interest allegations by the U.S. attorney's office for billing CMS for expenses incurred during a job search while he still headed the agency. He settled those charges by paying $9,782.

* Michelle Larson Korsmo - deputy chief of staff, Department of Labor - Helped her husband (see Frank Korsmo, above) with his donor scam. Quietly left her Labor plum job in February 2004, about two weeks before news broke that she and her husband were the targets of a criminal probe.

* David Smith - Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Interior Department - resigned after shooting a buffalo and accepting its remains as an illegal gratuity. He eventually paid over $3,000 for the dead buffalo, but only after the internal inquiry had commenced.

* Sean Tunis - Chief Medical Officer, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) - Last summer, the State of Maryland suspended his medical license because he faked documentation relating to his medical education. Despite that, he stayed on board for several months at CMS, albeit on administrative leave. He has since been replaced, although it's not clear when because CMS did not announce the switch and has not responded to our calls."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 02 May 07 - 10:12 AM

Nomination Failed Due to Scandal

"* Bernard Kerik - nominated, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security - withdrew his nomination amidst a host of corruption allegations. Eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor relating to having accepted improper gifts totaling tens of thousands of dollars while he was a New York City official in the late 1990's.

* Timothy Flanigan - nominated, Deputy Attorney General - withdrew his nomination amidst revelations that he'd worked closely with lobbyist Jack Abramoff when he was General Counsel for Corporate and International Law at Tyco, which was a client of Abramoff's.

* Linda Chavez - nominated, Secretary of Labor - withdrew her nomination amidst revelations that an illegal immigrant lived in her home and worked for her."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 02 May 07 - 10:14 AM

Julie MacDonald

Randall L Tobias

Johnnie Frazier--is he next?


Gotta love the Bush administration, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 May 07 - 10:16 AM

Jaysus, it looks much grimmer when you list them all out together. What a parade of maroons.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 May 07 - 12:38 PM

A Case Against Cheney

By Richard Cohen
Wednesday, May 2, 2007; Page A15, Washington Post

The resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio reads sensibly. It alleges crimes high and low, misdemeanors galore -- all of them representing an effort to mislead the American people and take them into war. It is Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment directed at Dick Cheney. The vice president will, of course, deny being a liar. As long as Kucinich is at it, add that to the articles.

The congressman's case is persuasive, although his remedy may be too radical. He calls for Cheney to be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate, just as Bill Clinton was for what turned out to be neither a high crime nor much of a misdemeanor. What was it, anyway, compared with more than 3,300 American dead?

In his articles of impeachment, Kucinich details the many statements Cheney made that turned out to be factually wrong. For instance, he quotes Cheney as saying, "We know they [the Iraqis] have biological and chemical weapons," which of course, they didn't. Still, that was excusable, since it was early in the game and little contradictory evidence was being presented. As Condi Rice said Sunday, "When George [Tenet] said 'slam dunk,' everybody understood that he believed that the intelligence was strong. We all believed the intelligence was strong."

But in Cheney's case, the slam-dunking went on and on -- way past the point where it was possible anymore to believe him. He continued to insist that Saddam Hussein had high-level contacts with al-Qaeda -- " the evidence is overwhelming," he once said -- while others in the government not only knew that the evidence was not overwhelming but that it hardly existed. It was the same with Cheney's insistence-- not just wrong, but irrefutably so -- that Hussein "has weapons of mass destruction," and "[t]here is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us." The percussive march of these statements is so forceful, one after another after another, that it suggests Cheney wanted war no matter what. If he was lying to himself as well as to the rest of us, that is only a mitigating circumstance -- sort of an insanity defense.

Kucinich also alleges that Cheney "purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress." That, as the expression goes, is the gravamen of the charge. Kucinich doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of making it stick because Congress is not about to vote impeachment. But no one who reads Kucinich's case against Cheney can fail to conclude that this is a rational, serious accusation. It's possible that each individual charge can be rebutted, but the essence of it is shockingly apparent: We were being manipulated.

It is something of a joke that Washington is now transfixed by l'affaire Wolfowitz. This is the contretemps at the World Bank in which an architect of this misbegotten war stands accused of favoring his girlfriend. Do not be concerned with the details -- this is a parody of a Washington scandal -- but concentrate instead on what else Wolfowitz has done in government and how, now, it is a salary increase awarded to a companion that might do him in. This is tantamount to getting Al Capone for tax evasion.

In the same vein, we tend to focus on single events or statements regarding Iraq (to slam dunk or not to slam dunk, that is the question) and how poor George Tenet, a self-deceived careerist, is misunderstood -- as if he had uttered a statement of principle dramatically resigning over the manipulation of intelligence and it is suspiciously missing from the record. In all this back-and-forth, what gets lost is the immensity of the outrage, the enormousness of the breach of trust, the naive faith some of us had that when it came to the making of war, we'd be told the truth. This was not the case. The harping on weapons of mass destruction was an attempt to scare the American people into supporting a war that need not have been fought.

Kucinich is an odd guy for whom the killer appellation "perennial presidential candidate" is lethally applied. But he is on to something here. It is easy enough to ad hominize him to the margins -- ya know, the skinny guy among the "real" presidential candidates -- but at a given moment, and this is one, he's the only one on that stage who articulates a genuine sense of betrayal. He is not out merely to win the nomination but to hold the Bush administration -- particularly Cheney -- accountable. In this he will fail. What Cheney has done is not impeachable. It is merely unforgivable.

...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 May 07 - 05:11 PM

Related, at least, to this thread (wasn't sure where else to put it)..from news stories about Bush's veto of the Iraq bill (my emphasis):

Arguing against provisions of the bill he vetoed yesterday, Bush said, "Look, all the radicals and extremists in Iraq don't want to attack America. I'm not saying that. But many do. And . . . therein lies the danger to our country. Al-Qaeda terrorists who behead captives and order suicide bombings in Iraq would not simply be satisfied to see us gone. A retreat in Iraq would mean that they would likely follow us here."

Bush told the supportive gathering, "Even if you think it was a mistake to go into Iraq, it would be a far greater mistake to pull out now."

One wonders if that is what he said to Laura when she mentioned birth control at an indelicate moment.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 02 May 07 - 11:06 PM

Vote to impeach is embarrassment

April 26, 2007

I used to be so proud to say that I was born and raised in the beautiful state of Vermont. But now, after reading the headlines in today's Herald, I can only hide my head.

We may not agree with what President Bush is doing all the time, but he is our president. We are in a war. Our young men and women are putting their life on the line for us — all of us — on a daily basis. And Vermont wants to impeach the president? How embarrassing.

We need to look for a solution on how to safely withdraw our troops while at the same time leaving the country we are stationed in with a sound basis towards renewing themselves.

So many of our young men and women have already given their lives so that you and I can live in a free and democratic society.

What kind of a message are we sending to those who continue to stay in harm's way for us?

We have a mouthy senator who does enough damage all by himself. To have the state of Vermont make such a resolution is unconscionable.

SUE CLAIRE BACHELDER

Poultney

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: heric
Date: 02 May 07 - 11:13 PM

>What kind of a message are we sending to those who continue to stay in harm's way for us?<

That we're sorry and we hope they understand that we were obliged to hold our tongues for a time.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 07 - 01:05 AM

This article courtesy of Atlanta Progressive News

(APN) ATLANTA – H Res 333, the bill introducing Articles of Impeachment against Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, now has two co-sponsors, for a total of 3 current total supporters, including sponsor US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

The two cosponsors are US Reps. Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO) and Janice Schakowsky (D-IL). APN currently has press requests in to both Offices since this morning but has not heard back yet; check back here for updates on their comments.

US Reps. Clay and Schakowsky were early cosponsors of US Rep. Conyers's (D-MI) former bill, H Res. 635, in the last, or 109th, Congressional Session. Conyers's bill had been introduced December 18, 2005. The first round of cosponsors appeared on December 22, 2005. Clay and Schakowsky had been part of the second round of cosponsors appearing on January 31, 2006.

The cosponsorships are significant for a number of reasons. First, it shows there is more than one Member of Congress willing to entertain real accountability for the Bush Administration, despite the insistence of US Rep. Pelosi that impeachment is off the table.

Also, this bill is calling for actual Articles of Impeachment for Cheney, unlike the last bill which not only was related to Mr. Bush, but created an investigative committee to look into possible impeachment rather than providing for actual possible impeachment.

Therefore, cosponsorships on H Res 333 have even more weight than those which were listed on H Res 635 last Session.

Also, since the time of H Res 635, Democrats have taken control of both the US House and Senate. Thus, impeachment is even more a real possibility on account of having the potential Democratic support for the bill, even though most Democrats currently aren't rushing to impeach Bush.

Because Democrats are now the Majority in Congress, we also now know that Bush refuses to be accountable to Congress, particularly on the US Invasion of Iraq. Bush has now vetoed historic legislation to attach funding for the Occupation with a deadline for withdrawal. Thus, it is now even more clear that traditional oversight mechanisms will not be effective.

Just over the weekend there had been a flurry of events supporting impeachment, including several here in Atlanta, organized by World Can't Wait and other groups. Organizing and public outcry for impeachment is ever-increasing, and Atlanta activists say that the crowd response to impeachment events are overwhelmingly positive.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 03 May 07 - 01:12 AM

Nostalgia.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 07 - 02:21 PM

Just recently one may have despaired that Bush would get away with murder. There seemed little hope of impeaching him despite his crimes, despite the growing dissatisfaction with his missrule. That Bush lived in the White House mocked the very idea of responsible and democratic government.

What a difference a few weeks have made. Topping the news was Bush's veto of the military appropriation's bill. Everyone expected it. Not expected was the effect it's had. Bush, who takes false pride in being "resolute" may have thought his veto would put the Democratic majority in Congress on the defensive and shift the agenda back to the White House.

It didn't work out that way. The real effect is two fold: The White House must now play ball with Congress (the Democrats) if it hopes to get a bill at all. Secondly, Bush is seen to have played politics with the lives of American troops. Never had this point been spelled out more forcefully and more dramatically than in the following letter from one of the "commanders" that Bush likes to say he listens to but, in fact, doesn't give a damn.

---

General Eaton's Letter to President Bush on Veto
May 1, 2007

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.

Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.

The legislation you vetoed today represented a course of action that is long overdue. This war can no longer be won by the military alone. We must bring to bear the entire array of national power - military, diplomatic and economic. The situation demands a surge in diplomacy, and pressure on the Iraqi government to fix its internal affairs. Further, the Army and Marine Corps are on the verge of breaking - or have been broken already - by the length and intensity of this war. This tempo is not sustainable - and you have failed to grow the ground forces to meet national security needs. We must begin the process of bringing troops home, and repairing and growing our military, if we are ever to have a combat-ready force for the long war on terror ahead of us.

The bill you rejected today sets benchmarks for success that the Iraqis would have to meet, and puts us on a course to redeploy our troops. It stresses the need for sending troops into battle only when they are rested, trained and equipped. In my view, and in the view of many others in the military that I know, that is the best course of action for our security.

As someone who served this nation for decades, I have the utmost respect for the office you hold. However, as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military's finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now.

I urge you to reconsider your position, and work with Congress to pass a bill that achieves the goals laid out above.

Respectfully,

Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired

---

There is also the statement by Maj. Gen. John Batiste.


"The President vetoed our troops and the American people. His stubborn commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq is incomprehensible. He committed our great military to a failed strategy in violation of basic principles of war. His failure to mobilize the nation to defeat world wide Islamic extremism is tragic. We deserve more from our commander-in-chief and his administration.

--Maj. Gen. John Batiste, USA, Ret."

---

Why will we, the people, impeach George W. Bush? First, we are sovereign, not Bush, a fact Bush never mastered. Bush works for us, not the other way 'round.

Secondly, Bush violated a trust that is as sacred as possible in a secular society. That is the trust given him by a free electorate. That Bush does not care about those values is the most compelling reason he must go. By refusing to investigate the events of 911, Bush broke with precedent established with Pearl Harbor.

(From Op Ed News.com)

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 07 - 02:25 PM

See also:

Groups believe impeachment is 'more on the table than people think'

Miriam Raftery
Published: Wednesday May 2, 2007
(Click headline to see article).

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 May 07 - 11:55 AM

Demonstrators call to impeach Bush - Protesters form 'human mural' spelling out 'I-M-P-E-A-C-H' on Coney Island beach
By Joe Maniscalco 05/03/2007

from "Courier Life"--Brooklyn

More than 150 people stretched out in the sand in Coney Island on Sunday afternoon hoping to send a message big enough for the United States Congress to see.

Impeach the president.

Volunteers started showing up on the beach at around 11 a.m. to begin assembling a "human mural" stretching from West 10th Street to Stillwell Avenue forming the word "Impeach" on the sand.

"We've got an 'Impeach' on Ocean Beach in San Francisco facing the Pacific Ocean and now we've got it facing the Atlantic so it's kind of like impeachment from sea to sea," said event organizer Jacob Park.

Similar events also took place in over 125 different cities and towns nationwide as part of a grassroots coalition of organizations called A28.org and its "Impeachment Summer" campaign.

"What we want is to get people around the country who are now energized to put a lot of pressure on Congress, especially the House Judiciary Committee, and tell them we want you to take up Kucinich's articles of impeachment," Park said.

Last week, Ohio Rep. and Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich officially got the impeachment ball rolling in the House of Representatives when he introduced Articles of Impeachment against Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Brooklyn moms Pam Abrams and Susan Banta staked out their place in the sand with their children on a blanket in the "I" column.

"If the impeach sign gets all over the country and makes it onto the news, it will show that the country is solidly against the administration," Abrams said.

"I think there have been a number of crimes that are impeachable by this administration," Banta said. "I'd like to see Congress acting on the proposal right now for impeachment. I'm hoping that they'll be reassured that they would have support."

Volunteers with bullhorns patrolled the boardwalk urging weekend crowds in the shadow of Deno's Wonder Wheel to stop and join the 150 volunteers who signed up for the event online.

"We really need to get Bush and Cheney out," said Lani Bouwer, a 22-year-old photographer from Bedford-Stuyvesant. "There's a Democratic Congress now and there are changes that need to be made and now's the time to mobilize to make those changes before the situation gets any worse."

Participants overwhelmingly cited the ongoing war in Iraq as the number one grounds for the removing the president from office.

"The guy's making noise about Iran which would be compounding the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan," said New York City resident Robert Jereski. "The Democrats have control. They have no excuse – let's see some action."

Brooklyn mom Elizabeth Schell played with her four-year-old son as they waited for the helicopter that would take an aerial photograph of the demonstration to arrive.

"Bush is continuing to pursue war when I think the majority of the country is making it clear that it's not what the country wants to do," she said. "He doesn't really seem to have the best interest of the country or the rest of the world at heart."

The local mom from Gowanus said she felt patriotic pushing for impeachment.

"The whole point of the founding of our country has been about expressing your opinion in a peaceful way and about helping other people find a peaceful way to freedom," she said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This family has been too lucky for too long.

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

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

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

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


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

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

From here.

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

The media maggots, tool of the impeachment crowd:

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

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

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

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

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

A

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

Stay on the side of the maggots Amos.

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

Sure thing, you betcha, Dickey, yep!!

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


In other news:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

A

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

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

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

You rhetoric is applicable to them.

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

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

A

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

But it was a joyful one, she said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A

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

Op Ed News reports:

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


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

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

Favor: 39 percent.

Oppose: 55 percent.

Undecided/Don't Know: 6 percent.

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

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

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

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

From Litchfield, Connecticut:

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

Gas is at $3.09 in Litchfield.

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

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

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

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

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

The statement was made by former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel.

Gravel: Impeachment 'will come, in due course'

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

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

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

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

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

Gravel plan could land Bush "behind bars"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpted from The Atlantic Free Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polling Data

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

Favour
39%

Oppose
55%

Undecided
6%


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

A

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

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

From Op Ed News

A

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

From Buzzflash:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why wait till 2009?

---

Comments from the same page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not Your Daddy's Editorial Page:
johnperryonline.com

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

Welch: No impeachment

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

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

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

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

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

Dickey:

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

From The Dissident Voice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jump on the Impeachment Bandwagon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fallacy is commonly found in arguments over ethics:

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

The fallacy is also commonly found in marketing:

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

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

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

Another month gone and still no "Impeachment" Amos?

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

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

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

Dickey:

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

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

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

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

Or the dead.

A

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

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

by Jay Esbe    Page 1 of 2 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com




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

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




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

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

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

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


LIES, LIES, LIES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full article can be found here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History repeats itself:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dickey,

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

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

A

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

Democrats Against Impeachment
By JOHN MCCLAUGHRY WSJ May 12, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A

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

Bob Burnett writes:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Artice I

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

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

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

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

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

The article cites the following:

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

---

From here

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The reason why Bush never admits a mistake"


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

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

The Final Call

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

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

Abdul Allah Muhammad, Chairman, Editorial Board

Print Edition

Interim Managing Editor
Abdul Arif Muhammad

General Manager
Duane Muhammad

White House Correspondent
Askia Muhammad

Staff Writers
Charlene Muhammad
Jesse Muhammad
Saeed Shabazz
Nisa Islam Muhammad

Editorial Supervisor
Vanessa A. X

Copy Desk Editors
Arai Hodari Muhammad
Eleanor Smith

Transcriptionist
Marcella A. X

Production Manager
Tamiko G. Muhammad

Production Assistants
Harold Muhammad
Timothy 6X

Staff Photographer
Kenneth Muhammad

Circulations Manager
Sherice A. Muhammad

Subscriptions
Debra Muhammad
Ida M. X
Shaka Muhammad
Yusuf Muhammad

Distribution Manager
Leonard E. Muhammad

---

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

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

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

(grin)

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

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

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

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

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

Little Hawk:

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

Dickey:

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

A

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

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

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

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

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


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


A

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

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

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


A

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

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

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

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

Where is your original thinking an reasoning Amos?

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

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 07 - 06:59 PM

Your obsessive-compulsive side is rearing its ugly head, Amos... ;-)

Hey, Dickey, are you gonna look up your stats too?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:58 PM

Geeze, LH, first you tell me I can't admit I'm wrong. Then when I offer evidence of having done so, you tell me I'm OC. So, lemme guess...you're a lose-lose artist? I guess I was wrong about you all along...sigh...


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:25 PM

Alberto Gonzales' safety net
Confirmation hearings for his successor could spawn criminal investigations of the White House.

By Elizabeth Holtzman, ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, a former Democratic congresswoman from New York, is the coauthor of "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens."


May 1, 2007

NO MATTER how many members of Congress lose confidence in Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush is unlikely to let him go. If Gonzales resigns, the vacancy must be filled by a new presidential nominee, and the last thing the White House wants is a confirmation hearing.

Already, the Senate is outlining conditions for confirming a Gonzales successor. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has said that his panel would not hold confirmation hearings unless Karl Rove and other White House aides testify about the firing of U.S. attorneys to clarify whether "the White House has interfered with prosecution."

All this is reminiscent of the Watergate scandal. In 1973, as the coverup was unraveling, the Senate imposed a condition on the confirmation of President Nixon's nominee for attorney general, Elliot Richardson. Richardson's predecessor had resigned because of Watergate troubles. Concerned that the Justice Department would not get at the truth, the Senate insisted that Richardson would name a special prosecutor to investigate Watergate. Richardson duly appointed Archibald Cox.

The rest is history. Cox's aggressive investigations led to the prosecution of top administration officials and the naming of Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator in the coverup. When Cox sought White House tapes of Nixon's conversations with his staff, the president had him fired, unleashing a firestorm of protests. Americans demanded that a previously reluctant Congress start impeachment proceedings against Nixon. Congress complied; the House Judiciary Committee, of which I was a member, voted for impeachment, and Nixon resigned.

Aspects of this history could easily repeat themselves. The Senate could demand, as it did in 1973, that a new attorney general appoint a special prosecutor, and this could again have dire consequences for the White House.

A new special prosecutor would have many questions to investigate.

For starters, were any of the firings of U.S. attorneys federal crimes — such as obstruction of justice, designed to stymie investigations or to retaliate for prosecutions of Republicans? If so, who is responsible and how high up does that responsibility go? Did Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul J. McNulty, who gave inaccurate testimony to Congress about the firings, commit any crime in doing so? Were those who briefed him for that testimony complicit?

And what happened to the missing e-mail messages from Rove and others? Did these apparent violations of the Presidential Records Act — failure to keep copies of the exchanges — constitute federal crimes?

So there is ample work for a special prosecutor. The Senate could call for appointing one without waiting for Gonzales to resign. But in that case, Gonzales or McNulty would be making the appointment, and the integrity of the choice would be highly questionable.

That leaves Senate confirmation hearings of a new attorney general nominee as the main leverage for Congress to secure an independent criminal investigation of the U.S. attorney firings.

Moreover, the Senate might use such hearings to do more than secure testimony from White House aides about the firings, as Leahy indicated. It also might use the opportunity to probe the Justice Department's role in mistreatment of detainees, four years of flouting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and other serious matters.

Rather than face such scrutiny, the White House may prefer keeping a drastically weakened Gonzales in place. But doing so exacts a high price for the Justice Department and the nation. It damages department morale and credibility, undermines its ability to recruit and could affect perceptions of federal prosecutors, jeopardizing important cases. By retaining Gonzales to preempt Senate action, the president has signaled that this is a price he is willing to make the nation pay.

(From an LA Times Op-Ed piece)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:17 PM

The Mudcat search does not work for me. It only goes up to 2005.

I have appologized when I discovered I was wrong.

I see 35012 posts by Amos going back to 1999 when he could have displayed some popular views of the Clinton administration but failed to do so.

Where was his indignation about Clinton's domestic spying? His attacks on Iraq based on false intelligence? Rising gas prices? LOGCAPS for Halliburton? The bottom falling out of the stock market causing the beginning of a recession? Clinton's use of Guantanamo? 4417 military deaths in 4 years of "peace"?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:32 PM

Perhaps you're right, Dickey; I was less involved in political issues back then. But in light of the positiver accomplishments that occurred under Clinton's administration, I also had less motivation to do so. Clinton won his election fairly; he turned around the national insolvency, made major advances toward peace in the Middle East and in Ireland, improved the fate of the middle and lower classes in the United States; and almost all of the outrage about him was based on completely scurrilous falsehoods promoted by a desperate black PR campaign. At the peak of his troubles, with right-wingers demanding impeachment hearings and publishing details of his private life, his public polls were still far ahead of where Bush's have been lately.

But the point is not what Clinton did. The point is the deterioration of international repute, national integrity, and general rot at the top since Bush first bought the 2000 election.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:00 AM

Detroit City Council votes to impeach Bush
May 17, 2007

BY DAWSON BELL

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

The Detroit City Council approved a resolution Wednesday sponsored by Councilwoman Monica Conyers, the wife of U.S. Rep. John Conyers, to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

John Conyers, D-Mich., is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, where any impeachment effort would start, and a bitter opponent of the Bush administration. But he has said that he does not intend to move forward with any impeachment effort.

Advertisement


The 7-0 vote by the all-Democratic council has no official weight. U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said before the 2006 elections -- in which Democrats regained control of Congress -- that impeachment would not be on a Democratic House agenda. Pelosi could not be reached Wednesday for comment.

Monica Conyers, a first term councilwoman, was unable to vote for her own resolution because she is in Hawaii for a national pension conference. Neither she nor her husband could be reached for comment.

The resolution says Bush and Cheney conspired to defraud the United States by "intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify the war."

Detroit attorney Bill Goodman, a member of the National Lawyers Guild and an impeachment supporter, said he met Monday with Monica Conyers and the resolution's cosponsor, Councilwoman JoAnn Watson. At that time, Goodman said, Conyers told him she was "very interested in pursuing this and would share her views with her husband."

Goodman said the council vote was significant not only because of the ties to Conyers, but because Detroit is the largest city to date to approve a resolution endorsing impeachment."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:32 AM

Genral rot at the top?

What do you call this:

The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:51 AM

May 17, 2007 at 05:55:34

BUSH HAS BEEN CONSISTENT in his criminal BEHAVIOR

by Vince Williams

http://www.opednews.com


(Excerpt)


From the outset, George W. Bush has combined a consistent deficiency in good judgement with a consistent willingness to lie, deceive and promulgate the kind of hatred and bigotry that also recurred in the statements of Jerry Falwell.

NOW, however, there can be no doubt that, in light of James B. Comey's testimony that it was George BUSH who deliberately broke the warrantless search laws, IMPEACHMENT seems completely appropriate. Breaking the law is NOT ONE OF THE PERKS of being President.


However, will the Senate Judiciary Committee give him a pass, realizing that his "PROTECTORS" can just play for time until Bush is no longer in the Whitehouse? Perhaps. However, it is my considered opinion that he should STILL be held accountable for the crime. One who commits a crime is a criminal. This doesn't end when he is "retired" from current employment.

George W. Bush committed a verifiable crime; and my best guess is that's just the tip of the iceberg. We'll find out about others, mark my words.

He got away with avoiding combat; he got away with winning a fraudulent election; his appointees have certainly demonstrated THAT BUSH POSSESSES a consistency in poor judgement. And THAT SAME POOR JUDGEMENT combined with an enormously inflated hubris has no doubt seen him break various laws. It goes with the territory.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:53 AM

I call it a granfalloon of unsubstantiated noise, myself.

Accusations, as the RNC knows very well, are real cheap.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 18 May 07 - 12:03 AM

A sweeping dismissal is also cheap.

Let's go over them one at a time. Was Clinton the First president to disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court?

____ yes

____ no

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 07 - 12:27 PM

"...Any politician (or party) that remains loyal to this misbegotten, corrupt and scandal-plagued administration is history. It is even becoming clear due to recent federal convictions (and more to follow) of poll workers in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, that Bush may indeed not have rightfully won the election in 2004. Bush and Cheney were meeting with disgraced secretary of state Blackwell in Ohio on election day in Columbus, and the same Internet servers that tried to hide, and subsequently allowed Karl Rove and others to delete thousands of emails, also were the same servers that hosted Blackwell's corrupt Ohio election results. Hmmmm? Fool us twice? (Google: Smartech scandal)

The dam is breaking. Where there is oversight of absolutely corrupted power it will come crashing down. It cannot suffer the light of day or the truth. The people are sick of the fear mongering, the secrecy, the lies about war, the torture, the outing of CIA agents, the unconstitutional signing statements, the politicizing of our government, the abandonment of science, the destruction of the environment and the abolishment of hundreds of regulations meant to protect us and our children. We are sick of the local and national GOP politicians fouling our water and land and using our taxpayer dollars for the benefit of the developers and the corporation, and most of all we are sick of money ruling our souls and owning our government.

Clinging to this sinking ship of fools will be other fools and a political party too loyal to do what's right, and too blind to jump before it is too late. Do we have to wait for Bush to let the next major terror attack hit us before we wake up to his negligence and incompetence? Impeachment is the only patriotic thing to do. Dying in vain for lies is a horrible thing and must be stopped.

Crede Calhoun
Friendsville (Maryland)"....

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 07 - 11:01 AM

Speaking in Wisconsin, David Swanson said:

..."Impeachment is serious, and the Congress Members who actually do it should treat it as such. And so, in many ways, should we. The question of whether or not the world's most powerful and most fiercely armed empire ever to exist will be commanded from here on out by a president subject to the rule of law or by a dictator with total power, a unitary executive, is one of the most serious questions imaginable. But a successful movement requires spreading the word in fun and creative ways and making the dull sounding work of restoring our constitution enjoyable and productive of solidarity and community.

Based on the few polls that have been done, we know that we who favor impeachment are a majority or close to it. That should give us all the confidence we need to make impeachment happen. But it's not enough to be a majority. We have to feel like a majority.

One way to do that is to wear everywhere you go a t-shirt that says IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY. You can get one at www.afterdowningstreet.org but I recommend getting more than one, because you're going to want to wash them sometimes. I have lots of them in all different colors, and I've worn them for a couple of years now. The number of negative comments I've received I can count on one hand, and some of those led to good conversations. The number of compliments and shouts of approval I've received is in the thousands. And I can't keep count of the number of conversations that have been created by wearing these shirts.

Even people who will pick yes rather then no when asked if they support impeachment have lots and lots of questions and misconceptions and internalized fears and concerns. People get very caught up in the question of who will hold what office for a year or six months after Bush and/or Cheney are removed. As if that were all that's at stake here. Or people regurgitate their manufactured consent to the really quite radical notion that impeachable offenses have been committed but should not be pursued because that wouldn't be practical or viable or successful. I'm sure we won't cover all such questions tonight, but every one I've ever heard of is covered at www.afterdowningstreet.org – Click on Resource Center. But my point is this: if you don't wear the shirt or raise the topic, the questions never get asked and answers are never reached. And, in fact, by wearing the shirt you help answer most of the questions. No one who sees the word IMPEACH everywhere they look can claim impeachment isn't possible. Rightly or wrongly, there is too much vestigial belief in democracy floating about. And I'm convinced that a bit of it is justified, that if the public makes enough noise for impeachment it will happen. Our biggest obstacle is not bad arguments. It's silence.

What it's going to take is not just people who answer surveys correctly. It's going to take activists. It's going to take all of us acting the way we would if City Council announced that it was going to demolish our neighborhood next month. If we can keep the local import of impeachment in front of us, we can bring the requisite passion to a national campaign. Here's one of the many impacts:

According to www.costofwar.com the people of Wisconsin have spent over $6.8 billion on the occupation of Iraq. (And, please, let's call it an occupation. It's not a war, and it cannot be won or lost.) For $6.8 billion, Wisconsin could have paid for 330,484 college scholarships. Just the people of Madison alone have spent over a quarter billion dollars on this occupation. That's enough to build 2,280 housing units or to pay for 33,545 kids to attend Head Start for a year.

"...The Walworth County Democratic Party passed a resolution for impeachment last week, and not for the first time. The Wisconsin state Democratic Party passed an impeachment resolution on June 12, 2005. Only Nevada's Democratic Party had done it first. Now 14 states have done so, and 10 of them since Nancy Pelosi claimed impeachment was off the table.

Across the country at least 80 cities and towns have passed impeachment resolutions, and many more have proposed them. Town and County and city resolutions are excellent ways to influence Congress. Even better is a state resolution. A state resolution has been introduced in Wisconsin by Representative Frank Boyle. I haven't had the privilege of meeting Representative Boyle, but people who take actions like his should be very conspicuously rewarded and should be drafted to run for Congress.

Wisconsin is one of 10 states that have introduced impeachment resolutions. There have been votes in the Washington State Senate, the Vermont House, and the Vermont Senate. And in the Vermont Senate, impeachment passed. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 07 - 12:37 PM

"Oberlin asks Congress to impeach Bush, Cheney

OBERLIN (AP) — The City Council of this left-leaning college town unanimously voted to ask Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Oberlin, about 30 miles southwest of Cleveland, joins at least 56 other cities and towns nationwide, and the Vermont Senate, in approving such a measure.


ADVERTISEMENT
   
After the vote Monday, the audience broke into song, performing a rendition of "This Land is Your Land" that had council members singing along, too.

"Ohio is a battleground for elections and this is really sending a strong message," Councilwoman Eve Sandberg said. "The people who took an oath to uphold our Constitution are not doing it and it's time we asked them to."

The resolution was brought up by resident June Goodwin, who wore an "Impeach Bush" button along with more than a dozen supporters. She helped start a petition signed by 648 Oberlin residents.

The council declared the measure an emergency, allowing the final vote to occur at its introduction. No one spoke in opposition.

Several reasons were cited for seeking impeachment, including what the backers claim was the intentional misleading of Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq to justify war.



..."

From here

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 07 - 04:42 PM

The Impeachment Chronicles: Will Cheney and Bush Ever be Held Accountable?   

By Bill Hare
05/27/2007 04:00:32 PM EST

"Accountability is an old-fashioned word that the truth jugglers of the Cheney-Bush Administration and important elements of the mainstream media have sought to effectively remove from the English language.
The reason why that word accountability is looked upon with such morbid fear along with savage distaste is that if followed by definition the neocons marching under the Cheney-Bush brigade would have been removed from office long ago. The sun light of accountability would deliver a piercing arrow of permanent destruction to elements of darkness that have endured through perpetuating patterns of lies.

In the New York Times on Friday, May 25, it was reported that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee had accused the Bush Administration "of ignoring preinvasion warnings from the nation's spy agencies that a war in Iraq could be followed by violence and division and that it could strengthen the hands of Al Qaeda and of Iran."

According to the Democratic chairman of the Committee, Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, "Sadly, the administration's refusal to heed these dire warnings, and worse, to plan for them, has led to tragic consequences for which our nation is paying a terrible price."


The overall report was approved in a 10-5 vote. All eight Democrats on the Committee voted affirmatively. Two Republican senators, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, joined them.
Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri supplied a note of unintended humor in a strong dissent by complaining that the inquiry "has become too embroiled in politics and partisanship to produce an accurate and meaningful report."

Bond's lament is highly laughable. He is one of the brigade of martinets marching to the tune of pied piper Bush, who has proclaimed that in the war on terror you are either "with or against me" and that one had better not be against him because, after all, Bush receives his advice from direct communication with God.

The Cheney-Bush neocon brigade is known for slavish repetition rather than originality, so it came as anything but a surprise that Bond called the study of prewar assessments "a bad idea" and called for the committee to stop rehashing the past controversies and to focus instead on "the myriad of threats we face today."

How we recall the same sentiment being expressed in almost those identical words by Dick Cheney when, in the wave of fourth of July speeches and sainthood declarations from the media for Rudolph Guiliani, that an independent investigation be conducted into the causes of the 9/11 tragedies.

Cheney promptly turned thumbs down on such an idea. We should, after all, concern ourselves with preventing such attacks in the future instead of looking to the past.

So a building is burnt to the ground and the insurance company holding the vital policy asks for an investigation to determine how it all happened. The rejoinder is, "No fair! That already happened! We're interested in preventing future fires!"

Yes, more bright logic from a group of stumbling neocons frightened that the public may ultimately learn the truth about them and demand immediate answers. This is a consequence they morbidly fear as they dodge responsibility in their never-ending snake dance of deceit.

Congratulations, Senator Bond. Rudy Guiliani could not have said it better. Keep sticking those fingers in the dike to prevent the whole town from being flooded. In this case the floodtide would come in the form of truth, sanity and reason, alien concepts to this group.

Investigation? You know that familiar refrain, "You're giving aid and comfort to the enemy!" There's also the familiar corollary: "Remember, the root cause of all this lies with the terrorists!"

The second point is true enough in a certain context, but one that the neocons do not wish for us to explore. Enough independent investigation might establish that there are different terrorists out there serving as provocateurs that the neocons do not wish for us to know about since the results hit too close to home.

It is therefore understandable why Senator Bond needs to keep playing the partisan card with such unflagging repetition. He is terrified of us exploring further.

"Senator Rockefeller and I have very different views," Bond said at the end of the New York Times article. "But we're trying to get these battles behind us."

Please note the loaded propaganda message. It makes one wonder if Bond worked on his comments in concert with resident neocon propagandist Karl Rove. Bond and the neocons certainly are "trying to get these battles behind us."

This is the neocon ploy. Paint any investigative effort to get at the truth behind the Iraq War and 9/11 as invidious propaganda designed to shift concentration away from the war on terror.

If enough Americans can grasp the destructive charlatanism in play here then the truth can eventually be known and Cheney and Bush, along with their accomplices, will ultimately have to begin paying the ultimate price for destructive global and domestic policies grounded in deceit. '

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 07 - 09:03 AM

Most delegates who attended the May 18-19 Massachusetts Democratic Convention came expecting this to be an ordinary off-season convention, a so-called issues convention where no important issues are discussed, expecting to see the usual faces, with maybe a few more gray hairs. The delegates were giddy about the recent election victory of Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, but perhaps didn't expect the outcome of the convention to be explosive or necessarily historic. But, that mood changed when the delegates arrived, and met dozens of petitioners asking them to sign onto resolutions on both impeachment and the housing bubble's collapse and the global economic breakdown crisis.

At the May 18 pre-convention party, and in the early morning hours the next day, the LaRouche Youth Movement worked to collect the 50 signatures of delegates necessary to submit resolutions to be debated and voted on during the proceedings of the convention. The LYM had composed two resolutions: one, calling for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney, and the other, calling for an emergency FDR-style freezing and reorganization of the banking system, to protect families from the collapsing mortgage and real-estate bubble. The Progressive Democrats of America also had several petitioners collecting signatures for a resolution calling for double-impeachment.

When delegates heard that there would be debate during the convention on impeachment, their eyes got wide and they grabbed the clipboards, eager to sign, urging their friends to sign as well. The response was similar on the housing resolution, not because every delegate understood what the solution was, but because this crisis has touched every citizen of Massachusetts; many people are very anxious about the current crisis, and the magnitude of what they sense is soon to come.

By 9:00 a.m., the three resolutions were ready to be turned in, with sufficient signators; the Impeach Cheney resolution had 98 signatures, and the housing one had 78. Even this preliminary petitioning shaped the discussion among delegates. Many were excited to see young people pushing hard to submit the resolutions that we had composed, and the degree to which we were clearly organizing around not only getting Cheney out, but having a positive policy agenda to contribute to the Democratic Party. As soon as some of the delegates heard that the resolution was calling for the impeachment of Cheney, they exclaimed—this must be LaRouche! Some of these delegates had seen the LaRouche Youth Movement at previous conventions, and were glad to see that we were pushing in a bigger way than they had ever seen us do before.

Word of our organizing spread rapidly. When newly elected chairman John Walsh was approached about the resolutions that the LYM was submitting, he replied that he had already read both resolutions. We only ran into a few delegates who refused to sign because they were decidedly against both Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon LaRouche. But, the name of FDR began to spread; later in the day, many elected officials, including Governor Patrick, felt compelled to make speeches passionately referencing Franklin Roosevelt. And, as the Progressive Dems submitted their petitions, stickers that said "Impeach" could be spotted on lapels everywhere one looked.

The formal proceedings began with the chairman speaking to 2,000 delegates, telling them that in the last year, the Massachusetts Democrats had made history, electing their first African-American Governor, but that electing Democrats wasn't enough. He called on the party to change from a culture of talking and complaining, to a culture of action—get off your comfortable seats and do something! After Walsh, the speakers included Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin and the new Attorney General, Martha Coakley. It must have seemed to many of the delegates that these party leaders were speaking in support of the resolutions they had just heard the LYM petitioning for outside! Galvin emphasized something he identified as not just being a "good cause," but as being a reality that must be dealt with: the serious problem of looming foreclosures, thousands at risk of being homeless. He called for emergency measures to protect people, including a change in the antiquated laws governing foreclosures that have been on the books since the 1850s! He then passionately denounced the Bush Administration as being incompetent and disastrous, calling Bush a perpetual petulant child, unwilling to accept the fact that he's been wrong. Applause began to greet his words as he called for the Iraq War to be ended, to send a message to the Democrats in Washington not to accept any delay!

Next, Attorney General Coakley spoke. Her speech resonated with Galvin's, identifying the problem of predatory lending and investments that hurt people who are also trying to deal with collapsing infrastructure. She denounced Bush, Karl Rove, Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, the war in Iraq, the scandal at Walter Reed Medical Center, and demanded a change in national policy about this war.

And finally, the president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO promised that he would knock on hundreds of thousands of doors with the message—"Bush and Cheney, They gotta go! We're going to run them out of town!"—which he repeated again and again. He received a standing ovation.

By the time the debate on the resolutions began, many of the delegates had recognized that this wasn't an ordinary convention. Jim Roosevelt, chair of the rules committee and grandson of Franklin D. Roosevelt, introduced the first resolution, a resolution on the housing crisis, which was distributed to every delegate in the room while he read the text out loud from the podium.
...Resolution on the Impeachment of Vice-President Cheney
"Whereas, President George W. Bush and Vice-President Richard B. Cheney have consistently and knowingly rejected the will of the people of the United States of America, who expressed their voice in the mid-term Congressional elections of November 7Th, 2006. At the command of Vice-President Cheney, President Bush chose to veto (only his second veto in six years as President) the Supplemental Appropriations Bill, in which that new Congress calls for a timetable on Iraq troop withdrawal, demonstrating his commitment to a failed war, and to his surge policy of escalation;

"Whereas, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), has introduced Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Cheney in H.R. 333, calling for impeachment based on high crimes and misdemeanors, for 1) deceiving the people and Congress of the U.S. about alleged Iraqi WMD; 2) deceiving the people and Congress of the U.S. about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda; and 3) openly threatening aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States;

"Whereas, over 90 cities across the United States, have passed resolutions supporting the Impeachment of Vice President Cheney, including one by unanimous vote in the Detroit City Council on May 16th, 2007, as well as a resolution supporting impeachment of Dick Cheney from the California State Democratic Convention on May 1, 2007;

"Therefore, be it resolved, that the Massachusetts State Democratic Party calls on our party leadership, our party's presidential pre-candidates, and our United States Congress, to support Rep. Kucinich's call for the immediate impeachment and removal from office of Vice President Richard B. Cheney. We ardently hope that this resolution becomes the policy of the national Democratic Party; and that our party focus on the issues that our esteemed Governor Deval Patrick called attention to, in a recent speech, stating that rising mortgage foreclosures is not okay, collapsing infrastructure is not okay, rising violence in neighborhoods is not okay, and to deal with these crises, we as a party must be bold, as bold as Franklin Roosevelt: FDR's approach saved the Country; Democrats can save the Commonwealth and the Nation again."...



Full text can be found on this page.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 07 - 09:05 AM

From POrtland, Maine:

Protesters At Statehouse Call For Bush Impeachment


AUGUSTA (NEWS CENTER) -- A group made up of peace activists, lawyers, and leading democrats are calling on the Maine House of Representatives to pass a resolution in support of the impeachment of President Bush.

Portland Demcorat Ethan Strimling says he will submit a bill calling for the legislature to support a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

Strimling says the signatures gathered throughout Maine supporting the measure should get the attention of his colleagues.

The signatures were brought to the Speaker of the House's office and to Senate President Beth Edmonds after protesters held a loud rally outside the statehouse Tuesday.

Petitions with the signatures were also delivered to the Maine offices of Congressmen Allen and Michaud.

..."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 07 - 09:10 AM

From Edison, New Jersey:

EDISON -- President Bush will be coming to Edison today, and New Jersey residents on both sides of the political spectrum have been diligently preparing for his arrival.

On the GOP side, the Republican State Committee has organized a fundraiser and sold tickets for $300 and photo opportunities with the president for $5,000.

Various Democratic groups, meanwhile, have come together to organize protests near the New Jersey Convention and Exposition Center, where the event will be held.

Before Bush speaks to the crowd of supporters, a group of Democratic organizations will greet passers-by with an event of their own -- a demonstration from the parking lot next to the Holiday Inn and Harold's Deli on King Georges Post Road.

"The president coming to New Jersey is really a slap in the face, we feel, to the vast sentiment among most New Jerseyans," said Eve Weissman, an organizer for New Jersey Citizen Action, one of the primary groups involved in the event. "New Jerseyans really feel that the Bush agenda is not in sync with the values of New Jersey working families. ... And we really want to call attention to the fact that New Jerseyans are really upset with the current state of affairs in Iraq."

Rep. Frank Pallone, D-Long Branch, Sen. Barbara Buono, D-Metuchen, and Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, D-Union, will speak at the rally. The demonstration will involve Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, the New Jersey Democratic State Committee, the Teamsters Union, Democracy for America, the New Jersey Stonewall Democrats and the New Jersey Impeach Group. Speeches will go from 3 to 4 p.m.

Township police, meanwhile, will be working with the Secret Service, the Middlesex County Sheriff's Office, the state police, the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office and the township police auxiliary to provide security for the event, township spokesman Jerry Barca said.
...

The New Jersey Stonewall Democrats, a grass-roots gay rights organization, will protest the president's stance on homosexuality.

"This administration has been horrible for the gay community and has used us as a scapegoat," said Joan Hervey, the communications director for the Stonewall Democrats. "We want to show him how we feel about him."

The New Jersey Impeach Group's message is clear: They'll be demonstrating because they want to impeach the president.

"Not only do Bush and (Vice President Dick) Cheney have to go, they have to be impeached, removed, indicted, prosecuted, convicted and put behind bars where they can do no more harm to our country or our world," said Stuart Hutchison, an organizer for the North Jersey Impeach Group, one of three in the state.

The group has started a campaign to get the state Legislature to introduce a resolution to impeach, Hutchison said.

"This country is on the brink and if Bush goes any further, it could fall right off," he said.

From the New Jersrey Courier News.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 07 - 02:26 PM

Al Gore against any attempt to impeach Bush
PTI
Thursday, May 31, 2007 20:43 IST



For the latest World News on mobile sms WOR to 4567

Email Article    Print Article
Most Emailed Articles    Most Viewed Articles
Share this article    RSS Feed
Digg it
Add to del.icio.us
Google bookmarks
Yahoo! bookmarks
Add to Newsvine
Add to Reddit
To reprint this article, contact 3DSyndication





WASHINGTON: Former US vice president Al Gore, a staunch critic of George W Bush, has said he doesn't agree with calls for impeaching the president due to lack of "time" and "consensus."

Many democrats feel that Bush should be impeached for allegedly misleading the country deliberately in the lead up to the war in Iraq.

"With a year and a half to go in his term and with no consensus in the nation as a whole to support such a proposition, any realistic analysis of that as a policy option would lead one to question the allocation of time and resources," Gore said during an interview with PBS.

Pressed on whether he believed that impeachment is a good use of time, Gore replied, "I don't think it is. I don't think it would be successful."

From http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1100316

From Madison Wisconsin:

"Dear Editor: Please support Rep. Frank Boyle's effort to get Wisconsin to join other states in calling for the impeachment of George Bush. Torture? Pre-emptive war? Secret CIA prisons? Wiretapping? What has our country come to?

I am also a conscientious objector and am using civil disobedience to withhold a portion of my federal tax obligation. I was a student in Germany in the '50s, and what I heard from German citizens is what I now see in the U.S.

Daniel J. Guilfoil

Monona"

And from Fox News:

"Congressman Conyers Supports Movement to Impeach Bush, Cheney
Wednesday, May 30, 2007

DETROIT — U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said he supports a national effort calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, but stopped short of pledging to take action to back it.

"I've been supportive of that movement," said Conyers, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee that would lead impeachment hearings. "I encourage that nationwide."

But Conyers, who left a Detroit church before a town-hall meeting attended by a standing-room-only crowd of about 250 people, remained noncommittal about lending his official backing for impeachment proceedings. Conyers had also convened a separate town-hall meeting in Detroit on Tuesday evening to discuss high gas prices.

"The goal is whether to impeach or follow up on the defects and disabilities of an administration" that has shut out Congress, he said Tuesday."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 07 - 11:53 PM

"...They came together to discuss whether the Bush administration has committed impeachable offenses and, if so, if Congress should act immediately to impeach him.
"I think this war is a waste of lives, time and money," St. Charles resident Glenda Alar
said. "It's not going to solve anything."
Her husband, Bill, agreed.
"Our country's reputation has been destroyed," he said.
The World Can't Wait Web site says the organization is urging "people living in the United States to take responsibility to stop the whole disastrous course led by the Bush administration. We seek to create a political situation where the Bush administration's program is repudiated, where Bush himself is driven from office and where the whole direction he has been taking U.S. society is reversed."
Town hall meetings on impeaching the Bush administration are being held across the country over the next several weeks.
Panelists at the Batavia forum included Jason Snart, associate professor of English at the College of DuPage, Nick Stein, member of the board of the Chicago Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, and Liz Lazdins of the World Can't Wait Chicago Steering Committee.
Lazdins said Bush has abused the public's trust with illegal wiretappings, gross negligence to respond to the Hurricane Katrina crisis, failure to provide adequate health care to veterans and lying about weapons of mass destruction.
"Now he has opened Pandora's Box in the Middle East. We can't just wait until 2008 and let them walk away from this travesty," Lazdins said. "We have to hold them accountable now."
While some said the struggle to impeach Bush will take years longer than the President has left in office, holding the President and his administration accountable is still necessary.
"The success lies in the insistence of bringing to light all of the lies, treachery and mal-administration," Snart said.
"The issue is the moral obligation that faces us all," added Stein. "What are we going to say for ourselves to subsequent generations when they ask us, 'What were you doing while people in Afghanistan and Iran were being bombed?' We have an obligation to make impeachment the issue."
While Johnson disagreed with the stance of most people at the meeting, he strongly supports their right of the first amendment's freedom of speech.
"I'll die for their right to be wrong," he said."

(From Batavia, Illinois

---

"My Turn: Arguments against impeachment fall short

Published: Thursday, May 31, 2007
By Dennis Morrisseau

Two objections raised by opponents of impeachment are: 1) impeachment would distract from the investigations that are happening right now and 2) given the political landscape, it is not possible to achieve the two-thirds majority in the Senate necessary to convict, so why proceed?

These arguments are nonsense or worse.

1. Impeachment would heighten focus on investigations of wrongdoing. Here is the text of the U.S. House resolution in the Nixon impeachment (HR.803, Feb. 6, 1974):

"Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the Chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the Rules of the Committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper."

2. Only the House Judiciary Committee takes up impeachment. That committee can and historically it has been able to handle other tasks simultaneously with an impeachment investigation. It can cite other investigations by other committees of the House and Senate, giving increased prominence to those investigations; but nothing about impeachment would stop other committees from pursuing investigations of interest to them, or the regular work of Congress.

In April alone, while conducting its attorney purge investigation, the committee had time to pass a federal hate crimes bill, express concern about a raid at a mall in Chicago, look for justice for survivors of the 1921 Tulsa riot, examine federal judicial compensation, and investigate Katrina's impact on New Orleans' criminal justice system. But even if impeachment were to take up the whole attention of the House Judiciary Committee, that amounts to another investigation -- in this case, one that reaches all the way to Bush and Cheney -- something other investigations at this point are not doing. We might want to ask why.

3. Not even Republicans are stones. Discovery of wrongdoing by Bush or Cheney will move Republican votes. There are 49 Republicans in the present Senate, 21 of whom will have to face the voters in 2008. In 1974 there were 42 Republican senators -- clearly enough to block impeachment of Nixon. But Nixon resigned prior to an impeachment vote after House Judiciary Committee hearings very clearly sketched in for Americans just what Nixon had allowed to be done on his watch and a delegation of Republican Senators told him bluntly that he would receive no more than 15 supporting votes out of 42 Republicans in the Senate. The reason for the lack of Republican support for Nixon was clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing unearthed during the Watergate criminal investigations.
"

(From Burlington, Vermont)

---

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 12:07 AM

Gore Doesn't Agree with Bush Impeachment

Former Vice President Al Gore says the drive to impeach President Bush is doomed to failure, and he doesn't support it.

In an interview with PBS, Gore dismissed the notion that Bush will be impeached due to allegations that he misled America in the days before the invasion of Iraq.

"With a year and a half to go in his term and with no consensus in the nation as a whole to support such a proposition, any realistic analysis of that as a policy option would lead one to question the allocation of time and resources," Gore said during an interview with PBS.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/31/215855.shtml

When asked if impeaching Bush would be a good use of time, Gore replied, "I don't think it is. I don't think it would be successful

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 04:54 PM

Dickey:

I posted that article on May 31. Please notice what precedes you so as to avoid double posts, and wasting bandwidth.

In other news:

"June 01, 2007

6/1: Let's Pretend ...

Let's pretend the House Judiciary Cmte. tires of Monica Goodling and Co., and returns their attention to the NSA surveillance program. Article II powers aside, has anyone really made the case Pres. Bush didn't violate FISA? Wouldn't monitoring Americans phone records contra to federal law constitute a high crime or misdemeanor? And if articles of impeachment were drawn up, after the immigration debacle, who exactly would come to Bush's defense? Laura Ingraham? National Review? Conservative stalwart Ace of Spades sums up conservative sentiment: "Message To The Left: I'm not saying you should impeach him, I'm just sayin', you know, go with your hearts.""

(From a blog).


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 01:05 AM

Amos:

Was that the one that you wasted bandwidth on by putting thie in your post:




For the latest World News on mobile sms WOR to 4567

Email Article    Print Article
Most Emailed Articles    Most Viewed Articles
Share this article    RSS Feed
Digg it
Add to del.icio.us
Google bookmarks
Yahoo! bookmarks
Add to Newsvine
Add to Reddit
To reprint this article, contact 3DSyndication


That was a different article. mine was from PBS.

Then you post lets pretend from a blog? That is some serious use of banswidth.

What do the pre-schoolers in your area think of the situation?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 03:34 AM

(Sigh)


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 09:18 AM

Local activists seek impeachment
Group gathers 2,500 signatures against Bush, will petition Legislature
By Raymond Drumsta
Journal Staff

ITHACA — The weekend of the Ithaca Festival found some area activists bearing the heat and hitting a hot-button issue — the possible investigation and impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The activists, representing a group called the "Campaign for Impeachment," are gathering signatures for a petition urging the Tompkins County Legislature to pass a resolution calling for an impeachment inquiry into the activities of Bush and Cheney.

        
They plan to present the petition and resolution at the Legislature's scheduled meeting on Tuesday evening, according to group spokesperson Greg L. Potter, who works as an administrative assistant at Cornell University.

"The hope is that the Tompkins County Legislature passes the resolution, and that will encourage the state assembly to pass one as well," Potter said.
As of Saturday, the group had gathered nearly 2,500 signatures, Potter said, which should reflect a groundswell of support for the resolution.

The group is a loose coalition composed of various individuals, the Tompkins County Marches for Peace and the Ithaca Peace Vigil, Potter said. The coalition formed after a meeting on March 17, he said.

"It was decided at that meeting that impeachment was the best way to stop the war," Potter said.

The resolution alleges a list of "Ten impeachable offenses committed by Bush and Cheney," including "violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal war of aggression against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization;" and "violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and e-mails of Americans without a warrant."

The allegation of fraud to sell the Iraq war and the wiretapping allegation, to him, are the most serious, Potter said.

"There's plenty of evidence if you read between the lines," Potter said about the fraud allegation. As for the wiretapping allegation Potter said, "We know that was illegal, period. That's common knowledge."

The resolution also claims that Bush and Cheney violated the Geneva Conventions by "authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross."

"Those are clear violations of the Geneva Convention, which was ratified by Congress," Potter said. "When Congress ratifies a treaty, it's law."

Potter said he's been communicating with his county representative, Legislator Martha Robertson, D-13th Dist., by e-mail. Robertson expressed some concern, Potter said, that impeaching Bush and Cheney may cause a backlash among voters which could reverberate in the 2008 elections.

"That's absolutely a non-issue," Potter said. "We can't not do this because we think it may damage the Democrats' political strategy for 2008. People will continue to suffer and die in the war because (the Democrats are) plotting strategy. If it's wrong, we have to do something about it." ...

(From theIthaca Journal

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

Author makes case for impeaching Bush



By Rick Steelhammer
Staff writer
The Charleston Gazette (Excerpt)

There might not be enough impeachment votes in Congress to remove President Bush from office, but author and journalist Dave Lindorff believes the impeachment process would bring to light enough abuses of presidential power to derail his second term.

"Once his crimes are laid out on national television, he'll be thrown overboard by his own party, or, like Nixon, he'll strike a deal to leave office," predicted Lindorff, who was in the Charleston area Monday to speak at West Virginia State University.

Lindorff, a former Los Angeles Daily News reporter and the former China correspondent for Businessweek, has written for The Nation, Rolling Stone, Forbes and Salon, in addition to producing an online column at www.thiscantbehappening.net. Last year, the two-time Fulbright scholar co-authored "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush," produced by Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin's Press.

In an interview preceding his appearance at State, Lindorff said he considers himself generally pessimistic about the odds of a Bush impeachment trial taking place, given the hands-off stance taken by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other Democratic leaders.

"The congressional leadership is moving very slow at this point," he said. "But things tend to move fast in Congress once they do move, so I can't say, no, it won't happen. Eleven states are considering impeachment resolutions now, and a Newsweek poll last October showed that 53 percent of the American public favor impeachment."


...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 02:26 PM

Well Amos, yet another month has passed us all by and still nothing on the impeachment process.

What on earth is the hold up? I mean all that supposed evidence, all those prominent persons lining up to add their weight to Amos's drive for impeachment.

Of course nothing is going to happen because all those who could possibly move on this realise a certain number of things:

1) Nobody lied
2) Nobody mislead anyone
3) Both houses were given the information as reported by the UN and as analysed by the Intelligence Agencies of USA.
4) It was joint House Security Committee that identified the threat that Iraq posed.
5) Regime change was already official US foreign policy and had been since 1998.
6) Everybody is too busy on their election campaigns to bother with an impeachment process that will fail.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 04:16 PM

T:

If you honestly feel that no lies have been promulgated by the Bush Administration, you either haven't been paying attention, or you are so deeply wrapped in your wooly cloud of true-believer denial that you can't draw a bead on reality even after two cups of coffee.

So far, all we have seen of the impeachment movement is a LOT of grass roots vocalization and one article from Conyers.

But -- ya never know. Keep your fingers crossed and your slime-eater may have to face the music some day.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 05:48 PM

Next Presidential election is how many months away Amos?

Do you honestly think that they are going to waste their time on a useless impeachment process that may harm their "run" at the White House? Not on your life - self interest rules - as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 09:47 AM

Impeachment resolution passes
County representatives urged to push investigation of Bush, Cheney
By Timothy Cama
Ithaca, NY, Journal

ITHACA — After almost an hour of debate, the Tompkins County Legislature passed a resolution Tuesday evening to urge the county's representatives in the state legislature to recommend that the United States Congress investigate charges against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to determine if they warrant impeachment.

Nine legislators voted in favor of the resolution, as submitted by Pamela Mackesey, D-City and Town of Ithaca, while six opposed it.
   
The resolution declared that "substantial evidence has been gathered that indicates that President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney have committed high crimes and misdemeanors."

Among the charges listed were "Misleading Congress and the nation about ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda," and "authorizing the unlawful use of torture and extraordinary rendition."
After public comments, Chairman Tim Joseph, D-Town of Ithaca, ruled to debate and vote upon the resolution, which the Legislature recognized as "Resolution No. o" immediately, as it would usually have been put off until later in the meeting. A motion to overrule his decision failed.

A motion was then set forth to table the resolution indefinitely, because, as Richard S. Booth, D-City and Town of Ithaca, said, it is beyond the Legislature's jurisdiction. The motion failed as well, opening debate about Resolution No. o.

"It is absolutely within our job to listen to you," said Martha Robertson, D-Town of Dryden. ...

---

"A healthy and moral Society can exist only when there is a rule of law applied equally and fairly to all citizens, from the most powerful to the weakest, from the wealthiest to the absolute poorest, equally and fairly to all races, religions, and any citizen who doesn't fit into the above. Our once great country has been weakened by a vile administration that would ignore the rule of law. Left un-addressed this cancer will continue to weaken the resolve of its citizens and slowly the "Law of the Jungle" will supersede the "Rule of Law".

We must stop this slide into an oppression by the few, those like Bush and his minions. We must insist, no force, a return to Rule of Law for our country. This is the first step toward reclaiming our country for our children and their children, and on and on. We have to impeach Bush, Cheney, and others of the Government who have been complicit in this vileness. Our final act should be to put in place a fail safe method to bring to heel those that would enable a dictatorial White House.

Once that is done we need to bring in the Neo-Con profiteering group for trial as war criminals. Hundreds of thousands dead, $ Trillions squandered for the suppliers of war materials, and hatred spread around the world for the once revered United States - all because a few decided to make a bunch of money, corner energy resources, and perpetuate their power and position. The time is now to stop the madness."

by Cliff Carson, a freelance writer, here

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

BREAKING: Five US Reps Support Cheney Impeachment

By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, Atlanta Progressive News (June 06, 2007)

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

"This Administration has continued to erode the trust of the American people and enough is simply enough," stated US Rep. Clarke in a press release issued first to Atlanta Progressive News.

"H.Res. 333 was introduced to the House of Representatives by Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio on April 24, 2007, and asserts that the vice president manipulated intelligence to make the case for going to war with Iraq, falsified a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and has threatened aggression against Iran," US Rep. Clarke says.

"When the American people voted on November 7th, they asked for a change in direction by electing the Democratic party in the House and Senate. I have heard the loud cries of my constituents, and they want accountability. My support of HRes 333 reflects the voices of the residents of central Brooklyn."

Congresswoman Clarke replaced US Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), who retired at the end of the 109th Session. US Rep. Owens had been one of the early supporters of Conyers's bill, H Res 635, which would have created a Select Committee to look into the possible grounds for impeaching President Bush.

Congresswoman Clarke is her own woman and "does not follow the crowd," her spokesperson said, adding that constituents had regularly lobbied her to co-sponsor this bill.

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

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 07 - 10:33 AM

Conyers: a Hero of the Constitution
Friday, June 08, 2007

From here.

When it comes to defending the Constitution from the saboteurs of freedom and democracy in the Bush administration, my hero is Conyers.

Not Congressman Conyers. He had a shot at the title during 2005, when he was holding informal hearings on the administration's impeachable crimes, and in 2006, when he published a book laying out the case for impeachment, but he lost his chance when he buckled under pressure from then minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who about a year ago began insisting that should the Democrats take over Congress, impeachment would be "off the table."

Rep. Conyers, who as chairman of the judiciary committee of the House would be in charge of impeachment hearings, has made it clear that he believes the president should be impeached, but he has not stood up to Speaker Pelosi, or challenged her absurd position on impeachment.

No, I'm referring to Conyers' wife, Monica.

As president pro tempore of the Detroit City Council and a political leader in her own right, Monica Conyers clearly isn't swayed by Pelosi. Indeed, last week she sponsored a resolution in the Detroit City Council which passed unanimously. That resolution doesn't mince words. It calls for the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney for defrauding the public to justify launching a war of aggression against Iraq. It also calls for their impeachment for ordering illegal spying on Americans, for ordering torture, and for doing away with habeas corpus.

Here is the full text of the resolution, which was drawn up by the Detroit chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, and which was endorsed by the Gray Panthers, Veterans for Peace, the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, Latinos Unidos and Michigan Impeach.org:


"WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired with others to defraud the United States of America by intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land"; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney acted to strip American citizens of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, without charge and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant", all in subversion of law; and

WHEREAS, In all of this George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have acted in a manner contrary to their trust as President and Vice President, subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the City of Detroit and of the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, Petitions from the country at large may be presented by the Speaker of the House according to Clause 3 of House Rule XII;

Be it resolved that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."


The city council resolution is to be presented to Congress as a petition. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 07 - 09:24 PM

It is amusng that not only left-wing nuts and moderate liberals are beginning to insist Bush and Cheny should be impeached for their offenses. Now the nutso right-wing is chiming in!

"Immigration: Time To Impeach GW Bush
By Basil Harrington
Jun 7, 2007 - 2:04:06 PM
Peter Gadiel, the father of a 9/11 victim, and lifelong Republican, has recently said that it is time to impeach GW Bush over immigration. He writes, "Today, it is time for Republicans in the House to rise above the precedent set by Democrats in the Clinton era, and to begin the process of removing the president. As soon as House Republicans face this fact, the sooner a new Barry Goldwater can wake up George W. Bush to the fact that he has failed and it's time to go back to Crawford for good." 1

Bush has neglected his duties as President of the United States. He is flooding the U.S. with cheap labor to drive down American wages and is siding with third-world invaders against his fellow countrymen. And like the neocons, he wants to spend billions of U.S. dollars to defend the borders of Iraq and Israel, and to deport illegal aliens from Iraq and Israel, but at the same time supports the third-world, open-borders invasion of the U.S.

Why won't conservatives impeach him? Some worry about Nancy Pelosi getting closer to the White House, should Cheney be removed, saying that she'll be even worse. Could she be? I cannot stomach Nancy Pelosi, but I doubt she could be worse than Bush, a man who is one of the worst presidents in American history.

As Jean Raspail says in Camp of the Saints, "the greatest conservative book of all time," a third-world invasion of the West is taking place. And if we do not repel these invaders, it will be the end of Western Civilization. We are witnessing the twilight of our civilization, and we must be firm. We can rise up and route the invading third-world hordes, or we can watch the West become a third-world wasteland.

Unfortunately, many of our leaders have sided with the third-world invaders against the U.S., and should be should be ostracized along with Bush: Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, CEO of Wal-Mart, Members of La Raza, Bill Gates, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Rudolph Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, "Crackhead" Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Alberto Gonzales, Condoleezza Rice, Carlos Gutierrez, Michael Chertoff, and so on. These people are the fifth columnists aiding in this invasion."

From the Millinockey, Maine Magic City Morning STar at http://www.magic-city-news.com/Guest_Column_89/Immigration_Time_To_Impeach_GW_Bush8129.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Jun 07 - 11:43 PM

DETROIT -- Recently elected Detroit city councilwoman Monica Conyers is accused of assaulting another woman at a bar.

The brawl occurred at Crossroads Lounge Monday night, according to Local 4.

"A drunken woman attacked a judge and then turned and attacked -- a few minutes later -- Councilwoman Conyers. Councilwoman Conyers defended herself," said Sam Riddle, Conyers' chief of staff.

Rebecca Mews, the woman who claims she was assaulted by Conyers, said, "I was in no way intoxicated."

Mews said she was irritated. She was attending a birthday party for herself and her date, a local attorney who is friends with both Conyers and Judge Debra Thomas.

Mews said she didn't appreciate how Thomas was dancing with her date, and cut in on their dance.

According to Mews, that is when the dispute started. When she sat down with her date, she said Conyers approached her and stood with her back to Mews, speaking to her date.

"I tapped her on the shoulder, and said 'Pardon Me,'" said Mews.

Mews said Conyers then turned around and started to yell.

"She commented that they had a 25-year friendship, and who am I?" said Mews.

Mews said she yelled back, and Conyers punched her in the left eye several times.

Mews fell to the floor, and a fight ensued, Local 4 reported. Others also started to throw punches, the station reported.

"I never struck her. Never once did I hit her. Her staff had to restrain her twice," said Mews.

Mews said she wants Conyers to be charged with assault.

Conyers' representatives said the councilwoman does not want special treatment in this case. She wants police to investigate this as though she is a citizen.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/5626278/detail.html

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 07 - 08:21 PM

And even the Christian right is beginning to suspect Bush may be up o no good:

"June 10, 2007 at 10:10:34
Stop WW III with HR 333

by Carol Wolman    Page 1 of 2 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com





It's clear by now- the warmongers are pushing ahead, and the peacemakers have a tough job to prevent WW III.

The strategy of the peacemakers in Congress, those who really want out of Iraq and no attack on Iran, is to expose Bush administration wrongdoings via oversight hearings and investigations. This is somewhat successful, gets media attention, distracts the Bushies and rattles them. But it's too slow.


Meanwhile, Congress funds Iraq and gives permission to attack Iran without even being asked. Bush fires the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, who is on record as saying that the military opposes an attack on Iran. This removes a key block to WW III.

Cheney is reportedly the main force behind the push to nuke Iran. In the last Republican candidate debate, 8/9 candidates favored nuking Iran. It's become the Republican party line.

Time is of the essence. This madness needs to be stopped quickly.

There is a way.

HR 333 calls for the impeachment of Cheney, on the grounds that he lied us into Iraq, and is now doing his best to lie us into Iran. It's short and to the point.

Introduced in April 2007 by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the bill now has 7 cosponsors. Three signed on last week, including the cochairs of the Progressive Caucus, Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee, both Democrats from the Bay Area.

Call your Representative, of whatever party, and urge him to stop WW III by impeaching Cheney. The Capitol switchboard # is 202-224-3121. Tell your Rep to cosponsor HR 333.

If we flood the House with calls for Cheney's impeachment, they'll have to pay attention. Tell them that Cheney wants to start WW III. Even corrupt Representatives will see the wisdom in removing him from office ASAP.

Be hysterical. Life on planet earth may be at stake. Tell your friends and relatives to call. Send this to your elist.

Don't buy into the evil rapture cult. They're providing heretical, satanic theology to justify a nuclear armageddon. They're attempting to mislead us to destruction.

The true rapture is about bringing God's kingdom- of love, truth, justice, mercy, peace- to earth. It's not about going off with Jesus on a mushroom cloud. They tell us we'll be "left behind" to demoralize and paralyze us. It's demonic, the opposite of the love that Jesus teaches. Don't buy it.

Deut 30: 19"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants."

Call your Congressperson and tell them God wants us to choose life, and beg him/her to cosponsor HR 333, to impeach Cheney.

Once Cheney's gone, it'll be easier to impeach Bush and get some sanity back into government."

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 12:25 PM

A letter to the editor — 6/11/2007 10:37 am

Dear Editor: Thanks to all of you at The Capital Times for the positions you have taken regarding the need to use the impeachment option. The piece by John Nichols ("Gonzales deserves impeachment," May 29) further emphasizes this need.

It is obvious there is no constitutional reason for not impeaching President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Attorney General Gonzales. There are many constitutional reasons for impeaching them. Those who fail to recommend impeachment proceedings ignore or defy the validity of the Constitution of the United States.

Eugene S. Farley, MD, Verona

(From Madison Wisconsin's Capitol Times

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 03:47 PM

And from the Napa Valley region:

"Calistoga group wants Bush impeached
By JOHN WATERS Jr.
For the Register
Tuesday, June 12, 2007

A group of Calistoga residents are drumming up support for their run at a possible impeachment of President Bush.

Calling themselves the Calistoga Truth and Justice Coalition, they started up after hearing former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega at a forum in Healdsburg earlier this year.

"We left with a feeling that maybe we could do something to get the community enthused about the erosion of liberties that has taken place in our country," said Nick Triglia

Triglia, along with poet J. Kirk Feuereisen, and Ernesto and Suzy Marrone urged de la Vega to state her case against the Bush administration to the Napa Valley public.

Vega will speak at the Community Presbyterian Church in Calistoga at 7 p.m. Monday, June 18. The church is located at the corner of Washington and Third streets in Calistoga.

In her book, "United States v. George W. Bush," de la Vega — former branch chief of the San Jose U.S. Attorney's Office — claims President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell conspired to defraud or trick the country into a war in Iraq.

"Most people already have their opinions about the president and his administration. They have their thoughts on impeachment," Triglia said. "This is not about a man's sexual misconduct and then lying to cover it up. Instead it's about the government's lying that led to war, and illegally spying on average Americans."

People who support Bush and the current regime will likely continue to do so, Triglia said, and those who oppose them will continue as well.

"But we believe by attending this meeting, they'll be more educated in their support, either way," said Triglia. "We want to educate, not agitate."

Numerous groups have been created to support impeachment. The ImpeachBush.org Web site, for example claims to have collected 897,673 signatures as of this month on a petition to impeach Bush. While groups like MoveOn.org formed to oppose the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton, none have arguably been formed to oppose similar action against Bush.

In January, more than 1,000 people gathered in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district of Ocean Beach in San Francisco, to spell out the message "IMPEACH!" in the sand, although Pelosi has publicly stated she does not support a push for impeachment.

"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 04:49 PM

Things Your Media Mama Didn't Tell You
Dave Lindorff

The fact that most Americans oppose the war in Iraq, and want the president impeached, is testimony to the native intelligence and common sense of the citizens of this nation.

It sure isn't thanks to the quality of the news we're getting here in America!

Here are ten of the things you don't know if you just depend on the corporate media for your information:

1. Most Americans would like to see this president and vice president impeached and removed from office. Newsweek magazine published a scientific poll last October showing that 51 percent of us favor impeachment (including 29 percent of Republicans!), but the corporate media, which normally haven't met a poll they won't publish, didn't publicize this one. And now, when the numbers supporting impeachment are surely even higher, you can't even pay a polling outfit to ask the question. No wonder most people who favor impeachment still think they're odd ducks.

2. There is a bill, filed in the House of Representatives on April 24 by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), calling for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney. Since it was filed, it has gained six co-sponsors, including a member of the House Democratic leadership, Rep. Janice Shakowsky (D-IL). Most major media have ignored this important story completely. Most Americans also don't know that the Vermont State Senate voted overwhelmingly this spring to call on Congress to impeach the president.

3. The president has been declared a felon in federal court. Yet even after Federal District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled last August that President Bush and the National Security Agency were committing serial Class A felonies and were violating both the First and Fourth Amendments by spying on Americans' communications without first obtaining warrants, Bush continued ordering the NSA to continue the patently illegal program for at least half a year. In reports on the spying program, the corporate media never mention that it has been declared a felonious activity by the federal court.

4. Fifteen Democratic state party organizations have passed impeachment resolutions calling on Democrats in Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president and vice president. The most recent of these, the Democratic Party of Oklahoma, passed its resolution at the party's annual convention on May 19. Other Democratic Party conventions, in states from Nevada and California to Massachusetts and North Carolina, have passed similar resolutions. Most have been ignored by the corporate media even in their own states.

5. Bush's so-called "coalition of the willing" is not so willing and is not really much of a coalition either. When's the last time you've heard how many countries are on board with the US in the war and occupation of Iraq? The reality? Britain, the only significant contributor of combat troops besides the U.S., is pulling out, as Italy and Spain did earlier, and many other countries, like Denmark, Lithuania and others, plan to be out of Iraq by August or at the latest December. One indication of the seriousness of situation: the Pentagon no longer lists the countries that are members of the "coalition." The only mainstream report I've seen laying out this collapse in international support for Bush's war was in USA Today last February.

(Balance of article can be found here

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 11:54 PM

June 12, 2007 at 16:22:03
Overwhelming Vote for Impeachment in Princeton

by Mary Ellen Marino    Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com



Close to 100 people attended a panel by experts on impeachment June 10 where members of the Princeton Community Democratic Organization (PCDO) voted overwhelmingly for a resolution of impeachment against Bush and Cheney. The vote was 31-13. Organized by the PCDO's Impeachment Task Force, the regular meeting of the PCDO was swelled by many other concerned area residents.


David Lindorff, co-author of "The Case for Impeachment" with Barbara Olshanski, Esq. argued, "The Constitution is at risk and that the primary offenses have no need for further investigation since they are publicly admitted. Thus, Congress could vote immediately to impeach the President for these offenses."



1. The President has stated that he does not have to enforce laws passed by Congress in 100's of signing statements. Bush's statements are contrary to the Constitution which provides that Congress enacts laws and the Executive enforces them.

2. The Bush Administration wiretapped and monitored American citizens on the Internet in violation of the FISA ACT, enacted in 1978 after Nixon was impeached for wiretapping. A Federal Judge in Michigan in July 2006 ruled that President Bush was committing a Class A felony and violating the Bill of Rights by wiretapping American citizens without a warrant.

3. Torture was authorized by the President despite warning by the Attorney General that this is a serious crime, actually a capital offense, under US and international law. He cited evidence that at least 100 people have died under US torture. This policy has led to serious international repercussions and the fact that enemy combatants will not surrender, as they did in other wars where they knew they would be treated humanely.

Rob Kall, publisher of OpEdNews.com, noted that the current Kucinich bill to impeach Cheney first is similar to the forced resignation of Nixon's Vice President Spiro Agnew. He said that was the beginning of the end, which is starting now as "Republicans will go to the White House and tell them to go." He discussed the role of the media in distorting the news and recommended Keith Olbermann on MSNBC as one of the few media truth-tellers.

Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of media studies at NYU and author of Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform asserted that Bush has never actually been elected, since his book cites proof of massive fraud in the elections of 2000, 2004 and 2006. "If we take our laws seriously, we must impeach." Miller says that the Attorney General scandal is further proof the Bush administration's effort to subvert democracy. "If we believe in America and its radical democratic experiment, we have no choice, impeachment is a patriotic obligation." Miller reassured the audience that Bush is the most unpopular President ever and that the media are a "cartel" of five companies, not a reflection of the American people.


Miller argued that the Administration is not conservative but radical and "fundamentally hostile to American democracy. They don't believe in government, fiscal prudence, or separation of powers, they favor corporate welfare and want to destroy the separation of church and state". Bush, himself, says, "God speaks through me" and shares fanatic Christian beliefs about invading Iran for Biblical reasons. Rather than improving national security, Miller said that the Administration did nothing when repeatedly warned about 9/11, Katrina, Iraq's chaos after our takeover, that the war would create more terrorism.


When questioned about the practicality of impeachment, Lindorff explained that "The Founding Fathers wanted it to be easy to impeach in the House, in order to strongly condemn actions. But they made removal from office more difficult. He also noted for those concerned about the effects on the 2008 election, "Democrats made out like bandits on Nixon. Despite his winning by a landslide in 1972, he lost by impeachment hearings beginning May 1973 that gripped the country, and resulted in his resignation in August 1974." He also stressed that Democrats make sure that impeachment becomes a bipartisan effort, which has already started as Republicans are turning against Bush and Cheney.
...

(Rest of article can be read here)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 11:57 PM

Former Senate Intel Chairman Graham: The Case For Impeachment 'Is Even More Truthful Today'
Former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-FL) was one of 23 Senators to have voted against the Iraq war resolution in October 2002. "With sadness," he told his colleagues, "I predict we will live to regret this day, Oct. 10, 2002, the day we stood by and we allowed these terrorist organizations to continue growing in the shadows."

Just four months after Bush launched the Iraq war, Graham floated the idea of impeachment. "Clearly, if the standard is now what the House of Representatives did in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the actions of this president [are] much more serious in terms of dereliction of duty," he said. In an interview this week with ThinkProgress, Graham said he stood by his 2003 statement:

How many Americans would say that it is a greater dereliction of duty as President of the United States to have a consensual sexual affair or to take the country to war under manipulated, fabricated, and largely untruthful representations which the President knew or should have known. I think the answer to that question is clear.

Graham added that it's unlikely Bush would be impeached, explaining that he learned the word impeachment is an "incendiary word" that Americans shy away from. "Americans don't like impeachment because it connotes the kind of instability that so many other countries around the world have known." But he added that his original remark regarding impeachment "was a truthful statement at the time and it's even more truthful today."...


(The interview can be heard on this page.)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 07 - 11:39 AM

Education is goal of group pushing for president's impeachment


By John Waters Jr.
FOR THE STAR
Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:20 AM PDT

Inspired by speakers at a Healdsburg impeachment forum early this year, a group of Calistogans have formed the Calistoga Truth and Justice Coalition, hoping to raise awareness of the alleged abuses of the current White House administration — and possibly make a case for the president's impeachment.

"We were inspired by the speakers — especially Elizabeth de la Vega — at that event," said Nick Triglia. "We left with a feeling that maybe we could do something to get the community enthused about the erosion of liberties that has taken place in our country."

Triglia, along with local poet Kirk Fierensen, and Ernesto and Suzy Marron — all coalition charter members — urged author and former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega to state her case against the present Bush administration to the public in the Napa Valley.

Vega will speak at 7 p.m. Monday at the Community Presbyterian Church, Washington and Third streets in Calistoga.

In her best-selling book, the "United States v. George W. Bush," de la Vega brings 21 years of experience to bear on what some critics have called "the most important case of her career." The defendants are President George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. Their crime, she alleges, is conspiracy to defraud the United States, or, tricking the nation into war.

Numerous groups have been created to support impeachment. ImpeachBush.org Web site, for example, claims to have collected 897,673 signatures (as of June 5) on a petition to impeach Bush.
...
(From the St. Helena Star)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 10:56 AM

Orange North Confidential: Middletown council votes to impeach
June 17, 2007

President Bush and Vice President Cheney be warned, the Common Council of the City of Middletown has hereby resolved to ask some other elected officials to investigate you.
The council passed a resolution last week titled "Middletown Resolution to Investigate Charges of Impeachable Offenses Against George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney." There are nine paragraphs that detail various offenses.

For example, "Whereas George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney admitted to ordering NSA electronic surveillance of American citizens without warrants from the FISA Court of Review..."

This set off a chain of events: paper was torn, words exchanged. An alderman was disgusted, others not so much. Then everybody voted.

It passed 5-2. Aldermen John VanderVoort, R-2nd Ward, and Ray Depew, R-3rd Ward, voted against it; Aldermen Joel Sierra, D-4th Ward, and Thomas Burr, R-1st Ward, were absent.

"I cannot believe we've gotten to this point," Depew said before the vote. "I'm disgusted to be an alderman tonight." He then ripped his copy of the resolution in two.
Copies of the resolution will now go to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, state Assemblywoman Aileen Gunther, D-C-Forestburgh, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 10:58 AM

Calistoga group wants Bush impeached
By JOHN WATERS Jr.
For the Register
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
A group of Calistoga residents are drumming up support for their run at a possible impeachment of President Bush.

Calling themselves the Calistoga Truth and Justice Coalition, they started up after hearing former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega at a forum in Healdsburg earlier this year.

"We left with a feeling that maybe we could do something to get the community enthused about the erosion of liberties that has taken place in our country," said Nick Triglia

Triglia, along with poet J. Kirk Feuereisen, and Ernesto and Suzy Marrone urged de la Vega to state her case against the Bush administration to the Napa Valley public.

Vega will speak at the Community Presbyterian Church in Calistoga at 7 p.m. Monday, June 18. The church is located at the corner of Washington and Third streets in Calistoga.

In her book, "United States v. George W. Bush," de la Vega — former branch chief of the San Jose U.S. Attorney's Office — claims President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell conspired to defraud or trick the country into a war in Iraq.

"Most people already have their opinions about the president and his administration. They have their thoughts on impeachment," Triglia said. "This is not about a man's sexual misconduct and then lying to cover it up. Instead it's about the government's lying that led to war, and illegally spying on average Americans."

People who support Bush and the current regime will likely continue to do so, Triglia said, and those who oppose them will continue as well.

"But we believe by attending this meeting, they'll be more educated in their support, either way," said Triglia. "We want to educate, not agitate."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 11:12 PM

June 17, 2007 at 14:28:44

The duty of Christians to impeach Bush and Cheney

by Carol Wolman   
From OpEd News


Christians have a duty to denounce Bush for his crimes, and see that he and Cheney are impeached.
A recent news story says "Southern Baptists split over politics". They are arguing about whether or not to be involved in the political process. How hypocritical!
Christians, especially evangelicals, helped put Bush into power. They believed Pat Robertson, who "anointed" him to lead America. They thought he would bring about God's kingdom on earth.
Now they don't like what he has done, so they want to retreat from politics. Sour grapes.

Luke 6:44 " For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush.
The evangelical Christians who helped put Bush in power are accessories to his many crimes. They should confess their error and repent.
The "fruit" of Bush's presidency is poisonous. Two illegal invasions and occupations, based on lies. Massive transfers of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich, including Bush and Cheney. Corruption, incompetence, sex and money scandals galore- a briar bush indeed for those who put their hopes in a "Christian" president.
Bush has broken many international treaties, which are the supreme law of the land- the Geneva conventions, the Nuremberg principles, laws against napalm and cluster bombs, etc.
And shredded the US Constitution, which says that "We the People" are sovereign, the source of authority, and the president is a public servant. Bush seeks to restore the monarchy cast off during the American Revolution.
Bush has overruled laws passed by Congress with his signing statements, broken the wiretapping laws, subverted the judicial process.
What is happening here is described in 2Thess 2: 3-12:
3Let no one in any way deceive you, for it (the Kingdom of God) will not come unless the apostasy (Bush's presidency) comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
4who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
5Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?
6And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.
7For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
8Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;

---

From The Huffington Post:

Impeachment is the Necessary Next Step for Gonzales

      
Last week, Common Cause called on the House Judiciary Committee to start impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for demonstrating reckless disregard for the obligations of his office.

That cannot happen fast enough.

Each day seems to bring new revelations that further darken the cloud over Gonzales and his Justice Department, including that the Justice Department is investigating whether Gonzales sought to improperly influence the congressional testimony of his former aide, Monica Goodling, who acknowledged that she had "crossed the line," when she used political criteria in the selection of non-political positions within the Justice Department. The Los Angeles Times reports that the fallout can now be felt in federal courtrooms, where defense lawyers are raising questions about the motives of government lawyers prosecuting their clients.

What we know so far about the firings of the nine US attorneys and the fallout is a result of the hard work of the House Judiciary Committee and its determined efforts to expose the truth through congressional hearings.

But the committee needs to take the next step.

To date, the president and Attorney General Gonzales have refused to allow senior officials to testify under oath about any role they may have played in the firings or to provide important documentation on the issue.

The congressional impeachment process is specifically designed to protect the public from misfeasance by public officials. Given the stonewalling and recalcitrance of the administration over the attorney general's conduct, impeachment appears to be the only vehicle for vindicating the public's interest in having an attorney general who is free of conflicts of interest and who enforces the nation's laws in a fair and nonpartisan manner.

This episode is a blow to the integrity and credibility of our criminal justice system. And it comes at a time of corrosive public cynicism and distrust of government that has been fueled by recent political scandals. A failure to investigate and disclose to the American people will only exacerbate those feelings.

Our attorney general and our U.S. Attorneys have a long history of non-partisanship and of enforcing the nation's laws in a fair manner. That reputation has been tarnished and must be restored. Only through impeachment proceedings will the American public know the full truth about the role that the attorney general and the White House played in this episode.

---

Impeachment FAQ
Monday, 18 June 2007, 1:54 pm
Column: David Swanson
Impeachment FAQ

From The Impeachment FAQ:

Frequently Asked Questions About Impeachment-

Why would we want a President Cheney? Or why would we want a new Republican who could run as an incumbent? Or why would we want a President Pelosi?
We propose impeaching Cheney first or together with Bush. The first Articles of Impeachment to be introduced (H Res 333) are addressed only to Cheney. Impeaching Cheney first ought to put the fear of a President Cheney to rest. But there remains the possibility of fearing his replacement or even of not wanting Nancy Pelosi to be president or not wanting her to become president in this way. She won't. We will never succeed in removing Bush and Cheney from office simultaneously and by surprise. We will remove them, but they will be replaced by a new President Ford, who will operate within the rule of law and lose the next election.

But this whole discussion misses the point. The question of who holds which office for the next year or six months, as well as the question of who wins the next election, is of very minor importance in comparison with the question of whether future administrations will be compelled to operate within the limitations of the law. If we do not impeach Cheney and Bush, we will establish that it is permitted for future presidents and vice presidents to mislead the Congress and the public into wars, spy in violation of the law, detain without charge, torture, operate in secrecy, and rewrite laws with signing statements. Those powers in the wrong hands could do far more serious damage than Bush and Cheney have done.

So, if we keep this in perspective, the fear of Cheney appears trivial. It appears even more so when we consider that impeachment and removal from office are two separate steps and that we're only working on the first one so far, and when we recognize the extent to which Cheney has been running the country already for years. Were Cheney officially president, most policies would remain unchanged, but the public face of the White House and of the Republican party would be that of a man whose approval rating has been unable to top 20 percent. The Republicans will never allow this, so it would be rather foolish for the Democrats to retreat out of fear of it. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 01:14 AM

600 Up!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 11:33 AM

June 19, 2007

Impeach and Convict Bush and Cheney for High Treason

Len Hart

It is an extraordinary subversion of the [US] Constitution to send people to die...on the basis of a lie.
- Elizabeth Holtzman, Rep., NY

I can't improve on that. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the gang subverted the Constitution to carry out a war of naked aggression, itself a war crime, and, under US Criminal Codes punishable by death. But it's worse than that. It is an aggravated crime as Rep Elizabeth Holtzman makes abundantly clear.

This is a case of high treason. Treason is defined as a betrayal of one's sovereign. In time's past "sovereignty" was most often embodied in a person, a monarch, a king or queen. Louis XIV summed up the very concept succinctly: L'État, c'est moi! The various plotters against the life of Elizabeth I were accused of treason.

But what of a democratic, constitutional Democracy. In the US sovereignty resides with the people themselves, a principle established up front by the founders:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
-Preamble, US Constitution

Bush and Cheney have betrayed their "sovereign" by hoaxing the sovereign, lying to the sovereign, and, at last, betraying the sovereign by leading US troops into harm's way upon a pack of malicious lies. Lies known by Bush and Cheney to have been lies at the time the lies were told. In Elizabethan times, that would have gotten your head cut off.
The Impeachment of George W. Bush
Elizabeth Holtzman

Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush--not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so.

I can still remember the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach during those proceedings, when it became clear that the President had so systematically abused the powers of the presidency and so threatened the rule of law that he had to be removed from office.<

As a Democrat who opposed many of President Nixon's policies, I still found voting for his impeachment to be one of the most sobering and unpleasant tasks I ever had to undertake. None of the members of the committee took pleasure in voting for impeachment; after all, Democrat or Republican, Nixon was still our President.<

At the time, I hoped that our committee's work would send a strong signal to future Presidents that they had to obey the rule of law. I was wrong.
And, again, about a year later:
Impeachment: The Case in Favor
Elizabeth Holtzman

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congressional and other investigations that previously found serious misconduct in the Nixon White House made the public's angry reaction to the firing of the special prosecutor--and the House response with impeachment proceedings--virtually inevitable. Early in 1973, once it appeared that the cover-up might involve the White House, the Senate created a select committee to investigate. The committee held hearings and uncovered critical evidence, including the existence of a White House taping system that could resolve the issue of presidential complicity. The Senate also forced the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Watergate. Other committees looked into related matters. None of the investigations were prompted by the idea of impeachment. Still, they laid the groundwork for it--and the evidence they turned up was used by the House impeachment panel to prepare articles of impeachment against Nixon.

The same approach can govern now. Senate and House committees must commence serious investigations that could uncover more evidence to support impeachment. The investigations should ascertain the full extent of the President's deceptions, exaggerations and lies that drove us into the Iraq War. (They can simply in effect resurrect Republican Senator Howard Baker's famous questions about Richard Nixon: "What did the President know and when did he know it?") Congress should also explore the wiretapping that has violated the FISA law, the President's role in mistreatment of detainees and his gross indifference to the catastrophe facing the residents of New Orleans from Katrina.

Investigations should also be conducted into Vice President Cheney's meetings with oil company executives at the outset of the Administration. If divvying up oil contracts in Iraq were discussed, as some suggest, this would help prove that the Iraq War had been contemplated well before 9/11, and that a key motivation was oil. Inquiries into Halliburton's multibillion-dollar no-bid contracts should also be conducted, particularly given Cheney's ties to the company.

White House documents about Katrina that have not already been turned over to Congress should be sought to document further the President's failure to discharge his constitutional duty to help the people of New Orleans.

Our country's Founders provided the power of impeachment to prevent the subversion of the Constitution. President Bush has subverted and defied the Constitution in many ways. His defiance and his subversion continue.

Failure to impeach Bush would condone his actions. It would allow him to assume he can simply continue to violate the laws on wiretapping and torture and violate other laws as well without fear of punishment. He could keep the Iraq War going or expand it even further than he just has on the basis of more lies, deceptions and exaggerations. Remember, as recently as October 26, Bush said, "Absolutely, we are winning" the war in Iraq--a blatant falsehood. Worse still, if Congress fails to act, Bush might be emboldened to believe he may start another war, perhaps against Iran, again on the basis of lies, deceptions and exaggerations.

There is no remedy short of impeachment to protect us from this President, whose ability to cause damage in the next two years is enormous. If we do not act against Bush, we send a terrible message of impunity to him and to future Presidents and mark a clear path to despotism and tyranny. Succeeding generations of Americans will never forgive us for lacking the nerve to protect our democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 12:42 AM

Assorted "Ten Reasons to Impeach" lists from Buzzflash readers:

Anyone who had doubts that the American Government was hijacked by Cheney and Bush in 2000, now should have no doubts.

The revelations of the past few months have conclusively revealed that we are dealing with a rogue, runaway government. They feel that they own the United States governmental apparatus, that the rule of law does not apply to them, and that the Constitution is irrelevant.

If Congress continues to play it cautious with the White House, they will, in essence, be giving every American carte blanche permission to break the law, because the President and Vice President of the United States are role models for criminal behavior.

We are asking BuzzFlash Readers to share their top ten reasons for Cheney and Bush being impeached.

As with David Letterman, work from the tenth reason down to the strongest, number one.

Send around to others for their top ten reasons for the impeachment of Cheney and Bush now.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Technorati Tags: Analysis impeach top ten
» login or register to post comments | printer friendly version | Send to friend
Top Ten Reasons to impeach Bush and Cheney
Submitted by Chrisdutch on Sat, 06/23/2007 - 11:27pm.
10. The Government can save money by closing both Gitmo AND Cheney's undisclosed location.
9. Bush can move to Germany and take a job as Angela Merkel's masseuse.
8. The Twins can pinch hit for Paris and Hilton can stay in prison longer.
7. Let Laura wait on line like everybody else for her packs of Lucky Strikes.
6. Bush can take more time practicing on his Segway.
5. Cheney can finally find those "other priorities" he misplaced during the Vietnam War.
4. What the hell...gas is up to $3.00 or more a gallon...MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!
3. The Chinese have run out room in their vaults for American dollars.
2. Bush really has a lot of work to do finding a college that does want his library.
BUT THE NUMBER ONE REASON BUSH AND CHENEY SHOULD BE IMPEACHED...

1. Land in Paraguay is getting more expensive by the minute.

» login or register to post comments
Top 10 Reasons to Impeach Bush/Cheney
Submitted by oneeggcream on Sat, 06/23/2007 - 9:49pm.
#10>When I hear Cheney speak I think I'm listening to the Penguin from Batman!
#9>The things that come out of Bush's mouth is like nails on a chalk board!
#8>Poverty has increased by at least 1.3 [I'm sure it's much higher] million people since Bush is in office!
#7>Citizens without health care has increased by 2 million since he's in office!
#6>Salaries remain flat while oil companies and pharmaceutical companies rake in the Big Bucks!
#5>Taxpayers cost to date for the illegal and immoral bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq, $437,204,566,999 and ALWAYS rising!
#4>The hole in the ground in lower Manhattan!
#3>American Military Deaths in Iraq since war began total to date 3,555, in combat 2,941!
#2>He wasn't elected he was selected!!!
#1>Lying to the American people each and every day of their lives!!!!!!!

Peace to you and yours...

» login or register to post comments
I was thinking the other way around....
Submitted by populist on Sat, 06/23/2007 - 9:00pm.
Every single day these people are violating the Constitution in one way or another. Virtually everything they do is in violation of the Constitution as well.

There's so many reasons to impeach that it's hard to come up with a top ten.

So, instead, I tried thinking of a reason any reason that we should allow them to stay in office.

I can think of none.

We need to get our politician to follow the law that governs the government.....some follow up reading:

"We Must Return to Our Constitution" - click here

» login or register to post comments
Impeach
Submitted by Cliff Wiseman on Sat, 06/23/2007 - 8:45pm.
Some reason Chaney and Bush should be impeached:

1.        Liars
2.        Hypocrites
3.        War Mongers
4.        Self Righteous
5.        Robbers
6.        Let Huge Debt For Children
7.        Borrowed From China
8.        Turned Respect for U.S. to Negative
9.        Law Breakers
10.        Disuniters
11.        Do Not Listen to Generals
12.        Impeders of Good Progress

Cliff

» login or register to post comments
cheney and bush
Submitted by 11messiah on Sat, 06/23/2007 - 7:53pm.
every time either of them open their mouths there is treason being committed. I think it would be so difficult to find the last time either of them spoke a word of truth about our government.

» login or register to post comments
Top 10
Submitted by TFYQA on Sat, 06/23/2007 - 7:36pm.
1 # Dying Regime Part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-316522221891913371&hl=en
2 # Be Careful What You Say 2
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7614841975549948776
3 # Lynching by Laptop Part 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=29166033447680735&q=Lynching+by+Laptop
4 # BLACKWATER : THE SHADOW WAR
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3589824849379942402
5 # Dying Regime
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=378229989470389403&q=Dying+Regime
6 # Be Careful What You Say
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=98845005530349156&hl=en
7 # Lynching by Laptop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjUYbmFXZ0Y
8 # War Corporatism: The New Fascism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxz1jbPCfTQ
9 # Greg Palast Reports: BBC NewsNight- Vulture Funds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbxj8azQb80
10 # Margo Guryan/"16 Words"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7soN6HNU3Y

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 12:42 AM

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

"Impeach Bush
Public Forum Letter
Article Last Updated: 06/22/2007 10:29:28 PM MDT

Since the president has ignored the people and insists on amnesty (for undocumented immigrants), which about 80 percent of the citizens do not want, it is time for his impeachment.
    He is also ignoring the law and our safety standards by allowing unsafe Mexican trucks with Mexican drivers who do not speak the English language to drive on our highways. Soon all American trucking will feel the need for Mexican licensing on their trucks so they can compete in our land and not be arrested for violating American standards.
    It is time to get rid of Bush before he thinks up other ways to damage our beloved nation. Ask your congressman to start impeachment proceedings now.
   
    Paul Hull
    Spanish Fork "


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 07:09 AM

Still no impeachment then Amos? How come?

Mind you I did like the xenophobic rant from some prized prat living in - where was it - Oh Yes - Spanish Fork.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 02:28 PM

The Vices of Cheney: Where Impeachment Must Begin

For several years, in my discussions with Representatives and Senators, it has not been unusual to hear Vice President Dick Cheney referred to as President George Bush's "insurance policy." That is, against the beginning of impeachment proceedings in the House. The prevailing assumption has been that it would be necessary to impeach and convict Cheney, first, so as not to leave the government in his hands should the President leave office before the end of his term. This assumption was, and is correct--not just due to the fact that the route to holding the President ultimately accountable for "high crimes" goes through Cheney but also because the Vice President's "high crimes" are probably much greater.

Email
Print
Comment
If the Democrats had gained control of Congress in 2005, the impeachment of Cheney might have happened. But in the summer of 2007, the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee have an "out" in that the prevailing political judgment among the majority is that the timing is too close to 2008 to begin such a prolonged and disruptive proceeding.

Thus, as a senior Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee recently argued to me, "we are holding what otherwise would be impeachment hearings under the heading of oversight" and
publicly "embarrassing" the Bush-Cheney White House. He went on to say that his colleagues (Republicans, as well as Democrats) on that committee--where the impeachment process must start--often discuss the abundant circumstantial evidence for high crimes having been committed at the highest levels of the Bush Administration.

Of course, it would not be so convenient for Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic majority to finesse the constitutional scandal IF special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald--in the trial of Scooter Libby--had prominently cited, instead of hinting at, the Vice President as an unindicted co-conspirator in obstructing justice OR even in committing the original crime of intentionally revealing the identity of a known CIA covert agent. The ball of string might have unwound beyond control, to the point where Chairman John Conyers of the Judiciary Committee could not have shirked from the duty to launch certified impeachment hearings. The "I" word would at least have been on the table.

Alas, the series that began in The Washington Post on June 24--" Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency "--should result in placing it firmly on the agenda of the House. Consider this excerpt from Bart Gellman and Jo Becker's long-overdue exposure of the modus operandi of the sitting Vice President:


"Stealth is among Cheney's most effective tools. Man-size Mosler safes, used elsewhere in government for classified secrets, store the workaday business of the office of the vice president. Even talking points for reporters are sometimes stamped 'Treated As: Top Secret/SCI.' Experts in and out of government said Cheney's office appears to have invented that designation, which alludes
to 'sensitive compartmented information,' the most closely guarded category of government secrets. By adding the words 'treated as,' they said, Cheney seeks to protect unclassified work as though its disclosure would cause 'exceptionally grave damage to national security.'

"Across the board, the vice president's office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs. His general counsel has asserted that 'the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch,' and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance.

"In the usual business of interagency consultation, proposals and information flow into the vice president's office from around the government, but high-ranking White House officials said in interviews that almost nothing flows out. Close aides to Cheney describe a similar one-way valve inside the office, with information flowing up to the vice president but little or no reaction flowing down."


I submit that only a bunch of Congressional fools, who read The Post and The Times and McClatchy wire stories, could have failed over time to notice that the Vice President has been, and still is, systematically destroying the evidence--the paper and electronic trails--that document his impeachable offenses. That is, dangerous acts that are high crimes against the State and that subvert the Constitution of the United States. And, moreover, that could be used as evidence, after he is removed or leaves office, when he shall "nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." [Article I, Section 3]

There is a compelling and overriding national interest, if for no other reason than the above, in NOT releasing from a jail sentence, and not excusing with a presidential pardon, live witness Scooter Libby--the former chief of staff to the Vice President known as "Cheney's Cheney."

The subversion of the Republic continues, before our very eyes. What is the House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Conyers prepared to do about it?!

These are very grave matters. It does not take much imagination to draw up articles of impeachment against the Vice President of the United States. And let poltical considerations of timing be damned!

William E. Jackson, Jr.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 03:23 PM

Impeachment - Now More Than Ever

It's been 7 months since Nancy Pelosi took impeachment "off the table". We've heard all the Republican talking points adopted by the corporatists wing of the Democratic Party (DLC): "we don't want to put the country through an impeachment proceeding", "Bush is almost out of office so what's the point?", "Impeach Bush, then we get stuck with Cheney". These talking points put out by Republicans have somehow become the platform of the Democratic Party.

There seems to be this pervasive mindset in the leadership of the Democratic Party that somehow impeachment is a dirty word. And no, we won't get "stuck" with Cheney, he needs to be impeached too. In fact to a certain degree, Kucinich may be right in going after Cheney first.

Our country cannot suffer another minute with the Bush Cheney rogue nation. It's not too late to impeach Bush and Cheney. It will never be too late. Ten years after they leave office it STILL will not be too late. They need to be made an example out of so that future Presidents do not try to assert absolute power. If we do nothing, we are telling future Presidents that they are basically dictators who can do as they please.

Look at the amount of damage Bush and Cheney have done just over the last 7 months let alone the next year and a half. Every minute we wait is a minute we move closer to a dictatorship.

We now have a situation where both Bush and Cheney are asserting some make believe right over official documents that the public and our government have a right to. They're classifying documents that were previously unclassified, unclassifying documents that can hurt their political enemies, shredding documents that implement them in vote caging, the U.S. Attorney scandal, the torture at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, and fabircated prewar intelligence.

Bush and Cheney are sitting on a mountain of paper that all points back to them. From Cheney's "energy task force" that devised the invasion of Iraq to Bush's nonchalent attitude over the Presidential Daily Briefings prior to 9/11 titled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S. August 6, 2001, they can't classify and shred documents fast enough.
...

(Excerpted from http://uncapitalist.com/blog/?itemid=1518

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 08:32 PM

The 'I' word

Talk of impeachment seems to have faded a bit from the campaign trail, by a common consensus of the leading candidates to dismiss the idea.

But it may be coming back. MoveOn.org, which has emerged as perhaps the most powerful player in the primary, used the "I" word in an e-mail to members this afternoon, suggesting that Congress subpoena Dick Cheney and, if he won't answer congressional questions, impeach him.

    Congress can start by demanding answers from the Bush administration about the Iraq war and their illegal spying program, and not backing down until they get them. Cheney won't testify? Subpoena him. He won't come? Hold him in contempt of Congress and send over the police. And if that doesn't work, impeach the guy.

(Impeaching Cheney avoids the problem with impeaching Bush, which is President Cheney.)

Several of the Democratic candidates, of course, are members of Congress. And John Edwards has been known to express his views on what Congress should do. So expect them all to get asked about impeachment again soon.

...

(From politico.com)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 10:21 PM

In case anyone missed it in the LIbby thread:

Sorry if this has already been posted, but I think everyone should listen to Keith Olbermann on Countdown, tonight, on MSNBC...you may watch and listen HERE. You can read some of the text HERE, but not the whole thing. WOW is all I can say!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 10:23 PM

*grin*..Olberman really laid it out, didn't he!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 03:25 PM

Anti-Bush 'Impeachment Center' opens in Los Angeles
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 07/05/2007 11:35:21 AM PDT


LOS ANGELES—A storefront "impeachment headquarters" emblazoned with American flags opened July 4 with a mission to remove President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Activists who gathered to open the Los Angeles Impeachment Center accuse the Bush administration of condoning torture, spying on Americans and misleading citizens about the war in Iraq. They also were angry at the president's decision to commute the 2 1/2-year prison sentence of former Cheney aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was convicted of lying and obstructing justice.

"Isn't it ironic that Paris Hilton will spend more days in jail than Libby?" said Byron De Lear, a Green Party activist.

"I'm just hoping all of this will get Bush out of office so we can get our troops out of Iraq," said Lauren Kuzma, 17, of Murrieta.

The center is sponsored by Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, Westside Greens, Santa Monica Democratic Club and the Los Angeles Greens. Activists plan to work there on the campaign through phone calls, mailings, petitions and lobbying.

---

By all means listen to Olberman's chastisement of Bush and demand for his resignation. A little honest, clear-thinking anger is a delight to the jaded eye.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 07:40 PM

The time has come to hold Dick Cheney accountable for his crimes against the people of the United States and the world - and the Constitution of the United States.

We have formed a brand new partnership with many great progressive groups and Brave New Films, the creators of powerful documentaries like Iraq for Sale, OutFoxed, Wal-Mart, and Uncovered - the War on Iraq.

And we have just released a powerful short video showing Cheney's most bald-faced lies about Iraq and Iran. 

Please watch the video, sign the petition, and pass it along to your friends.

The time for accountability is now - not after Cheney leaves office. Thanks to your efforts, 14 Democrats already support H.Res. 333, Articles of Impeachment for Dick Cheney. With a little more effort, we'll get enough Democrats on board to start impeachment hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. And when the American people see the evidence in our video with their own eyes, they will join us in demanding accountability for Dick Cheney.

Together, we can impeach Dick Cheney.

Bob Fertik

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 07:43 PM

New video: Impeach Dick Cheney

That's right, we said the "I" word. And you should be saying it too -- to your family, your friends, your neighbors, your pets and the hearty 26% of Americans who somehow still believe the Bush/Cheney team more worthy of sitting in the Oval Office than an undisclosed location stripped of all authority to further damage the country we love.

You'll want to say it even more after watching our video with the evidence for impeachment right there: http://impeachcheney.org/?utm_source=rgemail

Dick Cheney has been a malevolent force on the checks and balances of American government for over six years. He has subverted government processes to lead us into this tragedy in Iraq, and is now seeking to do the same with Iran. Two countries, mind you, he did business with while CEO of Halliburton.

We are at an important moment in American history. For if we don't take action in light of the High Crimes and Misdemeanors committed by one Richard Cheney, we might as well throw the word away. Because there will never be a time when it is more justified.

Sign the petition: http://impeachcheney.org/petition.php?utm_source=rgemail

14 representatives already support H. Res 333, the articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney. Your signatures will be used to get other House members to to sign on. We are working with a substantial and growing coalition led by Democrats.com and AfterDowningStreet.org.

Let's make this travesty a turning point in our history. Please join us in restoring democratic principles to our government by IMPEACHING DICK CHENEY.

Sincerely,
Robert, Cliff, Paris, Jim G and the entire Brave New Films team

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 07 - 12:09 AM

Nearly half Americans want Bush impeached

Posted 4 hours 55 minutes ago


Under fire: George W Bush (AFP: Paul J Richards)

Nearly half of the US public wants President George W Bush to face impeachment, and even more favour that fate for Vice-President Dick Cheney, according to a new poll.

The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 per cent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Mr Bush, with 46 per cent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Mr Cheney.

The study by the private New Hampshire-based ARG canvased 1,100 Americans by telephone from July 3-5 and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points.

The White House declined to comment on the poll, the latest bad news for a president who has seen his public opinion standings dragged to record lows by the unpopular war in Iraq.

The US Constitution says presidents and vice presidents can be impeached - that is, formally charged by the House - for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours" by a simple majority vote.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Jul 07 - 10:40 AM

Wasn't sure where else to vent my outrage at the crap he spews:

THE US President, George Bush, has compared the war in Iraq with the US war for independence in his Fourth of July speech.

Like the revolutionaries who "dropped their pitchforks and picked up their muskets to fight for liberty", Mr Bush said American soldiers were fighting "a new and unprecedented war" to protect US freedom.

My own contribution to impeachment: Dump the chumps

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: kendall
Date: 07 Jul 07 - 08:39 PM

That shows you what he knows about history

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 07 - 09:58 AM

And that was his major at that C- college he went to.

An interesting essay on the duty to impeach Cheny and Bush can be found on this page.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 07 - 10:00 AM

Thousands of U.S. citizens are in prison for the same (or similar) crimes as "Scooter" Libby committed. Their sentences will not be commuted; they just have to serve out their time.
   This is the way it should be, but apparently the phrase "liberty and justice for all" is no longer relevant under the Bush administration. It seems that well-connected individuals such as "Scooter" get a special brand of liberty and justice.
   This is yet another reason to impeach Bush and Cheney. They have proved again that they have no respect for the laws of this country or the Constitution.
   People who break the law should be held accountable. The same laws should apply equally - to everyone - regardless of who they are or who they know. "Scooter" Libby should serve his jail time, and Bush and Cheney should be impeached. No one is above the law.
   
   Amanda Butler
   Salt Lake City

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 07 - 10:04 AM

Poll: 54% of the US Wants Cheney Impeached
>http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/24390


By David Swanson

A new poll conducted by http://www.americanresearchgroup.com finds that 54% of American adults want the US House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney, including 76% of Democrats, 17% of Republicans, and 51% of Independents. The same poll found 46% of voters in favor of the same thing for President George W. Bush, including 69% of Democrats, 13% of Republicans, and 50% of independents.



The poll also asked about Bush's commuting of I Lewis Scooter Libby's sentence, and found that 31% of Americans approve, and 11% would approve of a full pardon.

The details are available at http://www.americanresearchgroup.com

Past polls on impeachment of Cheney and Bush are available at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling

A growing movement for the impeachment of Cheney hopes to build on the current majority and released a new video by Robert Greenwald on Friday at http://impeachcheney.org

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 07 - 03:31 PM

By Rachel Kapochunas, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY
Published: July 9, 2007
Antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan mainly has targeted her wrath over Iraq at President George W. Bush and other Republicans. But just more than a month ago, she pronounced herself disillusioned with the leaders of the Democratic Party, calling them too soft on Bush.

Skip to next paragraph

News and analysis on CQ.com
CQPolitics.com Daily E-mail
CQ Midday Update from Capitol Hill
Congressional Quarterly Free Newsletters
And now Sheehan says she is considering taking her displeasure directly to the source — by waging a third-party challenge to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi next year in the California Democrat's San Francisco-based 8th District.

Sheehan told the Associated Press on Sunday that she would enter the 2008 House contest, in one of the nation's most solidly Democratic and liberal-leaning districts, unless Pelosi introduces articles of impeachment against Bush by July 23.

Sheehan said she believes the president misled the public about the reasons why he took the nation to war in Iraq and committed other impeachable offenses.

Moved to political activism by the death of her son while serving in Iraq, Sheehan rose to national attention in 2005 as she set up camp outside Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, and demanded without success an audience with the president to discuss her grievances over the war as the mother of a serviceman killed in action.

Sheehan announced late this May that she was leaving the Democratic Party because she felt its members in Congress were "caving in" to the president by supporting continued funding for the war in Iraq.

---

APN Chat with US Rep. Bob Filner on Impeachment
Monday, 9 July 2007, 8:47 pm
Column: Atlanta Progressive News

APN Chat with US Rep. Bob Filner on Impeachment
By Matthew Cardinale

"I'm calling to confirm my cosponsorship of H Res 333 to impeach Bush and Cheney," US Rep. Filner (D-CA) told Atlanta Progressive News in a phone interview.

"These guys have governed with cynicism and complete contempt of the American people from the beginning," Filner said.

"For political reasons impeachment was taken off the table," Filner said.

"The latest... to say he's above the law and he's not part of the Executive Branch... he's just gone too far for the average American citizen," Filner said.
...

H Res 333 is Articles of Impeachment of Vice President Cheney. President Bush's impeachment has also been proposed–although not yet through any bill–by several Members of Congress.

Currently, 10 total cosponsors are listed on the Library of Congress website for H Res 333: US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), plus US Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Albert Wynn (D-MD), so far.

Two additional cosponsors confirmed by APN are US Rep. McDermott (D-WA) and US Rep. Filner (D-CA).

Impeachment activist David Swanson says US Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) has also indicated to a source that he wanted to have been a cosponsor but said a clerical error had left his name off the list. Moran has been out of the country and will confirm either way shortly when he returns.

US Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) called for US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to put impeachment back on the table, in a press release on his website. He did not specifically state he would cosponsor H Res 333, and actually, his remarks seem to relate more to Bush than Cheney.

Kucinich's Office did not return a call today seeking confirmation on Moran's cosponsorship.

US Rep. Filner had been a cosponsor of H Res 635, a former bill in the last Session by US Rep. Conyers (D-OH), to create a Select Committee to investigate possible impeachment offenses by Bush.
...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 07 - 03:33 PM

Bush's Erects Another Stonewall Against Accountability John Nichols
Mon Jul 9, 12:59 PM ET
Yahoo


The Nation -- Barely a week after he commuted the 30-month sentence of a former White House insider who was convicted of engaging in felonious attempts to thwart investigations of administration wrongdoing, President Bush has erected another barrier to getting to the truth about whether he and his aides have knowingly violated the law.

...

In a letter sent Monday to the Michigan Congressman John Conyers, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, and Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, who heads the parallel Senate panel, Bush invoked executive privilege to deny requests by the committees for testimony from former White House counsel Harriet Miers and former White House political director Sara Taylor.

Bush's lawyers suggested that Miers and Taylor, both central players in the scandal that has emerged over attempts by the administration to politicize federal investigations and prosecutions, might speak with members of Congress about the firings of US Attorneys who did not go along with the administration's agenda. But the administration says that can only happen in closed-door, off-the-record "interviews" that would not be given under oath.

Conyers and Leahy have repeatedly rejected such proposals. The committee chairs say, correctly, that inquiries into whether the administration used the Justice Department for political purposes--particularly moves to fake up so-called "voter fraud" cases as part of a broader push to make it harder for elderly, low-income and minority citizens to cast ballots--must be open and above board.

That is not the style of this White House.

So uncooperative is Bush that his attorney, White House counsel Fred Fielding, even refused a request from lawmakers that the President explain the basis for invoking executive privilege.

Fielding would only claim that the "assertion of executive privilege here is intended to protect a fundamental interest of the presidency: the necessity that a president receive candid advice from his advisers and that those advisers be able to communicate freely and openly with the president, and each other and with others inside and outside the executive branch."

The truth, of course, is that the "fundamental interest" of the Bush presidency that is at stake is far more consequential than that of defending candid conversation in the White House. As with the decision to commute the sentence of "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff for Vice President Cheney, this imposition of executive privilege would appear to have far more to do with protecting the president from scrutiny than with maintaining the quality of internal White House communications.

Earlier this year, former White House counselor Dan Bartlett unwittingly confirmed that President Bush participated in discussions with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and political czar Karl Rove about firing US Attorneys who weren't sufficiently political in their prosecutions, is hightailing it out of the administration.

That makes the congressional requests for testimony from key players in the US Attorneys scandal something very different than a political "fishing expedition" that might chill dialogue in the White House. This is a matter of national interest that goes to the most critical question about any administration: Is the president playing by the rules of the Republic? Or has he placed himself above the rule of law and the Constitution to which he has sworn a solemn oath?

The determination of this administration to stonewall the US Attorneys inquiry--as it has so many others--sets up a classic confrontation in the courts. Both Leahy and Conyers have said that they are prepared to seek a Contempt of Congress citation, which is the essential first step in asking the federal courts to determine whether Bush has abused his authority to invoke executive privilege to block requests from the legislative branch.

It was on the basis of such a challenge that the Watergate scandal during the presidency of Richard Nixon evolved into a serious discussion of impeachment.

Objecting to the administration's "unacceptable all-or-nothing position," Conyers complains that Bush & Co. "now will not even seek to properly justify their privilege claims."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 07 - 12:38 PM

Never before has there been such a compelling case for impeachment and removal from office of the president and vice-president of the United States. Bush and Cheney have committed the most serious crimes known to law and history. Nothing in the experience of the impeachment power under the US Constitution compares.

Of course, the first and foremost reason to impeach Bush and Cheney is their pack of lies to Congress and the American people depicting an "all-powerful" Saddam Hussein being an imminent threat to the US in order to justify an illegal preemptive attack on Iraq. By lying to Congress, Bush violated US laws related to fraud and false statements (Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001) and conspiracy to defraud the United States. The truth is that while these two liars were still in the process of whipping up their climate of fear and hate to discourage dissent to their war goals, 30,000 US troops had already secretly fought their way in and took control of 15% of an impotent Iraq.

Bush and Cheney repeatedly spewed out the big lie that Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction and that they knew where they were. They falsely claimed that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program for which it was importing aluminum tubes and uranium and warned of seeing mushroom clouds. They made the bogus charge that Iraq had produced thousands of tons of chemical agents and used mobile weapons labs. They fabricated the tale that the secular Saddam had ties with the al-Qaeda religious extremists. And, they mislead the public with mind-blurring rhetoric that implied Iraq had indirectly caused 9/11.

In their deceit, Bush and Cheney played fast and loose with intelligence. They failed to provide Congress with all the unfettered intelligence that they possessed. They deleted portions of reports such as the August 6, 2001, presidential daily brief. They supported their charges with unreliable evidence such as forged documents, plagiarized student papers and vague satellite photos. They pressured the CIA and other intelligence agencies to manipulate intelligence fixing it around the policy of going to war with Iraq (Downing Street Memo). They enlisted CIA head George Tenet to conjure up a bogus National Intelligence Estimate that corroborated their war policy. And, they created the Office of Special Plans inside the Pentagon, which "cherry-picked" and embellished findings supporting war while debunking whatever that didn't. This group resorted to taking information out of context, juxtaposing unrelated data and removing caveats such as "likely," "probably" and "may".

Bush and Cheney deceived the public with the misconception that their war in Iraq was in response to 9/11. The truth is 9/11 was just a "convenient" excuse to kick off their war that was in the works years before the Bush presidency. Back in 1997, Dick Cheney's group dubbed as the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC)(Neo-Cons), which included Jeb Bush and subsequent major players in George W. Bush's administration, embraced the policy to conquer Iraq and turn it into a base of operations to control the oil reserves in the Middle East and Central Asia for privatization by the oil companies. Not long after, they unsuccessfully lobbied President Clinton and Congress to attack an already weakened Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein and build permanent U.S. bases.

...

(Balance of article here).

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 07 - 12:50 PM

An interesting perspective on Republican votes.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jul 07 - 02:30 PM

Another month gone by Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 07 - 04:49 PM

A sleeping giant stirs exceeding slow, T.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jul 07 - 03:06 AM

Then best wake him up soon Amos or he'll miss the bus.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 07:27 PM

Here ya go -- a video of interest, from Bill Moyers.

July 13, 2007

A public opinion poll from the American Research Group recently reported that more than four in ten Americans — 45% — favor impeachment hearings for President Bush and more than half — 54% — favored impeachment for Vice President Cheney.
Unhappiness about the war in Iraq isn't the only cause of the unsettled feelings of the electorate. Recent events like President Bush's pardoning of Scooter Libby, the refusal of Vice President Cheney's office to surrender emails under subpoena to Congress and the President's prohibition of testimony of former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers in front of the House Judiciary Committee have caused unease over claims of "executive privilege." In addition, many of the White House anti-terror initiatives and procedures — from the status of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo to warrantless wiretapping — have come under legal scrutiny in Congress and the courts.

Bill Moyers gets perspective on the role of impeachment in American political life from Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who wrote the first article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, and THE NATION's John Nichols, author of THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT.

"The founding fathers expected an executive who tried to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch... They [Congress] have basically renounced — walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check." — Bruce Fein

"On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this Administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any President has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don't give away the tools." — John Nichols

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 10:40 PM

I saw the Moyers piece...there are serious, well-placed people beginning to agree that there may be impeachable offenses going on.

I'll still bet 25¢ they won't do it with only 15 months to go...but...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 12:07 AM

OK Bill you've got a bet. It didn't take the Repugs long to impeach Clinton and lying about a question that should never have been asked is not a really good reason to impeach. However, Bush and Cheney have been caught committing scores of high crimes and the people are going to hold their representatives accountable for upholding their oaths of office.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 12:29 AM

Interesting, Amos, thanks for the Moyers link. (I could not get any video, just audio for some reason.)

Thanks, also, for keeping this thread going.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 12:58 AM

Never before has there been such a compelling case for impeachment and removal from office of the president and vice president of the United States. Bush and Cheney have committed the most serious crimes known to law and history. Nothing in the experience of the impeachment power under the US Constitution compares.

Of course, the first and foremost reason to impeach Bush and Cheney is their pack of lies to Congress and the American people depicting an "all-powerful" Saddam Hussein being an imminent threat to the US in order to justify an illegal preemptive attack on Iraq. By lying to Congress, Bush violated US laws related to fraud and false statements (Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001) and conspiracy to defraud the United States. The truth is that while these two liars were still in the process of whipping up their climate of fear and hate to discourage dissent to their war goals, 30,000 US troops had already secretly fought their way in and took control of 15 percent of an impotent Iraq.

Bush and Cheney repeatedly spewed out the big lie that Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction and that they knew where they were. They falsely claimed that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program for which it was importing aluminum tubes and yellowcake uranium and warned of seeing mushroom clouds. They made the bogus charge that Iraq had produced thousands of tons of chemical agents and used mobile weapons labs. They fabricated the tale that the secular Saddam had ties with the al-Qaeda religious extremists. And, they mislead the public with mind-blurring rhetoric that implied Iraq had indirectly caused 9/11.

The many individual members of Congress, state legislatures and city councils calling for impeachment have cited a long list of other potential impeachable offences:

Willfully violated their oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Ordered the National Security Agency to violate provisions of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [50 U.S.C. Chapter 36], a felony, specifically authorizing the agency to spy on American citizens without warrants.

Committed war crimes as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the "war on terrorism."

Exempted detained Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters from the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

Authorized violation of the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty regarded as supreme law by the United States Constitution.

Retaliated against critics.

Held American citizens and citizens of other nations as prisoners of war without formal charges, trial or legal representation.

Leaked classified national secrets to further a political agenda, exposing an unknown number of covert United States intelligence agents to potential harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to investigate the matter.

Authorized, ordered and condoned attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties are unavoidable.

Violated international law by threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently proclaiming his personal intention to change its government by force.

Authorized, ordered and condoned violations of rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eight Amendments to the Constitution and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other international protections of human rights.

Authorized, directed and condoned bribery and coercion of individuals and governments to obtain war ends.

Was negligent in responding to the victims of hurricane Katrina.

Demonstrated a pattern of abuse of office and of executive privilege and contempt for the Constitution and our democratic ideals while seeking to expand the powers of the presidency (imperial presidency).

Illegally used government funds for domestic political propaganda related to the administration's Medicare package, paying commentator Armstrong Williams, etc.

Used uniformed military personnel for Republican party political purposes.

Obstructed and hindered the work of congressional investigative bodies.

Failed to take responsibility for, investigate or discipline those responsible for an ongoing pattern of negligence, incompetence and malfeasance to the detriment of the American people.

Violated the letter and spirit of laws and rules of criminal procedure used by civilian and military courts, and violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that carry out the law.

Failed to supply our troops in Iraq with adequate war materials such as body armor, armored vehicles and other equipment.

Allowed our maimed and injured troops to be subjected to abhorrent medical care at Walter Reed Hospital.
Why would it be worth impeaching Bush and Cheney at this late date?

Our present national emergency must be ended post haste. Corruption is running rampant with Bush and Cheney covering their connection to it with subterfuge such as commuting the sentence of a convicted crony. Under this regime, America is turning fascist, seeking war and not peace and losing its moral authority in the world. Incompetent political appointees are in charge, profit-driven contracted corporations are doing the work of government (privatization), elections are being stolen by vote rigging and our welfare safety net is being dismantled. Thousands of soldiers are being killed and maimed while the war industry is reaping huge profits. Of course, impeachment would prevent any further crimes by these two men as well as their appointment of another extremist jurist to the Supreme Court.

Bush and Cheney are lawless, dangerous men with war in their hearts. Despite their war in Iraq going way wrong, Cheney's "PNAC" stated goal of turning Iraq into a base of operations to control the oil reserves in the Middle East and Central Asia for privatization by the oil companies is right on track. The construction of permanent military instillations is moving forward.

They are now beating the drums for war against Iran in order to get their hands on its oil reserves, which are easily accessible on a small strip along the Iraq border. Many believe that such an attack would spark WWIII. In fact, the two men have promised a multi-generational "long war."

---

More than welcome, Kat, and thanks for the nod.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 01:16 AM

Without doubt the most hilarious load of claptrap I have read for a long time Amos.

As one of the current administrations harshest critics Amos, can you enlighten us as to exactly how you have been retaliated against.

To take the items listed in your diatribe one by one and subject them to real scrutiny and apply rules of evidence the results would come in as a stream of "Not Guilty" verdicts.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 12:43 PM

It may not be a list of impeachable offenses....no doubt most of those would never get a conviction.....but it sure is a list to remind voters next year which party tolerated and encouraged most of those egregious acts and behaviors.

I think I'll save it and add to it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 07:13 PM

The only call after almost 7 yrs is from Amos, myself most of us mudcatters with a few exception & "we the people" (John Q Public). The folks we have representing US resent US for putting them on the spot with this issue. Bastards are bandwagon jump-ons & wouldn't rock an apple cart to save their mothers & children from the plague. Any politican that now calls for this should be treated with just a little less dignity than those that are still holding out & the same for those on the issue of Iraq. If they didn't know better early on then they deserve far less support now than those that have been protesting from the begining. I hold little hope that Bush & company will ever see justice & I wish them the hell they so rightly deserve. Impeachment after they've spent 7 yrs treating the nation & it's people like shit is a little late, it should've happen eons ago. A bullet would be a much better soultion at this point & it would send a future message for those that would think to travel the same road. If you think this is a bit strong, suck eggs. Look at what they've done & didn't do!
Impeachment is far to mild a sentence, it's like a last minute lame duck presidential pardon, fuck him. Do I have reason to be afraid of Home Land Security now that I've spoken my piece, someone needs to even though most would rightfully be fearful to.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 04:21 AM

You're right, Barry, impeachment is too good for Cheney and Bush. So is a bullet. I'd like to see them subjected to the same indignities that their prisoners have been subjected to. I also think all of their assets should be siezed. After both of those deeds are done, they should be forced to live under bridges and eat from soup kitchens for the rest of their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:21 PM

ANd folks like this, from The Huffington Post:

Impeach Bush -- Not Such A Bad Idea After All

Posted July 16, 2007 | 10:29 PM (EST)



         

It remains to be seen how much political traction a movement to impeach President Bush can muster in the nation's capital. With eighteen months remaining in his imperial reign, it's still worth a gamble, still worth pursuing.

So kudos to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D- CA) for firing that first salvo late last week when she announced that "she asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean's statement that President Bush admitted to an 'impeachable offense' when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge."

Boxer later went on the Ed Schultz talk show and said impeachment of the President "should be on the table." (And let's place it right beside those Iraqi benchmarks.)

Domestic spying is the least of Bush's sins. It's like convicting Al Capone for tax invasion. The Decider-in-Chief has reinterpreted the meaning of the Oval Office, and rather than restoring dignity -- as he so often promised during the 2000 presidential race -- he has besmirched it with an unprecedented power grab.

Of course we can't blame one man for getting us into Iraq, illegal eavesdropping, cronyism, torture, gutting of the Judiciary, and overall incompetence. He had plenty of help from Cheney, Rove, and their enablers.

It's not so much as a fish-rots-from-the-head thing. It's that Bush is intellectually and morally ill-equipped to run this country, especially when so many more young American soldiers will die or get wounded in Iraq on his stubborn, myopic watch.

Here's why impeachment matters. Anything to tie up George, Karl and Dick with additional headaches is a good thing for America. Just because they squirmed scot-free with Scooter, it doesn't mean that they should get a free pass. Wouldn't we all be better off if their days and nights were spent huddling with lawyers instead of causing more lasting political damage?

Impeachment is the kind of partisan gambit whose efficacy should be determined not only by whether there's enough votes to impeach Bush, let alone have the Senate convict him, but by the impact it will have in changing the debate on how America views the president despite his already abysmal approval ratings. Will it clarify and solidify our disgust? I think so. Will it force the media to focus more intently on Bush's "crimes and misdemeanors?" Yes. Will it weaken the administration's position on Iraq by adding more political energy to the anti-war movement? Yes.

Support for an impeachment surge is the reverse of a troop surge.

Bush continues to use his Oval Office bully pulpit with complete disregard for those who disagree with his unpopular policies. If he's immune to change, then let's put a burr under his saddle.

He cares a great deal about how history will look back upon his presidency. So why not have that big "I" by his name, just like an asterisk next to some future steroid-using Hall of Famer. We need to delegitimize his political rule.

Though we shouldn't make impeaching the president habit-forming, the stains Bush is leaving on the Constitution are far more damning than the Clinton stain left behind on Ms. Lewinsky's blue Gap dress.

Perhaps as a preliminary step to drawing up articles of impeachment, we should establish a benchmark report card -- just like the bogus one on Iraq's dubious progress that the administration presented last week. Its spin was breathtaking in its reach for plausibility. Its own interpretation of "satisfactory progress" is like a doctor examining a someone in a brain-dead coma and saying, "the patient's still breathing and alive and that's a good sign that things might improve."

How can the situation get any better in Iraq when whatever political breathing room there was supposed to be following the surge has been choked and smothered in continued religious violence. With the Iraqi parliament jetting off to Dubai for R&R while brave young U.S. soldiers patrol lethal swaths of the country in sweltering global-warming desert heat, there won't be much, if any, progress with the political situation until September when General Petraues's report comes due.

So this gives us more breathing room right now and right here in America to tighten the impeachment thumbscrews on Bush. Too often, he has managed to hold all the cards in shaping the national dialogue. Because of where he's sits in the White House, he's given himself carte blanche to lie or grossly distort the truth whenever it suits his purposes.

The mere hue and cry of impeachment will put the Republicans even more on the defensive as they contort themselves in different positions on the war. It's important that those who favor impeachment ignore the catcalls of being labeled partisan, unpatriotic, or not supporting the war or our troops. We've played that rhetorical game far too long.

Let's impeach Bush. Should the vote pass and he goes up for trial in the Senate, it will be interesting to watch Vice President Cheney preside in that chamber. He'll feel right at home. After all, he did maintain that the Office of the Vice President "is not part of the executive branch." But there's an outside chance that Cheney himself might face impeachment first if U.S. House Resolution 333 picks up momentum.

Impeachment is not a diversion from the war. It's the correct conclusion to a tragic narrative. Support the Boxer rebellion.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:04 PM

Ordinance passes 6-1; Telluride is first in Colorado

By Reilly Capps

Taking a step into national politics, the Telluride Town Council passed an ordinance yesterday calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.


The ordinance says that Bush and Cheney violated the public trust and knowingly harmed the United States and Colorado.

The measure passed easily, 6-1.

Several Telluriders pleaded passionately about the need to get rid of a duo that has lied, tortured, and spied on Americans. No one spoke out against it, nor did anyone defend the administration.

The ordinance reached the council's desk after 71 voters signed a petition. The council's other option, besides passing it, was to put the ordinance on the November ballot and let voters decide.

But instead of doing that, the council sent the message itself.

"I'm surprised that they did not refer it to the people," said Thom Carnevale, who organized the petition. "It was a strong stand the council took."

Mark Buchsieb was the only member of the council who voted against the motion.

It appears that Telluride is the first community in Colorado to call for impeachment. A vote in the town of Nederland ended up tied.

But dozens of communities in other states have passed similar ordinances. It began in liberal places like San Francisco and Vermont. More recently, more mainstream cities like Detroit and Chapel Hill, N.C., have joined.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Cleveland, has introduced a resolution in the House calling for impeachment, but most Democrats have said they don't see impeachment as a viable option.

A call to the White House seeking comment was not returned yesterday.

At the meeting, Phil Miller railed against an "imperial presidency" that launches unnecessary wars, and spoke forcefully and movingly against an administration that steamrolls dissent and then flattens foreign countries.

"The people have acquiesced too easily because they don't know the horror that war unleashes," said Miller, who was a soldier during World War II, who saw babies starve and families hunkered down in bombed-out buildings. He himself was hit by a bullet while fighting in the Philippines. "I have seen the brutality of war that turns nice young men into barbarians."

(From the Telluride, COL, Daily NEws.)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 08:15 PM

Must make a note, in future subscribe to "The Huffington Post".

Kinda fun paper, in the "right-on" way of things, quoted by Amos.

Well since he started this "Amos-dominated-cut-n-paste-thread" absolutely damn all has happened, and neither will it, because "Impeachment" is a legal process that requires that substantive evidence is produced and verified. It then has to stand up to what is commonly known as the rigors of, "rules of evidence".

Most in the know + the House of Representatives and the Senate know that there are absolutely no grounds whatsoever on which to base an action against the current President or Vice-President - Amos and the rest of the chattering left do not, which is why you hear so much "Magpie chatter" - loud, but it signifies nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 08:47 PM

That's not what they know at all, T. The grounds are there. But the case is not being made.

In any case, my compliments for not drinking the lefty Kool Aid here. I wish you well, but I am afraid you are standing in the shadows, pal.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 09:12 PM

Well, well, well...

Jus' thought I's stop in here... I played music until 3:30 this mornin' at Blues Week, then got a couple hours sleep and rove home today so I'm is a stupor ( some would say I'm always ina stupor) but...

...therer won't be any impeachements... The Repubs can use the same rules that the Dems have used since '94 in fillibusterin' an' so there won't be any impeachments...

So, fir you folks who would like to see it happen, it won't... Georege Bush could be caught withan 11 year old girl on camera and it wouldn't happen...

No, impeachemnt is like a "perfect storm"... And you need the voyes to override a fillibuster... Clinton didn't thave them and therefore he was impeached... Not removed... But impeached.... And later censored...

Impeachement from here out will be nuthing but partisan political theater... Nuthin' more and nuthin' less...

George Bush has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that any and all laws cand be either negated (signing statements) or broken and if you have enough of yer buddies on the court then that ain't no problem either...

This is the case...

Should it be impeachable??? Yeah...

Willit bring an impeachement??? Never...

Like I have pointed out over and over, the US govrenment is very corrupted... I don't say this as ome grandsatnding thing... It's just fact... It is badly broken... It is way too finaced and owned by corporate interests and it is broken...

I will predict this:

Unless the US get's it's act together we will see impeachements of every president in the future that has a Congress that has enough votes to pull it off...

The US democracy is badly broken, folks...

This is reality...

It's broken...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 04:54 PM

I am actually sorry to see this...I understand why he is doing it, but i think it falls short:

WASHINGTON, July 22 A U.S. senator said Sunday he 1s working on a censure resolution against President George Bush, saying the administration has "assaulted the Constitution."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said on NBC's "Meet The Press" that his resolution, to be introduced shortly, will address two areas: the administration's run-up to the war in Iraq and its "outrageous attack on the rule of law" regarding its surveillance program and "their attitude about torture."

"This administration has assaulted the Constitution," Feingold said. "We need to have on the historical record some kind of indication that was has happened here is."

Feingold says a censure resolution is a moderate course. It wouldn't tie up the chambers with an impeachment, but would ensure a historical record is available, he said.

The resolution hasn't been drafted, Feingold said, adding he's spoken with Senate leadership. Regarding whether any Republicans would support the resolution, he said, "I think this might be an opportunity for some Republicans who may be uncomfortable with taking steps such as impeachment to say, you know, somehow we have to reflect the fact that so much of this has gone wrong."

Copyright 2007 by UPI

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 07 - 12:03 PM

Yahoo News comments:

"John Nichols
Mon Jul 23, 12:28 PM ET



The Nation -- There is every reason to be enthusiastic about U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold's decision to ask the Senate to consider a pair of censure resolutions condemning the President, Vice President and other administration officials for misconduct relating to the war in Iraq and for their repeated assaults on the rule of law.

ADVERTISEMENT

Indeed, as the movement to impeach Bush and Cheney attracts more support with each passing day, Feingold's resolutions should be seen as evidence that the essential American principle of presidential accountability is finally being put back on the table by responsible members of Congress.

Feingold is renewing and extending a call for censure that that the Wisconsin Democrat initially made in March, 2006. The senator now proposes one resolution censuring the president, the vice president and their aides for overstating the case that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, particularly nuclear weapons, and falsely implying a relationship with al Qaeda and links to 9/11; for failing to plan for the civil conflict and humanitarian problems that the intelligence community predicted; for over-stretching the Army, Marine Corps and Guard with prolonged deployments and for justifying U.S. military involvement in Iraq by repeatedly distorting the situation on the ground there. A second resolution would censure the administration for approving the illegal NSA warrantless wiretapping program, for promoting extreme policies on torture, the Geneva Conventions, and detainees at Guantanamo; and for refusing to recognize legitimate congressional oversight into the improper firings of U.S. Attorneys.

Feingold, a Constitutional scholar, is well aware that these misdeeds of the George Bush, Dick Cheney and their minions fall, as the senator has suggested, "right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors." He has frequently suggested that he "would not rule out any form of accountability," including an impeachment inquiry beginning with proper investigation and hearings."

....

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 07 - 12:05 PM

City Council Strongly Backs Bid to Impeach Bush, Cheney

By Dan Morse
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 24, 2007; Page B05

Over the years, Takoma Park (Md) has declared itself a nuclear-free zone, established an immigrant sanctuary law and written a 5,000-word manual for its trash and award-winning recycling programs.

Last night, its City Council voted to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Lisa Moscatiello helped create a resolution that calls for removing the president and vice president from office. (By Susan Biddle -- The Washington Post)


"Takoma Park has passed many resolutions over the years, and I've been proud of most of them," council member Reuben Snipper told a crowd of about 100. "I personally am as appalled as many of you are at the actions of Bush and Cheney."

The council approved the resolution 5 to 0, with two members absent.

Earlier, during a public comment period, all 19 people who spoke on the measure expressed their support.

"I come before the council because America is under threat," said Jay Levy, a 32-year resident and a retired Montgomery County schoolteacher. He said Bush and Cheney are "shredding" the U.S. Constitution.

"This is the finest thing you'll ever do," resident Thomas Nephew told the council. After he finished, he walked to the side of the room, and his 9-year-old daughter ran up and hugged him.

Before the vote, council member Terry Seamens added two amendments, including one aimed at other Maryland politicians. It calls for the city of Takoma Park to write letters to the Montgomery County Council, the county executive, the Maryland legislature and the governor asking them to consider adopting similar resolutions. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 07 - 12:08 PM

Group looks to impeach Bush




A D V E R T I S E M E N T

CLICK AD TO SEE MORE


July 23, 2007

Comments (6) Print Email
Subscribe

ROSEBURG (Oregon): A group of Roseburg area residents met Friday to form a committee to call on members of Congress to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Group organizers said Bush and Cheney have failed to obey their oaths to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

They said the group was formed to educate people on the impeachment process and to urge representatives in Washington to seek impeachment of the nation's two highest-ranking officials.

...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 01:33 AM

What was the advertisement for Amos? Are you too lazy to clip the bullshit out of your cut and pastes so as not to waste bandwidth or are you just too good?

Hey by the way the Democrats are never going to impeach and remove Bush cause they don't have the guts to deal with fulfilling ther rhetoric about withdrawing from Iraq so you and Tacoma Park can work your fingers to the bone about impeachment gut all you are going to get are boney fingers.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 01:38 AM

Antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan and dozens of supporters were arrested at the Rayburn House office building in Washington DC on Monday following an hour-long meeting with Democratic Representative John Conyers of Michigan.

Sheehan and others came to the offices to meet with Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to demand he initiate impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. When Conyers indicated he would not begin such proceedings and the protesters refused to leave, an estimated 47 were led away in plastic handcuffs by Capital Police.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 03:10 PM

"There is absolutely no sane or defensible reason for you to hand Bloody King George more money to condemn more of our brave, tired, and damaged soldiers and the people of Iraq to more death and carnage. You think giving him more money is politically expedient, but it is a moral abomination and every second the occupation of Iraq endures, you all have more blood on your hands."

..."So, Democratic Congress, with the current daily death toll of 3.72 troops per day, you have condemned 473 more to these early graves. 473 more lives wasted for your political greed: Thousands of broken hearts because of your cowardice and avarice. How can you even go to sleep at night or look at yourselves in a mirror? How do you put behind you the screaming mothers on both sides of the conflict? How does the agony you have created escape you? It will never escape me...I can't run far enough or hide well enough to get away from it."

(Excerpt from a speech by Cindy Sheehan).

---

How about you, Dickey-boy? Which of the perfumes of Arabia do you use to cleanse your wee hands for your complicity in the slaughter of your own species? Or do you manage to not hear the mothers' screams and the tears of children caught in crossfires? Do you shut out, too, the wounded minds of those forced into brutality beyond their worst imaginings by decisions of convenience, made by men far away in comfortable office suites?

Shame.


A




A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 10:39 AM

Mr educated Amos:

If your cause is so just, why do you need to use such ridiculous rhetoric?

Bloody King George? You should listen to yourself some times.

The Democrats can stop this war anytime they want by cutting off the money.

Why haven't they done it?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 10:50 AM

"People don't see the monstrosity that Bush is fighting since he is seen as dumb and ineffectual.



Believe me...people see the monstrosity more clearly every day.


Military intervention and subverting the US Constitution will only aggresively FEED the monstrosity. It will however feed the military industrial base in the US while starving infrastructure and citizens.

There are powerful means to STARVE the monstrosity.
Leadership that recognizes the need to implement stratagies to starve the monstrosity are required NOW not later.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 10:51 AM

Where the hell was Cindy Sheehan, Amos and all the fellow travellers when Saddam was operating at full tilt? 3.72 dead per day? You lot obviously did not manage to hear the mothers' screams and the tears of children caught by Saddam, or his sons. 3.72 per day!! - Saddam's average over 24 years ran to somewhere between 154 per day and 282 per day depending on what figures you use.

You lot only get roused up and interested in defending the high moral ground only if you can beat the current President and his administration about the ears with it - strangely silent on everything else - Darfur being a bloody good example.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 11:16 AM

Teribus:

I have not been silent on Darfur.

Your outraged generalizations do not address the question. You are clearly a man who believes deeply in war.

The fundamental psychosis of the proposition itself escapes you, because you are embedded in the mindset it feeds on. The idea that violence is an absolute last resort, and that there is an urgent need to discover other means than the ratrace of destructive force to handle the human problem.

As long as you are embedded in this sorry and desperate condition,
your bitterness about those who would strongly prefer a better approach will not subside, and your conversational skills will suffer accordingly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 11:44 AM

Transcript of a deep conversation with Bill Moyers on questions surrounding the impeachment issue can be found here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 11:54 AM

"When "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert asked, "Isn't this futile?" (sounding every bit like the arbiter of inside-the-beltway realism that he is), Feingold spoke eloquently of the need to set the historical record straight. What message does it send, he asked, if elected representatives do not hold accountable a President and Vice President who have used mistruths, spin, manipulated intelligence reports and fear to drag this country into a war that is the most colossal foreign policy mistake in our history? What message does it send if we do not hold them accountable for weakening our security through relentless assaults on the rule of law on which our country was founded?

History must therefore record, Feingold argued, that when faced with an administration which doesn't recognize or respect the separation of powers, which perpetually acts as if the executive branch is above the laws of our nation, the people and their elected officials stood up and demanded accountability.

While Feingold believes that Bush and Cheney have committed what our Founding Fathers would have thought of as "high crimes and misdemeanors," at this time he does not believe it is in the nation's best interest to put important issues confronting our country on the back burner to go through months of a divisive impeachment process. That is a view shared by many progressives.

At the same time, however, a growing majority of the country disagrees — in fact, a majority believe Cheney should be impeached. And many progressives as well as conservatives — including Bruce Fein, former Reagan Justice Department official — make a coherent and impassioned case for the value of pursuing the impeachment process. The case for impeachment was given the airtime it richly deserves in an extraordinary July 13 Bill Moyer's Journal, program featuring The Nation's John Nichols in conversation with Fein.

Feingold needs citizens' help to develop and push these resolutions forward. E-mail your representatives, bombard them with your appeals and demands that they stop this White House from shredding the Constitution and, as Feingold puts it, "thumbing their noses at the American people." "


CBS News opinion article)

A

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

No argument there - of course its all Cindy's fault except when its all Bill's fault.


ya know ya gotta move past fault with real action. The kind of action that Reagan took when he cut and ran from Lebanon

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jul 07 - 09:10 AM

From Dallas:

"It looks like our Democrats in Congress may finally move to impeach Bush and Cheney. Have they come to realize that it is their responsibility to uphold the Constitution? That our Constitution is more important than political strategies or the next election? Or are they just hearing from enough of us that enough is enough?

The excesses of the current administration will not be cured by electing a new president in 2008. If we don't correct the balance of power and restore our freedoms now, the opportunity will be lost.

Even my self-proclaimed "conservative" relatives (including one currently serving our country in Iraq) understand this.

They are horrified by the prospect that the precedents set by this administration (lying, spying, obstructing justice) will persist like a cancer, coming out of remission at the convenience of future executives.

The framers of the Constitution gave Congress the tools of impeachment and the power of the purse for good reason. They fully expected the executive branch to try to grab more than its share of power. In so far neglecting to employ either tool to rein in Bush and Cheney, Congress has become complicit in their tyranny.

-- Lisanne Pearcy, Dallas"

---

From West Hollywood:

The City Council's resolution cites abuses of power and other misdeeds. Some residents say they should have been consulted first.
By Ari B. Bloomekatz, Times Staff Writer
July 22, 2007


The White House is more than 2,600 miles from West Hollywood, a distance emblematic of how far left the progressive city is compared with elected leaders running the nation on Pennsylvania Avenue.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR THE RECORD:
Impeachment: An article in Sunday's California section about 80 cities around the United States passing resolutions calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney misspelled the name of Arcata, Calif., as Arcada. —

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Last week the distance came into focus as West Hollywood officials made their city the first in Southern California to pass a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

West Hollywood was the 80th city or township in the nation to pass such a declaration, following similar actions in Michigan, Ohio and Vermont as well as six cities in Northern California, including Arcada and Eureka.

Citing perceived abuses of power and constitutional transgressions, such as domestic wiretapping and torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, the City Council passed the resolution unanimously Monday.

Mayor John J. Duran said he thought it was his civic responsibility to hold elected officials responsible for what he called egregious crimes.

"Someday I know I'll look back and I'll be satisfied that when I thought the Constitution was in peril, I took some action rather than just sat passively by," Duran said.

He hopes the Santa Monica and Beverly Hills councils will follow suit, increasing pressure on Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) to take action in Congress.
...

---

From Kamsas City, Missouri:

"By Jamilah Nasheed

Nasheed I, along with Rep. Jeanettte Mott Oxford in the Missouri House, agree with the "Impeach" billboard in the middle of the wheat field, described in a July 15 article by Steve Kraske. No U.S. president and vice president have ever deserved impeachment as much as President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Many Democratic colleagues at the state and federal level argue that it is better not to impeach our highest elected officials so the GOP will continue to stumble along without the unity that impeachment might produce. We, however, are a part of a growing consensus, broader than our party, that says the values of the U.S. Constitution should not be sacrificed to political strategy.

How can we not call for impeachment? Bush and/or Cheney have:

•Carried out a massive propaganda campaign with distorted information about weapons of mass destruction and supposed al-Qaida connections in order to drag our nation into an unnecessary war, putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way without just cause;

•Endorsed policies of torture in contravention of federal statutes and treaties;

•Engineered a warrantless domestic surveillance program targeting American citizens on American soil, violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act;

•Helped leaked the identity and intelligence agency employment of Valerie Plame through Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby because her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had questioned the administration's evidence regarding weapons of mass destruction (and then commuted Libby's jail time).

This spring, we filed House Concurrent Resolution 46 calling on Congress to investigate whether there are grounds to impeach Bush and Cheney and remove them from office.

Rep. Oxford and I were joined by co-sponsors Reps. Shalonn "Kiki" Curls, Leonard "Jonas" Hughes, Beth Low, Jenee Lowe and Mike Talboy of Kansas City and Rep. Tony George of St. Louis County. Unfortunately, House Speaker Rod Jetton refused to assign our resolution to committee until the final day of the legislative session, so it did not get the hearing that this serious issue deserves."...

From Telluride, Colorado:

TELLURIDE, Colo. — Telluride Town Council members have voted 6-1 to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

If the measure survives a second reading Aug. 7, it would become the town's official position.

Community leaders said they had endured criticism from near and far following last week's vote, but at least one council member said that was because people do not understand the town's home-rule municipality...."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Jul 07 - 09:59 AM

Where the hell is Cindy Sheehan, Amos and all the fellow travellers when 46 million human lives per year are terminated on purpose?

3,700 per day right here in the US.

With one more pull, he could easily deliver the child's head, but that would defeat the contract. The contract is to deliver a dead baby. He then turns the child's body so that the nose is facing the mother's tailbone. At this stage this baby is kicking, moving its arms and has likely urinated. Now the abortionist, with two fingers, retracts the vaginal ring at the base of the skull, and then plunges a scissors into the neck at the base of the skull. This injures or severs the spinal cord and results in instant decerebrate rigidity, that is, a spastic arching of the back and spastic extension of all four extremities. He then spreads the blades of the scissors and threads a large bore catheter between them and up into the skull. Attaching this to a powerful suction, he sucks out the brains. This kills the baby and with one more gentle pull, he delivers the head.

Almost universally we have read that the brains are sucked out "in order to collapse the skull so that it may be delivered." This is simply incorrect. This is not done to collapse the skull. This is done to kill the baby.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jul 07 - 10:18 AM

My goodness, Mister Dickey, I had no IDEA you were such a vessel of compassion concerning human life! Are you a Buddhist at heart? Or are you more of a Fish and Game sort of lover of life -- once they get above a certain size, anything goes?

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jul 07 - 10:42 PM

"bjectively speaking, the call to remove the president and vice president represents a whole line of problems. The spokesperson for the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, who could start the procedure, said during her entry into office, that the "impeachment card" was not in play.

Regardless of their intentions, and the careful, nearly magical game between the Republicans and Democrats, the voice of the people is clear, and it is growing ever more conscious that president Bush has committed a number of very serious criminal acts. American citizens are growing louder in their calls to impeach the man that will go down in history as the worst American president, or in other words, closer to the character of his rule, first American tyrant. What else to add besides that we are talking about the first president who said about the constitution: "it's just a goddamned piece of paper".

Jonathan Turley, a professor of Law at the George Washington University said long ago: "we have finally reached a constitutional Rubicon, if the congress can not stand firmly against the open and obvious violation of federal law by the president, then we have really become an autocracy"."

(A small excerpt from an interesting essay on the impeachment issue available at this site.)


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Dickey
Date: 28 Jul 07 - 10:16 PM

No Amos. Evidently you believe that human life is dispensible except as a useful political tool for the self righteous.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 11:15 AM

Wasn't sure if I should post this here or in the Sicko thread, but I do think the following cites several more reasons why this asshole should be impeached:

July 29, 2007 at 07:07:38

Bush Makes Clear Why a Health Care Revolt is Needed

by Mark Harris   

http://www.opednews.com
                        

Tell A Friend

President Bush has not directly commented on filmmaker Michael Moore's SiCKO and it's devastating critique of the U.S. health care system. He doesn't have to.

The President made clear which side of health care progress he's on when he recently stated his intention to veto a Senate bill to increase funds for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The bipartisan bill proposes to put another $35 billion over five years into a program designed to help families who cannot afford health insurance but earn too much to qualify for Medicaid.

There are currently about 4 million children enrolled for health coverage under SCHIP. There are also an estimated 10 million children in the United States without any health insurance. But what is George Bush concerned about? He fears more government money for the health of uninsured children would hurt the private insurance companies. "When you expand eligibility, you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government," says Bush. In the spirit of Ronald Reagan, who in the early 1960s saw Medicare as a step toward totalitarianism, the President warns that increased funding for children's health is a path to full-blown government health care.

Actually, it would be nice if that were true, but it's not. The Senate bill would still leave millions of children uninsured, as the New York Times acknowledged in its July 22 editorial. But it's also ironic that Bush frames his opposition to the Senate bill in such ideological terms. After all, the President does support funding SCHIP, if only at a rate that increases funding by $5 billion over the next five years. So maybe the real lesson here is that government-run health care is okay with Bush as long as it's never quite adequate health care. Because with inflationary health costs, the President's proposed funding level will translate into even more children abandoned to the land of the uninsured. In California, say some officials, an estimated 200,000 children may be dropped from the program next year under the current funding limits.

Listening to the President, you just have to ask: What is so damn holy about insurance companies? Should their profits always take precedence over children's health needs? Or maybe it's just that the President is concerned about the cost to government? But what's an extra $35 billion over five years for children's health when compared to the $8.4 billion a month the Iraq war now costs the United States? Indeed, the $5 billion SCHIP currently receives annually in federal funds equals only about three weeks of the war's costs.

But perhaps the President is also concerned about the bill's proposed excise tax on cigarettes? Actually, considering that next year's military budget is $499 billion (this doesn't even include the Iraq and Afghanistan war budgets), taxing consumers who smoke hardly seems necessary. Even less necessary when you consider the potential resource in reversing the decline in corporate taxes, from 33 per cent of collected federal taxes in the 1950s to less than 8 percent today. But you get the feeling here it isn't the consumers the President is concerned about. After all, we do know former Surgeon General Richard Carmona recently told Congress the Bush White House pressured him to not give the tobacco companies a hard time by testifying about the dangers of secondhand smoke.

Irony seems to bleed from everything this President espouses that has anything to do with principles. Bush cautions the public about the dangers of government health care, while recovering from his own first-rate, government-paid colonoscopy. Bush sings hymns to the power of free-market solutions, but does nothing while market forces create a nationwide crisis of affordable health care. If unemployment reached 20 percent, which is the percentage of children in Texas without health coverage, it would be called a Great Depression. But we live in times when dynastic corporate families run the country based on the implicit notion that in this life there are winners and there are losers. And if you can't afford competitive health insurance, well, then, those who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths do officially "care" about you, but they also know you're just one of the losers. All 46 million of you.

In her new book, "The Real Wealth of Nations," cultural historian Riane Eisler cites research that the cost of just one U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile could feed 50 million children or open 340,000 health centers. Now put that thought in the context of last year's study by economists Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz that estimates the eventual direct and indirect costs of the Iraq war will exceed $1 trillion and possibly reach $2 trillion, assuming U.S. military operations continue in Iraq until 2010.

Just imagine what could be done for American health care with even a fraction of the money wasted in Iraq. Instead, nearly one in seven Americans go without health insurance. Instead, the vitality of the health care system is defined less on humanitarian terms than by quarterly indicators, stock trends, CEO mega-salaries, and patients who are called "customers." It's a telling contrast: While affordable care is increasingly elusive, health care companies are a hot sector for venture capital investors, outpacing all other industries according to the San Jose Business Journal.

In the United States, many of the 10 million children without health coverage could be covered under SCHIP, but are not either because their state doesn't participate or has finance-driven enrollment caps, or because families are not aware of their eligibility. Certainly the medical care children receive can be critical to their health over a lifetime. But where there is only human need the President sees a dangerous political precedent.

Why do we put up with a leader whose SiCKO ideology blinds him even to the most basic needs of children?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 12:16 PM

Sure I do, you dullwit. That's why I think it is okay to go around launching war on humans. Sheesh.

Elliot D. Cohen: Impeach Bush and Cheney Now, Before They Declare Martial Law
BuzzFlash - 1 hour ago
The only reasonable response to this national security risk is to eliminate it, and this can be done by starting impeachment proceedings now. Unfortunately, Congress (Democrats and Republicans alike) have fallen asleep at the wheel. The Bush ...

It's time to impeach Bush, Cheney and the public knows it...
Seattle Post Intelligencer - Jul 27, 2007
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi still keeps impeachment "off the table"; she and her advisers fear that if they allow Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers to open impeachment hearings, it will rally the Republican base in defense of Bush and Cheney.

"Time for the GOP to push Bush out the door" Seattle Times

Freeway Blogger Leads the Way to Impeachment Awareness


Anti-war actions build toward Sept. 29 march
Nancy Pelosi's House seat in 2008 if Pelosi doesn't try to impeach Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by midnight on July 23.


Impeach Bush, Cheney
Salt Lake Tribune - Jul 25, 2007
They have created "bogymen" to use as excuses to invade sovereign nations (yet refuse to protect the sovereignty of our own).

Francis Boyle: Campaign to Impeach Bush
'He simply moderated the debate between Clark and I, on the one side, favoring immediately filing Bills of Impeachment against Bush Jr. et al. to stop the threatened war, and almost everyone else there who were against impeachment for partisan political ...'

Probe or impeach AG
29/07/2007
Washington - The New York Times reports that Congress should impeach controversial US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales if the George W Bush administration fails to launch a probe into his role in a raging political scandal.

The paper reported: "Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Gonzales's words and deeds.

"If that doesn't happen, Congress should impeach Gonzales."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 03:04 PM

---

H.RES.333

Title: Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] (introduced 4/24/2007)      Cosponsors (14)

Latest Major Action: 5/4/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

---

SUMMARY AS OF:
4/24/2007--Introduced.

Impeaches Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Sets forth articles of impeachment stating that Vice President Cheney: (1) has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq in a manner damaging to U.S. national security interests; and (2) has openly threatened aggression against Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and has done so with the U.S. proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining U.S. national security.

---

ALL ACTIONS:
4/24/2007:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
5/4/2007:
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

---

COSPONSORS(14), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:    (Sort: by date)
Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 7/24/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 6/6/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 5/1/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 6/28/2007
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 7/12/2007
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 7/12/2007
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 6/28/2007
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 6/7/2007
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 7/10/2007
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 7/10/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 5/1/2007
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 6/12/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 6/7/2007
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 5/10/2007

---

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 12:43 PM

Getting close to that time again Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 03:20 PM

Tuesday, July 31
It seems every time Attorney General Alberto Gonzales opens his mouth before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he gets himself into deeper trouble.
Perhaps that is by design.

The casual observer might wonder why Gonzales seemed to be so carefree in the face of senator after senator calling him a liar. It might be because he could end up like Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and never serve a minute of time in jail, no matter what he gets charged with.

Did Gonzales commit perjury in his testimony before the committee on Tuesday? It certainly looks like it, especially after FBI director Robert Mueller directly contradicted Gonzales' statements regarding President Bush's secret wiretapping program.

Gonzales appears to be headed down the same path as the only previous attorney general to face criminal charges — John Mitchell, Richard Nixon's attorney general.

Mitchell, like Gonzales, authorized illegal wiretaps on American citizens (mostly people that President Nixon deemed his political enemies) and defended the wiretaps on the grounds of national security. Mitchell was eventually found guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy and was sentenced to 30 months in prison in 1975.

Gonzales, the architect of many of the Bush administration's most egregious abuses of the Constitution and international law, has plenty to hide and his expertly deployed obfuscation before the Judiciary Committee sounded like he was doing everything in his power to defend President Bush and keep the secrets he knows hidden.

What Gonzales knows echoes what Mitchell did during Watergate. The reason why the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted in 1978 was to prevent a repeat of what the Nixon administration did — illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

FISA requires the government to seek federal court approval before conducting surveillance. President Bush has for years refused to abide by this law. He has proudly admitted in public that he has not abided by this law. In other words, President Bush repeatedly violated federal law. Grounds for impeachment? Certainly, but we know most of the current members of Congress are too afraid to take on President Bush. It's far less risky to pummel Gonzales.

In that way, Gonzales is doing his job. He's deflecting attention away from the criminal acts of his boss, secure in the knowledge that if he is charged and ultimately convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice and criminal conspiracy, he'll get pardoned like Libby and be taken care of for any legal inconveniences he might have to suffer.

As has been pointed out in this space often, the Bush administration doesn't care what Congress or the American people think.

President Bush long ago decided he doesn't have to follow any law that he doesn't like. He can defy Congress, secure in the knowledge that he can get away with it. That's because Congress refuses to impeach Bush despite the multitude of crimes he and his administration have committed.

We are entering into a dangerous time for our Constitution and our country. If Congress wishes to remain a meaningful and independent branch of our government, it must rein in the executive branch. The tool for doing this is impeachment. The time for doing this is now.

— Brattleboro Reformer

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 11:30 PM

Oregon Reps. Jump On Board Gonzales Impeachment

July 31st 2007 1:58pm

Oregon's four Democratic House members are backing a resolution to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.


The resolution introduced today by Rep. Jay Inslee, a Washington Democrat and former prosecutor, is short and to the point. It accuses Gonzales of "high crimes and misdemeanors," and asks the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether there are grounds to impeach Bush's old Texas chum and former White House counsel.


Though the resolution doesn't lay out the case against Gonzales, many Portlanders should already be familiar with the charges. Fired federal prosecutors David Iglesias and John McKay made two separate Portland speaking engagements earlier this summer, with McKay railing against his former boss on June 28 at Portland State University.


Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), a co-sponsor of Inslee's resolution, admonished the Bush Administration, which has rebuffed Congressional attempts to get testimony on the fired prosecutors from key White House staffers.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Aug 07 - 12:16 AM

Ordinance passes 6-1; Telluride is first in Colorado

By Reilly Capps

Taking a step into national politics, the Telluride Town Council passed an ordinance yesterday calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
*

The ordinance says that Bush and Cheney violated the public trust and knowingly harmed the United States and Colorado.

The measure passed easily, 6-1.

Several Telluriders pleaded passionately about the need to get rid of a duo that has lied, tortured, and spied on Americans. No one spoke out against it, nor did anyone defend the administration.

The ordinance reached the council's desk after 71 voters signed a petition. The council's other option, besides passing it, was to put the ordinance on the November ballot and let voters decide.

But instead of doing that, the council sent the message itself.

"I'm surprised that they did not refer it to the people," said Thom Carnevale, who organized the petition. "It was a strong stand the council took."

Mark Buchsieb was the only member of the council who voted against the motion.

It appears that Telluride is the first community in Colorado to call for impeachment. A vote in the town of Nederland ended up tied.

But dozens of communities in other states have passed similar ordinances. It began in liberal places like San Francisco and Vermont. More recently, more mainstream cities like Detroit and Chapel Hill, N.C., have joined.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Cleveland, has introduced a resolution in the House calling for impeachment, but most Democrats have said they don't see impeachment as a viable option.

A call to the White House seeking comment was not returned yesterday.

At the meeting, Phil Miller railed against an "imperial presidency" that launches unnecessary wars, and spoke forcefully and movingly against an administration that steamrolls dissent and then flattens foreign countries.

"The people have acquiesced too easily because they don't know the horror that war unleashes," said Miller, who was a soldier during World War II, who saw babies starve and families hunkered down in bombed-out buildings. He himself was hit by a bullet while fighting in the Philippines. "I have seen the brutality of war that turns nice young men into barbarians."

Mary McLean said Bush is "on a mission that seems inspired by the crusades" and powered "by his own delusions."

Jerry Greene urged the council to pass the ordinance in order to get the ball rolling on impeachment, to encourage other towns to call for Bush and Cheney's ouster.

"Why wait 'till November to make this statement?" he said. "We'll save ourselves thousands and thousands of words."

It's difficult to see how a double impeachment would proceed. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only two presidents to have been impeached. Both were found not guilty by the Senate. No vice president has ever been impeached.

But if the Senate voted to knock out both Bush and Cheney, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, would become president.

The council has to publicly read the ordinance a second time at its next meeting for it to formally pass.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 10:39 AM

"All politics are local," Bend City Councilor Linda Johnson said Tuesday, after putting Item 3a on the council's Wednesday night agenda. And it's no little item, but a resolution that blasts President Bush and Vice President Cheney and calls for their impeachment for intentionally misleading the nation into a bloody, protracted war.


If three colleagues join Johnson in voting yes - and there's no guarantee of that - Bend will become one of dozens of cities across the country that have weighed in on the nation's biggest controversy, on the side of those opposed to the war and the administration's role in it.

Calvin Mann has led a cadre of fellow anti-war activists to the microphone at the visitor's section of recent council meetings, asking the council to take a stand and also to host a town hall on the topic. Mayor Bruce Abernethy suggested that Mann seek support from individual councilors, if he wanted to proceed.



...
Johnson told KTVZ.COM Wednesday she will back the resolution that she's offered up. But she said she's also "divided" on the idea of it being germane to city business, though she believes the war has cost everyone in more than bloodshed - for cities like Bend, a share of cold, hard federal dollars that instead are going to the war. ...

"As locally elected officials, we are struggling to provide basic services at a time when the Iraq War's costs are mounting," the preamble to the two-page resolution begins...(full text at http://www.ci.bend.or.us/city_hall/meeting_minutes/docs/Resolution_Impeach_Bush.pdf )


"But I also feel as council members, we are members of society," she said. "And if there's something that has impact - the war in Iraq is depleting government resources, so we're not getting federal funding for health care, for planning, homeland security, because those resources are going to Iraq - then I think there is a legitimate case where the city could say we are (affected)."

"I support sending a message we are not happy, and the country is suffering, both economically and on the moral stage," the city councilor said.

The resolution claims Bush and Cheney "did conspire with others to intentionally mislead the nation about the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war of aggression against that country, in violation of" federal law and the U.N. Charter.

It also says the president admits to ordering electronically surveillance of U.S. citizens without court warrants, and that he and Cheney "conspired to condone the torture of prisoners."

It also goes a bit off-topic in claiming the two men "ordered the deliberate suppression and falsification of scientific information and findings on climate change."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 10:45 AM

The idea that Republicans have cleaned up anyone's mess is absurd. They have created an environment for a Mafia-type takeover of government. They have botched Afghanistan and Iraq. They have put homeless people on the street and wrecked organized labor.

Impeachment is the only reasonable solution when the government is an accomplice to lies, deceit and murder.

Anything less is an invitation to appeasement and a renunciation of democracy as we know it in the U.S.

Clinton received a blow job but Bush has conducted a blow-away job.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 03:42 PM

[[[applause]]]


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 04:13 PM

From Des Moines:

Impeach Bush, Cheney to restore confidence


August 2, 2007
   26 Comments



Although people have been discussing the impeachment option for several months, a recent "Bill Moyers Journal" aired on public television really brought this action to the forefront.

A conservative constitutional attorney and a liberal author/journalist wholeheartedly agreed that now is the time to vote on articles of impeachment for both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Both were very critical of the president and vice president and argued that more than sufficient legal violations have occurred to warrant such action immediately. They observed that failure to sanction this administration may embolden future leaders to continue imperialistic behavior.

They were also very critical of Congress because they have been unwilling to provide a check on the executive branch; they noted only modest differences between the inaction of the Republicans and the timid response of the Democrats. In addition, the show's guests accused the press of widespread failure to provide critical, objective coverage of this administration's policies and actions and to alert the American people to these serious problems.

Invoking impeachment proceedings does not create a national crisis; rather, it is a constitutionally sanctioned remedial treatment for flagrant abuse of power and complete indifference to the rule of law by the executive branch. Impeachment proceedings would reassure the people that we are still a nation of laws, that everyone is really accountable and that our representative democracy is still alive and well.

- Dean R. Prestemon,

Ames

---

From Kent, Ohio:

For doing what he believes is expressing his First Amendment right to free speech, Kevin Egler has a trial date in Portage County Municipal Court in Kent.

The South Lincoln Street resident was issued a $125 ticket July 25 by Kent police officer Jerry Schlosser for "advertising on public property," according to court records.

His advertisement? A sign reading "Impeach," urging the impeachment of President Bush placed in a small public garden at the intersection of Main and Willow streets and Haymaker Parkway.

Egler, 45, said he has placed more than 450 anti-Bush signs in the Kent area.

Kent city ordinance 503.02 states "No person shall stick, post or attach any advertisement, poster, sign, handbill or placard of any kind or description upon any telegraph, telephone, railway or electric light pole within the city, nor upon any public building, voting booth, flagging, curbstone, walk, step stone or sidewalk, or write, print or impress or in any manner attach any notice or advertisement of any kind upon any public building, voting booth, flagging, curbstone, step, stone or sidewalk" that is the property of the city.

However, Egler said he believes the message on the sign he posted is at issue, not the act itself. He said he can show dozens of other examples of advertising on public property in the city, including U.S. Army recruitment posters, "for sale" signs and other handbills tacked to public property that have not attracted the same attention.

If he can't place them in Kent, Egler said he will move his operations to the Akron area.

Egler, who is not affiliated with any local anti-war groups, hosted a small gathering Tuesday with Chicago activist and poet Mario Penalver, who has undertaken an 800-mile walk from Chicago to Washington D.C. to protest the Iraq War and inspire dialogues on peace.

Joining Penalver are Denver-based activists Brother Raymond Schwab and Brother Elliott Nesch of Beit Shalom Ministries, an evangelical Christian ministry dedicated to protesting the war, who left Denver March 1 on their own mission to Washington D.C.

All three men attended Egler's hearing Wednesday, picketing outside the Kent courthouse with signs saying "Honk for peace" and "Impeach Bush."

The three activists said they are disturbed by what they believe is a political motive behind the ticket.

"We need to be more vigilant in times of war to protect our liberties," Schwab said.

"We can't let fear compromise our Constitution," Penalver said.

Judge John Plough set a pretrial for Aug. 9 and a trial for Aug. 16.

---

From Madison, WI:

Susan H. Case: For good of our country, impeach Bush now
A letter to the editor — 8/01/2007 11:21 am

Dear Editor: This is a plea to our representatives to consider support of impeachment now.

I used to worry that it would take up too much time, derail the Democrat agenda, etc. But the offenses have piled up and weigh heavily toward a potent, de facto precedent effect.

I have come to believe that the weight is on the side of impeachment. Nothing else can even slow, let alone stop, the powerful effect of precedent. No matter who is elected in 2008 or 2012 or 2016, George Bush's present actions will haunt the White House and continue to despoil our democratic and humane values, unless we indict them now.

Susan H. Case, Madison

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 03:53 AM

Take back our country: Impeach Bush now

Date published: 8/4/2007

)From the Virginia Free-Lance Star)

George Bush does it again with his cover-up speech on how we need to stay in Iraq ["Bush defends Iraq war, urges patience," July 5].

He alone started this war; there was no "we" (as a nation) that attacked Iraq. Bush just keeps on telling more lies. He and Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Condoleezza Rice just keep on justifying a war with no end or victory in sight.

Mr. Bush, along with his moronic group of idiots, must be impeached ASAP in order to save not only our country, but the lives of more of our young people.

This president is an embarrassment to our great country. I don't understand how anyone with an ounce of intelligence can support such a bumbling moron. He keeps on with his stubborn attitude about staying in Iraq. He won't admit he was and is wrong in what he alone ordered and started.

Right now, it seems that he will veto anything Congress suggests. Let's not support stem-cell research, but go ahead and send children to their deaths? Let's not end a war we can't win because we have a spoiled brat for a president, but let's go ahead and let a convicted felon stay out of jail?

This man needs to go soon for the sake of the U.S. and our children. Wake up, America, and get the impeachment process in motion for this entire administration. Take your country back and bring it back to the great nation we once were.

Marie Eberle Spotsylvania

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 07:04 AM

Another month gone by Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 01:52 AM

Ouster By the People
By Robert Dallek
Sunday, August 5, 2007; Page B07


Polls showing President Bush's approval ratings in the 20s and 30s and a New York Times survey last month reporting that people across the country are eager for an end to the current administration suggest that this nation has a problem it's going to have to live with for the next 17 months -- a failed presidency that won't reestablish its credibility with a national majority.

The political argument against Bush's continuing tenure is not frivolous. There are good reasons to see him as a failed president whose remaining time in office will be unproductive at best and destructive to the country's well-being at worst. But given the constitutional rules by which the presidency operates, there is no serious prospect of removing him from office.


A fine solution would be a Nixon-style resignation, but anyone who thinks that Bush and Vice President Cheney would give in to such a demand is dreaming. With no serious threat of impeachment looming, Bush and Cheney can afford to dismiss calls for their departure as the outcries of political extremists. Instead, the president, determined to stay the course, declares that his strategy in Iraq needs more time to work, that the many charges of abuse of power are unsubstantiated, and that, as with Harry Truman, who also lost his hold on the public in the last two years of his presidency, history will vindicate him.

It's enough to make people think about a constitutional amendment for removing a president other than by impeachment or because of incapacity, as is now provided for under the 25th Amendment.

Such an amendment would need to set a high bar for removal and include a process that would be the greatest possible expression of the popular will. This could best be achieved through a recall procedure beginning in the House and the Senate, where a 60 percent vote would be required in both chambers to initiate a national referendum that would be open to all citizens eligible to vote in state elections. The ballot would simply ask voters to say yes or no to removing the president and vice president from office immediately. Should a majority vote to recall both incumbents, the speaker of the House would succeed to the presidency and, under the provisions of the 25th Amendment, would choose a vice president, who would need to be confirmed by majorities in the House and the Senate.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 03:24 PM

Apologies if this has already been posted:

(Excerpt: The White House has ordered the Justice Department not to prosecute
contempt charges against any of its operatives who it had also
ordered not to testify in the first place about the partisan U.S.
attorney firing scandal. The appeal courts have already been stacked
with right wing judges and they will not intervene. The solicitor
general will not appoint a special counsel. Only through impeachment
can we enforce a return to integrity.

And at the top of the impeachment list is vice president Dick Cheney,
who secretly installed himself as the real power behind the White
House throne. The lies to get us into Iraq, the torture of innocent
Muslim bystanders, the illegal wiretaps of American citizens, none of
these things would have happened without Cheney's heavy handed
influence. And none will stop, including the locked in plans for an
even more hideous military debacle in Iran, unless he is held to
account by impeachment.

Cheney is not only the least popular, as demonstrated by the fact
that 99.17 percent of all votes in the National Cheney Impeachment
Poll so far have been Yes to impeach. Cheney is also the most guilty.
So it makes perfect strategic sense to pursue his impeachment first,
and we believe Bush will quickly follow from the same trail of
evidence.

Help spread the word about the real time referendum now. Be an
important part of the largest political mobilization in recent
history. 17 members of Congress have already signed on to H.Res 333,
the proposed articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney as proposed
by Dennis Kucinich. The others are just waiting for one thing. Our
VOICES to tell them to just do it.

TELL DENNIS KUCINICH HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE HIS LEADERSHIP

While most other politicians this week were dodging flak or engaging
in empty grandstanding, Dennis Kucinich came forward with a
substantive proposal to address our neglected and deteriorating
national infrastructure, of which the bridge collapse in MN was an
inevitable consequence. If you can, please make donation to Dennis to
encourage him keep standing up like he has on the impeachment issue
and everything else.

KUCINICH DONATIONS: http://www.usalone.com/donations_kucinich.php


If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.usalone.com/in.htm

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 02:30 AM

Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced resolutions calling for the censure of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Sen. Russ Feingold sponsored two resolutions in his chamber calling for the legislative action against the administration officials because of they misled the country in pursuing war with Iraq and have undermined the rule of law, he said.

"These censure resolutions will let future generations know that Congress stood up to the destructive policies of this administration that have weakened our national security, cost more than 3,600 American lives, and undermined the principles on which our country was founded," Feingold said in a prepared statement.

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) introduced companion legislation in the House.

"From misleading this country into invading Iraq to establishing a warrantless domestic spy program, this White House has continuously misled and deceived the American people while disregarding the rule of law that guides our democracy," Hinchey said in a prepared statement. "The Bush administration has placed an extraordinary burden on this and future generations to recover from the damage done to our Constitution and national security."

The nonbinding resolutions, which simply express the formal displeasure of the House and Senate, were viewed as not good enough by some Bush administration critics.

Brad Friedman, writing on his blog, said Congress should instead work to impeach Bush and Cheney. He noted that the charges outlined in the censure resolution "read like a swell description of Impeachable High Crimes and Misdemeanors" and said it was the "constitutional duty" of members of Congress to work to oust the pair from the White House.

"Then again, courage of conviction is not something Democrats are too often accused of," Friedman wrote.

One set of resolutions, aimed at Bush and Cheney, condemn the pair for misleading Americans about threats posed by Saddam Hussein's regime and the dictator's links to al Qaeda and 9/11. The resolution also claims the president and vice president inadequately prepared for the invasion and its aftermath, stretching military forces thin.

Another set of resolutions says Bush and Gonzales should be censured because of their authorization of a warrantless wiretapping program, improper treatment of foreign detainees and their obstruction of investigations into the firing of US Attorneys.

The censure resolutions have 19 co-sponsors in the House. Both are co-sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) in that chamber, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has signed on to the resolution regarding Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 07:22 PM

This is a significant amount of people for a small place in WY:

By WHITNEY ROYSTER
Star-Tribune staff writer Sunday, August 12, 2007

WILSON -- Some 200 people gathered in a Wilson field Saturday afternoon for a "Peace Rally" to protest the Iraq war and send a message to Vice President Dick Cheney, who owns a home just up the road.

"We organized it because of the war in Iraq and what an injustice it has been," Walt Farmer, retired Air Force captain and registered Republican said. "The Vice President has received a pass in Jackson long enough. We want to let them know we don't approve of the war or how they play fast and loose with the Constitution."

Attending a rally first with speakers, including State Rep. Pete Jorgensen (D-Jackson), author Alexandra Fuller and musicians, the group then took to the county bike path where they marched 1.5 miles north to the entrance of the exclusive Teton Pines Country Club, where Cheney lives when he is in Wyoming.

A 10-foot tall effigy of Cheney, with a fishing pole in one hand and a spouting oil well in the other, was brought on the route. Rally-goers toppled the statute as a symbolic gesture of their disapproval of the vice president.

Jennifer Love of Jackson said she came to the rally because she's tired of the war.

"I feel like the administration has just turned their head and continued to take vacations," she said. Cheney typically spends the month-long August recess in Jackson Hole. Love and others said they were displeased that Cheney would disrupt other people's time in the outdoors with his helicopters flying overhead.

In the last week, several teams of helicopters have been seen flying in formation over areas of Jackson Hole.

Jeff Brummer and Kate Walker were visiting their son in Wilson and decided to come to the rally.

"We have a long history of anti-war activism so it seemed like the right thing to do," Brummer, of Boston, said. "We're here in particular because I think Dick Cheney is a criminal in virtually everything he's touched or had involvement in, whether it's the war or economy or civil liberties."

Cindy Knight has a son in the military, who has served in Afghanistan. She came to the rally to make sure the voices of parents of military people are heard.

"I don't want him to lose his life in the Iraq war," she said.

Rally-goers held signs that said "Bush-Cheney, War Profiteers," "Feel safe yet? Violence breeds violence," and "At least the war on the middle class is going well."

The rally was organized by Farmer, Karen Hogan, a mother, and Jim Stanford, a writer and activist. At least one Jackson business closed early to allow its employees to attend the rally.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,susan2795
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 12:17 PM

We follow a leader who has raped the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He scorns diplomacy. He has rejected outright his duty to uphold the law of the land. His behavior is an ongoing study of lawlessness, deceit, torture, manipulation, stonewalling, fear-mongering, intimidation and secrecy. His exercises of power serve the private corporate world's quest for world domination; his military pursuits battle to win for oil corporations complete world wide market control. His neglect and abuse of the American People in Guantanamo, in New Orleans, his destruction of the People's rights of Personal Privacy, the detaining of individuals without being charged and without access to legal council for years, his failure to serve Public Policy: all this suggests that he and his followers represent the greatest single threat facing the United States of America today. He has escaped Congressional and Judicial oversight, and defrauded the American People. Enough! No more!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 01:49 PM

A telling grass-roots Video.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Aug 07 - 01:56 PM

Another discussion from Rep. Kucinich.



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 11:21 AM

Los Angeles Citizens argue for impeachment (a video of a city council meeting with public commentary).

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 22 Aug 07 - 04:42 PM

A Primer on Impeachment discusses legal questions on the principles of impeachment, with specific regard to Herr Busch.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 07 - 12:31 PM

Salt Lake Mayor Takes on Bush
Impeachment Trail


Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson may have been greeted with foot-stomping enthusiasm Monday night as he preached the gospel of impeaching President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to a crowd of about 250 at the Veterans Memorial Building on Monday. But at the Santa Barbara City Council, the idea of passing an impeachment resolution still remains an orphan in search of a parent. Anderson has emerged as a compelling political curiosity — the nation's most liberal mayor emerging from the reliably conservative state of Utah. Anderson seeks to connect the political left and right by appealing to "the core values" he says animate all Americans. "If we do not call for accountability, we are complicit," Anderson thundered to repeated ovations. "We either condone by our inaction, or we hold Bush accountable to demonstrate to the rest of the world that we are so much better than this."

Anderson accused the Bush-Cheney White House of ignoring repeated warnings of a terrorist attack just prior to 9/11, and then using the emotional fallout from that attack to stampede the American public — and its elected leaders — into war. "Iraq never posed any threat to us," Anderson said more than once. "We attacked a nation that posed no threat to our security. That's a crime against peace, the same crime for which people were convicted in Nuremburg," he said....

Excerpted from the Santa Barbara Independent

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:22 AM

From a citizen in Madison, WI:


The Bush administration should be impeached for all the reasons repeatedly given.

As for voters re-electing Bush, I would simply say that correcting an election is what impeachment is for.

I am skeptical about the impeachment movement because its most audible voices emphasize a patriotic rationale for why the nation should be outraged and they downplay the importance of international lawlessness. I'm not diminishing the importance of fealty to the Constitution and dangerous trends being set through unaccountability. But I sincerely believe that impeachment, on what come off as nationalist grounds, doesn't send a message to the world that America can be trusted again. Rather it tells it that America is just as it seems, concerned about itself and no one else.

When Bush broke international law, which he swore to uphold as U.S. law, he committed a crime against our neighbors.

Those who advocate that Bush should be impeached not because he committed war crimes but because he's violating Americans rights are doing a little pandering themselves and are encouraging narrow nationalist views that, ultimately, are not enough unlike those Bush inspired four years ago.

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

Charges dismissed for "Impeach Bush" sign
Posted by James Ewinger September 06, 2007 09:28AM
Categories: Breaking News, Crime
Kent -- Criminal charges were dismissed Thursday morning against a Kent man who posted an "Impeach Bush" sign in his yard.

City Law Director James Silver dismissed the littering charge against Kevin Egler. Egler was initially charged with advertising in a public space, but those charges were dropped earlier this month. The city then filed the littering charges, which carried a higher potential penalty.

Kent officials also agreed to pay the $82 court costs.

Robert Fitrakis, Egler's lawyer, said the city saved itself $100,000 by deciding not to pursue the charges against his client. Fitrakis maintained the charges against Egler were an effort to curb his right to free speech.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 11:51 AM

Yet another month slips by Amos and still no Impeachment.

I wonder why?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:57 AM

Bush's police suppress Sept. 15 press conference


Above, a NPS policeman on horse disrupts today's Sept. 15 press conference. Below, Adam Kokesh, Iraq war veteran while legally putting up a poster for September 15th.


While the momentum for the Sept. 15 Peace/Impeachment demonstration grows, the Bush Administration is going to extraordinary lengths to suppress the mobilizing for this mass demonstration.

Less than 18 hours ago, National Park Service Police turned a September 15 Press Conference, held in front of the White House, into a chaotic scene. On the pretext that there was no permit for a three foot long folding table that the media placed their microphones on, the police intervened in the middle of the press conference to announce that it was an unpermitted activity. Three people were arrested and are still being held in jail. They include Adam Kokesh, an Iraq war veteran; Tina Richards of Grassroots America; and Ian Thompson an ANSWER Coalition organizer.

The Parks Police even rode a horse directly into the crowd of reporters and shocked onlookers. The National Parks Police is an agency in the Interior Department whose Secretary is a member of George W. Bush's cabinet. In recent weeks September 15 organizers have been fined more than $30,000 for putting up posters promoting the September 15 March on Washington.

We encourage ImpeachBush.org members to circulate this email and the important story from the AFP wire story that documents this outrageous assault against Free Speech rights by the Bush Administration. At the end of this email we are also enclosing a link to a video on YouTube that shows some part of the suppression of the September 15 press conference yesterday.

Bush and company want to prevent people from coming out for a mass action led by Iraq war veterans and their families that will expose his war propaganda as a lie. The Administration wants to suppress the growing movement for impeachment. This is a showdown of great magnitude.

(From Globa; Researcher's web site.)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 11:06 AM

Constitutional duty calls for us to impeach Bush, Cheney

            
Our constitution is a marvelous document that not only prohibits certain activities by our government, but also grants the people the right to correct executive wrongdoing through impeachment. "Impeach" is not a dirty word.


Our leaders have broken constitutional laws. They illegally detain, tap phones and arrange torture. Executive privilege has been abused beyond all reason with the extraordinary tactic of fear.

They have broken or abrogated hundreds of treaties, resulting in our worst reputation since 1776. We are sliding toward Second or Third World status due to their arrogance here and abroad, and near-total lack of action on domestic issues.

Bush blundered into an undeclared war against the wrong enemy, admitted it, then "took full responsibility," in the form of even more death and mayhem. The list of his and his staff's transgressions and domestic failures is almost endless.

Now, we the people must take the responsibility bestowed on us by our Constitution and impeach both Bush and Dick Cheney. If we fail, future administrations will consider it as acceptance, and fall even deeper into a dictator state.

Fred S. Manning
(IN a letter to IndyPress.com)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 07:26 PM

Former congresswoman calls out Bush for 9/11 response
By: Jackson Crews

Issue date: 10/4/07 Section: News
Print
Email

DoubleClick Any Word
Page 1 of 2 next >
Former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney condemned the Bush administration's handling of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks during a speech in front of more than 70 people yesterday at the First Christian Church.

Speaking on a range of issues, McKinney, a Democrat, drew loud applause several times, particularly after critizing how the administration responded to the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center towers in New York City.

"How in the world can we sustain the injuries from Sept. 11th and not even ask any questions about what happened that day?" she asked.

She said members of Congress received "talking points" in the days after the attack urging them to tell their constituents that "(the attackers) hate our freedom."

"I thought that the failure of the Bush administration to protect the American people on Sept. 11, in and of itself, constituted high crimes and misdemeanors."

McKinney wanted to impeach Bush, but her mother persuaded her not to follow through.

"I hand-wrote articles of impeachment, but my mother said, 'Leave it alone, Cynthia, because they will kill you,' " McKinney said.

Several times she addressed the close presidential elections in 2000 and 2004.

"In 2000 - don't let anybody fool you into thinking that Ralph Nader was the cause of the Democrats losing the election," she said, receiving a round of applause.

"The bottom line is that the Republicans stole the election, and they stole it off the hopes and the dreams of black and brown people in Florida; and then, in 2004, they did it again."

Yesterday marked McKinney's second visit to Tucson. It was organized by Claudia Ellquist, co-chair of the Arizona Green Party.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 07:27 PM

Take back our government
10/03/2007 08:42:21 AM PDT

"When is Congress going to listen to the American public and get us out of Iraq now, immediately.

No more funds for the war. Do not authorize one more single dollar for this war. Seventy percent of the American public does not want this war anymore.

Impeach Bush and Cheney for lying to the American public. Why hasn't the Speaker of the House brought charges against Bush? Enough is enough - stop spending money we don't have and can't afford.

Will someone please shake this president and wake him up or impeach him and get him out of the Oval Office? He is dishonest, even though some would like us to believe he has brought integrity to the office. What he has brought the American people is a load of crap.

I don't care if we are Republican, Democrat or independent, our president is out of touch with reality and we the American people must take back our government.

Fernando Ruelas, Hercules"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 07:28 PM

GUEST VIEWPOINT
Impeachable: Sufficient grounds have occurred to investigate actions of Bush, Cheney


TEACH-IN ON IMPEACHMENT

Come to a Teach-In on Impeachment from 7 to 9 p.m. Oct. 13 at the Forum Theater in Binghamton. The panelists will be John Nichols, author of "The Genius of Impeachment"; Elizabeth de la Vega, author of "The United States v. George W. Bush et. al."; and Tim Grippen, director of OFB and former Broome County executive. Admission is free, but come early to be sure of seat. Doors open at 6 p.m.

By Jim Clune
Post Comment

Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: "the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The key word highlighted here is "shall." In other words, members of the House of Representatives, who like all civil servants take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, are duty-bound to impeach, or at least act on a resolution to investigate, whenever there is evidence of an impeachable offense having been committed.

This is not a partisan issue, though it certainly was when President Clinton was impeached. His impeachable offense was not that he violated his marriage vows but that he lied about it under oath. Was that a "high crime or misdemeanor"? If it was, no citizen suffered because of it. No national or international law was ignored or perverted. Conversely when President Bush and Vice President Cheney lied, their lies caused the deaths and sufferings of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis. Their breaking of laws has discredited our country and set a precedent for the launching of future wars without the consent of Congress.

Given the overwhelming evidence that Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable offenses, there is no question that there are sufficient grounds to warrant an investigation. To let these offenses go unchallenged would have long-lasting repercussions. The transfer of power from the legislative to the executive branch would corrupt our constitutional system of checks and balance for years to come. The concept of preventive war would be legitimized. The endless "war on terror" hoax would make all future presidents "wartime," giving them dictatorial powers as "commanders in chief."

...

From here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 08:33 PM

Another month gone by Amos, and still no nearer your desired goal.

Now a rational person, after all this time, would ask themselves why.

The answer is because you are invoking a legal process that requires proof positive that an offense has been committed - It hasn't, which not matter how often you post with your "cut 'n pastes" there will never be a case to answer.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 08:46 PM

Ah, T, dream on, ole bud. The arrogance and arrogation of Bush's Bad Boys is so well documented it is awe-inspiring.

That's not the issue here at all.

Does it not strike you as bizarre that the Republican machine could levy an impeachment process for covering up a blow job, while the Demoscant levy one for covering up a whack job on the entire nation?

Where's your sense of irony? Or, if not irony, theater of the deeply absurd?

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 12:36 AM

October 3, 2007 at 19:58:10
A Spell from San Francisco: Impeach. Reason: Treason

by Elizabeth Ferrari    Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

                



"I may be wrong but it's likely that the impeachment demonstration we held in San Francisco on September 15 was the largest one outside of D.C. My friend, an entrepreneur with a laptop, a cell phone and a credit card, got us all together again to spell out "Impeach" with our bodies and filmed it against the backdrop of the San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge. This is our third outing. About a thousand of my neighbors are now the June Taylor Dancers of protest here in Nancy Pelosi's district. There was no ugliness, no rants from an amplified stage. The cops drank coffee at the edge of Crissy Field and we all enjoyed a rare moment of no tension between the First Amendment and law enforcement in a post Patriot Act world.


The organizer hired a helicopter to film us. You haven't done San Francisco until you've lain down in a field between two strangers and are buzzed by a black helicopter. On my left was a dad with two kids under three. To my right, a woman who works for the city and just happened to be walking by. Both of us are too old to be flash mobbing but desperate times really do call for desperate measures.




And, the "liberal" media went silent. Hundreds of people, beautiful images, tourists gathering on the walkways to watch. But, shhh! Please do not spill the secret that the progressive community in Nancy Pelosi's district is being shunned. And that's not hyperbole. Code Pink was there, PDA was there, the Greens were there, Iraq Veterans Against the War, present. The World Can't Wait, Impeach Bush Cheney, civilians who've never protested anything were there. Who am I leaving out? We were all there. And we will continue to be there until these criminals exploiting the structures of our government are sad history. But, it must be a real chore for our "liberal" media to ignore us all at the same time just as it must be difficult for Nancy Pelosi to ignore the expressed needs of her district.


I understand that the Democrats see an opportunity to enlarge their majority in 2008. But I don't see how anyone in the statesmanship business can discount the lives that will be lost in the next year. It only took Bush nine months to ignore every bit of intelligence that could have prevented September 11. It's taken about five years to get about a million Iraqis killed and about five million displaced – we could divide that number by five and do the math. We still don't know how many people perished when the levees breached in NOLA, and it's been two years. We know that the White House knew the levees failed and warned no one."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 06:11 PM

Former CIA analyst to discuss impeachment of Bush, Cheney
October 05, 2007
Central Valley - A former CIA analyst will present arguments for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney Sunday at Monroe-Woodbury High School.
Ray McGovern will talk about what he says are impeachable offenses by the president and vice president starting at 2 p.m. in the high school auditorium. The forum was organized by Citizens for Impeachment and other local groups.
McGovern served as an analyst for 27 years, starting with the administration of John F. Kennedy and continuing through George H. W. Bush's term.
...



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 12:29 PM

Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney

"I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming."


(From http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/88, which provides an email form to send the above demand to your representatives.)

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 11:31 AM

More reasons:

No, seriously. Asked if he's concerned that Vladimir Putin might suspend the constitution of Russia when his term is up, "in effect keeping power and dashing any hopes for a genuine democratic transition there," Bush actually told reporters Wednesday, "I've been planning that myself."

Forgive me if I forgot to laugh. Oh, he's just joshin'! That Dubya!

Then, the REAL barn burner, about the next Iraq: Iran. "I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have(sic) the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," Bush said. WHAT?!

In effect, he threatened the WORLD with WW III if Iran dares to gain the knowledge to make a weapon only the U.S. has used in wartime against another country. No aluminum tubes or WMDs needed to bring an invasion of your country now. Knowledge is enough. No president of this country has ever talked like that.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 07:53 AM

"The central issue in this November?s elections is the abject failure of our Republican Congress to deal with a Constitutional crisis which could result in the destruction of our nation as we know it. John Conyers? great report, ?The Constitution in Crisis ? The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Cover-ups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance?, says it all. The Constitutional crisis that we now find ourselves in is fundamentally different ? and worse ? than anything our country has faced since the Civil War.

The cause of this crisis is manifold, but there are two salient causes that are pertinent to this November?s elections: First, we have a presidential administration that, in addition to numerous other faults, has no respect for our Constitution, international law, or the rule of law in general. Indeed, they believe that no law applies to them. "

from Democratic Underground

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 09:22 AM

& we also have a democratic congress that refuses to confront this problem.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:55 PM

" You know, nobody is saying Blackwater set the fires, that is nobody that doesn't want their house burned down. "

"the fires are being set by elements of the Bush crime family. It's a great distraction, it's a wonderful distraction."

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 04:41 PM

Impeach Bush -- The Battle Cry Grows Louder New YouTube Video Posted By LOVE THE CONSTITUTION.com

Funny and disturbing new video On YouTube accompanies launch of LoveTheConstitution.com. Love the Constitution believes that Bush is killing the Constitution and Love the Constitution is dedicated to working towards his impeachment.

October 24, 2007 -- The public outcry for an impeachment of George W. Bush continues to grow louder, and a new video posted on YouTube offers an initially humorous and yet serious, hard-hitting, and graphically symbolic view of the effects of the actions of our current president, vice president and other cabinet members on the Constitution of the United States.

The video, posted on YouTube by www.LoveTheConstitution.com, is a cartoon depiction that shows just how much damage is being inflicted on the U.S. Constitution under the Bush-Cheney administration.

We have a government led by people who are systematically poisoning the future of our country. We see them blatantly ignoring the constitution and going against the presidential oath of office, in which George W. Bush swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That's not happening   
The video was created under the direction of Steve Organek, a New Jersey businessman who has taken it upon himself to begin a campaign to protect the Constitution by pointing out the administration's campaign of activities that fly in the face of the founding fathers' rationale for creating this most important document.

"This presidency has been chipping away at our fundamental liberties, including the government's illegal wire tapping. We've seen election fraud, military torture, the politicizing of the justice department, disregard for habeus corpus, lies about the need for war and much more. These activities cannot go un-checked. Most fly in the face of the Constitution, and the American public and other elected officials need to stop looking the other way," says Organek.

The animated short posted on YouTube shows President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice, and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales each taking their turn at violently stabbing a beating heart emblazoned with the Constitution. Each stab is accompanied by a disturbing battle cry. The heart bleeds more with each jab as statements documenting the impeachable offenses of the administration are shown on the screen. An American flag peaks out from under the constitution, symbolizing the ultimate damage this administration's actions are infringing upon the nation. The clip ends with a plea for impeachment.

A post on the organization's website says, "Bush and Cheney have trampled on the Constitution's system of checks and balances, crushed our civil liberties and embraced corruption as the natural order of government. At the same time, they've stifled dissent while parading the flag. That's the final insult - glorifying a symbol in the cause of marginalizing the Constitution. They have debased the Flag by using it to promote a fake patriotism. It's time to restore the flag's image and remind the world that the flag symbolizes principles established by that most magnificent of documents, the U.S. Constitution."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 02:55 PM

US anti-war ralliers: Impeach Bush
Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:06:30


"Demonstrators called for the impeachment of Bush.
Tens of thousands of people have staged anti-war rallies in cities across the US calling for the impeachment of Bush for war crimes.

Demonstrators marked the fifth anniversary of the US Senate's vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq in a dozen US cities including Boston, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New Jersey, Ohio, Orlando, Philadelphia, Salt Lake City and Seattle.

However, the biggest number of demonstrators, who included relatives of US soldiers in Iraq, gathered in New York, Chicago and San Francisco.

They criticized the Bush administration for spending billions of dollars for the war in Iraq, urging the Congress to cut off funding for the war and use the money for education, social housing and feeding the hungry.

Heavy rains did not stop rallies in New York, where thousands of people expressed disgust with Bush, voiced support for Palestinians, and opposed the US naval prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Demonstrators also condemned Bush's war rhetoric against Iran.

A two-minute silence was held in commemoration of the American soldiers and the Iraqi citizens who died since the US invasion on Iraq in 2003. "

---

Kucinich to Introduce Cheney Impeachment Resolution
By Bill Hare
10/29/2007 09:20:35 PM EST

Dennis Kucinich told a group organized by Progressive Democrats of America by telephone on October 23 that he intends to introduce to the House of Representatives on a point of personal privilege a resolution of impeachment against Dick Cheney sometime before Thanksgiving.

Impeachment is imperative in the face of Cheney-Bush neoconservative actions in brutal defiance of the U.S. Constitution and international law. A current point of international concern is the hot rhetoric coming from White House sources about Iran. It is comparable to that delivered before the Iraq War.

Progressives need to coalesce around Kucinich's noble and courageous effort. If an earnest investigation were to be undertaken the anger that would be generated throughout America would be considerable.

Individuals who have been unaware of the depths of plotting toward war and the machinations flowing there from would receive a wakeup call like that so many Americans received when the particulars were revealed during Richard Nixon's tenure.
...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Cruiser
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 09:02 PM

I would relish the impeachment of Mr. Bush. However, the Democrats have not demonstrated they are above reproach.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 10:53 PM

Well, I don't think anyone is without any sin.

And I agree with you about the impeachment part.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 09:21 PM

Poll: Vermont Wants Bush, Cheney Impeached (CBS News)

Nearly Two-Thirds Of State's Likely Voters Want President, VP Removed Before Term Ends

BURLINGTON, Vt., Nov. 1, 2007

President Bush and Vice President Cheney still have almost 15 months left in their term, but that's too long for some: A poll of likely voters in Vermont shows almost two-thirds want impeachment proceedings initiated to remove them from office now.
(CBS) Earlier this year, town meetings across Vermont asked citizens if impeachment proceedings should be initiated against the president and vice president. Thirty-seven towns voted yes, and the Senate approved a resolution calling for impeachment.

Now a statewide poll conducted by CBS affiliate WCAX in Burlington, Vt. posed the question to 400 likely voters. Sixty-one percent said they would be in favor of Congress beginning impeachment proceedings against President Bush. Thirty-three percent opposed it, and 6% were not sure.

The numbers for Vice President Cheney differed only slightly: Sixty-four percent favored impeachment, while 31% opposed it.

Seventy-five percent of respondents said they categorized the president's performance as "fair" or "poor."

"I'm really overjoyed by this," said Jimmy Leas, a South Burlington lawyer who has been a vocal advocate of impeachment. He told WCAX correspondent Kate Duffy that the poll shows "here in Vermont, nearly two-thirds of the public understand we have a serious problem, and the way to address this is to remove the officials who are usurping power."

"The impeachment results are somewhat surprising, frankly, to me," Middlebury College professor and columnist Eric Davis said.

He said the numbers are a sign that Vermonters are extremely dissatisfied with the administration.

"Even though their terms are ending in a little bit more than a year, a majority of Vermonters don't want to even see them remaining in office until January 20, 2009."

Vermont's legislature took up the impeachment issue last spring. The Senate passed a resolution calling for the president's impeachment, but a similar effort failed in the House.

Constitutionally, only Congress can impeach an executive, yet it could be spurred to do so by a state legislature, or by the motion of a single representative. According to the Jefferson Manual, if a House member introduces impeachment as a question of privilege, it would supersede all other business before the Congress and must be addressed. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 11:06 PM

Dennis Kucinich is soon going to be bringing a bill to the floor of the House that will be for impeaching VP Cheney. He needs people to contact their representatives to tell them to vote against any motion to table the bill.

Here's the text of the email that I sent to my Congressman...


Dear Congressman ......

I am a voter in your district. I ask for your attention to the following matter when it comes before you on the floor of the House.

Congressman Kucinich will soon be invoking a privilege of the house by submitting Resolution 333 (motion to impeach Vice President Cheney), and asking for consideration of the bill. I ask that you please vote against any motion to table this bill.

I ask you this for the sake of the future of our country. History is watching. What is done or not done in the next few months will be critical for the preservation of our most sacred and cherished institutions, for ourselves and for future generations.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 11:40 PM

Here's Dennis explaining how the procedure works...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zisvf7Ci70Y

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 01:14 AM

One more month Amos 700 Up!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Susan A-R
Date: 02 Nov 07 - 10:45 PM

I love my state, and nobody even asked me in that Vermont poll.

I have heard an interesting rumor, from a somewhat reliable source, that if impeachment procedings are underway and our fine president (cough, choke) decided to invade Iran, there are generals in the military who would not follow those orders. They'd follow them if procedings weren't under way though. Interesting. It would sound to me like some weird conspiracy, but it comes from a person I know and trust who is pretty involved in peace building.


One more good reason to impeach, as if we didn't have enough of 'em already.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 07 - 04:03 PM

A few current pieces on the impeachment question.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 10:36 AM

"Hallelujah! The evil Kucinich-Republican impeachment alliance was defeated by the noble forces of Democratic liberalism, whose "major priorities" right now do not include defending the United States Constitution against the abuse of power.

...There are a number of problems with this. I will mention three.

First, there's no point in having the weapon of impeachment on the constitutional books if it can't be wielded against Cheney and Bush. As Glen Ford observed last Spring, "if Cheney-Bush can't be impeached, nobody can.""...

From an impassioned essay in "The Dissident Voice".

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 01:45 PM

From Ulster County, New York:

"In symbolic vote, Ulster lawmakers calls for Bush, Cheney to be impeached
By William J. Kemble, Correspondent
11/14/2007

KINGSTON - An Ulster County committee on Tuesday endorsed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, but the Democratic members voting in favor said they won't pressure local congressional representatives to take action.

Members of the county Legislature's Efficiency, Reform and Intergovernmental Affairs Committees said the Bush administration has created an atmosphere of fear of the government.

"The President proposed and the Congress passed his military containment act of 2006, which allowed the President to declare anybody to be a illegal combatant, at which point they could be imprisoned without presenting any evidence, without habeas corpus and did not need to be brought to trial until the end of hostilities...which is endless," said Legislator Peter Liepmann, D-New Paltz. "That essentially means that any American citizen could be imprisoned indefinitely without bringing charges, without presenting any evidence, and ... this is a step on the path not to merely controlling the government but to fascism."

The resolution says Bush and Cheney appear to have "violated laws of the United States by numerous acts, including misleading Congress and the public by alleging threats from the nation of Iraq to justify war, the countenance of torture of prisoners, the surveillance of American citizens beyond the reach of judicial review, and arbitrarily subjecting citizens to indefinite detention without charge and denying them their constitutional rights to counsel and judicial relief."

The resolution, if approved by the full county Legislature next month, will be sent to U.S. Reps. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley; Kirsten Gillibrand, D-Greenport; and John Hall, D-Dover Plains.

The committee vote was 5-1 with Charles Busick, R-Highland, opposed. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 07:37 PM

ACLU of Southern California: Impeach Bush and Cheney

Do you want to know why it's so tedious sitting next to an ACLU board member at dinner? Well, now you'll know.

Yes, I know this is only the Sothern California branch. And National may not follow. But here is the morally smug and politically idiotic statement issued from the beach.

ACLU of Southern California Calls for Impeachment of Bush and Cheney -- Will National Follow?
ACLU-SC Calls for Impeachment of Bush and Cheney

The ACLU of Southern California has called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for High Crimes and Misdemeanors arising out of their abuse of power and numerous violations of the Constitution.

The Board of Directors of the ACLU-SC voted on November 14, 2007 without objection (and one abstention) to call on Congress to promptly convene impeachment hearings.

In March, 1971 and again in July, 1973 the ACLU-SC called for the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon. In September of 1973, the National Board of the ACLU joined the call for impeachment.

The ACLU-SC will shortly release a report detailing the grounds for impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 12:40 PM

When's it going to happen Amos?

Are you all worked up because Bush might actually succeed before he is impeached?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 12:47 PM

"Succeed" at what, Homey? I'd love to see some success come out of that cesspool of dismal dark-side power vortices.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 10:04 PM

Yeah. Well I want the Demos to get up off their whiny asses and impeach him too but I ain't all depressed over it like you. So what if the surge might work? Who cares? I got more enjoyable things to do rather than obsess on negative thoughts.

I ain't gong to let dark-side power vortices suck me down.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 09:40 PM

if Republicans are cleaning up Democrats' mess, they must be using cloths soaked in excrement to wipe up stains.

Bush has succeeded in cowing most Dems, getting his way while trampling on the Constitution.

Kucinich is the only Dem candidate with the temerity to step up to the plate against the
Bush Crime Family.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 11:35 PM

Protesters: Impeach Cheney
Political activists bring message to Port Huron

By BOBBY AMPEZZAN
Times Herald

Several people visiting the Port Huron post office Friday braved the cold and the season's first snowflakes to check out a small booth outside with a big sign that read, "Impeach Cheney."

John Morris, 47, of Livonia, and Judy Clark, 59, of Chicago, manned the stand, passing out information about Lyndon LaRouche, a regular if little-known political figure who is a perennial presidential candidate.

         Friday, they handed out fliers in support of impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney, whom LaRouche claims brought on the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Another flier — titled "LaRouche warns you again: The dollar system has crashed: Will you now act to save the nation?" — warned the country's financial markets are disintegrating
"I like to talk to people like him," said Dick Megregian, 75, of St. Clair, nodding in Morris' direction, before asking him, "How do you deal with the fact that if you guys lived in Iran you'd be dead by now?"

On the table were several self-published books by LaRouche, fliers, signs, and a manual credit card imprinter. Morris and Clark would not say if they had collected any donations, but they were collecting contact information from people such as Rich Seifferlein, 40, of Port Huron.
"This good lady asked for a minute, and I gave it to her," he said, referring to Clark. "It's not hard. More people need to do it. This is valuable information."

Despite meeting with hostile responses to his message, Morris said he has come to the area several times before for similar campaigns, and he will again.

"I like coming to Port Huron because people are passionate about politics," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:58 AM

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: November 20, 2007

The siblings Vanessa, Lynn and Corin Redgrave have joined the journalists, military officials, entertainers and academics participating in "A Question of Impeachment," a series of evenings, presented by the Culture Project, exploring the case for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The first event in the series took place yesterday at the Culture Project theater at 55 Mercer Street in SoHo. "The Redgraves: Poems From Guantánamo," which will take place on Dec. 9 at 7:30 p.m., includes recitations from "Guantánamo: The Detainees Speak" (University of Iowa, 2007), a collection of poems written by detainees. Marc Falkoff, a lawyer for some of the detainees and the editor of the collection, will take part in the event. For information: cultureproject.org.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 12:07 PM

Presently, Guantanamo is the holing cell/home to a 20 yr old kid who 5 yrs ago was captured at the age of 15. He is just now being brought to trial as an adult for war crimes. If he is a soldier, isn't that what soldiers do, kill their enemy? That is what he's being tried for but this isn't what's reasoned as a war crime! I believe the Geneva Convention deals with child soldiers but again we prefere to violate international law. Just another reason in the long list of reasons for impeachment.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 12:25 PM

Saturday, November 24
BRATTLEBORO -- A presidential candidate and a writer for The Nation will be in Hanover, N.H., Monday night to discuss the history of impeachment. They are also hoping to dispel "myths and misinformation" about the process, said Dan DeWalt, of Newfane, a member of the Northeast Impeachment Coalition.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and John Nichols, The Nation's Washington reporter, will be members of a panel discussing impeachment at the Moore Hall-Filene Auditorium on the campus of Dartmouth College.

Other members of the panel include Army veteran Adrienne Kinne, New Hampshire representative Betty Hall, John Kaminski, Chairman of the Maine Lawyers for Democracy and Tim Carpenter, president of Progressive Democrats.

"A growing number of prominent Americans and organizations have been organizing impeachment educational events throughout the country," wrote DeWalt in an e-mail announcing the event.

This type of forum is needed because the media has ignored the issue, said DeWalt, from his home in Newfane.

"The slant given to it by who the media report on is a political one," he said. It's not about politics, said DeWalt. It's about


the U.S. Constitution and how the current administration has abused its powers to wage an illegal war and has ignored the checks and balances of government.
Because the country's elected representatives have refused to consider the impeachment of President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, said DeWalt, it's up to the citizens of the nation to make it happen.

"It should be investigated," said DeWalt. "Impeachment is a likely thing that should happen."

(From the Brattleboro Informer.)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 09:49 AM

Impeachment: If not now, when?
Lawmakers need to stand up for the Constitution and support impeachment
By LINDA BOYD
GUEST COLUMNIST

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. -- Article II, Section 4

On Nov. 6, Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney on the floor of the House of Representatives. For one shining moment the will of the majority of Americans and the promise of this nation's founders were truly represented.

The detailed charges were solemnly read from the House podium and televised on C-Span. House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer made a motion to table the bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lobbied hard for votes to table.

In a stunning turnaround, House Republicans changed strategy and voted decisively to prevent tabling the impeachment resolution.

Pelosi was defied by 85 Democratic members who voted against tabling the impeachment resolution. This includes John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and six committee members. The resolution was quickly voted back to the Judiciary Committee, where it is not resting quietly.

Judiciary Committee member Bob Wexler wrote, "The American people are served well with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months. Only through hearings can we begin to correct the abuses of Dick Cheney and the Bush administration."

Impeachment is squarely on the table, and momentum is building. A year ago, almost no elected official breathed the word impeachment. Now impeachment has hit the House floor, and our electeds have gone on record. Millions of Americans are demanding an end to executive abuse of power.

After six years of state of emergency, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, continual war and occupations, our Constitution is deeply in crisis. Americans are in danger of losing our system of government and civil rights if they do not roll back the Bush administration's assault on the rule of law.

Allowing Cheney and George W. Bush to finish their terms without being impeached means future presidents are free to copy their lawless behavior. Of course many important issues deserve the attention of Congress. But the Constitution is the foundation of our democracy, not just an issue. Without the Constitution, we have nothing. ...

From SeattlePI.com.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 12:06 PM

"...Now, Bush and Cheney are much more politically vulnerable to impeachment and criminal prosecution. Also newsworthy is that the mainstream media this time around, at least currently, is mostly treating all this as a non-story, with barely a follow-up mention of McClellan's bombshell and its implications. And I've seen no story in the corporate media that mentions Bush's granting of clemency to Libby as a possible obstruction of justice by someone who stands to benefit by Libby's continued silence.

If a scandal falls in the forest, and nobody hears it, did it happen?

WE KNOW THEIR THUGGISHNESS

Here's the encouraging truth. The American public, despite all attempts by the rightwing media to distract and distort, long ago became pretty much aware of the worst crimes, and incompetencies, of the CheneyBush Administration.

How can one not be aware of the following high crimes and misdemeanors?

==>their lies to get America into Iraq.

==>rationalizing violations of our privacy without any court approval (warrantless wiretapping, secretly rifling through our computers, our emails).

==>"disappearing" U.S. citizens and throwing them into jails on military bases with no access to lawyers.

==>encouraging torture of prisoners in U.S. care.

==>skirting international law and war-crimes treaties by "rendering" suspects to countries that specialize in extreme torture.

==>canceling the 800-year-old legal tradition of habeas corpus where an arrested person has to be arraigned in court and a judge must decide whether there is enough evidence to take the accused to trial or to let him/her go.

==>enabling corruption by U.S. corporations in Iraq and Afghanistan that amounts to grand larceny of billions from U.S. taxpayers.

==>responding cluelessly to the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans whereupon more than a thousand citizens died.

And on and on..."

(Excerpted from http://journals.democraticunderground.com/CrisisPapers/138

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 10:35 PM

ANOVER, N.H. -- It was a night of impassioned oratory bringing together regional and national leaders of the impeachment movement, ranging from Newfane Selectboard member Dan DeWalt to presidential candidate and U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.
Though billed as a "teach in" and held at Dartmouth College, impressionable students were far outnumbered by gray-haired veterans of a movement that began in southern Vermont and has since spread throughout New England.

John Nichols, Washington correspondent for The Nation and author of "The Genius of Impeachment," provided the emotional centerpiece of the evening, listing the impeachable offenses he believes President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have committed and quoting the founding fathers' support of the practice.

In writing the Constitution, Nichols said, the founders "made six references to impeachment. It's the message in the bottle. Uncork the bottle. Impeach Dick Cheney and George Bush."

In introducing members of a panel consisting of Kucinich, Nichols and Iraq Veterans Against the War New England coordinator Adrienne Kinne, DeWalt told the audience of 200 that the impeachment movement would field congressional candidates in Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont.

Confirming that U.S. Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., would be a target of their efforts, DeWalt said that either he or Kinne would challenge the freshman congressman in his 2008 re-election.

"It's not like either one of us is jonesing to go to Congress. But we feel we have an obligation to call attention to a major failing on the part of our representative," DeWalt said after the forum. "If we really believe in this, we have to act on it."

DeWalt said impeachment leaders would settle on a candidate for the race in January or Februrary.

Welch, who has been the target of Vermont impeachment supporters since last spring, received muted support from members of the panel.

Kucinich, who called Welch "a good man with a good sense of his constituency," said Democratic party leaders were putting the squeeze on all members of their caucus -- be they freshmen or committee chairmen -- to vote against impeachment.

Nichols said that while Welch "has not been a leader on impeachment," the congressman is moving in the right direction -- particularly with his vote to support debating the impeachment of Cheney.

"We saw the impact of what the people of Vermont have already done," Nichols said, attributing Welch's vote to the efforts of those in the audience. "The fact of the matter is those 85 members who voted with (Kucinich) already felt the heat."

(From the Brattleboro Refomer.)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 28 Nov 07 - 02:24 AM

Amos, that's Hanover, NH

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Nov 07 - 10:01 AM

Thanks, mate. I didn't notice I'd clipped the lead letter.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 01:35 PM

If Impeachment is Out, How About Damnation?

Posted November 30, 2007 | 12:15 PM (EST)


         

As I watched the Republican YouTube Bible Class the other day, with all the candidates contending for the holier than thou vote, all except Rudy, the reformed reprobate, from whom newly revealed sins keep spitting out like quarters from the jackpot of a Vegas slot-machine, I was struck by an idea of theological proportions. Inspired by the sight of all the Republican fat cats pretending that their lives are lived as an imitation of Christ, whose mission in life, as I understand it, was to comfort the sick and the poor and ready the rest of us for the Kingdom of Heaven, these candidates prefer to support the richest and most powerful as they vie with each other to express their contempt for the planet earth, as well as their hatred for the very "aliens," those strangers Christ would have comforted.

A bell rang in my head, no, not quite a bell, more like one of those light-bulbs that go on over the head of a cartoon character like Dagwood in "Blondie" as he comes up with an idea for a new sandwich. The gist of it is that Bush will leave office un-impeached thanks to a timid Democratic leadership and that this is an offense against man and God and the Constitution. So we will have to help God in accomplishing justice, if not on earth, in the hereafter. Thus the "Bush for Damnation" movement which I am starting here and now. Here's my personal rationale for it. ...

(Balance of the explanation for this charming alternative can be found on this page. I like this guy.)

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 05:57 AM

And yet another month slips past Amos and still no sign of any impeachment proceedings.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 09:23 AM

Mock away, T. Mock away. Decency grinds slow, but exceeding fine.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 07 - 03:49 AM

No mockery Amos, merely a simple observation and statement of fact.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Dec 07 - 04:30 AM

The impeachment proceedings have begun. Whether or not they continue is the only question.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 02:35 PM

"This is the most arrogant, incompetent administration I've ever seen personally or ever read about." -- Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.

DETROIT -- Chuck Hagel, a student of history, can read until the cows come home before he finds any administration as arrogant and incompetent as President George W. Bush's. Hagel's spot-on assessment of Bush's disastrous presidency really should dominate the campaign for his successor.

Whatever the candidates say they would like to do is overshadowed by the monumental mess they will inherit, and Bush still has time to wreak more havoc on the nation and world. Hagel noted it would take the next president at least four years to "dig out from under" the dung heap of the horrible Bush years. Hagel is an optimist.

He made his remarks last week before the Council on Foreign Relations. While expressing confidence that new leadership in the White House can set the nation back on track, the senator lamented Bush's rejection of the opportunity to reach out to a sympathetic world.

"I think this administration, what they could have done after 9/11, what was in their grasp. Every poll in the world showed 90 percent of the world was with us," Hagel said. "Iran had some of the first spontaneous demonstrations on the streets of Tehran supporting America. They squandered a tremendous amount of opportunity."

Bush never misses an opportunity to ramp up fear of Iran, and many Democrats join in the hysteria, as Hillary Clinton did when she voted for a Senate resolution declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Bush and his neoconservative Dr. Strangeloves want to create a trifecta of violence in the Muslim world, adding Iran to their other "success stories" in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Scott Ritter, the former chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, predicts Bush is planning to attack Iran in the spring of 2008, before "the crazy political season of the summer." In an interview with Detroit's Metro Times, Ritter explained how Bush's aggression continues unchecked, in spite of the manifest failures in Iraq:

"The Democrats, one would hope, would live up to their rhetoric, that is, challenging the Bush administration's imperial aspirations. Once it became clear Iraq was an unmitigated disaster, one would have thought that when the Democrats took control of Congress, they would have sought to reimpose a system of checks and balances, as the Constitution mandates. But instead the Democrats have put their focus solely on recapturing the White House, and, in doing so, will not do anything that creates a political window for their Republican opponents."

Many Democrats are nervous about being branded weak on terror and the predictable Republican slur that they are defending Iran's wacky president and Holocaust-denier, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"The Democrats don't want to go up against that," Ritter said. "They don't have the courage of their conviction to enter into that debate."

But Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., is showing some resolve and facing off with Bush with a pledge to press for impeachment if the president authorizes a military strike on Iran.

"The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran and ... if he does, as foreign relations committee chairman and former chairman of judiciary, I move to impeach him." Biden told a crowd during a campaign stop in New Hampshire last week. Biden got a roar from the crowd, adding, "If you're going to impeach George Bush, you better impeach Cheney first."

Vice President Dick Cheney had another heart scare last week, but after a hospital visit -- paid for by his government health insurance -- he's reported to be doing just fine. Doctors used an electrical current to correct Cheney's irregular heartbeat. The two-and-a-half-hour procedure won't cost our multi-millionaire vice president a dime. God bless socialized medicine!

Biden got off one of the better lines in the campaign when he described a Rudy Giuliani' stump speech. "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence -- a noun, a verb and 9/11," Biden quipped.

Giuliani scares the hell out of me, and it is stunning how many people think this guy is fit for the presidency, even as we learn more about his megalomania and narcissism that might actually exceed Bush's.

In fact, Giuliani and Mitt Romney, the Republican frontrunners, are in a contest to sell themselves as "Uber Bush," like "Shrub on steroids." They fashion themselves as tougher than the impetuous cowpoke whose swagger and arrogance have brought so much suffering to the world. Giuliani and Romney seek to top that record.

Tough guy Giuliani is trying explain how he did everything on the up and up when he was mayor of New York City, and the taxpayers paid tens of thousands of dollars in travel expenses for his security detail while he was shacking up with his mistress at her love nest in Southampton, Long Island. Judith Nathan would later become Mrs. Rudy Giuliani III.

Giuliani whined that the report in "The Politico" an online journal was not true. "Politico" used New York's Freedom of Information law to force the release of the expense reports and American Express records, which Giuliani kept hidden when he was mayor.

The expenses were buried in the budgets of obscure agencies in the city government, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the mayor's police security detail. Just routine accounting, Giuliani wants us to believe.

Anthony V. Carbonetti, one of Giuliani's political advisers, told The New York Times, "These are all legitimate expenses incurred by the NYPD while performing their duty protecting the mayor."

The issue is: Was it legitimate to bury the expenses, and did Giuliani's accounting minions provide him cover and protect the mayor from exposure for sticking the taxpayers with the bill as he performed his extramarital duty?

As loathsome as Giuliani is personally -- more vile revelations are sure to come -- it is his position on the role of the United States in the world that makes him unfit for the presidency.

He is certainly the first candidate for president ever to make violating the Geneva Convention and U.S. War Crimes Act an important plank in his platform.

Former lawman Giuliani wants to throw international law out the window as he embraces water-boarding. Giuliani shrugged off the torture technique recognized as such since the Middle Ages, saying, "It depends how it is done."

He also did what seemed to be impossible, surrounding himself with a team of foreign policy advisers even nuttier than Bush's people. Giuliani has chosen Norman Podhoretz, the columnist and "Godfather of neoconservatism," to head his team as senior foreign policy adviser.

Podhoretz is crazy as an outhouse rat, and his ties to Giuliani tell us all we need to know about the direction we would take in the world.

Podhoretz has been pleading with Bush to launch an attack on Iran as soon as possible. Podhoretz calmly said in an interview, "Well, if we were to bomb the Iranians, as I hope and pray we will, we'll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we've experienced so far look like a love fest."

...

(Excerpted from the Niagara Falls Reporter).

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Dec 07 - 10:37 AM

On the Road to Oust Bush
By Michael C. Juliano
Article Launched: 12/12/2007 03:28:04 PM EST


A 60-year-old man from Vermont has been going the extra mile with the hopes of ousting President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney from the Oval Office -- 485 miles to be exact.
With a blue coat on his back and a yellow sign calling for Bush's impeachment in his hand, John Nirenberg, a professor of organizational behavior at the Marlboro College Graduate Center in Brattleboro, Vt., began walking on Dec. 1 from Boston's State House to the nation's capital.

Hoping to arrive in Washington before Bush's State of the Union Address in late January, he plans to deliver a petition of signatures he has been collecting along the way to the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. When asked if Pelosi knows he's on his way, Nirenberg said an Associated Press reporter called her office seeking comment on his walk, to which a spokesman sent a stock answer.

"I'm also sending her a letter hoping she'll talk to me," he said. "She seems nice enough and I don't see why she wouldn't."

As he makes his way along the Post Road, he plans to stop in Westport from 10 to 11 a.m. on Saturday to join the weekly peace vigil on the Ruth Steinkraus Cohen Memorial Bridge. From there, he will make his way toward Norwalk to attend another vigil from 12:30 to 2 p.m. at Norwalk City Hall, 125 East Ave.

---

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 07 - 04:01 PM

Rep. Robert Wexler (FL-19) and two other Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee - Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) and Tammy Baldwin (WI-02) - today called on the committee to begin impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney.

They declared, "The charges are too serious to ignore. There is credible evidence that the Vice President abused the power of his office, and not only brought us into an unneccesary war but violated the civil liberties and privacy of American citizens. It is the constitutional duty of Congress to hold impeachment hearings."

The three Democrats wrote an op-ed to announce their position, but none of the nation's leading newspapers would publish it - just as they refuse to include impeachment in their polls, and just as they refuse to publish their own investigations of the crimes of the Bush Administration. Why? Because the Corporate Media is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, as it has been since the Reagan Revolution of 1980.

So this important announcement was made on a Blogcall hosted by Democrat.com, and was covered by progressive blogs - the only news media that serves the people, not the Corporations. 

You can read the full op-ed at Rep. Wexler's new site -  http://wexlerwantshearings.com  - where you can also watch a powerful video by Wexler.

Rep. Wexler needs to collect 50,000 signatures to convince his Democratic colleagues that the American people truly support impeachment hearings. So please sign his petition:
http://wexlerwantshearings.com

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

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - A group of protesters wants U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin to lead an effort to impeach President Bush and keep the United States from attacking Iran.

About 20 people organized by MoveOn.org crowded into Baldwin's Madison office and demanded she become a leading voice for impeachment. They also presented her staff with a petition declaring Americans don't want another war and Bush has no authority to attack Iran.

MoveOn's Madison coordinator Patty Zahler says the petition has 1,200 signatures. The organization planned to drop off identical petitions at congressional offices around the country.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Dec 07 - 08:06 PM

An American hero does what he can.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 01:51 PM

by Rob Kall    Page 1 of 2 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com
   

Too many people are thinking about impeachment as an act aimed at removing the president. And it's true, that is one aspect of the impeachment process. But that's putting the cart before the horse. The most important reason to impeach is to open up hearings-- hearings that Bush is not allowed to claim presidential privilege to block subpoenas.

Dealing with the most secretive white house admin in history, it is certain that most congressionial hearings will be impeded to great extreme. We've already seen this over and over again.

The Whitehouse, Bush and Cheney are hiding from and blocking the truth on so many fronts.

We know that when aggressive hearings on any subject are held, concrete results are produced. Look at the Gonzales hearings. They worked to get rid of Gonzales and to cast much more light on attorneygate. I don't think it is a coincidence that Pete Domenici is not running for senate again. He's another victim of the hearings, or should I say, "positive result?"

Congressional hearings are the THE answer to exposing corruption, fraud and criminal and treasonous acts.

There's one problem. Bushco can block too many of the subpoenas.

Fortunately, there's a solution.
Holding impeachment hearings.

Before the congress actually acts to impeach, it holds hearings. There is one difference between usual hearings and impeachment hearings. Presidential privelege to refuse to allow testimony is not allowed.

You heard that right. The president cannot block witnesses from testifying when the hearings are about impeachment.

I'm not sure if an impeachment hearing for the vice president precludes the president from blocking testimony. But if Bush tries to do it, that would be excellent reason to include Bush in the impeachment hearings also.

There shouldn't be a hurry to vote on impeaching Bush or Cheney. There SHOULD be a hurry to start holding impeachment hearings. Before the house of representatives actually holds a vote on impeachment, it must hold hearings. This is where the findings come out. This is where we learn in detail about the abuses, the crimes, the treason that we suspect occurred.

There are so many ongoing congressional hearings that are being blocked by the Bush administration. How many of them would be opened wide if they were held in coordination with impeachment hearings? The answer is-- a whole lot.

This is a different way of thinking about impeachment-- as a process, not an outcome. The process is the aspect of impeachment that is most important in healing America. It is the process that will clearly, step-by-step, reveal the abuses and crimes, the lies and deceptions. As I've been saying for over a year (Nov. 13, 2006 Ultimately, Republicans Will Force Bush/Cheney Resignation,) hearings will start with lower level workers. They will turn over higher level power brokers who will, ultimately, to protect themselves, testify against those at the top of committed the worst offenses. ...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 07 - 06:53 PM

Former CIA analyst says evidence abounds for impeachment

By GRETYL MACALASTER
Article Date: Friday, December 21, 2007

Veteran CIA analyst and daily presidential briefer Ray McGovern discusses "Inside INTELLIGENCE: Behind the headlines on the Iran 'Threat', our Constitutional Crisis, Prisoner Treatment and September 11th" Monday night at the Portsmouth Public Library.
(Aaron Leclerc/Staff photographer)


PORTSMOUTH Ñ The evidence for impeachment of the president and vice president is overwhelming, former CIA analyst and daily presidential briefer Ray McGovern told a room full of people at the Portsmouth Public Library Monday night.

McGovern, who provided daily briefings for former presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush as well as other high ranking officials during his 27 year CIA career, said he has witnessed a "prostitution of his profession" as the Bush administration lied to the American people about the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"Don't let anyone tell you the President was deceived by false intelligence ... they knew," McGovern said.

For the next 40 minutes, he relayed a series of events leading up to 9/11 which illustrate the President's desire to go to war with Iraq well before 9-11, that reliable CIA evidence showed that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and was presented to the administration and the "facts were fixed" in order to legitimize the invasion.

"The estimate which said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was prepared to the terms of reference laid down by Dick Cheney in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002. It was the worst estimate of intelligence and came to the wrong conclusions, but it was designed to do that," McGovern said.

McGovern has been an outspoken commentator on intelligence-related issues since the late 1990s and since 2002 has been publicly critical of Bush's use of government intelligence in the lead-up to the war.

The recent report detailing Iran's stopping its nuclear weapons program four years ago, is an example of how the administration knows it can no longer hide such "incontrovertible evidence" from the American people in the fallout from the misinformation they received on the Iraq War, McGovern said. He added that he had almost given up on believing their were people still working at the top with a conscious and enough people at the top willing to let analysts do their job and accept independent analysis.

In late 2005, Congress requested an estimate on Iranian nuclear capabilities.

"My former colleagues got really good, incontrovertible evidence that the program, such as it was, has been ordered stopped since 2003. The evidence was such that not even Dick Cheney could deny it. That's why the report was not produced until three weeks ago," McGovern said, adding that the Bush administration has been putting "spin" on their rhetoric ever since.

McGovern also addressed the reasoning he believes is behind the threat of war with Iran. He said he believes Israel thinks they have a pledge from the White House to deal with Iran before Bush leaves office and relayed the story of the U.S.S. Liberty, which was attacked by the Israelis in 1967 and covered up by the United States. Thirty-four U.S soldiers were killed and about 170 were seriously injured.

"It seems to me, that on June, 8, 1967, Israel realized it could literally get away with murder," McGovern said.

McGovern said he also believes Congress will be of little help. Recently House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted to learning about torture and illegal eavesdropping in briefings, but said it was her understanding when briefed, that she will not share the information with anyone else, including other members of the House Intelligence Committee.

McGovern called Pelosi out on violating her oath to uphold the Constitution "against enemies, foreign or domestic" by allowing acts in violation of the Constitution to continue by not saying "diddly."

He added that although an impeachment bill currently in Congress is gaining more support, Democrats are shying away because of the influence of lobbies and political analysts telling them to "wait it out" until the election.

Charges in the impeachment bill sponsored by Dennis Kucinich, are very detailed and "as good as any," McGovern said, and referenced the illegal eavesdropping of American citizens. He added that the President has "admitted" to this "demonstrably impeachable offense."...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 01:50 PM

ust as Watergate brought down Richard Nixon, I finally have hope that the destruction of the CIA torture tapes will end the presidency of the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America.
   George W. Bush has managed to squirm out from under previous allegations of misconduct and lying. Destroying videotapes that refute his assertions that he and his administration did not torture prisoners goes way beyond the Òhigh crimes and misdemeanorsÓ section of the Constitution that would allow Congress to impeach him. Former president Bill Clinton's antics that resulted in his impeachment pale in comparison to the lies, deceit and fabrications made by George W. Bush.
   It is high time that Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, stop pussyfooting around and get down to the business of impeaching both the president and vice president before they can do any more damage to our Constitution and our country.
   
   Richard D. Muranaka
   Salt Lake City

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Dec 07 - 01:53 PM

"Brattleboro Vermont resident Kurt Daims has drafted a ballot question petition calling for the town to indict George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for crimes against the Constitution, and making it the law that if either man comes to town, he would be liable to arrest.

            Some will say that this is just another unenforceable ordinance at best, and an absurdity at worst. Others worry that it will detract from the gravity of the impeachment movement as it stands today, on the cusp of forcing hearings in the House Judiciary committee. The argument will be made that such ÒextremeÓ rhetorical proclamations only serve to divide us further from each other, marginalizing the demand for accountability, rather than promoting it.


            Upon reflection these arguments can be answered and laid to rest.

            To date, the most persuasive and productive arguments for impeachment have been based upon the Constitution, which is suffering most egregiously under this administration and Congress, and which expressly proscribes the remedy to be taken should these circumstances arise. And while these arguments are making headway in the halls of Congress, where impeachment must happen, the politicians who are supposed to represent us do not yet understand the depth and breadth of our disgust and dismay with their dereliction of duty. While a growing number have joined the call for impeachment, far too many are towing the identical Republican/Democratic party line of ignoring the Bush/Cheney administrationÕs repeated constitutional violations.

            When we last faced a King George who labored to: Òsubject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our ConstitutionÓ by: Òdepriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offensesÓ, when we last found that Òour repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injuryÓ, we knew what conclusion to draw: ÒA prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.Ó These of course are quotes from the Declaration of Independence. And when this document was solemnly signed and made public, it had no legal standing whatsoever. It had no chance of succeeding against the worldÕs greatest empire. It alienated the colonists still friendly to England. It drew a line that clearly demarcated the divide that already existed in colonial society. Those who signed it were branded as radicals and, in fact, made outlaws by virtue of their signatures.

            Independence was declared because the laws and actions of the government were violating the laws of nature and common morality. As members of a commonweal, colonists understood that it was their inherent right, if not duty, to rise in defense of societal standards of humanity, decency and fairness. Mr. Daims and others who drafted the Brattleboro Bush/Cheney Indictment are acting in the same spirit, and with the same moral authority as our founders did in 1776.

            Prosecutors in France, Spain and many other countries have issued indictments for crimes against humanity committed outside of their borders, without regard to the nationality of the perpetrator. In some cases, prosecutors have won arrests, extraditions and prosecutions. Why shouldnÕt Brattleboro give precedence to Constitutional, American and International law, rather than bow to political expediency and a misplaced desire to not rock the boat? The boat has already foundered. The nation is already divided. Our political leaders have debased themselves and rendered our Republic dysfunctional.

            Let us support this call for an indictment. Let Brattleboro show the nation that in the current course of events, it has become necessary for Americans to take action. The current government respects neither the Constitution nor the people. Let us represent ourselves."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 09:28 PM

Go, Brattleboro!

A friend sent me this, recently, it's useful when contemplating the idjit in the White House:

"People pay for what they do, and still more for what they have allowed themselves to become, and they pay for it simply: by the lives they lead."
                                       ---James Baldwin

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:52 PM

"In Sunday's Washington Post, George McGovern, at 85-years-old, sternly recommends that Congress ought to impeach Bush and Cheney ("Why I Believe Bush Must Go: Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse"), even though much prevailing sentiment runs decidedly against it. He explains that after the 1972 presidential election, he, too, was of a mind to refrain from calling for Nixon's impeachment, namely out of a concern that his reproach would be perceived as a vendetta. He regrets that today, members of Congress are making similar calculations and accommodations and that impeachment is, therefore, highly unlikely.

Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.


Yet the facts won't simply go away, McGovern reminds us, even as members of Congress and mainstream media pundits try to ignore them and to deny the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from them: Bush and Cheney "are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses." They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have willfully broken laws. They have lied to the American people. They have almost certainly committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." The consequences of their actions have been devastating and will be long-lasting. They should be investigated, impeached, and tried. Period.

My sense is that McGovern already knows that the purveyors of Conventional Beltway Wisdom will roll their eyeballs dismissively at his wayward op-ed. No one's in the mood for impeachment: It would be such a distraction, it would be such a downer, it could backfire, Democrats are on a roll, Republicans would never go along with it, we're all basking in Obamuckabee calls for transcending nastiness, let's move forward, it's the campaign season, hope hope hope, change change change, blah blah blah.

I don't think McGovern really expects it to happen. He's writing, instead, for the historical record. "How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality, and lawlessness?"

Put it this way: If Congress doesn't impeach Bush and Cheney, then that section of the Constitution -- Article II, Section 4 -- will be rendered hereafter, for all practical purposes, null and void. No U.S. president and vice president will ever need to worry about impeachment--about being constrained by the rule of law--since the precedent for permissible lawlessness, recklessness, and incompetence will have been set so very low.

What presidential malfeasance could ever be worse? Illegal war. Torture. Plame-gate treason. Abu Ghraib. Katrina. Guantanamo. Illegal surveillance. Halliburton no-bid contracts. Blackwater. K-Street corruption. Enron. Politicizing the Justice Department. Signing statements. And so on. Hard to imagine a U.S. administration sinking much lower.

According to the U.S. Constitution, members of Congress "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." That's their stipulated job. If members of the 110th Congress fail to make a concerted effort in the upcoming year to uphold Article II, Section 4 of that same document, they are liable to down in history as abdicating their own constitutional duties. "

---

Excerpted from The Huffington Report


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 02:11 PM

"The evidence for impeachment of the president and vice president is overwhelming, former CIA analyst and daily presidential briefer Ray McGovern told a room full of people at the Portsmouth Public Library Monday night."

Then I would have thought that Mr McGovern would have bothered to present this "so-called" evidence that has so far underwhelmed the majority as yet another month slips past into a new year Amos.

Just think another eleven such milestones and it will all be acedemic.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 07:49 PM

"1/9/2008 12:53:00 PM         Email this article ¥ Print this article
Letter: Reasons for impeachment
Editor, Leader:

In Steve Hurley's letter to the editor in the Dec. 26 Leader, he calls campaigning for impeachment a waste of time. The first phrase of his last paragraph is "I may be missing something," so I'd like to bring up several points I feel Steve may be missing.

Yes, it is very late in the term to start impeachment proceedings, but since our representatives seem more influenced by large donations from corporations that profit from Bush's wars than by their constituents, we want to convince them that enough people are starting to pay attention so that money for TV ads might not be what elects them in 2008. If we can do that, the impeachment proceedings need not take so long.

I see a hope that the people of our country can be awakened from the trance induced by fearmongering of profit-motivated media monopolies, and that an impeachment campaign may help do that. Also, if impeachment is carried as far as a trial in the Senate, it could be a chance for the Republican Party to regain some of its lost integrity and credibility, as with Richard Nixon's resignation. I was talking with a Republican friend recently who said she was really distressed that it was all right for them to lie.

Steve writes that "time would be better spent helping the person you would like to see as the next president." The person I would very much like to see as our next president is Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has filed for impeachment of Dick Cheney. I see my two campaign efforts enhancing each other.

Finally, even though I feel that Kucinich is the only candidate from either party who is proposing plans that could move us in really responsible, sustainable directions, I do not want him or anyone else to inherit the precedent of illegal power abuse that not holding Bush, Cheney and company responsible for would leave for future presidents.:

WILLY STARK

Port Townsend

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 03:27 PM

From the Bangor, Maine Bangor News:

Cheney Impeachment
By BDN Staff
Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - Bangor Daily News


Over the past 18 months, a core group of Democrats and others from the left has steadfastly maintained that President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be impeached. Mainstream Democrats in Congress are sympathetic to their arguments, but most have bowed to the political reality that impeachment proceedings would gridlock the federal government in the last year of the Bush administration, distract lawmakers from resolving problems that affect the daily lives of Americans, and possibly trigger an endless cycle of reprisal impeachment attempts for future administrations.

There is another angle on this difficult question, raised by Rep. Michael Michaud in a Dec. 21 letter to Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "There is no doubt that at the very least this Administration has dangerously expanded the scope of executive authority and flaunted the constitutionally defined separation of powers," Rep. Michaud wrote.

The letter urges Rep. Conyers to schedule impeachment hearings on Mr. Cheney, though not on the president's conduct. Those supporting impeachment argue Cheney in his role in the administration has repeatedly violated the Constitution on matters such as warrantless telephone eavesdropping, deliberately misled Congress and the American people about the threat posed by Iraq and Iran, revealed the name of a CIA agent, and ordered the abuse of prisoners in violation of international treaties.

The specific alleged abuses of power will, for the most part, fade away when the Bush-Cheney administration leaves Washington. But the "dangerously expanded" powers of the executive branch cited by Rep. Michaud could remain in place. Those powers will be inherited regardless of which party takes the White House, and while Democrats may relish the opportunities that come with an expanded presidency, ultimately, such an imbalance in the government is unhealthy and will increase the chance of future abuses.

Mr. Bush's interpretation of executive powers has led critics to dub his tenure the "imperial presidency." Rep. Michaud correctly notes in his call for hearings on impeachment of Mr. Cheney that: "Expansions and potential abuses of power by this administration become precedents for future ones, which lead to further erosions of our constitutional rights."

Rep. Michaud had given the impeachment matter long and careful thought, his press secretary Monica Castellanos reported, before calling for the hearings. The congressman has not prejudged the outcome of the hearings and possible investigation, she said, but he strongly believes those steps are essential in restoring Americans' trust in their government.

It is a big step for Congress to take, especially in a politically charged presidential election year. But if it is possible, a dispassionate examination of the manner in which Mr. Cheney and this administration have stretched the executive branch to the point of distorting its constitutional definition would be enlightening, and could help rebalance the powers of the federal government.

....


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 12:12 PM

Humor:

Bush Impeachment Defense Memo Leaked, President Expects to Use Idiot Defence

as reported in Unconfirmed Sources.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 12:14 PM

With the original First Amendment "Freedom of Speech" looking on, admirers of the U.S. Constitution in the Washington D.C. National Archives Building today were ordered to leave for wearing tee-shirts reading "Impeach Bush and Cheney." Many of the tourist-activists were in town to hail the arrival of impeachment marcher John Nirenberg, the 61 year-old college professor who has just walked from Boston to D.C. to call attention to the need for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

In a telephone interview, one of the participants, Susan Serpa, age 56, told me she was looking at the displays when a female security guard approached her and said "You need to go speak to that man over there" indicating a burly security guard. When Serpa asked why, the woman said: "Your shirt." Serpa's shirt reads on the front: "Impeach Bush and Cheney, Change History." On the reverse it says: "MaineImpeach.org."


Other security guards then approached Serpa and told her: "You need to leave because of your shirt."

The ranking security officer present at the incident gave his name as Captain Judd.

An impeachment resolution against Dick Cheney was introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, and is now sitting in the House Judiciary Committee, headed by Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers. Despite pleas from growing numbers of Americans, Conyers has continued to keep the resolution bottled up, and steadfastly refuses to move it forward. The number for Conyers' office is 202-225-3951.

A contact list for Conyers' major campaign contributors has been compiled by YaliesForImpeachment, along with a full contact list of Judiciary Committee members.

In addition, Rep. Robert Wexler, another Judiciary Committee member, has undertaken a campaign to sway his colleagues on the committee to support the initiation of impeachment hearings against Dick Cheney. He has spent significantly from his own funds for an advertising campaign to combat the near total media black-out on the building pressure for impeachment, and is asking for help in financing further advertising.

(Balance of story can be found here).


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 03:51 PM

Washington state Senator Eric Oemig has drafted a resolution urging the U.S. Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney and remove them from office. Oemig plans to introduce his resolution (SJM 8016) when the legislative session begins on January 14th. Senator Darlene Fairley, Chair of the committee that will handle the matter, has promised a hearing.

Oemig introduced a different impeachment resolution last year, but was never granted a vote in the full Senate. The State Senate of Vermont did pass an impeachment resolution last year, and 10 other states introduced them. In a number of cases, U.S. Congress Members successfully lobbied state representatives to kill the resolutions. The New Hampshire State legislature is also expected to take up an impeachment resolution in mid-January.

A great many cities, counties, towns, political parties, and organizations have passed resolutions in favor of impeachment: A list can be found here.

Washington state has been a hotbed of impeachment activism led by Washington for Impeachment. Numerous resolutions have been passed in Washington:

See this page.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 02:46 PM

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A state Senate resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney was approved by a committee Monday, taking the measure one step further than it went last year.

The resolution by Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, had little support from lawmakers last year, never getting to the Senate floor for a vote. But on Monday, it was approved by the five majority Democrats on the Senate's Government Operations and Elections Committee.

Passing committee is a key hurdle, but does not guarantee that the measure will get a vote on the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, has said she doubts the measure will get any time on the Senate floor this year.

More than 80 people attended a testy hearing last week about the resolution, which included a heated exchange between a Republican senator and members of the audience.

During the hearing, Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, accused Oemig of using the resolution for "campaign purposes." That sparked yelling and boos from the audience, to which Roach responded by displaying a picture of her son, who serves in the military.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 09:19 AM

Kucinich riles House GOP with plan to impeach Bush
Plans measure to impeach Bush Thursday, January 24, 2008Molly Kavanaugh and Sabrina EatonPlain Dealer Reporters

Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich created a stink on the House of Representatives floor Wednesday when he announced he'll introduce a measure to impeach President Bush when Bush delivers his final State of the Union address Jan. 28.

"We already know the State of the Union," said Kucinich, whose earlier effort to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney has languished in the House Judiciary Committee because of opposition from Democratic leaders. "It's a lie."

Republicans objected to Kucinich's statements, and the congressman returned to the floor a few minutes later to withdraw his "offending words." Florida GOP Rep. Cliff Stearns called his remarks a "clear and egregious violation of House rules" and scolded Kucinich for ut tering "personal accusations" against Bush and Cheney.

The testy exchange came as Ku cinich launched a bid to raise money for his congres sional re-election campaign, urging voters in the 10th congressional district to send him donations of $100 or more so he can return for a seventh term.

"Right now, I'm under attack by corporate interests, most of them from the city of Cleveland, who have an agenda that has nothing to do with the people of my community, nor with most people in this country," Kucinich says in a video posted on his congressional campaign Web site.

The timing of the video is not coincidental, said Khaled Salehi, campaign manager for Cleveland Councilman Joe Cimperman, one of four Democrats trying to unseat Kucinich.

On Wednesday Cimperman began airing a 30-second ad on local stations blasting Kucinich for missing votes in Congress and ignoring the district while he campaigns for president.

The ad, titled "Quitting Time," will be aired multiple times during network news shows and on cable stations, Salehi said.

Kucinich has missed 139 votes (11.6 percent) during the current Congress, including key votes on predatory lending and veterans health care, according to a database of congressional votes compiled by washingtonpost.com.

Kucinich's video makes an indirect reference to Cimperman's ad.

"Already, television commercials are flooding the Cleveland airwaves with a message that is designed to try to knock me out of office," Kucinich says in the video.

"I've served with honor and dignity in the United States House of Representatives. I've led the effort against the war and for peace and for fair trade and for a not-for-profit health-care system, and now I need you to make sure that I can continue this work."

Meanwhile, Kucinich's wife, Elizabeth, continued stumping in California for his presidential campaign. According to a report from the Santa Cruz Sentinel, the congressman is scheduled to be in California Friday to attend the Santa Cruz County Democratic Party's annual fund-raising dinner.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:53 PM

From the Philadelphia Enquirer an articulate discourse on impeaching the P and the VP:

"Judiciary Committee should move to impeach Bush and Cheney

Elizabeth Holtzman
served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1973 to 1981

Since mid-December, members of the House Judiciary Committee Robert Wexler (D., Fla.), Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) and Tammy Baldwin (D., Wis.) have called for hearings on the impeachment of Vice President Cheney.

This should not be surprising, given the strength of the case for impeachment. What's surprising is that it took so long for members of this committee, normally tasked with holding impeachment proceedings, to call for them.

They face huge political resistance on Capitol Hill. But they aren't alone. Other Democratic members are joining them. Former senator and Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern recently published an op-ed demanding impeachment proceedings for both Bush and Cheney. Bruce Fein, a Republican who served in the Reagan Justice Department, and many other constitutional scholars also argue for impeachment.

There is more than ample justification for impeachment. The Constitution specifies the grounds as treason, bribery or "high crimes and misdemeanors," a term that means "great and dangerous offenses that subvert the Constitution." As the House Judiciary Committee determined during Watergate, impeachment is warranted when a president puts himself above the law and gravely abuses power.

Have Bush and Cheney done that?

Yes. With the vice president's participation, President Bush repeatedly violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for presidential wiretaps. Former President Richard Nixon's illegal wiretapping was one of the offenses that led to his impeachment. FISA was enacted precisely to avoid such abuses by future presidents.

Bush and Cheney were involved in detainee abuse, flouting federal criminal statutes (the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the anti-torture Act) and the Geneva Conventions. The president removed Geneva protections from al-Qaeda and the Taliban, setting the abuse in motion, and may have even personally authorized them.

The president and vice president also used deception to drive us into the Iraq war, claiming Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in cahoots, when they knew better. They invoked the specter of a nuclear attack on the United States, alleging Hussein purchased uranium in Niger and wanted aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment, when they had every reason to know these claims were phony or at least seriously questioned within the administration. Withholding and distorting facts usurps Congress' constitutional powers to decide on going to war.

Can a commander-in-chief disobey laws on wiretapping or torture to protect the country in wartime?

No. The Constitution requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The Supreme Court ruled Harry S. Truman could not seize steel mills to prevent a strike, even during the Korean War. Nixon's claim of national security as a justification for illegal wiretaps was also rejected in impeachment proceedings against him.

What then is the justification for taking impeachment "off the table"? Congressional leaders don't defend the administration, nor do they contend that its actions are unimpeachable or less serious than Nixon's. Instead they argue there is no time, or that impeachment proceedings would distract the Congress from other work, or divide the country. The subtext seems to be fear that impeachment could undermine Democratic election prospects in 2008.

But even these "pragmatic" arguments are wrong. Let's take them one at a time:...".

See link above for the rest of the article. This piece has several salient features which differentiate it. One, it is by a retired US Representative. Second, it is unusual for the Philadelphia Enquirer to carry this sort of material, I believe. Third, it emphasizes the means of a Judiciary Committee.

I wish Ms. Holtzman a warm reception for her views.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 03:47 PM

"In a December 31, 2007, editorial, the New York Times faulted the current president and vice president of the United States for kidnapping innocent people, denying justice to prisoners, torturing, murdering, circumventing U.S. and international law, spying in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and basing their actions on "imperial fantasies."

Bush's and Cheney's crimes stand open on the table before us. Their lies about Iraqi ties to al Qaeda are on videotape and in writing, and they continue to make them to this day. Their claims about Iraqi weapons have been shown in every detail to have been, not mistakes, but lies. Their threats to and lies about Iran are on videotape. Bush being warned about Katrina and claiming he was not are on videotape. Bush lying about illegal spying and later confessing to it are on videotape. A federal court has ruled that spying to be a felony. The Supreme Court has ruled Bush and Cheney's system of detentions unconstitutional. Torture, openly advocated for by Bush and Cheney and their staffs, is documented by victims, witnesses, and public photographs. Torture was always illegal and has been repeatedly recriminalized under Bush and Cheney. Bush has reversed laws with signing statements. Those statements are posted on the White House website, and a GAO report found that with 30 percent of Bush's signing statements in which he announces his right to break laws, he has in fact proceeded to break those laws. For these and many other offenses, no investigation is needed because no better evidence is even conceivable. And rather than taking three months, the impeachment of Cheney or Bush could be completed in a day.



But the investigations that Congress has pursued at its glacial pace over the past 12 months, while thousands upon thousands died, have produced another impeachable offense, the refusal to comply with subpoenas. That is what President Richard Nixon did; and his refusal to comply with subpoenas constituted the offense cited in one of the three Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974 as warranting "impeachment and trial, and removal from office."

Bush and Cheney are claiming executive privilege. Nixon also tried that one. It didn't work then; and it won't work now. Condoleezza Rice is claiming, with more frankness, that she's just not inclined to comply. Even Nancy Pelosi ought to understand by now that the removal of the threat of impeachment is what empowers the White House to ignore subpoenas, and that the threat of impeaching the White House for its stonewalling would break down the wall even before we reached impeachment." (From OpEd News)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 12:43 PM

A persuasive discussion of crimes and falsehoods under Bush which makes an intetresting read.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19095.htm


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 12:24 PM

/11/2008 8:54:00 PM

Is it time to consider impeaching the president?


"It's been almost 10 years since the House of Representatives voted to impeach Bill Clinton for lying under oath when asked during a deposition in the Paula Jones case whether he had had sexual relations with a White House intern.

I was one of the lead attorneys in that case and had agreed to represent Jones in her sexual harassment lawsuit because I believed the underlying principle in the case was too important to let it slide. Namely, no one is above the law, not even the president.

I did not, however, agree with the impeachment proceedings charging Clinton with perjury and obstruction of justice. Don't get me wrong: what Clinton did was unacceptable and unworthy of his office and his role as a national figure. However, there's a world of difference between lying about sex and blatantly disregarding the Constitution.

As Elizabeth Holtzman, a former member of Congress who served on the House Judiciary Committee during President Nixon's impeachment, explains, "The Constitution specifies the grounds [for impeachment] as treason, bribery or 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' a term that means 'great and dangerous offenses that subvert the Constitution.' As the House Judiciary Committee determined during Watergate, impeachment is warranted when a president puts himself above the law and gravely abuses power."

Unlike Clinton, George W. Bush has repeatedly put himself above the law and abused the power of his office. Over the past seven years, Bush has greatly expanded the power of the president, in addition to unilaterally bypassing federal law to secretly, and illegally, listen in on the phone calls of American citizens and read our e-mails, among other things. His use of presidential signing statements is yet another example of his willingness to subvert the Constitution at almost every turn.

Historically, presidents have used signing statements to thank supporters, provide reasons for signing a bill or express dissatisfaction or pleasure with Congress. The previous 41 presidents combined challenged a total of only 600 laws through signing statements. Bush, on the other hand, has used the statements as a way to disregard certain laws with which he disagrees and, so far, has used the statements to challenge over 800 laws.

"The laws Bush has challenged with signing statements include a ban on torture, stricter oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, restrictions against using U.S. troops to fight rebels in Colombia, requirements that his agencies provide information to Congress, and various affirmative action programs," writes Charlie Savage for the Boston Globe.

Bush's latest signing statement was issued in response to the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, which adds nearly $700 billion to the war chest, along with a 3.5 percent military pay raise and improved health care and benefits for wounded troops. The Act also prohibits the government from spending taxpayer money to establish permanent military bases in Iraq, requires that intelligence agencies such as the CIA and NSA hand over reports and legal opinions to Congress, calls for an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate allegations of waste and excessive force by military contractors abroad, and strengthens legal protections for whistleblowers who work for and report abuses of government contractors.

Although President Bush disagreed with various provisions in the Act (primarily the ones intended to hold him or other governmental agencies accountable to our elected representatives in Congress), he did not express his disagreement with a veto, as the Constitution requires. Had he done so, Congress would have had to either reconsider it or override his veto. Instead, he issued another of his infamous signing statements in which he essentially tells Congress to stick it. According to this particular statement, if Bush wants to build permanent bases, he'll do it. And if he wants to order the CIA not to report to Congress, he'll do that, too.

Such actions place the president outside the rule of law, which is foundational to our country. It keeps our country free and promotes democratic government. If the president can simply chart his own course and set his own rules, not being bound by either the Constitution or the other branches of government, he is "above the law" and becomes, in effect, a dictator who can do whatever he wants. He then becomes the law, which is precisely what the Founders intended to prevent when they drafted the Constitution. As Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) explains, "If the president is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry-pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our framers."

We've never tolerated that before in this country, and we shouldn't start now.

The separation of powers, which is at the heart of our system of checks and balances, allows the president to have as much power as Congress and the courts but no more than that. The importance of this constitutional principle cannot be overstated. It ensures that power does not become centralized in a single branch of government, thereby preventing our country from sliding into an authoritarian regime.

Thus, it's time for Congress to grow a backbone and send this president a clear message: either step in line with the rule of law and heed the voice of "we the people" who speak through Congress or face impeachment hearings. If Congress does not act, this president and those who come after him will continue to amass power at an alarming rate to the detriment of us all.

We must never forget that America was founded on the consent of the governed. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

It's not time to abolish our form of government, but it's certainly time to bring our elected officials under the rule of law.


About the author
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at [e-mail]. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 01:30 PM

And yet another month slips past Amos and still no sign of any impeachment proceedings, not long to go now. Of course if the Dems did want to throw away any chance they might have in the 2008 election they would take your advice and push for Impeachment. They're too bloody concentrated on getting themselves elected to give this nonsense a second bloody thought.

Oh Amos I liked the link especially this part of it:

THE WARS ARE ABOUT AMERICAN HEGEMONY-AND OIL

The War in Iraq

Oil

"The hydrocarbon law when passed will grant immensely profitable access for international oil companies to an estimated 81% of Iraq's undeveloped crude oil reserves. The favored companies are Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, Royal Dutch/Shell, and BP/Amoco.

Sources for this section:

1. For copies of the Iraqi oil field maps, see the website of Judicial Watch, at: http://www.judicialwatch.org/oil-field-maps"

Now that source mentioned there shows the "suitors" for Iraq's oil. Guess what Amos? None of the "favoured" companies feature, any explanation of that?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 02:27 PM

Boulder City Council ponders resolution on calling to impeach Bush
Activists want document drafted to call for president's impeachment
By Ryan Morgan
Originally published 12:00 a.m., February 12, 2008
Updated 09:48 p.m., February 12, 2008

Boulder's elected leaders are expected to decide next week whether to draft and vote on a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

For the past few weeks, activists have been showing up at Boulder City Council meetings, carrying signs, handing out "impeach" pins and asking City Council members to take up such a resolution. Similar measures have passed in cities across the country, including Detroit and Telluride.

Liz Robinson, one of the organizers of the effort, said people hoping to see impeachment proceedings have given congressional Democrats -- who won a majority in the fall of 2006 -- plenty of time to act.

But since they haven't, she said, locally elected officials should take up the slack."Whether or not it's the city's business directly, like potholes, I feel this affects all of us," she said. "We're the ones who are paying the taxes to support this administration's depredations, especially the war."

Impeachment proceedings would be worth doing even if they only put the last few months of Bush's eight years in office at risk, Robinson said.

"We need to send a message that this all matters to us, whether it's last-minute or not," she said.

The group appears to have some support among the City Council, although it's not clear if it has the five votes it would take to get a resolution drafted and subsequently debated. City Councilman Macon Cowles wrote in a memo to his colleagues that he'll likely make a motion at the Feb. 19 meeting asking that a resolution be drafted.

"I believe that these citizens deserve a hearing," Cowles wrote to the council.

It wouldn't be the first time the City Council has weighed in on matters far outside the city's physical boundaries. In 2006, the council approved a resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and in 2003, the council passed a resolution opposing the invasion.

Deputy Mayor Crystal Gray, who helped draft the 2006 resolution, said Boulder has a tradition of debating big-picture issues.

"I'm a believer that the council should be responsive at the level of local government to issues that the residents raise, just like the Iraq war resolution," she said.

...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 07:55 PM

Emailed from a friend; has not been evaluated:

"ThereÕs a new rule on Capitol Hill: the Chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee can remove impeachment from the Constitution, but cannot also use
telephones, Email, or fax machines, because the flood of pro-impeachment
communications from outraged citizens is overwhelming each of those devices.
DonÕt believe me? Try phoning, Emailing, or faxing John ConyersÕ office.

Congressman John ConyersÕ telephone, by many reports, rang endlessly on
Monday, approximately 60 times per minute, or as fast as people could get
through. The same thing appears to be happening today (Tuesday).

If you try to get through at 202-225-5126, chances are youÕll hear a busy
signal. Other times it will simply ring forever until a recorded voice tells
you ÒYour party is not answering, please try your call later.Ó Some people
have had better luck by calling the Capitol Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121
or through one of the toll-free numbers that activist groups use, and asking
to be connected to John ConyersÕ office. Others have just run into busy
signals that way too.

If you are lucky, you will get through to a staffer, and by all reports they
are very, very cheerful staffers glad that you called, no matter where in
the country you live.

Emailing the Congressman is out, because he has stopped accepting Emails, at
least at this address [e-mail]. I could tell you some of
his staff membersÕ Email addresses, but then they wouldnÕt be able to work
for a week.

Faxing the Congressman is very much in, but you have to set your fax machine
to repeatedly redial until it gets through. The fax number is 202-225-0072.

You can also try these alternatives. Call ConyersÕ Judiciary Committee
office at 202-225-3951. Or call his Detroit, Mich., office at 313-961-5670
or his Trenton, Mich., office at 734-675-4084.

If you do get through, be prepared to hear that impeachment hearings are not
happening, but hearings into impeachable offenses are. Even though these
non-impeachment hearings will not make it onto television, and Conyers is
not even announcing them ahead of time, and even though witnesses will
refuse to show up, ConyersÕ staffers will try to tell you that hearings of
the sort theyÕve done for the past 13 months are all thatÕs needed.

Hmm. If that were true, would the phone be ringing the way it is?"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 03:39 PM

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Pete DeFazio, D-Ore., officially joined a small but persistent group of Democrats on Wednesday calling for a robust investigation into the tenure of Vice President Dick Cheney as a possible prelude to impeachment.

DeFazio agreed to sign a letter circulated by Rep. Bob Wexler of Florida, who has been relentlessly driving the so-far-unsuccessful effort to boot Cheney from office.

Despite Wexler's persistence and DeFazio's seniority, it's unlikely that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will allow impeachment activities. She has said repeatedly and consistently that impeachment "is off the table" because it would get in the way of other priorities facing Congress.

Wexler is backing his demands by orchestrating a petition drive aimed at showing public demand for investigating Cheney. The focal point of that effort is a Web site, http://wexlerwantshearings.com, that allows anyone to sign the impeachment petition. So far he says he has more than 227,000 signatures.

"The charges against the vice president relate to the core actions of this administration, its unlawful behavior and its abuse of power," Wexler wrote in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers.

"As you know, the charges against Vice President Cheney include providing Congress and the American people false intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens," says the letter, which was signed by Wexler, DeFazio and 13 other lawmakers.

DeFazio, who has been a frequent critic of the administration, said he had remained largely on the sidelines of the impeachment debate because it was centered in the Judiciary Committee, and he is not a member. "

---

In other news:

House Holds Bush Confidants in Contempt
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS – 1 hour ago

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted Thursday to hold two of President Bush's confidants in contempt for failing to cooperate with an inquiry into whether a purge of federal prosecutors was politically motivated.

Angry Republicans boycotted the vote and staged a walkout.

The vote was 223-32 Thursday to hold presidential chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt. The citations charge Miers with failing to testify and accuse her and Bolten of refusing Congress' demands for documents related to the 2006-2007 firings.

Republicans said Democrats should instead be working on extending a law — set to expire Saturday — allowing the government to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails in the United States in cases of suspected terrorist activity.

The White House said the Justice Department would not ask the U.S. attorney to pursue the House contempt charges.

It is the first time in 25 years that a full chamber of Congress has voted on a contempt of Congress citation.

The action, which Democrats had been threatening for months, was the latest wrinkle in a more than yearlong constitutional clash between Congress and the White House.

The administration has said the information being sought is off-limits under executive privilege, and argues that Bolten and Miers are immune from prosecution.

Still, the resolution would allow the House to bring its own lawsuit on the matter."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 10:33 PM

I got this in an email...


Honk to Impeach


"This week, every Member of Congress will be home working at their District Offices and meeting with the voters who elect them. So let's send them a loud and clear message: Start Impeachment Hearings for Dick Cheney Now.

One great way to send that message is through "Honk to Impeach" actions at the District Offices of your Representative. These actions are fun and passing cars love it. It just takes 2-3 brave people to have a successful 1-hour event.

Here's a national map with ongoing honk-a-thons:
http://www.communitywalk.com/impeach

If you don't see one near you, call your bravest friends and pick the date(s), time, and contact info. Find District Offices by searching for your Representative here:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt?command=congdir
Then create a map login and click "add a marker."

To find other honkers, connect with activists in your Congressional District by logging in to Democrats.com and clicking "local":
http://democrats.com/local

Click [Post] next to your Congressional District and blog about your plans. All the details you need are here:
http://www.democrats.com/honktoimpeach


Since it's Washington's Birthday, we've created a special flyer you can print and hand out called WWWD: What Would Washington Do?
http://www.democrats.com/files/WWWD.doc

Time is running out so let's hit the streets this week!
http://www.democrats.com/crucial-week-for-impeachment

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 05:15 AM

And now this from NH

N.H. State Representative Betty Hall Announces Public Hearing to Petition Congress for Impeachment

New Hampshire Representative Betty Hall Announces Expert Witnesses to testify at Legislative Hearing for House Resolution 24 to Commence Impeachment Procedures in the US Congress.

Representative Hall's focus on House Resolution 24 begins the process of Impeachment for the President and the Vice President at the State level. In the State of New Hampshire, the procedure then goes to committee for a public hearing. Rep. Hall welcomes the public to attend and comment at a rally and a hearing:

Rally: 12 Noon Tuesday, February 19 at the State House Plaza.

Hearing: 1:00 pm Tuesday, February 19 at the State Legislative Office Building, Rooms 305 and 307.

Key to New Hampshire's legislative process is a strong committee recommendation for passage in the full House. Because the committee level is crucial, Representative Hall has invited a number of expert witnesses to testify on five distinct articles of impeachment. Witnesses will include Selectman Dan DeWalt VT, Herb Hoffman ME NEImpeach.org, John Kaminski Maine Lawyers for Democrac,y and Paul Lehto, a lawyer representing Election Integrity.

Uniquely for NH citizens, every bill introduced and sent to committee receives a vote in the full House. In NH there are 400 House legislators from a relatively small population state. In order for HR24 to be brought to Washington DC, only House passage is needed, neither a vote in the Senate nor a signature from the Governor is needed to send the petition to the US Congress.

Representative Hall has worked tirelessly to make sure the people's voice is heard in New Hampshire. The committee hearing serves as an opportunity for the public to become involved, expressing the voice of a true democracy.

Hall has declared that she will join the Code Pink hunger strike and is "willing to die for impeachment."

http://afterdowningstreet.org/fasting

You are encouraged to attend the public hearing to show support for Rep. Hall and this House Resolution.

Flyer: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/31092

More Info: http://afterdowningstreet.org/nh

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 06:17 PM

by David Swanson    Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

                



If you've lost your house to a predatory lender and you ask your congress member to impeach Bush and Cheney for your loss, will they look at you like you're crazy? That depends entirely on how many of you are asking.

If there are not enough of you, they'll look at you like you're crazy for suggesting impeachment as a response to illegal wars, lies to Congress, misappropriation of funds, rewriting bills with "signing statements," warrantless spying, extra-legal detentions, torture, war crimes, refusal to comply with subpoenas, or just about anything else. The White House could make the occupation of Iraq permanent or ignore a major hurricane or expose an undercover agent as payback for a whistleblower, and you'd get the "You've got to be nuts" look for suggesting impeachment if there weren't enough of you. As a matter of fact, many of us already have.


But if the 81% of Americans who disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president were to demand his removal, he'd be out on his ear faster than you can rig an election, award a no-bid contract, or fire an honest prosecutor.

A different question, of course, is whether, in asking for impeachment as a response to losing your house, you really would be crazy. On what grounds, after all, could you really argue that Bush and Cheney stole your house?

(See balance of article here to find out...)


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 01:56 PM

Well Amos, March has come in like a Lion and I daresay it will go out like a lamb with still no "Declaration of Impeachment" any nearer.

All those groups you've cut'n'pasted about - don't they have any real function? Are they bored? Can't they think of doing something that actually needs doing? Going by the response garnered over the years this thread has been going, general concensus would tend to suggest that they are flogging a dead horse.

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

THe pressure continues to build, Teribus. I am afraid you may be right, that the devil will be out of the stable before the machinery moves to close the door. But that does not change the fundamental facts of crimes committed in office. PErhaps we will nail the bastard post-officio, eh?

With all you sarcasms about the futility of this thread, you create the impression of an apologist for the crimes involved.

How do you plead?


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 03:05 AM

Trouble is that most clamouring for "Impeachment" who are in the public eye are doing so for a number of reasons all connected with personal motive, most concern re-election this coming autumn.

Your "Impeachment" process is not a "legal" process, therefore phrases such as your "facts of crimes committed in office" and others yammering on about "evidence" of this or "evidence" of that only amounts to just so much hogwash. There is no legal or formal means to establish clearly whether or not crimes have been committed and there appears to be no standard set for the establishment, examination or presentation of what would constitutue "evidence".

I know before anybody points it out that they are not the same as the political set up and machinery is entirely different but what you seek in your "Impeachment" process boils down to what in the UK Parliament would be called a "Motion of No Confidence"(Proposed by the Opposition) or "Motion of Confidence" (Proposed by the Government) in the Prime Minister. If either goes against the Government of the day it falls and a General Election has to be called.

There will be no "Impeachment", because quite rightly Nancy Pelosi and most of those sitting in the House of Representatives and in the Senate fully realise exactly what damage it would do to the United States of America both domestically and internationally. With regard to both actions in Afghanistan and Iraq those same people are also fully aware of the part that they played in influencing and supporting the decisions made.

So, my plea, most definitely "Not Guilty". I can hardly be an apologist for the crimes that have not been committed. Crimes that you and your supporters have yet to establish were ever perpetrated.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 03:08 AM

SSDD, T.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 03:51 AM

most clamouring for "Impeachment" who are in the public eye are doing so for a number of reasons all connected with personal motive, most concern re-election this coming autumn

List the ones who are doing it for personal motive, please, specifying which ones are doing it for re-election. For the ones who are not doing it for re-election, please tell us what the 'personal motives' are.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 04:27 AM

Dare say I could state the same Amos, but I wouldn't need anything like the time, number of entirely meaningless "cut'n'pastes" or number of posts to arrive at that conclusion with regard to this topic.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 11:04 AM

Yes, just as I thought. Making it all up as he goes along.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 08:30 PM

Hey CarolC you Twat I thought that I was to too stupid to argue with on another thread. Tell you what darlin' when you start answering the questions I have posed you then and only then can you have a go at me.

Right for starters I want a clear and unequivocal response from you that with respect to violence in the middle-east between the Jews and the Arabs that it was the Arabs who instigated the violence based on circumstances that were completely false. If you are not prepared to do so, then please phrase some alternative scenario that is open for discussion, clearly stating the start time for the era that has to be discussed,

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 10:32 PM

Definitely too stupid to argue with. But I'm not arguing - just putting a bit of a decorative frame around that fact and enjoying the view.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 07:17 AM

"Yes, just as I thought. Making it all up as he goes along."

You mean pretty much as you do CarolC - Open minded, what you! You have got to be kidding you are the epitomy of a lying, racist, bigot who is totally incapable of rational thought.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 01:56 PM

Desperate words from a desperate man, I think, Teribus. Still enjoying the view from here...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 03:23 PM

Children, back to your rooms. And don't come out until you can be civil. ;>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 04:17 PM

What do you think, Amos... do you think Teribus could provide us with a list of the people in the public eye who are calling for impeachment who are doing so for personal reasons and also provide a list of the personal reasons? I don't think he can do it, myself.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 04:28 PM

Ah, Carol, except in the broad and evasive sense that all motivations are personal, I think his assertion is without substance or merit. This is what I implied with my curt acronymic dismissal -- same shit, different day.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 12:03 PM

Democrats and a lawless Bush
An editorial — 3/11/2008 5:48 am (Capital TImes)

In response to President Bush's veto of legislation banning so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- a Washington phrase for what the rest of us know as torture -- U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold was appropriately disappointed.

"With bipartisan support, Congress voted to prohibit so-called 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' The CIA's interrogation program, which has included torture, represents the opposite of what we are fighting for in the global struggle against al-Qaida," said the Wisconsin Democrat. "The program is morally reprehensible and legally unjustified, and it has not made our country any safer. The president's veto is inexplicable and adds to his legacy of disregarding the rule of law and the core principles on which this country was founded."

Unfortunately, disappointment means nothing to the Bush administration.

This White House responds only to threats of official sanction or funding cuts.

The Congress should recognize that fact and challenge the president's veto.

Step One: Schedule override votes in the House and the Senate now. Don't delay, and don't play games. Get everyone on the record regarding waterboarding and related torture techniques -- which even Bush's candidate for president, Arizona Sen. John McCain -- says are at once immoral and ineffective.

The override votes should be command performances. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should be expected to participate in the Senate debate and vote. No excuses for them, and no excuses for McCain. No one running for president in 2008 deserves a vote if there is any sense that they would perpetuate Bush's lawlessness.

Step Two: Explore the steps that must be taken to eliminate funds for torture and draw up the necessary language to be attached to appropriations for the agencies in question and the White House. There needs to be a "no money for torture" amendment that is easily understood yet ironclad in its commitments.

Step Three: Feingold should dust off his censure motion against President Bush and press it more aggressively now than ever. He should include language regarding torture, and he should seek new co-sponsors -- especially a certain senator from Illinois and a certain senator from New York.

Feingold's House colleagues should draw up specific articles of impeachment relating to torture. They should cite the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which clearly bars cruel and unusual punishment of individuals incarcerated by the United States government -- as well as legal requirements established by our treaty commitments and formalized agreements with the world community, including the Geneva Conventions.

It is fine to be disappointed with Bush.

It is necessary to act to constrain him, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should join Russ Feingold in pressing the case.
'

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:21 PM

"In considering how to raise the dynamic for a House Judiciary Congressional Investigation of Bush and Cheney it seems one element missing is changing the discussion about impeachment from one about "political fallout" to a discussion of "accountability" in government. Since many Republicans currently in the House voted to impeach Bill Clinton on December 19, 1998 for perjury and obstruction of justice, presumably justified by the need for accountability in the Executive Branch, these same individuals should be able to explain why they have ignored the far more egregious violations of the Bush Administration and fail to support at least an impeachment investigation.

Alternatively, if the only interest of these members of Congress in 1998 was the use of impeachment for "political advantage" perhaps it is time they go on record as stating why they felt impeachment was acceptable for Bill Clinton just 9.25 years earlier but is not acceptable now with respect to holding George Bush and Dick Cheney "accountable". It may not change anything but the fall election by doing this. However, having each person on record as stating they don't believe Bush or Cheney has done anything worthy of an impeachment hearing even though they felt impeachment was justified and voted for it when Bill Clinton was in office in 1998 may be a worthwhile objective to clarify this hypocrisy.

Voters can decide for themselves whose interests these Representatives truly serve later this year. Not a single person on this list who felt Bill Clinton had violated his oath of office and was guilty of impeachable offenses has been so moved to support even an impeachment investigation of President George W. Bush or Vice President Richard Cheney for any offense while they have been in office. Not a single person on this list has requested that George W. Bush be investigated by the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) even though several are HJC members (***).

If possible, each and every person on this list should be asked the following 4 questions:

1. What do you believe is the purpose of impeachment?
2. Why do you believe we have an impeachment process as part of our US constitution?
3. Why did you support the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton in December 1998?
4. Why do you feel none of the following charges made against the present administration of George W. Bush and Cheney is worthy of even an impeachment hearing?



a. Misleading Congress about the need for a war with Iraq.

b. Obstruction of justice by telling Federal Employees not to testify before Congress and/or not to respond to Congressional subpoenas.

c. Misuse of the Department of Justice for political purposes instead of law enforcement.

d. Approval of torture for captured prisoners by the US in violation of ratified US treaties.

e. Not providing the due process guaranteed to a US citizen by our Constitution by placing him in Guantanamo Bay Prison camp without access to a lawyer for an extended time period.

f. Attempt to bribe a US citizen who was raped and illegally imprisoned with US tax dollars to keep her silent and get her to drop her suit against Halliburton and the State Department.

g. Approval of the spying on US citizens by the NSA without a warrant.

h. No-bid extended contracts and failure of government agencies to enforce rules and regulations on the businesses they regulate leading to the loss of billions of tax payer dollars from the US treasury.

i. Destruction of government records to circumvent accountability by Congressional oversight.
...(OpEd News)

---

Just keeping the point on the radar.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 04:40 PM

Bush skates free


Bill Clinton has a tête-à-tête with an assistant and Congress spends a zillion bucks to impeach him. The governor of New Jersey comes out of the closet, and he is rushed to retirement. Now the governor of New York is caught with his pants down, and he is forced to resign.

However, George W. Bush lies to us, illegally invades a sovereign nation and, in effect, causes the murder of 4,000 American sons and daughters and heaven only knows how many civilians. In addition, our economy, education and health care is going down the tube because he is blowing 12 billion bucks a month on the Iraq fiasco, and no one utters a word about impeachment, indictment and trial. Excuse me?



Bruce Graydon,

Fort Collins

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 10:02 AM

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, reflecting on the quick exit of former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, wonders aloud in a new essay how President George W. Bush has escaped the same fate despite Bush's role in considerably more damning and damaging crimes.

In the piece entitled "Country of Laws," Nader blasts Bush for fictionalizing his Iraq war actions and for saying that he'll leave office with no regrets. While Spitzer resigned within days of his admission to indiscretions, "Bush remains," writes Nader, "disgracing his office for longtime repeated violations of the Constitution, federal laws and international treaties to which the U.S. is a solemn signatory."

Nader contrasts Spitzer's legal and personal transgressions, and the price the now ex-governor is rapidly paying for them, with Bush, who "violated federal laws against torture, against spying on Americans without judicial approval, against due process of law and habeas corpus in arresting Americans without charges, imprisoning them and limited their access to attorneys." He adds that Bush has "committed a massive war of aggression, under false pretenses, violating again and again treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, federal statutes and the Constitution."

Despite this, and the human, financial and infrastructural cost of the war, Bush is, as Nader writes, "effectively immune from federal criminal and civil laws because no American has standing to sue him and the Attorney General, who does, is his handpicked cabinet member.

"Moreover," continues Nader, "the courts have consistently refused to take cases involving the conduct of foreign and military policy by the president and the Vice President regardless of the seriousness of the violation."

Nader says that judges readily and repeatedly dismiss such cases as "political" and say Congress is the way to pursue grievances, specifically via its authority to impeach. Yet only Rep. Kucinich (D-OH) has publicly called for impeachment, Nader notes. (Nader curiously fails to acknowledge that in December 2006, now-former Rep. Cynthia McKinney--a rival 2008 White House candidate running on the Green Party ticket--introduced articles of impeachment against President Bush as one of her final legislative acts before leaving Congress.)

Meanwhile, rues Nader, "the American people have no authority to challenge [Bush's] governmental crimes, which are committed in their name, and are rendered defenseless except for elections, which the two Party duopoly has rigged, commercialized, and trivialized. Even in this electoral arena, a collective vote of ouster of the incumbents does not bring public officials to justice, just to another position usually in the high paying corporate world."

Nader says that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will leave office as "fugitives from justice without any sheriffs, prosecutors or courts willing to uphold the rule of law."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:36 PM

"I mean, seriously? Watching him do his little tap dance on the White House steps while waiting for Senator McCain last week, watching the tape of his cowboy song and dance routine at the Gridiron Club event ("Here comes Scooter/Finally free of the prosecutor..."), then hearing -- and reading about -- his breezily irrelevant speech on the teetering American economy, it did occur to me that the poor man, once merely out of his depth, had in fact slipped from simple denial of reality into the realm of certifiable disconnection from the world the rest of us inhabit.

I wonder if we out here in the public realm would necessarily recognize it, if it had happened. Is the president so protected by our common need to believe in the sanity of our leaders that we might refuse to recognize a dreadful truth? Are those around him conspiring to hide the truth from us? And how would we know? I recall that wonderful book, Being There -- and the wonderful Hal Ashby/Peter Sellers movie of the same name that was based on that Jerzy Kosinski novel--in which a simple-minded gardener ascended to the presidency. But we're dealing now with something more than a simple mind. It's a dangerously deluded one -- one that reports with no apparent sense of irony on instructions received from God. Don't we put people like that away, for their own protection as well as ours? And let's remember -- hard though that may be, these days -- that we're engaged in something other than a novel or a movie. We're in it, while our "president" is showing signs of something a lot worse than common job-related stress.

Have we reached the time for rational minds to take control? Should we demand to have Bush's behaviors evaluated by professionals? Should the leaders of Congress act to take the reins of government before the country plunges into chaos? How is it possible that it has come this far? How is it possible that this president has escaped impeachment? As one of the readers of my blog, The Buddha Diaries, noted: "The masses were swift to support the impeachment of Clinton for a little lie about some nookie, but Bush gets a free pass to kill countless innocent people in a war that was conducted based on lies and deception with an impeachment nowhere in sight."

(Huffington Post 3-18)

I know we have only a few more months to survive this nightmare, but are things not getting worse from day to day, from hour to hour? Or is it just my imagination playing tricks with me?

I mean, seriously..."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 10:04 AM

he first time Rep. Betty Hall had the opportunity to vote in support of a presidential impeachment, she declined.

It was 1973 and Hall, only two years into what would become a lengthy legislative career, found herself surrounded by New Hampshire lawmakers debating a resolution urging the impeachment of then-President Richard Nixon. Opposition was overwhelming: The proposal garnered 11 votes, Hall said.

Thirty-five years after refusing to support the Nixon resolution, Hall, a Brookline Democrat who celebrated her 87th birthday yesterday, is leading the charge for a different impeachment proposal. In a resolution urging Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney - which is scheduled for a House vote this week - Hall outlines her case, arguing that Bush and Cheney

violated international treaties "by invading Iraq without just cause or provocation" and that they misled Congress to gain authorization for the war.

The resolution, Hall said earlier this week, is "probably the most serious effort I've been engaged in in my long period of service." In addition to condemning Bush and Cheney's behavior in the run-up to the war, the resolution cites the detentions of "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; warrantless wiretapping; and the "pattern and practice of threatening litigation" against those who refuse to install voting machines "that require votes to be counted in trade secrecy."

"We don't know the truth," Hall said. "Impeachment is about finding the truth."

Just as the Nixon resolution inspired detractors, Hall's proposal has outspoken opponents.

"I have never seen a document more vitriolic and more inflammatory," Rep. David Hess, a Hooksett Republican, testified at a public hearing last month. The resolution won minimal support from the legislative committee charged with studying it: A majority of that committee recommended the full House reject the proposal.

But Hall, colleagues and relatives say, has never been one to wither in the face of opposition.

"Betty Hall is the right one to do it because when Betty Hall gets something in her head and wants to do it, she doesn't back down because maybe it's unpopular," said Rep. Liz Hager, a Concord Republican. "She is certainly tenacious."

In Brookline, where Hall has lived for decades, her support for the resolution likely isn't turning many heads, said Peter Webb, the town moderator and Hall's longtime neighbor. "Betty's always been a freethinker and one who stood up for her principles," he said.

"She's an extraordinary mix of determination, independence, intelligence and grace," said Webb, who recalled Hall welcoming his family to Brookline nearly three decades ago.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 12:43 PM

From CNSNEws.com:

Judiciary Chair Pledges Legal Action Against Bush After Nov 4

(CNSNews.com) - At a gathering of liberal activists in Washington on Tuesday, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) guaranteed his liberal audience that he will pursue legal action against President Bush after the November elections. Conyers was asked if he would commit to holding the Bush administration accountable once a Democrat is in the White House and illegal acts have been pinned on President Bush. "Yes, you have my word on that," Conyers replied. He then shook the questioner's hand as a sign of his commitment. Conyers, who chairs the house Judiciary Committee, told an audience at the liberal Take Back America Conference that he is wrestling with the idea of beginning impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney, but he believes that such an effort at this time might hamper Sen. Barack Obama's chance of winning the presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 08 - 04:28 PM

Frustrated Anti-War Leader Pleads for Congress to Impeach
By Josiah Ryan
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
March 21, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - One of the organizers of this week's anti-war protests in Washington, D.C., is pleading with House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D.-Mich.) to make good on his repeated threats to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

David Swanson, who runs After Downing Street, a coalition that includes hundreds of prominent liberal activist groups, including Veterans Against the Iraq War and Code Pink, prompted cheers on Tuesday when he called for Bush's impeachment at a rally in front of the White House. About 70 people attended the rally.

Swanson told Cybercast News Service he has grown frustrated with Conyers' posturing about impeachment. "He doesn't mean it," said Swanson. "He isn't really working on it with anyone in the House. It's just an applause line."

Nonetheless, Swanson is not giving up on urging Conyers and the Democratic leadership to take action on impeaching President Bush before the end of the year.

"This is up to you, Congressman Conyers, this is your chairmanship," said Swanson. "We won it for you. We voted for lousy Democrats all across the country so you could have the chairmanship and act on your promises and impeach these criminals."

"Congressman John Conyers has an outstanding record," said Swanson. "But now he is treating our Constitution as a joke and treating us as idiots. This is offensive to all of us.

"Congressman Conyers, do not throw it away," said Swanson. "Don't make your legacy be the destruction of the Constitution, and do not blame it on Sen. Barack Obama."

Swanson was referring to Conyers's comment to Cybercast News Service on Tuesday that he would like to impeach President Bush but was afraid the action would prevent Obama (D-Ill.) from being elected president. (See story)

Conyers said he was afraid Republicans would use an impeachment attempt to hammer Democrats in the campaign -- "and that we end up getting McCain (as president)," Conyers said. "I would regret that for the rest of my life. That's the only reason. That would be my fear."

Conyers admitted, however, that he was "struggling" with a decision on whether to try impeaching Bush before the election. The Judiciary Committee, which Conyers chairs, would ordinarily conduct an impeachment inquiry, if there is one, and approve any Articles of Impeachment for consideration by the full House.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 01:44 PM

From Op-Ed NEws:


For those following the drama of New Hampshire residents using "Jefferson's Manual" to force the Congress to take up the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney, here's the dirty little secret: it's really easy. All you need to do is print out a version of the below resolution, walk it to an amenable state representative (or assemblyman/woman), and have them enter it into State House business. Now you have an active impeachment resolution in your state.

Is it effective? From a legal standpoint, no one knows, since no presidential impeachment has ever been commenced through Jefferson's Manual, Section 603 of the Manual of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, which provides for impeachments to be initiated on a motion based on charges transmitted from a state legislature. But from a political standpoint, 50 states having impeachment resolutions in the works would make Congress's I-See-Nothing position untenable. So far California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Texas (YES TEXAS!), Washington, and Wisconsin have active impeachment resolutions. Growing that number exponentially in a short time would be one way to jump-start the growing movement, using the tool the Founders gave us when they envisioned a confederation of states with powers which balanced those of the central government.


Section 603 was included by the Founders as an additional check on the Executive Branch which emanates from the states, rather than from the Congress. It seemed to foresee the situation today, when even Congress, the branch of government which is supposed to be closest to the people, becomes aloof and imperial. Polls show 45 percent of Americans are in favor of impeaching George Bush, a solid 55 percent in the case of Dick Cheney, and these are from early 2007. Bush has not gotten any more popular since. With these kinds of numbers, even if it were unclear exactly where among the silverware impeachment belongs, it is certainly somewhere on the table. Taking it off the table gives a green light for the administration to keep doing more of what it has been doing, like a recalcitrant child being told no matter how badly he behaves, there will always be ice cream for dessert.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 09:47 PM

"New Hampshire State Representative Betty Hall, age 87, Brookline, NH, is fighting to save the nation from the Bush-Cheney cabal and return us to constitutional democracy, with her bill, HR 24, to the NH State House, to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

If passed on 4-16-08, when it is scheduled for vote before the entire NH House, the bill will go under state seal, without need of governor signature, to the US House for review, demanding in the name of New Hampshire's people that Congress begin impeachment hearings immediately for Bush-Cheney high crimes against the Constitution, the American people, and humanity.

I am writing to you because I know that you are patriots. Betty Hall is fighting for us, and more importantly, for our children, and theirs. Betty needs our help. Accordingly, on Monday, 4-14-08, the New England impeachment community has organized an HR 24 lobbying and rally forum, featuring:

Daniel Ellsberg, Vietnam War Era Icon, Who Saved Countless US, Vietnamese and Other Lives By Releasing the Pentagon Papers

Ramsey Clark, Former US Attorney General Under President Lyndon Johnson

Dr. Robert Bowman, Former Director of the "Star Wars" Space Weapon Program, Now Its Most Ardent Critic

Other Renowned Public Fugures Committed to our Constitution and Peace in Our World

When:

Monday, April 14, 2008, 3 PM to 11 PM

Where: Capital Center for the Arts, 44 S, Main Street, Concord, NH

Purpose: To lobby uncommitted NH lawmakers to vote for HR 24, and to rally North East supporters of impeachment"

(From Global Research.net)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 08 - 11:29 PM

"Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office." -- article of impeachment filed against President Nixon.


There is no shortage of potential charges against the current occupant of the White House. Yet he remains, safe and oblivious. To make the "checks and balances" provided by the Constitution a credible possibility, shouldn't members of the House of Representatives actually perform the duties they swore to uphold when they took their oaths of office?


The Bush administration has made it easy, already admitting to electronic eavesdropping on Americans without the required court warrants. The precedent was one of the articles of impeachment voted against President Richard Nixon. The president's illegal wiretapping program is in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it a crime to wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order.


President Bush also is accused of engaging in a systematic pattern of making false statements to the American people and their representatives in Congress concerning the potential threat of Iraq-based weapons of mass destruction.


And, his administration violated the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law by seizing military powers reserved to the U.S. Congress, initiating the invasion of Iraq prior to the required debate by the people through their representatives in Congress to produce the necessary official declaration of war.


And, without a congressional declaration of war, the president and his administration have authorized the denial of due process, extraordinary rendition, secret detention centers, and torture at various sites, including Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, thus violating U.S. and international law.


Our Constitution provides for impeachment. Impeachment is an indictment. It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5.) Then the Senate tries an impeached official with the chief justice of the Supreme Court presiding. A two-thirds majority of the Senate is required to convict. (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6.)


Furthermore, the power to pardon cannot trump the impeachment powers of Congress: "The President shall ... have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment. (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1)


So, while it isn't easy to remove a president, if the Congress doesn't exercise its responsibilities, abuses can and do happen.


Republicans believe in law and order and a limited constitutional government. Democrats are known for their support for civil rights. The Wisconsin Democratic, Green and Libertarian parties all have called for the impeachment of Bush.


All congressmen take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Rep. Dave Obey, where are you? Let the hearings begin, chips falling where they may. Let justice be done.


Jim Maas of Rothschild is a member of the executive committee of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 03:36 AM

That's March gone Amos, let's see I,ve only got eight more of these posts to go. During the coming months those in politics in the US are going to be far too busy getting themselves elected or re-elected and as "Impeachment" is a political process, who has actually got time for this crap?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 11:14 AM

We have time to dismantle the Constitution; we have time to invade foreign nations; we have time to support all manner of destructive schemes to harm citizen, distort education, hide money, and kill humans,

But taking the linchpins of incompetence out of the machine...We don't have time for this crap?

You sound like Southwest Airlines in bed with the FAA, pal. "No time for safety -- too busy flying airplanes...".

Wake up, Ter.



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 04:20 PM

"We have time to dismantle the Constitution;"

Your precious Constitution is far from being dismantled. We in the good old UK have never had need of such a document, but whatever, if it is of such importance to you please be assured it has not been infringed in the slightest - It was after all drafted in 1776 based upon our own Magna Carta which pre-dates it by 500 years or more.

"we have time to invade foreign nations;"

You mean the ones that actually harboured and refused to give up those who attacked you on the 11th September, 2001? You mean the ones who openly celebrated that attack and broke every undertaking that they had given to the UN with regard to pursuit of development of Weapons of Mass Destruction and support of international terrorist groups? You mean that you invaded foreign nations that your own Joint House Security Committee identified as being the greatest threat to the United States of America?

"we have time to support all manner of destructive schemes to harm citizen, distort education, hide money, and kill humans"

Utter crap Amos in all that time since September 11th, 2001 every single one of you complaining, bitching, motherfuckers, currently resident the so wonderful United States of America has been held safe, because of the direction, leadership and single-mindedness of your current Administration. Now all I am waiting to hear from one of you is that you acknowledge that truth. After all you have been under attack, or threat of attack since 1993.

By the bye Amos looking back at past Presidents - JFK was downright dangerous; Jimmy Carter was a complete and utter buffoon; Barak Obama is somewhere inbetween, personally I think, in current world terms that he will prove to be more dangerous than JFK and a bigger fool/incompetent than "peanut" Carter. But never mind, elect him and you'll be well and truly fucked but the world will love you.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 06:47 PM

All us "motherfuckers" here in the US Teribus are wondering why an "over the ponder" such as yourself has such a slanted outlook on how we in the US feel about our precious Constitution, our amendments, our Bill of Rights and about our history. After all we built our model on the best parts of yours without the Royalty. We don't see ourselves in the same danger that you see US, we are mostly in danger from ourselves. We don't want our rights, Constitution & amendment going into hiding every time we get attacked or threatened. We can stand the heat without the loss of freedom of movement, speech, privacy, the right to assemble, the loss of our corpus's bis-quits-us (which is based on your Magna Carta which pre-dates our constitution it by 500 years or so). As Franklin said we deserve neither freedom nor safety if we have to forfeit or rights (or something close to that). You can go shout from the mountain top from where you stand but your voice is lost in the sea of shit you swim in by the time any sensible sound of it reaches our shores. Go start a movement to right your own motherfucking wrongs.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 09:17 PM

Teribus is a reptilian shape shifter.
























;-)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 11:38 AM

Although I have to say that I find it very strange that someone would be so contemptuous of people for making decisions about their own country (and not his), that he would use such strong language as "motherfucker" when referring to them. Must be that British colonialist supremacism rising to the surface again. The pinnacle of human development telling the insects of the rest of the world what's what. Teribus would have worshiped Hitler had he been born in Germany during Hitler's time.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 11:42 AM

Two towns vote to arrest Bush, Cheney
Marlboro, April 05: Voters in two Vermont towns on Tuesday approved a measure that would instruct police to arrest President George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for "crimes against our Constitution," local media reported.

The nonbinding, symbolic measure, passed in Brattleboro and Marlboro in a state known for taking liberal positions on national issues, instructs town police to "extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them."

Vermont, home to maple syrup and picture-postcard views, is known for its liberal politics.

State lawmakers have passed nonbinding resolutions to end the war in Iraq and impeach Bush and Cheney, and several towns have also passed resolutions of impeachment. None of them have caught on in Washington.

Bush has never visited the state as president, though he has spent vacations at his family compound in nearby Maine.

Roughly 12,000 people live in Brattleboro, located on the Connecticut River in the state's southeastern corner. Nearby Marlboro has a population of roughly 1,000.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 11:50 AM

News of the possible!!

The entire Police Department of Marlboro VT was wiped out today in clash with the Secret Service. Dick Cheney was visiting the town and the officers were acting on standing orders to arrest him.

In a carefully worded statement, Chaney had this message for the town of Battleboro. "You were saying?"

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

Nader's been thoughtful, and correct, in his assessment of the issue -- and of why it must be raised in an election year when the major-party contenders seem to be united in their determination to avoid the topic.

Here's a message Nader, who is campaigning with former San Francisco Supervisor Matt Gonzalez this year, recently sent to supporters:

As you know, Obama, Clinton and McCain have taken impeachment of Bush and Cheney off the table.

Nader/Gonzalez want to put it back on.

Our campaign will be impeachment central for this momentous election year.

No one should be above the law -- especially chronic violators.

We're building a nationwide campaign to end the corrupt two party duopoly and pressure the complicit Democrats to do their sworn duty and impeach the two unaccountable outlaws in the White House.

Last week, I wrote to House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers once again urging him to hold impeachment hearings.

This week, citizens from around the country are sitting in at Chairman Conyer's office on Capitol Hill demanding that he take action.

In that letter to Congressman Conyers, I pointed out the obvious:

Many prominent Constitutional law experts believe President Bush has engaged in at least five categories of repeated, defiant "high crimes and misdemeanors", which separately or together would allow Congress to subject the President to impeachment under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

In addition to a criminal war of aggression in Iraq, in violation of our constitution, statutes and treaties, there are the arrests of thousands of Americans and their imprisonment without charges, the spying on Americans without juridical warrant, systematic torture, and the unprecedented wholesale, defiant signing statements declaring that the President, in his unbridled discretion, is the law.

The sworn oath of members of Congress is to uphold the Constitution.

Failure of the members of Congress to pursue impeachment of President Bush is an affront to the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the people of the United States. ...

(The Nation)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 06:20 PM

CONCORD, N.H.ÑTo boost her campaign for a bill that would call for the impeachment of President Bush over the Iraq war, an 87-year-old great-grandmother drummed up support Monday from the whistleblower who leaked secret Pentagon documents during the Vietnam War.

It's unlikely that HR24 would pass, but Betty Hall, a Democrat and longtime representative from Brookline, is hopeful. Hall is the only sponsor of the bill, which is scheduled for debate on Wednesday.

"We are trying to make history by being the first Legislature to forward a petition to Congress under Section 603 of the Jefferson Manual," she said. "I'm feeling very good about it."

Hall was referring to the "Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States," written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1801.

In 2004, Hall was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct after she wouldn't move away from a Nashua motorcade Bush was scheduled to drive by. The case was later dismissed when a judge ruled the evidence didn't fit the charge.

On hand to support Hall's cause Monday was Daniel Ellsberg, who in 1971 leaked to the media the "Pentagon Papers," secret documents that indicated the government deceived the public about whether the Vietnam War could be won. Ellsberg faced up to 115 years in prison, but the charges were dismissed because of government misconduct against him.

"They are domestic enemies of the United States' Constitution," Ellsberg said of Bush and Vice President Cheney. He said he hopes impeachment proceedings could shed light on classified information from the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 12:08 AM

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - New Hampshire's House has set aside a bill that would call for the impeachment of President Bush over the Iraq war.

The bill, HR24, was tabled Wednesday on a roll call vote of 227 to 95. Action could be taken on the bill later in the session.

Democrat Betty Hall of Brookline sponsored the measure.

A legislative committee voted in February not to recommend it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Wesley
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 07:02 PM

How's this Quixotic impeachment thing of yours coming along Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 07:30 PM

Well, Wes, it's really not Quixotic, in the usual sense. It's more like an impulse to prosecute criminality that exists in real world fact, not joust with windmills.   But the closer the end of Bush's term comes, the easier it gets to let the passive-aggressives give him a pass. It is disgraceful, and disgusting that no stand will be taken for getting the truth out on the table on the crimes these two have been party to.

At present the demand is on the wane, it appears. A shame, really.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Wesley
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 11:17 PM

Damn right. I know a dragon when I see one!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 08 - 05:34 PM

April's now come and gone Amos.

Now what was this impeachment based on Amos? Misrepresenting things to Congress wasn't it? But hang on a minute Amos you and your pal Bobert aren't adverse to misrepresenting things when it suits you're arguements are you - Something about announcing to the world and its dog that "Upwards of one million Iraqis have been killed" when in actual fact you know that that is not correct, you can offer no substantive proof that that number have died and the sources you quote freely admit that their figure is based upon guesswork.

One law for the goose and another for the gander eh Amos. What a good little hypocrite you are.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:43 PM

Well, T, your pretty spiteful your own self. I showed you where B gt that number from, and you got all annoyed because of the fact it was an estimate.

Calling me a hypocrite is a little out there, pal. I feel the same way about a ten-thousand-bloody-deaths figure as I do about a one-million.

ANd let me just point out, smartass, that if I stated a wrong figure while passing that link along, it has caused zero fatalities, zero maimings, zero madness and zero destruction of a human life.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 08 May 08 - 01:07 AM

What's good for the goose is good for the gander right across the board Amos irrespective.

You judge, or hold people that you like, or approve of, by completely different criteria to those you dislike, or disapprove of - at times to such an extent that it is laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 08 - 02:48 PM

Laugh away, T. Be my guest. It might keep you from starting a bloody war.

I do not agree with your last, by the way; I have very good rationalizations for everything I say and write!! :D



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 08 - 04:57 PM

New Hampshire Representative Pushes to Impeach Bush and Cheney
Resolution 24 created by Betty Hall urges the US Congress to Impeach the President and Vice President.

Atlanta, GA 5/12/2008 04:16 PM GMT (FINDITT)





87 year old New Hampshire state representative Betty Hall is asking the US Congress to investigate President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and implement their impeachment with her House Resolution 24.



Supports of Resolution 24 accuse Bush and Cheney of putting the nation in an "undeclared, preemptive, never-ending war under false pretenses," according to the Intelligence Daily. Rep. Hall states that some of the backers are very concerned about the Bush administration's decision to eliminate prohibitions against torture.



Rep. Hall is not concerned about the timing, claiming that the "moral imperative of impeachment is too great to ignore." Rep Hall is asking the 400 member New Hampshire House, to pass HR 24 and tell Congress, "for God's sake, it's time to consider some actual checks and balances."



HR 24 went to the floor on April 16, in the wake of a local impeachment rally on April, 14, featuring Daniel Ellsberg and Dr. Robert Bowman. HR 24 is similar to an earlier resolution developed in 2007 in Vermont which stopped at the State Senate. A new resolution was drafted again in January 2008. The April 16 floor vote did not pass, 95-227. It was declared "inexpedient to legislate." In order for the resolution to pass, it needs to be taken off of the table by a simple majority vote, which will allow the "inexpedient" tag to be removed and enable the process to continue.



Rep Hill states, "On May 17, I will try again without hesitation," nothing that New Hampshire independent voters are coming together to support the impeachment. Many republicans believe HR 24 is a form of revenge for the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.



"It's not just about Bush and Cheney, its about our Constitution. Its about finding the truth, justice and restoration of the rule of law. You cant have a state legislature without a relationship with the federal government," Hall says. She also says that starting the impeachment so close to the end of the Bush-Cheney regime is beneficial in the way that it sends a strong message about the need for accountability.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 06:00 PM

Veterans Tell Conyers "Impeach Bush"

WASHINGTON, DC - May 16 - A national veterans' organization today sent a letter to Representative John Conyers, head of the House Judiciary Committee, requesting a meeting with him to deliver over 10,000 signatures on a petition to impeach George W. Bush. Impeachment hearings would have to be convened by the Michigan Democrat.

The president of Veterans For Peace, Elliott Adams, wrote Conyers requesting a meeting in early June to deliver their petitions. In it, he pointed out that by invading and occupying Iraq, the Bush administration has violated the U.S. Constitution, domestic laws and international treaties.

Adams' letter said, "Having taken an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, our members takeÉthe obligation to impeach George W. Bush most seriously...we must hold this administration accountable for waging a war of aggression against Iraq."

The former paratrooper and Viet Nam combat vet reminded the 21-term Representative from Detroit that, "You have taken the same oath, Congressman Conyers, and we expect you will hold it just as sacred as we do and begin impeachment hearings at the soonest possible moment."
Adams concluded his request by writing, "Congressman Conyers, you have stood on the side of justice in battles too numerous to mention during your long career in the House. Will you one day go into retirement with a shadow over your entire record because you did not do everything possible to hold this criminal administration accountable? We genuinely hope not."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:32 AM

Nader to call for Bush impeachment in front of White House
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 05/22/08 11:44 AM [ET]
Perennial also-ran presidential candidate Ralph Nader is planning to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in a news conference in front of the White House Friday.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 23 May 08 - 10:51 AM

800 Up

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 09:39 AM

California Impeachment Slate Press Conference
by Carol Brouillet ( cbrouillet [at] igc.org )
Wednesday May 28th, 2008 12:46 PM
Tuesday, Bay Area Congressional candidates dedicated to the Constitutional remedy of impeachment for those committing high crimes announced the newly formed coaltions pushing for impeachment at a rally in front of the San Francisco Chronicle offices.

calimpeach.jpg



The California Impeachment Slate (www.calimpeachmentslate.com) a non-partisan group of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Greens, has identified pro-impeachment candidates in more than 20 of the state's 53 congressional districts, from Eureka to San Diego. Candidates are running for Congress against incumbents neglecting their duty and their oaths to uphold the Constitution by not impeaching (holding hearings for) Dick Cheney. Bay Area candidates who spoke included Shirley Golub (Challenging Nancy Pelosi, June Primary); Brad Newsham (Challenging Barbara Lee, June); Cynthia Papermaster (Challenging Pete Stark, Nov.); Carol Brouillet (Challenging Anna Eshoo, Nov.); Carol Wolman (Challenging Mike Honda, Nov.); Bill Callison (Challenging George Miller, Nov.); Gene Ruyle (Challenging Tauscher, Nov.)
John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a book in 2006 calling for impeachment, but is now dragging his feet about starting hearings, even though six members of the Committee demand immediate hearings and 30 members of Congress want hearings to start. The Impeachment Slate is asking Monica Conyers, his wife, to join over 100 impeachment candidates nationwide and to run against her husband for Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 02:45 PM

Support Congressman Wexler: The Bush-Cheney Criminal Enterprise Must be Confronted Now!
By Bill Hare
05/29/2008 09:17:17 PM EST

Recent revelations from the upcoming book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan cite the increasing need to confront the impeachment issue immediately.
Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida has vigilantly pursued the necessity of impeachment hearings and of holding government officials, beginning with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, accountable for potential "high crimes and misdemeanors" under mandate of no less than the U.S. Constitution.

As so many continue to point out, this duty to pursue commission of high crimes and misdemeanors by those charged with upholding the U.S. Constitution violates that document and deems it necessary for them to answer such charges. There is a duty to pursue such acts of grievous misconduct and, when the facts warrant, remove the responsible parties from their positions of power.

McClellan reveals that Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney lied about their roles in revealing the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, actions constituting an obstruction of justice.   


The former White House Press Secretary also wrote that there was a coordinated effort by the Bush administration to use propaganda to inflate the case for attacking and ultimately occupying Iraq and hide the projected costs of the war from the American people.
Congressman Wexler stated May 28:

"Scott McClellan must be called to testify under oath before the House Judiciary Committee to tell Congress and the American people everything he knows about this massive effort by the White House to deceive this nation into war."

Last week a subpoena was issued for Karl Rove to testify before the Judiciary Committee. It appears that the former top political strategist for the Bush-Cheney team will pursue every legal action to block this subpoena.

According to Congressman Wexler, "The truth is that Congress has the right - and obligation - to hold him (Rove) accountable now - not months or years from now. It is long past time to pass Inherent Contempt and bring Rove, Libby and others before Congress."

Wexler believes that we cannot ignore these recent developments nor postpone serious inquiry until after the election. He realizes that there is a duty mandated by the Constitution to act under such circumstances, a necessity others in position of high trust need to also recognize and act upon with due speed and diligence.

More than 230,000 Americans previously signed up at the wexlerwantshearings.com site urging that impeachment action be expeditiously taken.

As for the Bush administration, its response to the McClellan disclosures show that nothing has changed since the tired old strategy of Richard Nixon and Joseph McCarthy beginning in the fifties extended to more recent times with Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. When one cannot refute a message then the strategy is to form an angry pack, then loudly and persistently attack and seek to destroy the messenger.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 08 - 05:11 PM

From te Nashua, NH, Telegraph

State Rep. Betty Hall, vilified in the letters to the editor, lauded in the blogosphere and other media, is an elder statesman who struggles on to be understood. Unfortunately, most folks really don't "get it" as to what Betty Halls' still pending impeachment resolution is actually all about.

Every American knows something about the litany of wrongs alleged against the current Bush administration. Whether the administration did or did not do those things has no part in this debate.

The vote in the New Hampshire legislature on June 4 will be on only one question Ð shall we, speaking for the people of the sovereign state of New Hampshire, ask the U.S. House to begin investigations to determine if there is sufficient cause or evidence to hold elected leaders in Washington accountable?

That's it! No more; no less.

It's the first step in the constitutional procedure that our forefathers provided for us as a remedy when we find ourselves engulfed in wrongs. Why would anyone fear using the tool we're given just for times like these?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 08 - 06:12 PM

Stand-by Amos you know what's coming

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 May 08 - 06:34 PM

Yeah. ;-) So do I.

The next post is coming...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 08 - 06:54 PM

Teribus, stop shooting the messenger, would you?

Instead, why not buy McLellan's latest book.



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 10:38 AM

That's May gone Amos, "Impeachment" none the closer, but look on the bright side - I,ve only got six more of these posts to go.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 11:37 AM

Cold comfort in the face of serious criminality, T. I guess you enjoy your passive-accomplice role, huh?


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 11:49 AM

Accomplice to what exactly Amos?

In the light of what happened and the response by those in charge, the Taleban, they were never a Government, the US Administration was perfectly correct in assisting the Tribesmen of the Northern Alliance to drive the Taleban from power. They were also correct when afforded the opportunity to hunt down those responsible for the attacks of 911 to send troops to Afghanistan and to assist in the reconstruction of that country.

When advised as to what represented the greatest threat to the United States of America in the wake of the attacks of 911. The US Administration were perfectly correct in addressing and removing that threat.

Now in both of those instances Amos, it would not have mattered a damn who the president of the United States of America was the cards would have fallen exactly the same way.

Oh, one obvious observation, if both Houses in Congress in the USA and both Houses of Parliament in the UK are happy in their passive-accomplice role, then so am I.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 02:01 PM

Yeah, that's about what I figured. I guess if someone eatsd a crock of crap every morning for breakfast all his life, it's kind of hard to convince him that he has been feeding on shit all his days; he'll be inclined to keep it up. He'll actually have a preference for eating shit. No sense trying to dissuade him.

Go with God, T.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 08:22 PM

As I write this, Dennis Kucinich is reading very carefully written, complete and irrefutable Articles of Impeachment against George Bush into the Congressional Record.


Go with God, Dennis. You're making history.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 08:40 PM

He's amazing. Eleven articles and counting, citing exact statements, line, chapter and verse of national and international laws, detail upon detail. Kucinich is forging ahead like a tank.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 08:42 PM

He's the guy who SHOULDA been next President, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 10:16 PM

My god-- he is now up to Article 24, and still going like a tank. What a mensch. Details, book, chapter and verse.

Awesome performance.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 10:36 PM

Slugging along like Jimmy Stewart; he looks pale and dehydrated but he is now on Article 26 of 35.

This is really an act of quiet heroism unfolding before our eyes.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:15 AM

HuffPo:

Representative Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, just finished reading on the House floor a 35-count impeachment resolution against President George W. Bush. Kucinich's lengthy and detailed indictment of this wayward president is the most thorough and powerful case made to date. He outlined a litany of high crimes and misdemeanors and showed without a shadow of a doubt that George W. Bush deserves to be impeached and removed from office. Kucinich made clear that Bush has violated his oath of office and his Constitutional duty that the laws be "faithfully executed."

Kucinich's impeachment resolution comes after the shocking revelations contained in the 107-page Senate Intelligence Committee's report that confirmed, once and for all, (and with the vote of two Republican Senators), that President Bush lied the American people into war. There can be no more dire and serious offense than a president lying to his fellow Americans on issues of war and peace. Bush should be impeached forthwith. The House Judiciary Committee should vote on the Kucinich resolution and split it up into Articles of Impeachment. All the committee needs is one Article to impeach Bush, Kucinich has provided dozens of potential Articles.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:29 AM

Well I suppose having dropped out of the race for the White House he did have time on his hands to engage in this pointless amusement. With only six months or so of this Presidential term left and an election in the way, I look on this with interest to see if anybody pays the blindest bit of notice - sort of like this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:46 AM

T:

I suggest you carefully read the careful description of crimes and other impeachable offenses.

Your mockery of legitimate justice has been well-recorded and I see no need for you to repeat it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:49 AM

The only candidate calling for impeachment is Ralph Nader, whom Amos finds to be anathema to his worship of the Democratic party and the corporate duopoly.

Kinda wierd, politics.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:54 AM

Fantz:

Your projection of me is quite off the mark. I like Ralph, and find him no anathema. I just don't view him as a candidate in the sense of someone who may get elected.

I support his desire for impeachment.

A

"Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush on Monday night, reading the resolution into the Congressional Record.

Kucinich, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination this year, unveiled a litany of alleged illegal and improper acts by Bush, including war crimes.

Kucinich has introduced a similar impeachment resolution against Vice President Cheney. That resolution was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, which has taken no action on the measure. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top House Democratic leaders have stated that there will be no consideration of impeachment proceedings against Bush, calling the idea "off the table."

Kucinich and other liberal Democrats, including Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), have sought the removal of the current administration, arguing that Bush and Cheney have lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 and abused their offices in order to conduct the "War on Terror" following the 9/11 attacks."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:00 AM

A link to the PDF file containing all thirty-five Articles of Impeachment with their substantiating evidence is available at the USA Today site http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/democrat-files.html.

It links to the PDF file at http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/files/kucinich_impeach.pdf.

I will email a copy on request by PM.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:35 AM

C'mon, Clinton was impeached over a blow job. Bush should be impeached because of
a blowing-up job leaving over 100,000 innocents in Iraq dead. Cheney, another war criminal should also be impeached.

this just shows you what priorities American's have.

This equation between Bush and Clinton is stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:31 PM

BUT, what will Congress do?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:40 PM

Therein lies the real conundrum, amigo.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 02:02 PM

A clip of part of the 35-article marathon.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 05:03 PM

From the Kucinich office:

"Under circumstances that can best be described as "suspicious," the www.kucinich.us website was crippled early this morning a few hours after Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 extensively documented Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush.

Until we can restore the website and implement additional security measures, you can find the full list and detailed Articles at
http://www.democrats.com/files/amomentoftruth.pdf

andÊ http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf

If you would like to show your support for the Congressman's efforts, please go to myinfo.kucinich.us to offer your comments and provide us with contact information so that we can continue to keep you informed."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 08:37 PM

..."Kucinich's resolution has at least one congressional backer.

Florida Democrat Robert Wexler declared support for it in a press release this afternoon. He accused President Bush of creating a "massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American poeple" and "an unprecedented abuse of executive power."

"It is time for Congress to stand up and defend the Constitution against the blatant violations and illegalities of this administration," Wexler said.

Wexler is a House Judiciary Committee member who launched a nationwide campaign earlier this year to hold impeachment hearings for Cheney, although he didn't cosponsor a Kucinich's Cheney impeachment measure until today.

Wexler doesn't think there's currently enough support on the Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment proceedings, but hopes upcoming testimony by former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan might change members' minds, said his chief of staff, Eric Johnson.

"There weren't enough committed votes to impeach Nixon before the hearings and tapes were discovered," Johnson said. "You need to have the hearings to bring evidence out to make the case."
...The PLain Dealer

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:09 PM

This afternoon I listened to the bottom segment of the clerks' reading of the impeachment resolution. They spelled it off between at least two clerks.

The running caption said that it took Kucinich five hours to read the 84-page resolution. I wonder how many legislators stayed in chambers to listen to either the original or for the record.

The cameras tend not to pan around the chamber; often speeches are being made to an empty house.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:44 PM

I wouldn't have stayed myself, once I appreciated the nature of the event, knowing I could read the transcript in a fifth of the time. But the important thing is that it was read in to the Congressional Record, so there is no fudgeroom about it--the exact causes and reasons, laws, regulations, treaties and violations spelled out.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:44 PM

I got that same email about his website. Glad you posted about here, Amos. He is a brave man...a lone wolf among yellow-bellied idjits in Congress. I hope SOME of them listened and felt some shame.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 02:30 PM

I congratulate Kucinich for making those charges part of the public record. Although NO one will act on them...for various reasons**... it gets Bush and his administration's failures into the spotlight in one more way.

** (if we did impeach him, he'd look like a martyr to some, it would detract from the race, and besides, he's SO handy as he is as a target for the campaign.....also, if convicted, we'd get Cheney.)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 06:18 PM

"ASHINGTON (CNN) -- An attempt by Rep. Dennis Kucinich to impeach President Bush was kicked into legislative no-man's land by members of his own party Wednesday.


Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio introduced a resolution to impeach President Bush on Tuesday.

The House voted 251-166 to send the Ohio Democrat's impeachment resolution to committee, a maneuver that allows the Democratic leadership to freeze the measure indefinitely.

The vote largely followed partisan lines, with 225 Democrats voting to punt the measure to committee.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she would not support a resolution calling for Bush's impeachment, saying such a move was unlikely to succeed and would be divisive.

All 166 votes in favor of opening up a House impeachment debate came from Republicans, apparently eager to paint Democrats as political creatures in a time of serious issues. Kucinich voted with his party, against his own measure.

Kucinich introduced the resolution into the House on Tuesday night.

Most of the congressman's resolution deals with the Iraq war, contending that the president manufactured a false case for the war, violated U.S. and international law to invade Iraq, failed to provide troops with proper equipment and falsified casualty reports for political purposes.

Kucinich also charges that Bush has illegally detained without charge both U.S. citizens and "foreign captives," and violated numerous U.S. laws through the use of "signing statements" declaring his intention to do so.

Other articles address global warming, voting rights, Medicare, the response to Hurricane Katrina and failure to comply with congressional subpoenas."


Thus, politics neatly thwarts a path of honesty and open justice.

Again.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:11 PM

Democratic leaders who are worried about Rep. Dennis Kucinich's (D-Ohio) impeachment obsession ain't seen nothing yet.

Kucinich tells us he's giving the House Judiciary Committee 30 days to act on his resolution proposing 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush or else he'll raise even more hell on the House floor. Thirty-five articles was just the tip of the iceberg. If Judiciary does nothing, he'll go back to the House floor next month armed with nearly twice as many articles.

"The minute the leadership said 'this is dead on arrival' I said that I hope they believe in life after death; because I'm coming back with it," Kucinich vowed in an interview with the Sleuth this week. "It's not gonna die. Because I'll come back with more articles. Not 35, but perhaps 60 articles."

But before he stages Night of the Living Impeachment Part II in the House chamber, the former presidential candidate says he'll meet with House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) this week to try to convince him to consider just one little article of impeachment against Bush for waging a war "based on lies." Take one, any one, Chairman Conyers, but please - just take one!

"It only takes one of the 35 articles to establish an impeachable offense," Kucinich explains.

Democratic leaders view the notion of impeaching George W. Bush as an act of political suicide for their party. But Kucinich says "there are some things that yield to reason, and there are other things that yield to politics...I cannot understand what the political reason would be to not [impeach Bush]."

Kucinich says the Democratic leadership's silence is eroding the constitutional framework of checks and balances. "What we're witnessing here is the not so slow moving destruction of our Constitution."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:26 PM

Democrats will not do anything about impeachment. Dems and Reps are owned by the same people. The Ford Foundation owns Obama. Pelosi wants to revive the "fairness doctrine" (radio censorship). The Supreme Court will begin the second American Revolution today by ruling against firearms ownership. The Dems want to be in charge of the show that's coming up. Obama/Gore want a "Green Army" that'll be assigned to steal your private property. The Dems will accelerate the Bush/Clinton destruction of America.

Vincent Bugliosi has a more workable idea for Bush. Charge him with murder. He details the plan in his new book:

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

http://www.amazon.com/Prosecution-George-W-Bush-Murder/dp/159315481X

He says any district attorney in any of the 50 states could launch such a case, since Bush has murdered so many troops in Iraq. Bugliosi's the one who prosecuted Charles Manson and others. He's hoping one of the hundreds of the DAs in the US will initiate a case, which cannot be blocked by pardons or leaving office, and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 08:21 PM

Articles of Impeachment Against William Jefferson Clinton:

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of power.

Article I Perjury article: William Jefferson Clinton provided "perjurious, false and misleading testimony" before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury in regard to relationships with Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones.
Article !! (thrown out): William Jefferson Clinton provided "perjurious, false and misleading testimony" in the Paula Jones civil case.
Article III obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.
Article IV (thrown out): William Jefferson Clinton misused and abused "his high office" by making perjurious statements to Congress in his answers to the 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee.
note: Clinton was acquitted of all charges.
Link to details: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeachvote121198.htm

Articles of Impeachment for President George W Bush:

Introduced in Congress June 9, 2008.

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of power.

Article I - Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.
Article II - Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.
Article III - Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
Article IV - Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.
Article V - Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.
Article VI - Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
Article VII - Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
Article VIII - Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
Article IX - Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
Article X - Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI - Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII - Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XIII - Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries
Article XIV - Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
Article XV - Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
Article XVI - Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Article XVII - Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives
Article XVIII - Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Article XIX - Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to 'Black Sites' Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Article XX - Imprisoning Children
Article XXI - Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
Article XXII - Creating Secret Laws
Article XXIII - Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Article XXIV - Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
Article XXV - Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
Article XXVI - Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Article XXVII - Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
Article XXVIII - Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
Article XXIX - Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article XXX - Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
Article XXXI - Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency
Article XXXII - Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change
Article XXXIII - Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
Article XXXIV - Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
Article XXXV - Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders

Source with links to details: http://www.impeachbush.tv/progress/dk_aoi_bush/

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 02:18 AM

"Articles of Impeachment for President George W Bush:

Introduced in Congress June 9, 2008."

If that is the bag of bones Amos and Kucinich are obsessing on then neither Bush nor Cheney have the slightest thing to worry about.

Running down through the first few the "guilty" parties would be Congress and US Intelligence Agencies.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:21 PM

Amos's definition of insanity:

Insanity is to continue doing the same things expecting different results.

Keep at it Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 11:27 PM

HEy, dingleberry, you think I post these reports to get a result? Whattya think I am, nuts? Oh...never mind answering that. Unfortunately, your snidity ranks a long mark further south on the sanity scale than my persistence in pointing out what people are saying about the virtues of impeachment. The fact that you disagree is probably more a reflection on your mental state than mine, I reckon.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jun 08 - 12:32 AM

So what is your definition of insanity?

One indication is insane people go bonkers if they think someone said they are nuts.

What has been the results of whatever it is you are doing here?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 06:09 PM

Public Forum Letter
Article Last Updated: 06/30/2008 08:44:47 PM MDT

Did I miss something, or were Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush ignored by The Tribune? Legal scholars on TV have stated that many of the articles proposed are likely impeachable offenses, far exceeding the merits that eroded the dignity of the last presidential impeachment process.
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid say that impeachment would be divisive and counterproductive to the election mandate on the war. So much for accountability. It's not their job to ignore our Constitution's demise, it's their obligation to protect it. A serious debate on the impeachment articles may be Congress' only hope of doing the people's business this session.
    The Tribune should take the matter seriously as well.
   
    Doug Vilnius
    Park City

---

Dear Sawzall:

One definition --not the legal one--is the inability to see evil. I suspect your type falls in that set. You seem to miss the point of this thread; it is simply to point out how much communication and concern there is on the subject of impeachable offenses by your furless leader. Perhaps you feel that Kucinich's 35 articles, for example, do not bear sufficient weight, especially compare to Clinton's two articles. Or perhaps you feel that Mister Bush has never lied to the American people or the American Congress. Or perhaps you imagine he has broken no laws, violated no Consittutional limitations, or violated no part of his oath.

Unfortunately there is a large portion of the American public who disagree with you on these points.


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 06:52 PM

Well, well Amos, here we are in July, just a couple of days over four months before the election.

As for:

"perhaps you feel that Mister Bush has never lied to the American people or the American Congress. Or perhaps you imagine he has broken no laws, violated no Consittutional limitations, or violated no part of his oath.

Unfortunately there is a large portion of the American public who disagree with you on these points."

They can disagree all they want, it doesn't make them right, it is only their opinion. The people in the know ain't moving on it, for the very solid reason that they do not believe that there is a case to answer. No point banging on about Bush and unilateral attacks on independent sovereign states in contravention of UN Charter, or without a Congress sanctioned declaration of war. He didn't do that, did he? But Bill Clinton did in 1998. Bush did not set up Iraq for an attack, the House Joint Security Committee and the US Intelligence Agencies did that. Iraq having been identified by them as a clear threat three years before Bush moved into the White House.

Now you and your fellow travellers may not be prepared to take all that in as acknowledged fact, but those good citizens sitting in the Senate and in the House of Representatives damn well know it to be the truth - Hence no action and no prospect of action on impeachment.

If it is to happen it has to happen soon, it won't because even if there was any sort of case to answer nobody wants this at this time because they want to concentrate on getting either elected or re-elected and if the Dems push ahead with this they are dead in the water and they fully realise it.

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

T:

Oh. Well, thanks, I see my efforts here have been in vain, and groundless, thanks to your superior insight. What a relief. Please accept my thanks--I cannot express how delighted I am to have been gifted with your high-altitude overview and set right from the error of my ways.

Oh, and sod off, too.



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 04:05 PM

"perhaps you feel that Mister Bush has never lied to the American people or the American Congress. Or perhaps you imagine he has broken no laws, violated no Consittutional limitations, or violated no part of his oath."

Name one who hasn'tt Mr OCD Amos.

And how much closer are you to completing whatever itt is you are ttrying to accomplish for ttwo years now?

According to whiney Libs JFK was the greatest even though he started a secret war in Asia and lied to congress and the American people about it.

Here is a good book for you teo read to give you some background. You need itt bad.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 04:20 PM

Sawzaw,

You keep pushing the "what are you trying to accomplish" button, event hough it has no buzzer attached.

And I ain't answering again, since it appears you obtusely enough did not let the answer penetrate the first time. Anyone who thinks in knee-jerk categotrical imperatives like "whiny Libs" doesn't know enough, or think enough, to bother commenting on significant national issues. But do come back when you finally have your head pulled out of your butthole.



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 05:05 PM

Amos keeps pushing the impeach button even though the power is off.

"a large portion of the American public" If such a large portion wants Bush impeached, why hasn't he been impeached? It is just a minority of weirdos that march along to the hate Bush drumbeat that keep bashing their heads against the wall even though the wall is still there.

If you can't answer a question then the only thing to do is whine a little, impugn the question an ignore it.

Amos likes his information predigested, filtered like pablum and fed to him through a RSS feed.

Are you capable of independent thought?

Is "have your head pulled out of your butthole" a knee jerk knee-jerk categotrical imperative? As in "Anybody that asks me questions about why I am doing what I am doing has his head up his butthole"

And what "type" am I? the questioning type?

Do you agree with Albert Einstein's definition that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 06:18 PM

Well, I am not sure that is actually Einstein's idea, for one thing. Might be.

For another thing, I am capable enough of independent thought to see thrugh the hypnotic drumbeat of the Bush media machine, and have been since he first took office.

Fr a third thing, I answered your question.

For a fourth, I have not been whining. I have been directly, firmly, and persistently calling crime when i see crime, and calling bullshit on those who, like your good self, are inclined to justify, ignore, or look away from it.

I don't know what kind of country you want the United States to be, pal, but if Bush;s imperial executive is your idea of good measure, I feel sorry for you.

DIsmissing those who believe impeachment is completely and wholly justified as a nutty minority is an easy, simpleminded dodge, but it won't hunt. Dig into it a little and you'll be surprised how many think he should be suspended from office.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 04:31 AM

Devy Kidd discusses Bugliosi's book on The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder:


"For those who want to blow this off as the work of a 'Bush hater' and other popular propaganda, you are in denial about the intentions of Bush and his coconspirators. These are evil people who must be held accountable. Patrick Henry's 'Give me liberty' speech was magnificent in so many ways. He and others were willing to put it all on the line for this country. For our country. For honor, integrity and birthing a nation of free individuals who were willing to fight to give all of us freedom - not to fight wars based on lies.

Bush and his coconspirators must be indicted and prosecuted. For those who died on September 11, 2001. For our soldiers who have died for their lies. For their families who will grieve every day until they take their last breath. We the people are bleeding for those families. We do care. We are not unpatriotic, but we will not condone what Bush and his coconspirators have done to this nation.

Bush and his coconspirators must be indicted and prosecuted. For the hopes of dreams of our young people, gone and blowing into the dust bin of a distorted history.

For the children of our soldiers who will never know their mom or dad past the last time they saw them as they were being shipped to hell to fight an unnecessary war. America's plate is heaped with corruption and danger. But, we must not, we cannot ignore the crimes of Bush, Cheney and Rice, because it's the easiest path or because "they're out of office now." No. This must be pursued as a screaming warning to future presidents that they cannot and will not be allowed to destroy this country by sending our soldiers into useless wars based on lies, causing so much grief and agony. Vincent Bugliosi has given the American people and the legal system the blueprint for prosecution. The question remains is there one single Attorney General in the 50 states of the Union who has the guts and courage to take on a criminal like George Bush?"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 12:05 AM

It was January 2003 and a war in Iraq was looming.
    On a whim, Larry Bergan, a baby boomer from Murray, scratched out a sign that read, "Impeach Bush."
    He walked the streets of his community, raised his sign to passing cars and logged the first 10 miles of what has become his own personal trek for peace.
    He chronicled the events of that day in a letter to his mom, Ruby Snyder, who was serving an LDS mission in Des Moines, Iowa. The letter, dated Jan. 26, read in part, "It was a great deal of fun. Although I tried not to stare at people as they went by, I got dozens of thumbs ups. It's probably impossible to tell if a honk is supportive or not, but I think if someone lays on the horn, that's bad, and if someone gives a couple of short beeps, that's good. There were far more short beeps than long ones."
    Bergan stepped up his efforts the next month when he heard commentator Bill O'Reilly, say, "Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if you can't do that, just shut up. Americans, and indeed our foreign allies who actively work against our military once the war is under way, will be considered enemies of the state by me. Just fair warning to you, Barbra Streisand and others who see the world as you do. I don't want to demonize anyone, but anyone who hurts this country in a time like this, well, let's just say you will be
spotlighted."
    Bergan wrote a second letter to his mom March 9 in which he excitedly reported, "Well, I hit a big landmark today. I have carried my "Impeach Bush" poster over 100 miles now. This project of mine has really amazed me."
    It has amazed him because of the support he has received - like that from the veteran who pedaled by with three American flags attached to his bicycle. He looked Bergan in the eye, put his thumb in the air and said, "I'm with you 100 percent, man."
    On another occasion, he walked by a young couple playing with their daughter. Bergan was slightly embarrassed because of the blunt message on his sign. He tried to go unnoticed only to have the couple shout out their support.
    There are dozens of such stories, but not everyone supports Bergan. Some simply ignore him. He has been called a communist, terrorist, tree hugger, wimp and worse. He usually just smiles, waves and ignores the insults.
    And when people tell him to "get a job", he counters that he was an optician for more than 30 years. Now that he's retired, he spends more time stumping for his causes.
    To date, Bergan has walked more than 500 miles and invested hundreds of hours to share his message of opposition to the war. Along the way, he garnered City Weekly's award for the best lone demonstrator of 2006.
    Bergan's mom was not surprised he received the award.
    She describes his passion as unbelievable.
    "He is trying to do what he thinks is right," she said. Snyder is proud of her son for standing up for his beliefs. She adds that he tends to be a bit too zealous.
    Bergan doesn't disagree with his mom's characterization. It is not his intent to anger the good, hard-working people of Utah. He pounds the pavement in an effort to generate dialogue and get people to think outside their comfort zones.
    "I am really angry about the war and want to express my feelings. I'm doing something I don't have to do and it makes me feel good," Bergan said with pride. "People can take me or leave me, but I'm not going to hide."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 02:08 PM

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH (INdex)

Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.
Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With
Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of
Aggression.
Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat
to the United States.
Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.
Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other
Countries
Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in
the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign
Captives
Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other
Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Article XX
Imprisoning Children
Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist
Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws
Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the
Fourth Amendment
Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the
Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil
Emergency
Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global
Climate Change
Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist
Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders
____________

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 09:46 PM

Why I Interrupted Bush at Monticello
David Swanson


David Swanson is the creator of ImpeachCheney.org, the Washington Director of Democrats.com and of ImpeachPAC.org. He is co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, creator of MeetWithCindy.org, creator of ResistinMarch.org, and a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, of the Backbone Campaign, of Voters for Peace, and of Filibuster for Peace. He was the organizer in 2006 of Camp Democracy. He serves on the steering committee of the Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice and on a working group of United for Peace and Justice. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson is a member of and has served on the Executive Council of the Washington Baltimore Newspaper Guild. He obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997. His website is www.davidswanson.org. In April and May 2007, Swanson consulted part-time for Kucinich for President 2008. Swanson produces a weekly podcast at anationdeceived.org and hosts a weekly radio show at thepeoplesspeakradio


David Swanson
July 04, 2008
I'll be uploading video and photos, so watch http://afterdowningstreet.org

When Bush opened his mouth to speak I shouted "Defend the Constitution, Impeach Bush!" I repeated that several times, as people nearby knocked me over, cops handcuffed me, people gave me smiles and thumbs up signs. They threw me out and a couple of more defenders of our Constitution behind me, and then a few more, and then a few more. The handcuffed citizens who'd done their duty kept comign down the hill. They did not arrest us but did give us a ride down the mountain where we joined a crowd of protesters in the road who greeted Bush's limo coming and going.




Why did we do this? Here's why:

http://afterdowningstreet.org/busharticles

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 11:39 AM

Kucinich Bringing Back Impeachment This Week

Keeping true to his word, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) informed his colleagues today that he would bring one article of impeachment against President Bush "for taking our nation and our troops to war based on lies" to the House floor Thursday.

In early June, Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment against Bush and demanded that they be read into the record in full, taking up two nights of House floor time to do so. After the House voted to refer the articles to the Judiciary Committee, Kucinich vowed that he would come back in 30 days with 60 articles of impeachment if no hearings were held.

Judiciary has done nothing on the subject in the ensuing month, though Kucinich does appear to have scaled down his plans, as he is only introducing one article instead of the promised 60. By again using a privileged resolution to bring impeachment to the floor, Kucinich is ensuring that the House will have to deal with his measure within two legislative days.

Democratic leaders have made clear that they do not want impeachment proceedings against Bush to move in the House, particularly since he only has six months left in office. Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) has generally stayed quiet on the topic but has given no indication that he plans to have his panel address the issue soon.

Kucinich's full "Dear Colleague" letter is after the jump.

Dear Colleague,

During the Fourth of July holiday a WWII veteran stood ram-rod straight in his crisp dress uniform and saluted our flag as it passed in a parade. His silent reverential stance was a powerful reminder of the love of country that is reflected in our veterans of all generations and all services.

It is also a powerful reminder of the responsibilities of the President of the Untied States in his capacity as Commander in Chief.

It is worse than heartbreaking that George W. Bush, as Commander in Chief, caused this country to go to war based on information which was false, and which he knew to be false. The consequences for our troops have been devastating. We have lost 4,116 of our beloved servicemen and women since the war began, with over 30,000 physically wounded and countless others emotionally wounded. The toll on the service persons and their families will be felt throughout their lives.

There can be no greater responsibility of a Commander in Chief than to command based on facts on the ground, and to command in fact and in truth. There can be no greater offense of a Commander in Chief than to misrepresent a cause of war and to send our brave men and women into harm's way based on those misrepresentations.

There has been a breach of faith between the Commander in Chief and the troops. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Al Qaeda's role in 9/11. Iraq had neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States. Iraq did not have weapons of Mass of Destruction. Yet George W. Bush took our troops to war under all of these false assumptions. Given the profound and irreversible consequences to our troops, if his decision was the result of a mistake, he must be impeached. Since his decision was based on lies, impeachment as a remedy falls short, but represents at least some effort on our part to demonstrate our concern about the sacrifices our troops have made.

This Thursday evening I will bring a privileged resolution to the House with a single Article of Impeachment of President Bush for taking our nation and our troops to war based on lies. We owe it to our troops who even at this hour stand as sentinels of America because they love this country and will give their lives for it. What are we willing to do to match their valor and the valor of their successors? Are we at least willing to defend the Constitution from the comfort and security of our Washington, DC offices?

Sincerely,

/s/

Dennis J. Kucinich

Member of Congress

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 11:55 AM

As a retired member of the Armed Forces I fully support Dennis Kucinich's effort to impeach this president. Time after time we have seen the abusive nature of this president, we have seen his signing documents overwriting the will of the people and we flat out know he lied about the reasons for going to war.

Those lies have lead to the murdering of over 4000 of our brave men and women who have served this country and they deserve better.

I have made it my mission that no senator or congress person will get mine or others votes if they fail to take action on this measure. Simply turning a blind eye to this criminal just because he only has six months left shows me that there is something seriously broken in each of our legislative houses and they too will need cleaning.

Posted by: Curtis | July 8, 2008 6:22 PM

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 01:12 PM

Re FISA, I can only quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Doesn't the Oath of Office, which pledges one to support the constitution, also cover the Amendments?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 09:44 AM

Here's the text of the letter that Kucinoch sent out today:

"Dear Colleague:

At President Bush's request, Congress passed an authorization for the use of military force against Iraq on October 16, 2002. At least a dozen key material representations made to Congress by the President in that authorization, in furtherance of Congressional action, were false at the time they were made. The breadth and depth of the President's misrepresentations do not argue for incompetency as a defense, but for deceit as an impeachable offense.

We have arrived at a teachable moment in our Constitutional history. Congress must insist on accountability. We must regain our rightful role as a co-equal branch of government charged with providing a check and balance to Executive abuse of power. In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, our Founders placed the war power in the hands of the House of Representatives. This separation of powers was expressly intended to prevent a President from unilaterally summoning troops to war in the manner of a king.

Are we willing to respect our institution, our Constitution and ourselves? Will this President, at last, be held accountable for lying to Congress to gain authorization for the use of force against Iraq? Will we allow future Presidents to take office knowing they can commit the same acts with impunity?

Tomorrow I will bring forth a single article of impeachment which reviews the factual misrepresentations the President made to Congress to induce a favorable vote for the authorization for war.

The only question that remains is - - will we do anything about it?"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: DougR
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 08:02 PM

Good old Dennis. He sure is a dedicated individual isn't he? Maybe Obama should consider him for his running mate. Too bad he couldn't wait until after the election in November. From all accounts both the senate and house will be crammed full of Democrats and such a declaration would slide through with ease.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 11:34 AM

According to OpEd NEws:

" Karl Rove once again thumbed his nose at Congress and the American people by brazenly ignoring a lawful congressional subpoena to testify before the House of Representatives;


• Judiciary Chairman John Conyers indicated his willingness to use the power of inherent contempt against Rove if necessary;

• Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced another article of impeachment on Bush's lies regarding the Iraq war; and

• Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quoted today saying that the House Judiciary Committee should address the issues that Kucinich raises in the House Judiciary Committee."


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 11:53 AM

We may get there, yet:

July 10, 2008

Email from Rep. Robert Wexler, FL

Capitol Hill is buzzing today with major developments regarding our campaign for impeachment hearings for President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Just today, in what could be described as a perfect impeachment storm:

• Karl Rove once again thumbed his nose at Congress and the American people by brazenly ignoring a lawful congressional subpoena to testify before the House of Representatives;

• Judiciary Chairman John Conyers indicated his willingness to use the power of inherent contempt against Rove if necessary;

• Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced another article of impeachment on Bush's lies regarding the Iraq war; and

• Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quoted today saying that the House Judiciary Committee should address the issues that Kucinich raises in the House Judiciary Committee.

After years of work by so many of you, the time appears ripe to finally hold Bush and Cheney accountable.

Conyers Opens Door to Inherent Contempt for Rove

Karl Rove has simply refused to appear, as he is legally required to do. His actions, endorsed by the Bush/Cheney Administration, are a challenge to our system of checks and balances and Congress must respond to this type of outrageous behavior with appropriate severity.

Today, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers courageously stated today that inherent contempt will remain an option for the House of Representatives so long as Rove and this Administration refuses to abide by the law.

We must now bring Mr. Rove (and other renegade Bush officials) in compliance with the law.

This is a defining moment for Congress: Will we continue to allow legislative power to be eroded by an out of control executive branch that ignores the rule of law - or will we finally put an end to this congressional capitulation and properly force Administration officials to testify in full view of the American people?

It is time for Congress to hold Karl Rove in inherent contempt. I congratulate Chairman Conyers' positive move in this direction, and we must work to move other Members of Congress in support of the use of inherent contempt. Inherent contempt properly enables the House Sergeant of Arms to physically take custody of Mr. Rove and bring him to the House of Representatives to testify.

How do you think a state or federal judge would react to a witness refusing to comply with a legal subpoena? The wayward witness would be arrested.

Should the Congress of the United States be shown any less respect than any courtroom in the nation?
Should the Congress react any differently than how any American judge would react? Absolutely not.

We are long past the time for threats and negotiation. We must bring Mr. Rove in front of the full Judiciary Committee, under oath. No administration official - not even the President - is above the law. They cannot be allowed to redefine it at will. We must all appear when called or suffer the consequences.

Speaker Pelosi's Shift on Hearings and Rep. Kucinich's New Article of Impeachment

After stating unequivocally that impeachment "is off the table," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated to CBS News today that the House Judiciary Committee should address the issues that Rep. Kucinich's has raised in his impeachment resolution.

Pelosi's words provide genuine hope for our cause of accountability for this Administration. We must use Speaker Pelosi's openness to new hearings in the Judiciary Committee to pursue aggressively the serious allegations against Bush and Cheney relating to lies about the Iraq War, the illegal use of torture, the improper disclosure of the identity of a covert agent, the political firing of US attorneys, and on and on.

I again congratulate Congressman Kucinich on his continued leadership and work on behalf of this vital cause.

This issue now reaches far beyond the substance of the Judiciary Committee's original inquiry regarding the firing of US Attorneys for political purposes. The crisis at hand relates to our most fundamental laws and of our Constitution. It is, in many ways, more serious than the Constitutional crisis surrounding Watergate – yet the national media ignores the facts and ramifications of this renegade Executive.

Congress has a duty to protect the balance of powers. Mr. Rove, Mr. Bolten, and Ms. Miers have taken actions that severely undermine these powers, and we should not rely on a federal court alone.

The political tide begins to be turning and that is why I feel so strongly that we should aggressively push for inherent contempt for Karl Rove and impeachment hearings for President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Thanks you for your work and your commitment to our constitution.

- Congressman Robert Wexler

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 07:08 PM

"Dennis Kucinich is back. He is still pushing for a Bush impeachment. And this time, he is getting more encouragement than he did last time around. The former Democratic presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman is getting some surprising encouragement on the impeachment resolution from Nancy Pelosi today. The House speaker suggested that the House Judiciary Committee may hold, quote, "some hearings on the resolution."

Kucinich's impeachment efforts so far have been unsuccessful. So is this a sign that something may change, be different? Congressman Dennis Kucinich joins us now. Thank you for being here.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH): Thank you very much.


HILL: Why do you think that it may have a chance? I understand you brought 30 articles of impeachment last time Ñ just one this time. What happened to the other 29?


KUCINICH: Well, this article that Ñ I just came from the Florida House so Ñ where I introduced it. It is very narrowly focused. It's about the communication that the president made to the Congress, a specific message asking for Congress to pass an authorization for the use of force, in which certain representations were made that would induce Congress to vote for the legislation. And categorically, the key representations that were made were false, I stated so, and provided the sources for my article on the floor of the House just moments ago...."

(FOX News)

¥ Video: Watch E.D. Hill's interview with Dennis Kucinich

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:26 PM

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that hearings may be held on a proposal to impeach President George W. Bush over the Iraq war, while suggesting the matter may never come to a vote.



"This is a Judiciary Committee matter, and I believe we will see some attention being paid to it by the Judiciary Committee," she said. "Not necessarily taking up the articles of impeachment because that would have to be approved on the floor, but to have some hearings on the subject."

Pelosi has helped block previous proposals to impeach Bush, saying the Democrat-controlled chamber shouldn't waste time on the effort. Still, holding hearings may allow an airing of Democrats' grievances against Bush without plunging the House into partisan gridlock that a full impeachment effort likely would cause.

The House voted 251-166 last month to send Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment to the committee for review. Democratic leaders opposed the measure.

The articles accuse Bush of running a secret propaganda campaign to encourage war with Iraq as well as "falsely, systematically and with criminal intent" linking the 9/11 attacks to Iraq as a security threat.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 06:04 PM

"This afternoon, at approximately 5 p.m. (EDT), the Clerk of the House of Representatives will give the first reading of the Article of Impeachment of President George Bush. Article One charges the President with deceiving Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq WMDs to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization of the use of military force against Iraq.

Once the Clerk reads the bill, I will move to refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee for hearings. I believe the American people have a right to an open airing of the charges against this President. Did he or did he not lie to take us into a war? I believe the evidence is overwhelming that President Bush knew that Iraq was not an imminent threat, was not in possession of WMDs at the time, and had nothing to do with 911 or with al Queda's role in 911. And yet, despite having facts to the contrary, he took the U.S. into war with devastating consequences for our troops, our nation, and the people of Iraq. Congress must hold hearings.

There can be no greater offense of a President or a Commander in Chief than to conjure a war based on lies to Congress, to the troops, and to the people of America.

I love our country with all my heart and I intend to persist until America is America again.

Please contact your friends and neighbors and ask them to go to our website at www.Kucinich.us and sign the impeachment petition. Thank you for your continuing support and for your love of our country and its people. ...."

(From Dennis Kucinich)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 10:31 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) Ñ Rep. Dennis Kucinich's single impeachment article will get a committee hearing Ñ but not on removing President Bush from office.
The House on Tuesday voted 238-180 to send his article of impeachment Ñ for Bush's reasoning for taking the country to war in Iraq Ñ to the Judiciary Committee, which buried Kucinich's previous effort.
This time, the panel will open hearings. But House Democratic leaders emphatically said the proceedings will not be about Bush's impeachment, a first step in the Constitution's process of a removing a president from office.
Instead, the panel will conduct an election-year review Ñ possibly televised Ñ of anything Democrats consider to be Bush's abuse of power. Kucinich, D-Ohio, is likely to testify. But so will several scholars and administration critics, Democrats said.
The hearing is a modest gesture by House Democratic leaders to members like Kucinich who insist that Bush's reasons for going to war meet the standard for impeachment. Kucinich had said that if his impeachment article is tabled he would just propose another one....

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 07:03 PM

"bullshit on those who, like your good self, are inclined to justify"

Dear Amos:

Kindly point out what I have justified? I have asked your justification which so far is not logical.

You keep expending energy on something that even you admit is not going to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 07:38 PM

Swazaw:

I am reporting on the topic, because I feel it is the right thing to do.

Obviously you think the right thing to do is a bunch of limp-wristed quibbling. The truth is you wouldn't know what a genuine liberal was if he came up and bit you on the ass. Which come to think of might be a good idea. You do not, obviously, know the meaning of the word. You are engaged in a different business, or more accurately, dramatization. So go off and act out somewhere else.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 12:22 PM

"Better late than never — impeach Bush and Cheney


07/21/08


Finally, Democrats are moving to impeach the administration of those now controlling the Oval Office. For nearly eight years, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have lied to the American people. They have launched a war that is unconstitutional and unjustified. They have imprisoned thousands of people — some of them women and children — without due process, and then proceeded to torture them. They have spied on American households. They have laughed while they trashed the concepts of due process, habeas corpus, privacy, the Geneva Convention, and basic decency. No one has held them accountable for this tyrannical behavior — until now.


When Rep. Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, she became one of the most powerful women in the world. Pelosi has long been critical of the current administration's "war on terror" and the propaganda that surrounds it. Yet, before she even ascended to her current position, she made it clear that impeaching Bush was not on her agenda. Thus for two years, Democrats have held a majority in Congress and yet have not moved to impeach.


Why did Pelosi think America put Democrats in office? To pat Bush's back and wink at his crimes?


We can understand the reluctance to impeach. Democrats became quite allergic to the whole process after President Clinton was dragged through impeachment over what should have remained a private affair (pun intended). Millions of dollars were wasted proving that the man had, indeed, cheated on his wife. Conservatives and progressives alike took umbrage at the president's dalliance with a White House intern — but few Americans considered his personal failure a crime against the country.


Less than a decade later, Republicans are no longer bothered by adultery. Sen. John McCain not only cheated on his wife Carol; when Carol became disabled, he ditched her for a younger model, marrying the blonde, 25-year-old Cindy within one month of his divorce. Aren't Republicans, who claim to be the standard-bearers of moral behavior, appalled at McCain's sexual behavior? On the contrary — they want to make him president of the United States! Adultery is now passé for Republican politicians.


President Clinton was found innocent of the charges leveled against him, yet his impeachment affects Democratic thinking today. Some Democratic leaders apparently forgot that our forefathers established impeachment as an avenue toward justice. Impeachment should not be used as a partisan act of character assassination, as it was in Clinton's case. But when a president has used the office to thwart the Constitution and commit war crimes, then impeachment is not only justified; it is absolutely necessary.


Thank you, Rep. Kucinich, for having the courage to stand up for justice. At this late stage in Bush's second term, some are tempted to just let things ride. Some would even say it is "too late" for impeachment. ..."


From the local paper of Catoosa County, Georgia

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:55 PM

"Congress to Debate on Single Article of Impeachment Against Bush
By Peter Bauer (7-15)

On Tuesday afternoon, Congress is expected to debate a single article of impeachment against President Bush for "taking our nation and our troops to war based on lies."

The article is being raised by Congressman Dennis Kucinich who introduced 35 articles of impeachment in June, and produced similar charges against Vice President Dick Cheney last year.

Kucinich argues that "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Al Qaeda's role in 9/11. Iraq had neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States. Iraq did not have weapons of Mass of Destruction. Yet George W. Bush took our troops to war under all of these false assumptions."

His objective could not be more clear: "When the Commander in Chief lies to go to war, he must be impeached."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 06:18 PM

The only thing that Kucinich is going to end up proving is that he is as thick as two short planks

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 08:17 PM

Or that he is the only member of Congress with the interesting combination of personl integrity and solid-brass balls. SOmetimes, you know, honesty is its own reward regardless of how many cockroaches hiss and scatter.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:30 AM

"Kucinich argues that "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Al Qaeda's role in 9/11. Iraq had neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States. Iraq did not have weapons of Mass of Destruction. Yet George W. Bush took our troops to war under all of these false assumptions."

OK Amos shall we take these one at a time:

1) "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Al Qaeda's role in 9/11."

Absolutely right Mr Kucinich, and President George W Bush and senior members of his administration are on record as early as 16th September, 2001 agreeing with both of you. Now Amos, I would hazard that that makes it rather difficult for anybody to claim that George W. Bush told Congress and the American people that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11

2) "Iraq had neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States."

Two independently formed committees, Intelligence and Security Agencies and the Joint House Security Committee, on evaluation and analysis of the information available at the time found otherwise Amos, and Mr. Kucinich knows this perfectly well - More important so do those members of Senate and House of Representatives who sat in on those committees. It was these two committees that detailed the greatest threat that the United States of America faced in the aftermath of 9/11. It was these committees that reported their findings and conclusions to the President. The conclusions arrived at by the Intelligence Services with regard to candidate most likely to fulfil the role of "rogue state" should not have come as any great surprise, exactly the same people had told President Bill Clinton the same thing three years before. All of this Amos is a matter of record - as Mr.Kucinich well knows.

By the bye, how is Mr. Kucinich going to prove that he knew what Iraq's intentions were in the period in question?

On capability, did Iraq have the capability to provide financial, technolgical and material support to an international terrorist organisation? Again how is Mr. Kucinich going to prove that they did not?

3) "Iraq did not have weapons of Mass of Destruction."

Oddly enough that is completely besides the point. At the time nobody knew for certain what WMD, WMD programmes and WMD materials existed in Iraq. Most Governments believed that Iraq did possess WMD, based upon the discrepancies detailed in UNSCOM's last report. This is not surprising when Saddam Hussein himself stated while in prison that he had done everything in his power to foster the belief that Iraq still possessed WMD.

Mr. Kucinich's problem is that he has to prove that both he and GWB knew for a fact that such weapons, research & development programmes and precursor materials did not exist in Iraq. Oddly enough Amos that will prove difficult as subsequent to the return of the UN inspectors some of them turned up.

4) "Yet George W. Bush took our troops to war under all of these false assumptions."

Well no he didn't Amos. The President went to the UN and he went to Congress. The outstanding problems with Iraq's refusal to comply with the requirements of a whole rake of UN Security Council Resolutions was clearly explained in view of what the USA perceived as the potential threat and how that applied to Iraq. What Congress did was give the President their backing for independent use of force to enforce the terms of UN sanctions should the UN fail to act forcefully enough. And that Mr. Kucinich knows full well.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 10:23 AM

Geeze, T. Your pink glasses are getting overheated, dude.



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 12:13 PM

Don't worry about the glasses Amos. If I believed in right of something as obsessively as you, and obviously Kucinich do, then I would have some sort of answers worked out for the rather elementary questions that I have asked you.

But you have no answers have you?

1) Neither Bush, nor anyone in his administration ever said that Iraq, or Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 - Recorded Fact - So how could Bush be accused of taking US troops to war on the false assumption that Iraq did have something to with 9/11 - Kucinich's accusation on this point is ridiculous and untenable

2) How could Kucinich know what Iraq's intentions were throughout this period? Answer: He couldn't that would have been impossible.

3) How could GWB know Iraq's intentions throughout this period? Answer: He couldn't that would have been impossible.

4) How could Kucinich know that GWB knew what Iraq's intentions were throughout the period in question? Answer: He couldn't that would have been impossible.

Now then Amos combine 2, 3 & 4 above and the premise put forward by Dennis Kucinich is demonstrably idiotic.

The other points raised by Dennis Kucinich are equally ridiculous and represent his opinion, he can produce no evidence because there is no evidence. What he is mounting is a rather fanciful campaign of "chinese whispers", which makes him out to be rather pathetic and lacking in integrity.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 01:24 PM

1) Neither Bush, nor anyone in his administration ever said that Iraq, or Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 - Recorded Fact - So how could Bush be accused of taking US troops to war on the false assumption that Iraq did have something to with 9/11 - Kucinich's accusation on this point is ridiculous and untenable

I'm afraid you are generally wrong on this point. And we have been over it before, so I don't see why you want to repeat that whole conversation. His administration's key personnel repeatedly implied a connection, with the full intent of using 9-11 as a basis for the invasion.

2) Knowing the enemies intentions is a basic part of intell; if Bush really knew nothing about Saddam Hussein's relationship with Al Qeda (hostile) or his intentions toward the U.S. (angry bluffs) he had no reason to start a war with him without finding out.

Kucinich's arguments will be heard by their own oproper authorities, which does not (unfortunately) include you, sir.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 01:29 PM

Or fortunately, depending on how one looks at it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:13 PM

Not at all Amos old friend, both you and Dennis Kucinich know that you do not have a leg to stand on, which is why George W. bush and Dick Cheney will not be impeached and history will prove them to have protected the United States of America against a terrorist onslaught that matched the gravest attack upon the USA that it has ever experienced. History will also prove that they did more to protect the United States of America from further attack, than those who came after them, particularly if that person happens to be Barak Obama - more Americans will die in the line of duty on his watch if he is elected President than ever before. Don't blame it on GWB because if his policies were to be continued those deaths would not have happened. Any "Commander-in-Chief" who does not listen to his Commanders on the Ground but relies on populist politics is going to fail.

Oddly enough I am not worried about it, Gordon Brown will have hooked the UK contingent out of Iraq by then. Within a few months (Apparently 16 seems to be the magic number) then the mutiny within the US armed forces will take effect. Obama talks about a "surge" in Afghanistan? OK folks tell me why the US armed forces will respond to that after they have been stabbed in the back by their "Commander-in-Chief", who has never "commanded" anything in his life before, when they were actually winning a war in Iraq??? Tell me why will they follow his directive to attack and fight in Afghanistan? How soon after that directive is given will the JFK "wobble" and complete collapse occur??

Tell you what guys, you let domestic public opinion defeat a professional armed force in Iraq in exactly the same way that you let domestic public opinion defeat a conscripted armed force in Vietnam and you are then into picking up some fairly serious consequences - You have failed to support your people in a fairly clear and serious conflict when they realy needed your support, next time they will not stand they, quite rightly will say - Get the fuck on with it, sort yourselves out, after all you did the square root of Fuck-all for us when we needed it. And you know what? That will be exactly as you deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 08:06 PM

Teribus:

You really are getting red in the face winding yourself up on this diet of high-intensity horseshit.

I suggest you take a long walk and simmer down some.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 04:16 AM

Amos, you and your fellow travellers seem to think that getting your troops out of Iraq will be something akin to a football team walking of the pitch at the end of the game - believe me it will be a damn sight more complicated than that.

Afghanistan? Given Obama's comments on his tactical approach versus Pakistan sovereignty, Afghanistan could turn into a complete and utter disaster. Take a look at a world atlas Amos, what price any foreign troops surviving in Afghanistan if Pakistan withdraws "over-fly" rights?

Jack the Sailor posted a link about John McCain but it covered Obama's press conferences out in the middle-east. As he was there explaining his Iraq withdrawal policy, the only thing that was missing as he chatted away, waving his hands about as he does, was a white flag. The man is an absolute disaster waiting to happen, he is completely without substance and internationally Putin and Co are going to make mincemeat out of him. He (Obama) might even be the President that manages to make "Peanut" Carter look good.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 07:38 AM

last was mine.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 09:28 AM

Odd-- such vitriol from Teribus, next to a post accusing me of undue denigration.


Teribus, you have missed the man completely.

Guest: I don't mind what you wish to think. I am here under my own name with the willingness to speak for myself, a lnown quamtity more or less.

I do get a little acerbic, I admit, and I try to correct that ugly side of my perosnality, but at least I'm being myself in public. Who are you?


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 09:42 AM

Amos.

"Odd-- such vitriol from Teribus, next to a post accusing me of undue denigration."

Except T.'s comments were about the situation under discussion, and yours have been about the people who dare disagree with you.



"Teribus, you have missed the man completely."

No, he has judged him based on what he says, and not on some vision of what might be in more perfect world. Care to present some statements of his that would lead us to believe other than T.'s comments??



"uest: I don't mind what you wish to think. I am here under my own name with the willingness to speak for myself, a lnown quamtity more or less.

I do get a little acerbic, I admit, and I try to correct that ugly side of my perosnality, but at least I'm being myself in public. Who are you?"

"GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 07:38 AM

last was mine.


...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 07:32 AM

Amos, "


I corrected my missing name in the next posting: I am a known poster, as you would have noticed if you were paying attention. (No cookies allowed on this machine)



beardedbruce      8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 04:56 PM

The following is a media release from the Nader presidential campaign:

July 23, 2008
www.votenader.org

WASHINGTON, July 23, 2008——Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader today sent the following letter to U.S. House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers on the hearings about presidential misconduct scheduled for Friday, July 25.

July 23, 2008

Chairman John Conyers
House Judiciary Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Chairman Conyers:

For years I have been urging you to initiate a resolution of impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for chronic, repeated violations of our Constitution and the many "high crimes and misdemeanors" they commit day after day. These two men are the worst recidivist impeachable occupiers of the Presidency and Vice Presidency in American history.

Since assuming power over both Houses, the Democratic leadership declared impeachment to be "off the table."

During our 2004 Nader/Camejo independent campaign for the Presidency, we invited the American people to sign on in support of our demand for the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Many thousands of citizens signed.

We have had several conversations and two meetings where impeachment was discussed. On March 24, 2008, I wrote you a letter describing the various options open to you as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (see enclosed.)

A few days ago, it was reported that your Committee will hold hearings this Friday July 25, 2008 on Congressman Dennis Kucinich's article of impeachment referred to your jurisdiction.

You have invited four members of the House to testify including, of course, Congressman Kucinich and several observers of the subject, including the inestimable former mayor of Salt Lake City Rocky Anderson, Bruce Fein and John Dean. The Libertarian candidate for President, Bob Barr is also on the witness list, but I am not.

This is not the first time that I have been excluded from testifying on subjects both of us have been concerned about and have discussed. Remember your invitation to testify at your unofficial public hearing right after the 2004 elections regarding "irregularities" in Ohio? Within two days, your chief of staff, Perry Applebaum, persuaded you to disinvite me.

Applebaum has been a problem with my appearing before a Committee Chairman whom I have known, admired and worked with for nearly forty years. He has performed his exclusionary behavior on other occasions. It is time to make this public and to ascertain why he prevails again and again with his superior either not to invite or to deny requests to testify regarding subjects well within my knowledge, experience, and forthrightness.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 07:16 PM

Bruce:

We cross posted, obviously.

As for my denigration of posts I do not agree with, I react strongly to assertions which I believe to twist or distort important facts.

An honest opinion based on the facts of the case, is in most cases no enemy of mine, nor a target for denigration, but I will admit one exception. The facts of any case can be vigorously marshaled and persuasively presented for purposes which are destructive, such as the reinforcement of hate, the legitimization of murder, rationalizing fascism or bullying, or doing other less-than-ethical things with simple human ideas. The intent may color the entire discussion in such a way that apparent reason can be used to forward extremely irrational and contra-survival purposes.

When that happens, I spark out a good bit.

However, I am always open to being shown the error of my ways.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 10:19 PM

At least Obama knows Putin is Russian. McCain thinks Putin is the Chancelor of Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: DougR
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 01:35 AM

Really, CarolC? Are you absolutely SURE Putin is Russian? Seen his birth certificate have you? I haven't, but there might be reason to question his nationality, if for no other reason than the changes that have taken place in the old Soviet Union.

As to whether Obama knows that Putin is Russian, I'm sure he thinks so.

What, though, does any of this have to do with a Declaration of Impeachment of George W. Bush? Are you liberal Mudcatters so obtuse that you are not aware that he is not running for president in 2008? May I ease your minds: he is not.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 09:25 AM

That's like being assured that a bank robber has retired before being charged and tried, Doug. It makes a mockery of justice, something that you obtuse neocons are specialists in.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 10:47 AM

Ok, let me rephrase...

At least Obama knows that Putin is a political leader of Russia. McCain thinks Putin is the Chancellor of Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 10:55 AM

BTW, my comment addressed a point about Obama and Putin (not Bush's impeachment) made by someone else, who I notice hasn't been chastised for having done so by the person who is now chastising me. No surprise there.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 08 - 11:19 AM

IF for no other grounds than murder, and the wreaking of mayhem without due cause, Mister Bush should be called up and made accountable.

Unleashing the ruination of war is an act of ultimate responsibility for death and harm. Doing so unnecessarily is an act, not of leadership, but of irresponsible chaos. Mister Bush's judgement as led to the untimely death of over 4000 Americans, and thousands of others. Blood and tears of awesome magnituide have been let on his signature, not in an act of defense buit in an act of indefensible "premeptive" aggression.

Them's the basics of the situation, people. All your dancing around the paperwork is not going to change those basics a jot or a tittle. Blood has been spilled, large amounts of human blood, into the sands of Mesopotamia. Disguising it as a military adventure lessens none of it. He who unleashes violence on the race must face and pay the piper for doing so.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jul 08 - 03:33 PM

"Obviously you think the right thing to do is a bunch of limp-wristed quibbling"

Seems to me that Amos is engages in limp limp-wristed over something he doesn't believe will happen.

Kucinich is "Barney Fife goes to Washington"

Russert:

    Congressman Kucinich, I want to move to a different area because this is a serious question. The godmother of your daughter, Shirley MacLaine…The godmother? I had no clue. When I heard that last night, I said, Gee! The godmother of your daughter, Shirley MacLaine, writes in her new book that you sighted a UFO over her home in Washington State. Now, did you see a UFO?

Kucinich:

    I — I — I didn't — I — It was an unidentified flying object, okay? It's, like, it's unidentified. I saw something. You have to keep in mind that Jimmy Carter saw a UFO, and also that more people in this country, uh, have seen UFOs than, I think, approve of George Bush's presidency.

Congress fritters time away on bullshit like Steroid use and ignores the most important issue before them according to the voters, the energy bill.

No wonder their approval is 1/3rd ot Bush's approval rating.

In other words Bush is three times more popular than congress. They should impeach themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:04 AM

Impeachment town meeting in Madison Monday night
The Capital Times — 7/28/2008 8:34 am

Following a call for impeachment at a congressional hearing Friday, two town meetings are set Monday and Tuesday night in Madison and Milwaukee to discuss the possibility of the removal of President Bush and Vice President Cheney from office.

The town meetings will feature Vietnam war veteran Robert Bowman, a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel who is on a national speaking tour advocating impeachment.

The Madison "Take Back America" town meeting will be at 7 p.m. Monday in Van Vleck Hall on Bascom Hill on the UW-Madison campus. The Milwaukee town meeting is at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Friends meeting house, 3224 N. Gordon Place.

The Madison town meeting also will feature national political writer and Capital Times associate editor John Nichols.

The town meetings are free, and will include discussion periods. For more information about the Madison meeting, contact Buzz Davis at 239-5354

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:16 AM

Sawz:

1. Try to write coherent sentences and proofrede foirst. :D

2. I add to this thread because I believe that airing the claims for impeachment is the right thing to do--part of trying to get the truth out about an Administration that has dramatized dark secrecy since its inception and believes in the right of citizens not to know what their government is really doing.

The Articles of Impeachment may gain traction and they may not. The point is that the issue should not be allwoed to be dismissed on the strength of a lot of humphing and ignoral by those invested in the current Administration's pathetic obsessive "rightness".

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 12:31 PM

Amos: Define obsessive please. Do you think 208 posts in 9 days is obsessive?

I think it was your Hero, Mr Kucinich that couldn't compose a sentence during a national TV interview.

Who made this statement? "we can take action against them -- cutting off funds, spiking their cellphones or even sending small squads in to bring a few of them at a time off for summary justice somewhere."


What does "summary justice" mean?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 01:09 PM

That really clarifies things, Sawz. Thanks so much.









A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 02:36 PM

Now calrify "summary justice" please

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 03:19 PM

To quote L. Carroll.

"First the hanging, then the trial."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 04:48 PM

BElieve me, I don't know where you got your quote from, and I see no reason to try and explain something on so little data. Why not explain what the f*&^ it was, and then what you don't understand about it? Are you grasping at straw men?



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 09:48 PM

Amos:

You made 208 posts in 9 days. Is that what you would call obsessive?

Surely someone who calls others osessive must know what is obsessive and what is not. You know, you are just holding your wealth of knowledge back.

And certianly you know who made this statement: "we can take action against them -- cutting off funds, spiking their cellphones or even sending small squads in to bring a few of them at a time off for summary justice somewhere."

Hint: is inititals are A J. I certainly hope that AJ has not blathered off at the mouth about whatecer he thought was the trendy thing to say at the and done a 180 in order to keep up with the trends.

Evidently this AJ believed in "summary justice" at one time.

And, correct me on this if I am wrong, but "straw men" is when you set up people to blame for things. Sorta like scapegoats and red herrings.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jul 08 - 11:37 PM

Oh, stop dicking around, meathead. Is that something I said? If so, where? Do you feel clever ferreting out some old conversation and hauling out an old snippet out of context?

What the hell is all this innuendo and sarcasm and misdirection? Come out and say what you mean.

And no, the number of communications is not what defines obsession. I also run a regular life, and a home.

I do, I confess, have a bit of a button on mealy-mouthed, underhanded, or snide efforts to blame and nullify others points of view. I tend to slap back when I see it. But I don't slap at people who are decently trying to express a perspective even if it is one I don't agree with. The operative word is decently.

At least that's my policy. I ain't perfect yet.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:37 PM

Amos: Could you policy possibly be percieved as arrogant?

A Mr knowitall who shifts his position to whatever he thinks is the popular be it right or wrong?

A pompous ass who accuses other of being obsessive?

You have been asked several straightforward questions which you avoid answering by accusing the questioner of dicking around.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:37 PM

The People, the Press, & the Case for Impeachment
Tuesday, 29 July 2008, 5:16 pm
Column: Michael Collins
House Justice Committee Hears Kucinich Resolution - Part 2

"When our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence they were not worried about political will, how much time there was, or about any parties' political future, they were just worried they were going to be hanged by the neck. But they did what was right. Now it is your time."
Elliott Adams, President, Veterans for Peace, testimony July 25,

"Scoop" Independent News
Washington, DC (See Part 1)

The July 25, 2008 House Committee on the Judiciary hearings focused on the Kucinich resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush. In his resolution, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) argues that Bush knew that the Iraqis had no weapons of mass destruction, yet claimed that they did in order to justify the March 2003 invasion. The "fraudulent misrepresentations," as they're referred to in the resolution, cost lives, compromised national security, and represented a clear abuse of constitutional power. The evidence supporting these claims is highly persuasive.

For the most part, the witness statements from House members and the panel of invited witnesses contain specific justifications for impeachment. The Kucinich resolution for impeachment, H. Res 1345, offers a concentrated body of evidence substantiating the charges and demonstrates the main charge in the resolution: the president knew that he was misrepresenting the facts about Iraq at the time he was doing it.

In the resolution, Rep. Kucinich lists corrections for each of the false assertions made by the president to justify the Iraq invasion. In addition, the resolution provides excerpted evidence and sources to support each correction of the president's fabricated rationale.

The statements in single quotes in the Kucinich resolution text below are from the president's justifications for war. From the resolution:


1. Iraq was not 'continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability.'
2. Iraq was not 'actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability.'

3. Iraq was not 'continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States.'

4. Iraq did not have the 'willingness to attack, the United States.'

5. Iraq had no connection with the attacks of 9/11 or with al-Qaida's role in 9/11.

6. Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer to anyone.

7. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and therefore had no capability of launching a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or to provide them to international terrorists who would do so.

8. There was not a real risk of an 'extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack' because Iraq had no capability of attacking the United States.

9. The aforementioned evidence did not 'justify the use of force by the United States to defend itself' because Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, or have the intention or capability of using the nonexistent WMDs against the United States.

10. Since there was no threat posed by Iraq to the United States, the enactment clause of the Senate Joint Resolution 45 was predicated on misstatements to Congress. H. Res. 1345 (alternate link)

The facts from that time don't come close to justifying the use of force. As demonstrated in the resolution, the president's case for war was based on "fraudulent representations made to Congress," the military, and the citizens of the United States.

See the draft of H. Res. 1345 at AfterDowingStreet.Org for direct links to the primary sources used in the resolution. The Library of Congress (THOMAS) and this alternate site have the official versions of the resolution, modified somewhat from the draft.

This information and more has been known for years to many citizens, particularly those who actively work for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Hundreds of them waited hours to get a seat in the public hearing which accommodated less than twenty of those who had waited in line.


As it turned out, the earliest arrivals for the hearings were from the key states responsible for the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution, Virginia and Massachusetts, and the city in which they were developed, debated, and adopted, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Bill Perry and Sam Adams, two of the several representatives from Philadelphia's Delaware Valley Veterans for America, were on also present just before 5:00 am, as well. Perry and Adams, Viet Nam veterans had just worked on "A Sea of Tombstones: The Cost of War" mourning the Iraq war dead. When asked about claims that impeachment might hurt national security, Perry said clearly, "We are national security" and pointed out that the war makes us more rather than less vulnerable as a nation. Adams was clear on the necessity for impeachment: "We have to do it so the next guy down the road won't do the same thing."
.
Rain Burroughs, Mary Genther-Carter, and Chris Dorsey of RVA4Peace got up very early and drove from Richmond, Virginia to Washington, DC for the impeachment hearings. They arrived before 5:00 am. When asked why impeach Bush this late in his term, Dorsey responded, "It's never too late for accountability." Burroughs had a special point to make by attending the hearings. Along with her seven year old daughter, she'd been removed from a 2007 Fourth of July celebration by Richmond police for displaying a sign containing the word "Impeach." Genther-Carter was just glad to be there even though she needed to be back in Richmond for work in mid afternoon.

David Swanson, another Virginian, also arrived very early. Swanson has been a constant advocate for White House accountability, impeachment, and an end to the occupation of Iraq. As the head of AfterDowningStreet.Org, he provides and hosts much of the key information on the hearings, including videos of the July 25 hearings.

When asked what he'd say to those who said this is too late and a waste of time, Swanson was quick to respond stating that there are "many reasons why that's absolute nonsense." He pointed to the overwhelming proof that the reasons for the Iraq invasion were fabricated, the undeniable admissions concerning FISA violations, and asked, "What's this second to?" Swanson also pointed out that there's no need for a prolonged impeachment process since the proof is already in place and widely available.

Robert Feuer from Stockbridge, Massachusetts, made a point of arriving early to the impeachment hearing line. He's campaigning hard against incumbent Rep. John Oliver (D-MA) in the Democratic primary for the Massachusetts 1st congressional district. A small town lawyer, Feuer is outraged that his representative has ignored the will of the people expressed at town hall meetings across the district. Oliver, he reports, admits that he's fully aware that many towns have voted in favor of impeachment by huge margins but refuses to support the effort. Feuer hopes to replace Oliver and solve at least that problem.

It would have been impossible to keep Stuart Hutchinson out of the capitol on the day of the hearings. He founded North Jersey Impeach Groups, one of the most active impeachment organizations in the country. He outlined his motivation for impeachment in no uncertain terms:


"The biggest threat to the security of the United States is not Osama bin Laden. The most severe threat's not Iran or Musharraf or the Taliban in Afghanistan, and it's not al-Qaeda. None of these has the power to defeat the United States, not one can undo American democracy. The USA does suffer a grave threat to its security, a clear and present danger to the future of every person in our country, and it's led by Dick Cheney, George Bush, and the gang they put together who overthrew the government of the United States in November 2000."

Press Coverage - General Indifference and Tepid Denial by the Dwindling Elite

The mainstream media continued to lag far behind everyday citizens by ignoring the big issues while ridiculing those who take the lead in addressing vital concerns.

Class Clown Dana Milbank of the Washington Post
Dana Milbank successfully defended his title as class clown of the Washington press corps in a column that was so divorced from reality one wonders if he even attended or watched the hearings. He began with this:


(quote)    "It seems that we are hosting an anger management class," Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas told his colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee yesterday morning.
"He had a point." Washington Post, July 26, 2008 (end quote)

He continued by endorsing Republican committee member wise cracks and disparaging Chairman John Conyers (D-OH) handling of the event.

Milbank wrote a 2005 hit piece on Conyers in which he mocked the hearings held by the Michigan Democrat on the Downing Street Memo. Labeled "Secret and Personal - for UK Eyes," the July, 2002 secret report by a British foreign policy aid described meetings with Bush-Cheney representatives which included plans for war based on political not security reasons.


"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin.

Matthew Rycroft, July 23, 2002, reported in the London Times Online, May 1, 2005

Milbank failed to note the tens of thousands of deaths and injuries suffered by U.S. soldiers. He missed the 1.0 million plus dead Iraqi civilians resulting from the civil strife caused by the invasion. And one wonders if he even knew about the 5.0 million Iraqi children orphaned by the war.

These highly relevant facts were an inconvenience to Milbank who brushed them aside for his humorous approach to the national tragedy enabled by gross violations of the Constitution and a total lack of common decency. The facts are also more than inconvenient for the paper that supports his tasteless humor, the Washington Post, which has so faithfully supported the aggressive and violent foreign policy.

Maybe Milbank and his editor should read their own poll on the public assessment of their man: "Nearly 6 in 10 -- 58 percent -- said they have doubts about Bush's honesty, the first time in his presidency that more than half the country has questioned his personal integrity." Washington Post, Nov. 4, 2004

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:15 PM

Because of your vigilance and support for democracy, last Friday was a day of singular importance in Washington. The House Judiciary Committee met to discuss the Bush Administration's abuse of executive power and for the first time the case for Impeachment was discussed in front of a Congressional committee, in depth, at length and with authority.

Twenty members of the Judiciary Committee attended the six hour hearing, during which twelve witnesses, including myself and four members of Congress testified. In this hearing I called for the Impeachment of the President for misrepresenting a case for war.

This week I will present members of Congress with Impeachment petitions submitted by those of you who have signed the on-line impeachment form.

I need your help. In the next few days we must redouble our efforts to get more signatures on the online petition at kucinich.us. I'm asking each of you to please contact at least ten of your friends to go to www.Kucinich.us now and sign the Impeachment petition that will be delivered by me. Wednesday night is the deadline.

Please send out an email to all your friends and family, post this link, http://kucinich.us to your blogs and make this effort count as this is the only petition that I will deliver.

(From Dennis Kucinich's office)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:07 PM

Amos:

You made 208 posts in 9 days. Is that what you would call obsessive?

What is "summary justice"?

Mr Kucinich's circus:
The hearing was initially billed by Kucinich and others as an "Impeachment Hearing." By July 17, when it landed on the House Judiciary Committee's calendar, it had been renamed as a hearing on the "Bush Imperial Presidency." And then earlier this week, it was changed again to a "Hearing on Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations."

Republican members of the committee, who sometimes avoid showing up for hearings they view as partisan, gamely attended, if only to needle Democrats for holding an event they know will not lead to impeachment proceedings.

"It seems that we are hosting an anger management class," said Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith. "Nothing is going to come out of this hearing with regard to impeachment of the president. I know it, the media knows it, even the speaker knows it."

Rep. John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the committee, acknowledged it wasn't an impeachment hearing. "To the regret of many, this is not an impeachment hearing. To have an impeachment hearing, the House of Representatives has to vote to authorize that a committee begin an inquiry, and that has not taken place yet."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 12:07 AM

"You made 208 posts in 9 days. Is that what you would call obsessive?"

Certainly not. I send that many emails in 2 days, and you have saliently omitted saying how many conversations were involved or how long the posts were.


What is "summary justice"?

In what context, specifically? It usually refers to a system of rapid trial and punishment without protracted process. Captain's Masts are a common example, but so are lynching parties. Depends on the contexts which you have steadfastly avoided identifying.

Stupid questions, but there ya go.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 08:55 AM

Ahem, Amos, how are you and your pal Kucinich getting along with that "Impeachment" thing?

Dare say you've got some pretty damning "cut'n'pastes" from local rags reporting meetings to "move to impeach" that are all pretty much as meaningless now as they were when you kicked this thread off all those years ago.

On the countdown Amos we are now into August, roughly three months from the 2008 Presidential Election with "Impeachment" proceedings nowhere in sight and even less likely to hove into view. What on earth are you going to do come January 2009? How will you fill those endless hours?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 09:32 AM

I am going to start a new project documenting the invasion of aliens from Regulus, T. Thanks so much for asking.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 08:56 PM

And that Amos will be as equally fruitful - Dig out. You will lift "obession" to a new level.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 09:02 PM

Well, I don't expect a lot of understanding on this issue from a man whose ideas are firmly fixed, bud. It has nothing to do with obsession--it's just plain ole continuing to communicate. A sign of life rather than dystrophy, ya might say.

But I am sure you have it all taped out as something else, indeed, and that's ok. If Bush never gets impeached, he'll take his crimes to the grave, unless he gets charged on a civilian basis. Causing violent harm to fellow-humans without just cause isa pretty nasty way to spend a lifetime.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 09:20 PM

The one thing that he has done throughout the term of his "Presidency" is keep you safe Amos. Apart from "natural causes" or "in the course of ordinary criminal activity" I would pretty much expect that you Amos will be posting here come January 2009, most likely bemoaning the fact that McCain won in a landslide.

Now that Amos will down entirly to GWB and the actions that he took and the measures he put put in place - Fuckin' tough ain't it???

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 09:34 PM

McCain will not be winning in any landslide, amigo.

Bush has not made me an iota safer, either; there are more rabid extremists interested in taking the nation apart than there were before, I reckon. Just now, they're setting back letting W do it for them.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 10:03 PM

"there are more rabid extremists interested in taking the nation apart than there were before" - Amos.

Any proof, or substantiation for that Amos? Or is it just baseless emotive rubbish, that you would like to believe? Care to tell us exactly who those, "rabid extremists interested in taking the nation apart" are Amos??? I mean where are they based? Where are they planning this next attack from? I mean you and your "fellow travellers" on this Forum have been decrying what a pathetic struggle we have waging and losing for the last six years. Can you tell us why it is that they have not succeeded in carrying out one single attack to match the atacks of 9/11, 2001? Must be a reason for such a prominent and influential terrorist rganisation to keep quiet for so long - By the bye when was the last time we heard from the leadership of Al-Qaeda or the Taleban?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 11:37 PM

Go to, Teribus. I will not engage in this blarney with you. God bless.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 03:19 AM

Amos: If thst is not obsessive. what would you call obsessive? Please define the term.

"I wish I could place a few smart bombs in carefully defined locations just to reflect my anger at this outrageous suffering imposed on those who never bargained for it."

What does that mean? Sounds like a dangerous person wrote it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 03:43 AM

"Go to, Teribus. I will not engage in this blarney with you." - Amos

So let's get this right Amos. You can make any outrageous statement you like, without any substantiation and we must take it at face value as the gospel truth. Hardly a discussion is it? Or are you only really interested in preaching to the choir.

Just purely for embarassment value I will ask you again:

"there are more rabid extremists interested in taking the nation apart than there were before" - Amos.

Any proof, or substantiation for that Amos? Or is it just baseless emotive rubbish, that you would like to believe? Care to tell us exactly who those, "rabid extremists interested in taking the nation apart" are Amos??? I mean where are they based? Where are they planning this next attack from? I mean you and your "fellow travellers" on this Forum have been decrying what a pathetic struggle we have been waging and losing for the last six years. Can you tell us why it is that they have not succeeded in carrying out one single attack to match the attacks of 9/11, 2001?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 09:40 AM

I think a lot of dispersed potential haters foiund their calling in response to Bush's crusade, and jined up to fight the great Satan in the Iraqi sandbox, who would otherwise not found the momentum to do so, T. I don't have the numbers, but I know they are not insignificant.

As for preventing all those attacks, I think a good part of them are like the elephants who never show up in Times Square because there's a guy on the corner waving his handkercheif to keep the elephants away. There have been a number of identified and prevented attacks, and I again am at a disadvantage as I do not have the numbers. But they were identfied and thwarted by good, routine intell and did not require warmongering to be prevented. In fact preventing such attacks is what Bush's gang should have been doing when they were briefed that bin Laden was thinking of using planes as weapons; and they did not.

So, no, I don't think I am much safer because of Bush, and I think to believe that you really have to be an undiscriminating true-believer whose perceptics are filtered by assumptions.

So that's my point of view, so far.

Not baseless emotive rubbish, as you so kindly put it, but an assessment of a large picture based on little data.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 01:42 PM

"Speaking at the Campus Progress journalism conference earlier this month, Seymour Hersh — a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist for The New Yorker — revealed that Bush administration officials held a meeting recently in the Vice President's office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran.

In Hersh's most recent article, he reports that this meeting occurred in the wake of the overblown incident in the Strait of Hormuz, when a U.S. carrier almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats. The "meeting took place in the Vice-President's office. 'The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,'" according to one of Hersh's sources.

During the journalism conference event, I asked Hersh specifically about this meeting and if he could elaborate on what occurred. Hersh explained that, during the meeting in Cheney's office, an idea was considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them. This idea, intended to provoke an Iran war, was ultimately rejected:

HERSH: There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don't we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.

Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can't have Americans killing Americans. That's the kind of — that's the level of stuff we're talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.

Hersh argued that one of the things the Bush administration learned during the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz was that, "if you get the right incident, the American public will support" it."

---

Is it actually possible that the top brains of this administration discussed as a possibilit5y -- even though they rejected it -- getting a fraudulent incident going to stir up hatred across America sufficient to motivate a war against Iran?

Does this constitute cold deliberate premeditation of murder?

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 01:51 PM

Impeachment--the Musical



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 04:29 PM

Amos: If 209 posts in 9 days is not obsessive. what would you call obsessive? Please define the term.

"I wish I could place a few smart bombs in carefully defined locations just to reflect my anger at this outrageous suffering imposed on those who never bargained for it."

What does that mean? Sounds like a dangerous person wrote it.

What is "summary justice"?

In what context, specifically? In the context that you advocted "summary justice" for the people responsible for the WTC attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 05:20 PM

USA Today/Gallup Poll. July 6-8, 2007

"As you may know, impeachment is the first step in the constitutional process for removing a president from office, in which possible crimes are investigated and charges are made. Do you think there is or is not justification for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush at this time?"
                                                

7/6-8/07

There Is Justification    36%

There Is Not Justification 62%

Unsure                      3%

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 05:54 PM

Bloomberg Poll. April 8-11, 2006

"If George W. Bush broke the law when he authorized government agencies to use electronic surveillance to monitor American citizens without a court warrant, do you think that is an impeachable offense, or not an impeachable offense?"
                                                         
ALL adults
Is 36%        Is Not 56%         Unsure 8%

Democrats                                             
Is 53%        Is Not 36%         Unsure 11%

Independents                                             
Is 37%        Is Not 53%         Unsure 10%

Republicans                           
Is 14%        Is Not 80%         Unsure 6%

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 05:57 PM

Until you give me the thread, I have nothing to say about what I may or may not have said in the days following the 9-11 attacks.

If I had by some magical power been able to eliminate Al Qeda and Bin Laden with a few smart bombs it would have saved 4,000 American lives and turned the course of history for the better, I imagine, though. How dangerous is that?



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 06:38 PM

"The smell of roses drew him [Kucinich] out to my balcony where, when he looked up, he saw a gigantic triangular craft, silent, and observing him. It hovered, soundless, for 10 minutes or so, and sped away with a speed he couldn't comprehend. He said he felt a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 06:47 PM

Amos does not know what obsessive is but he knows what it is not.

Refuses to acknowledge his advocacy of Smart bombs, Summary justice and Spiking cell phones.

"Once their trails are found we can take action against them -- cutting off funds, spiking their cellphones or even sending small squads in to bring a few of them at a time off for summary justice somewhere."

Does somewhere mean Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib ?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 07:36 PM

Just won't reveal the secret source of your quotes, huh?

Your ability to rip partial statements out of their context in order to distort their meanings is almost as good as Bushwah's. Must be part of the right-wing indoctrination training, I guess.

Let me point out to you, my good dipwad, that your ad hominem remarks do not have any effect on me, nor do they have any bearing on the subject of this thread. They do not forward the conversation. They don't even succeed in the effort of defaming me, because they are not well-done even as defamations.

Finally, whatever ill fate I wished on the 9-11 conspirators in September 2001 is not really matterail to the question of impeachment or the rights and wrongs of the current administration.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 07:51 PM

That should be "material". Sorry.

Oh, and regarding obsession, no, this is not obsession--it is persistence in speaking the truth as best I can find it out. I don't think that qualifies.

In psychical research, obsession is an invasion of the living by a discarnate spirit, tending to a complete displacement of normal personality ...
www.spiritwritings.com/channelingglossary.html

Naw, that ain't it.

A persistent, unwanted idea or impulse that can not be eliminated by logic or reasoning. (top)
www.med.umich.edu/nursing/psych/staff/orient/words.htm

Well, there's nothing unwanted about impeachment., so that's out. Nor about making the truth known. Nope.


Recurring and persistent thoughts, ideas, images, or impulses, sometimes of an aggressive or violent nature, that invade a personÕs consciousness.
www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com/reports/depression_anxiety/922-1.html

Well, although I have some mild aggression toward W, I don't think it "invades" my consciousness.

A thought that keeps coming into ones mind and keeps repeating itself. People usually do not want to have the thought ....

www.mothersmatter.co.nz/Glossary/default.asp

Nope. I'm happy to revew the evidence and opinions around and funnel them here in abbreviated form. It makes an interesting track in the history of our times.



...is a recurring thought that a person considers senseless or terrible but cannot ignore.
www.a2zpsychology.com/psychology_guide/mental_illness_terminology.htm

Well, nope here too. I could ignore it, as many do, but I choose to stay open to new information as it comes to light.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 10:06 PM

Wow!! I found the quote. You must have really been desparate to find something stupid I said--it was in the middle of the discussion immediately following the heartbreaking cataclysm. And the teeny excerpt you took out of context doesn't really do the whole thread justice.

It was a week after the attacks. Here's the thread.

It has about as much to do with the subject of impeachment as crackerjacks.

This is really nutty stuff, Sawz.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 11:16 AM

Wheeeew! You draw a long bow, pal.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 01:40 PM

In March 1964, five months before the first American bombing raid on North Vietnam, the United States[JFK] organized a secret bombing campaign in Laos. Using unmarked planes, they mainly attacked the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the increasingly important Communist supply route from North to South Vietnam. The air war intensified, hitting Laotian villages and driving a million peasants from their homes. For eight years, Laos was the most bombed country in the world. The United States covertly imported and paid for 8,000 Thais to fight in Laos.

Proclaiming a fight against the spread of Communism, Kennedy enacted policies providing political, economic, and military support for the unstable French-installed South Vietnamese government, which included sending 16,000 military advisors and U.S. Special Forces to the area. Kennedy also agreed to the use of free-fire zones, napalm, defoliants and jet planes. U.S. involvement in the area continually escalated until regular U.S. forces were directly fighting the Vietnam War in the next administration. The Kennedy Administration increased military support, but the South Vietnamese military was unable to make headway against the pro-independence Viet-Minh and Viet Cong forces. By July 1963, Kennedy faced a crisis in Vietnam. The Administration's response was to assist in the coup d'état of the Roman Catholic President of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem. In 1963, South Vietnamese generals overthrew the Diem government, arresting Diem and later killing him (though the exact circumstances of his death remain unclear)[24] Kennedy sanctioned Diem's overthrow. One reason for the support was a fear that Diem might negotiate a neutralist coalition government which included Communists, as had occurred in Laos in 1962.

Georgie Boy hasn't done anything that could hold a candle to this but Amos pretends that what GWB did is the worst thing any president has ever done.

At least Congress has voted for everything GWB has done.

Do you need some details about the Bay of Pigs Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 02:32 PM

"persistence in speaking the truth as best I can find it out."

Here is some truth that Amos found out:

"Can you name the one country on earth where the government [Ukraine][Azerbaijan][Serbia][Zimbabwe][Hayes v Tilden] can steal elections,[Ukraine][Azerbaijan][Serbia][Zimbabwe][Hayes v Tilden] strip away basic rights [Abe Lincoln], spy on citizens,[Netherlands][Clinton's Echelon] and launch wars based on lies [Bay of Tonkin], but where the people do not take over the nation's capital in protest?"

Here are some details about spying on citizens:

Dutch law goes beyond enabling wiretapping to make it a requirement
Source: New York Times

The Netherlands has set a controversial benchmark for official snooping on all forms of communications. Other countries, namely those of the European Union, may follow suit. On April 2, 1998 the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament approved a new Telecommunications Act that includes a chapter intended, among other things, to force cable operators and Internet service providers to make their networks tappable by the police and intelligence services.

A study, carried out by the scientific research and documentation center of the Dutch Ministry of Justice, revealed in 1996 that police in the Netherlands intercept more telephone calls than their counterparts in the United States, Germany or Britain. In absolute figures, the Dutch tapped three times more phone lines than the U.S. agencies.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 02:35 PM

Actually, no; as I think I mentioned, we are discussing the subject of impeachment for W.

Why do you think a war from 1962 should exonerate a criminal from 2000, Sawz? Do you have a hard time managing time, or seeing distinctions between moments?

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 02:36 PM

So, let's see. If the "Somebody else did it before" defense fails, you want to try "someone else is even worse over there" model of red herring?

Forget it, Sawz.

Criminal offenses against humanity are not exonerated by being frequent.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 04:34 PM

Clinton is still around. Where are the charges of crimes against humanity for him?

All these examples you present are nothing new. Ever heard of case law? Every legal decision is based on previous decisions.

What are you basing your decisions on?

I am basing mine on the fact that the same things were done to an even greater degree previously and nothing was ever done.

You try to cover those facts up and pretend that this has never been done before.

It is irrational and obsessive like a moth after a light bulb. A dog that barks all night long.

Then to top that off, you admit that it will probably never happen.

You were all vigilante and gung ho on 9/11 well before any so called propaganda campaign or "lies" from the Bush administration had a chance to influence the American public or Congress. Now that you and Congress feel guilty, you make a straw man out of GWB and beat the shit out of him in an attempt to exonerate yourself.

In addition the spineless Congressmen [approval rating 9%] do it for political gain.

The Congress under Clinton, Chalabi, The NYT etc. all had a hand in getting this WMD, oust Saddam Hussein, movement going and you want to hang it on GWB because he did not stop it in it's tracks.

And these are my words, not some rhetoric from a blog or "news letter" RSSd to obsessive fanatics to repeat on the internet without even questioning or knowing the accuracy of the contents.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 04:36 PM

Voice of America

Former head of the CIA unit charged with finding Osama bin Laden, Michael Scheuer, said rendition has been controversial since its initiation during the Clinton administration. "We pointed out when this assignment, the rendition program, was assigned to us by President Clinton, Sandy Berger, and Dick Clark, that taking them [suspects] to a third country was not a preferable option for human rights reasons and for access reasons."

Scheuer said, "Their decision was that's where they should go. The agency at the end of the day is a service organization for the executive branch, and that's what we did."

State Department Spokesman Sean McCormick, however, says rendition is an internationally recognized legal practice, that has been used many times, for example, in the case of Carlos the Jackal, who waged a terror campaign in Europe in the 1970s and '80s.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:05 PM

COntrariwise, my dear Nabob, I want Bush's administration, and he as its owner, to be held responsible for exactly what they did -- misled Congress, distorted intelligence, and misestimated the importance of data in order to make it match a pre-conceived destructive intent to wreak destruction on Iraq's dictator.

You can yell about Congress if you like, but they were very much the wagged tail in this case.

I have not, in rebuttal to your knee-jerk accusations, tried to cover anything up. I have said that your effort to deflect it all away from the core clique of co-conspirators at the center huddle of the Bush team is a waste of time and breath on your part, an irrelevant red herring with no bearing on the question of this thread.

And in fact, if Clinton committed illegal acts by establishing third-nation rendition, he should be charged for them; it would have made a snaer attack than the Republican brainwashing and mud-party tactics they actually used, an episode of which they should be thoroughly ashamed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 07:23 PM

Where is your self righteous, vigilante thread to charge Clinton with war crimes?

"Clinton's fear-mongering around Iraqi WMDs began in 1997, several years after they had been successfully destroyed or rendered inoperable. Based upon the alleged Iraqi threat, Clinton ordered a massive four-day bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998.
Clinton was egged on to take such unilateral military action by leading Senate Democratic leaders -- including then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Carl Levin, and others who signed a letter in October 1998 -- urging the president "to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspected Iraqi sites, to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Meanwhile, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was repeatedly making false statements regarding Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs, even justifying the enormous humanitarian toll from the U.S.-led economic sanctions on Iraq on the grounds that "Saddam Hussein has . . . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 11:45 PM

Don't be an ass. I don't think it would be interesting to try and impeach Bill Clinton.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 01:00 PM

Let's charge them all with war crimes. Starting with the ones in office now.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 03:54 PM

"This letter, posted online Wednesday at www.STLtoday.com/letters, generated many comments. The letter and some of the comments are reprinted here. Commentors on the blog are not required to use their names. New letters are posted every day. Join the conversation at www.STLtoday.com/letters.

Time remains to impeach the president

There is still time to hold President George W. Bush accountable for the harm done to our democracy and to show the world what kind of democracy America believes in. The House Judiciary Committee held a meeting on the actions of the president.... Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, has introduced again articles of impeachment.

Mr. Bush has waged an illegal war, using innuendos to make Americans believe Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; he lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; he engaged in warrantless spying on American citizens; and approved torture, rendition, removal of rights from prisoners and ignored the Geneva Convention. He caused the death of more than 4,000 American soldiers, created 4.5 million Iraqi refugees, made complete chaos of Iraq and is responsible for depleted uranium poisoning. Also, he spent $1 trillion on the war.

Was this all for power or oil in the Middle East?

In addition, Mr. Bush did not sign the Kyoto Treaty, thwarted scientific reporting in the United States on global warming and included more than 800 signing statements on bills he signed.

Let's not wait until the president bombs Iran to impeach."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 03:54 PM

From HElena, Montana:

"We must impeach

By Richard Notkin, P.O. Box 698 - 08/03/08

Bush and Cheney have comitted REAL crimes Ñ including war crimes Ñ against the American people, the international community, and our constitution.

We must utilize the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution to bring the president and vice-president to justice Ñ no American is above the law, including the highest officers of our nation. This is what has always distinguished America from other nations, which allowed dictators to excercise total power over the people. Is this what we have become? Impeach Bush and Cheney, now, and restore our countryÕs status as a nation of laws, not of men."


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 05:38 PM

"There have been a number of identified and prevented attacks, and I again am at a disadvantage as I do not have the numbers. But they were identfied and thwarted by good, routine intell and did not require warmongering to be prevented. In fact preventing such attacks is what Bush's gang should have been doing when they were briefed that bin Laden was thinking of using planes as weapons; and they did not." - So says Amos.

Yes Amos since 9/11 there have been a number of attacks that have been identified and prevented. And correct they were identified and thwarted by good, routine intelligence work. Now tell us Amos:

- Where did those good, routine intelligence leads come from?

- How was that good, routine intelligence information obtained?

They never existed before 9/11 (The Clinton Administrations track record shows that) "Peanut" Carter was the President that insisted that the US rely on electronic and technological means of gathering intelligence rather than rely on human intel, which was the middle-east, particularly the Persian Gulf region of it was an intelligence black-hole to the US Intelligence Agencies.

Did it have anything to do with a President who declared a "War on Terror" in the wake of the attacks of 9/11?

Did it have anything at all to do with a President who stated clearly in declaring that war that countries and intelligence, law enforcement, customs agencies throughout the world had best decide which side they were on - "You are either with us or against us" - Remember that Amos? That did two things polarised the issue and presented a stark choice. What it resulted in has been unprecednted co-operation throughout the world with regard to intelligence related to terrorism.

Thought you were against phone taps Amos, plus a few other measures that have been introduced - They are all part and parcel of good, routine intelligence.

Most significant intelligence leads relating to Al-Qaeda, rogue states and illegal transfer of technological information on WMD has come from operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq. It was in those two places that the initiative has been taken from the Terrorists who sought to inflict harm on the USA.

Source please for your ascertion that Bush's gang were ever briefed that bin Laden was thinking of using planes as weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 06:20 PM

Horseshit, T. Bush was handed a good, solid intell briefing well in advance of 9-11, stating that bin Laden would use planes to attack the US.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 06:30 PM

From Natick, MA:

"I watched the Judiciary Committee Hearings on CSPAN and believe it is time to impeach Bush/Cheney.

The testimony supporting impeachment is strong evidence of treason, high crimes and misdemeanors.

When will Congress hold this administration accountable for the lies used to sell an illegal, immoral attack on Iraq? This administration is guilty of war crimes including torture, illegal detention, human rights and Geneva Convention violations. They have abandoned the U. S. Constitution and believe they are above the law.

This administration is guilty of extreme corruption, see: Enron, Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR. See also the U. S. Attorney scandal, the Abramoff scandal, the B52 scandal, the electronic voting scandal in Ohio and Florida.

They justify everything by telling us they are protecting us from terrorism. As one astute congressman asked today: Who will protect us from them?

ANNE GRADY,
Natick"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 08:51 PM

Ah, things are changing are they Amos?

"Bush was handed a good, solid intell briefing well in advance of 9-11, stating that bin Laden would use planes to attack the US."

Is not quite the same thing as:

"when they were briefed that bin Laden was thinking of using planes as weapons;"

You still haven't provided your source of information. The Commission looking into the 9/11 attacks mentions heightened risk/likelyhood of aeroplane hijacking as did the 40 Briefing Notes mentioning Al-Qaeda that were sent to the President - None mentioned the use of aircraft as weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 09:29 AM

Amos: "Don't be an ass. I don't think it would be interesting to try and impeach Bill Clinton."

When did I say to impeach Clinton? I said "Where is your self righteous, vigilante thread to charge Clinton with war crimes?"

You keep defending your position with assumptions, generalizations, opinions, articles submitted from biased sources but you won't back them up with any discussion of the facts and details. I think the proper term is bluster.

Evidently you still advocate "Summary Justice" except now you have done a 180 and now your focus is on GWB.

This is a forum* where people discuss things so please provide some details on the following statement so we may discuss them:

"Bush was handed a good, solid intell briefing well in advance of 9-11, stating that bin Laden would use planes to attack the US."

*An Internet forum is a web application for holding discussions and posting user-generated content.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 11:08 AM

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 16, 2002
"The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft but that the warnings did not contemplate the possibility that the hijackers would turn the planes into guided missiles for a terrorist attack.

''It is widely known that we had information that bin Laden wanted to attack the United States or United States interests abroad,'' Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said this evening. ''The president was also provided information about bin Laden wanting to engage in hijacking in the traditional pre-9/11 sense, not for the use of suicide bombing, not for the use of an airplane as a missile.''

Nonetheless the revelation by the White House, made in response to a report about the intelligence warning this evening on CBS News, is bound to fuel Congressional demands for a deeper investigation into why American intelligence agencies and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had failed to put together individual pieces of evidence that, in retrospect, now seem to suggest what was coming.

In the past few days, government officials have acknowledged for the first time that an F.B.I. agent in Phoenix had urged the F.B.I. headquarters to investigate Middle Eastern men enrolled in American flight schools. That memorandum also cited Mr. bin Laden by name and suggested that his followers could use the schools to train for terror operations, officials who have seen the memorandum said. "

---

On page 375 of the St. Martin's Press paperback edition of the "9/11 Report" by the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" is a security briefing paper presented to Bush and Condi Rice on August 6, 2001, that was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In U.S."

The report indicated that "FBI information ...indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks

---

My apologies, gentlemen. It appears he was briefed that (1) bin Laden intended to attack the United States; and he was briefed that (2) bin Laden propbably intended to hijack airplanes. I was mistaken, however in saying that the intell said he intended to use the airplanes in making the attack, and there is no reason why anyone should suspect such a linkage between the two things. Obviously he could just as well have been planning to hijack the planes to get free air travel or to celebrate Ramadan.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 11:17 AM

From John Dean, writing in July 2003:


"Bluntly stated, either the Bush White House knew about the potential of terrorists flying airplanes into skyscrapers (notwithstanding their claims to the contrary), or the CIA failed to give the White House this essential information, which it possessed and provided to others.

Bush is withholding the document that answers this question. Accordingly, it seems more likely that the former possibility is the truth. That is, it seems very probable that those in the White House knew much more than they have admitted, and they are covering up their failure to take action.

The facts, however, speak for themselves.

Bush's Claim Of Executive Privilege For His Daily Intelligence Briefing

One of the most important sets of documents that the Congressional Inquiry sought was a set of copies of the President's Daily Brief (PDB), which is prepared each night by the CIA. In the Appendix of the 9/11 Report we learn that on August 12, 2002, after getting nowhere with informal discussions, Congress formally requested that the Bush White House provide this information.

More specifically, the Joint Inquiry asked about the process by which the Daily Brief is prepared, and sought several specific Daily Brief items. In particular, it asked for information about the August 6, 2001 Daily Brief relating to Osama Bin Laden's terrorist threats against the United States, and other Daily Brief items regarding Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and pre-September 11 terrorism threats.

The Joint Inquiry explained the basis for its request: "the public has a compelling interest ... in understanding how well the Intelligence Community was performing its principal function of advising the President and NSC of threats to U.S. national security."

In short, the Joint Inquiry wanted to see the records. Bush's public assertion that his intelligence was "darn good" was not sufficient.

The Inquiry had substantial background material, for the Clinton Administration's national security team had been very forthcoming. As a result, it warned President Bush of the inevitable consequences of refusal to provide access to the requested Daily Briefs.

Bush nevertheless denied access, claiming Executive Privilege. While the Inquiry did not chose to draw obvious conclusions, they are right there in the report for everyone else to draw. So I have drawn them, to see what they look like.

Revealing Information In the 9/11 Report

After pulling together the information in the 9/11 Report, it is understandable why Bush is stonewalling. It is not very difficult to deduce what the president knew, and when he knew it. And the portrait that results is devastating.

The president's briefing of August 6, 2001 was the subject of public discussion even before the Inquiry started its work. As the 9/11 Report notes in a footnote (at page 206), "National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated in a May 16, 2002 press briefing that, on August 6, 2001, the President Daily Brief (PDB) included information about Bin Laden's methods of operation from a historical perspective dating back to 1997." (Emphasis added.)

At that May 16, 2002 briefing, Rice went on to say that the Brief made clear that one method Bin Laden might choose was to hijack an airline, taking hostages to gain release of one of their operatives. She said it was "a generalized warring" with nothing about time, place or method. And she added, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon."

Unfortunately, Rice's statements don't fit comfortably with the Inquiry's information. It appears from the 9/11 Report that either Rice was dissembling, or the CIA was withholding information from the President (and hence also from Rice).

But as we have been learning with the missing Weapon of Mass Destruction, the CIA has consistently been forthcoming. So it seems that it is Rice who should explain herself.

A Closer Look At Rice's Statement

Note again that Rice stated, in explaining the August 6, 2001 Daily Brief, that it addressed Bin Laden's "methods of operation from a historical perspective dating back to 1997."


In September 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information that Bin Laden's next operation might involve flying an explosive-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it. (Emphasis added.)
In the fall of 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information concerning a Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas.
In March 2000, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information regarding the types of targets that operatives of Bin Laden's network might strike. The Statute of Liberty was specifically mentioned , as were skyscrapers, ports, airports, and nuclear power plans. (Emphasis added.)

In sum, the 9/11 Report of the Congressional Inquiry indicates that the intelligence community was very aware that Bin Laden might fly an airplane into an American skyscraper.

Given the fact that there had already been an attempt to bring down the twin towers of the World Trade Center with a bomb, how could Rice say what she did?

Certainly, someone could have predicted, contrary to Rice's claim that, among other possibilities, "these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon."

---

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 11:25 AM

"but that the warnings did not contemplate the possibility that the hijackers would turn the planes into guided missiles for a terrorist attack. "


hmmm...

" Bush was handed a good, solid intell briefing well in advance of 9-11, stating that bin Laden would use planes to attack the US."

"My apologies, gentlemen. It appears he was briefed that (1) bin Laden intended to attack the United States; and he was briefed that (2) bin Laden propbably intended to hijack airplanes. I was mistaken, however in saying that the intell said he intended to use the airplanes in making the attack, and there is no reason why anyone should suspect such a linkage between the two things."


Good to know that you CAN acknowledge that you are in error. I guess we won't have to start a thread about impeaching you, now.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 12:07 PM

Amos:

There were several different reports at several different agencies that, if cross checked and studied, would have connected the dots and prevented the attacks. However, due to an inherited legacy from previous administrations, it was not done.

In fact, here is a memorandum that, as best as I can understand it, prohibits pro-active investigation. It prevented anti-terror investigators from accessing the computer of the 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, who was already in custody for an immigration violation

You can drop all the Anti-Bush carpet bombs you want but unless you go and read things like this and make a meaningful, personal evaluation, you lack credibility and you do not display any knowledge of what you claim to be the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 12:15 PM

Um...Sawz: that memo was from 2004.


Your personal vindictiveness does not change, in any respect, the complete dog's breakfast that has been generated by the Bush Administration, and in no way lessens the Bush Administration's culpability with respect to promoting warfare and undermining the legal protections of the Constitution, mismanaging international relations to the detriment of the country, and the intention manipulation of misinformation to forward their agenda.

Go fish.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 12:18 PM

Public Forum Letter
Article Last Updated: 08/01/2008 07:52:22 PM MDT


How great it is to read about a politician who will stand up and call out President Bush on the abuses he has bestowed upon the office of president and the American people ("Ex-SLC mayor to Congress: Impeach Bush," Tribune, July 26). It amazes me that the two candidates for president have not been more adamant about the dictator-like manner in which this president has behaved while in office.
    Bush's unrestrained power and total disregard for the opinion of the people is disgraceful and embarrassing. It is sad to think of the lives that could have been saved, both American and innocent Iraqi, as well as money, if only someone had stood up and said, "No, Mr. Bush, you cannot do whatever you please." How much different our economy might be if so much had not gone for a an unwarranted and unnecessary war.
    Remember, Mr. President, you work for us!
   
    Mary Anne Hyde
    Salt Lake City

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 12:31 PM

"With Judge Bates ruling against immunity for Harriet Meirs, and ruling that "executive privilege" claims are invalid against orders to produce certain documents, it is clear that congress has no business going into recess in the middle of a constitutional crisis. They have just been handed a major victory, by a Bush appointee, no less. Republicans of integrity are emerging from the shadows, most dramatically with the nine who broke with the party to vote for having the hearings which took place on July 25. Judge Bates said: Even if you're my friend, George, you still have to, um, obey the law.

The next order of business is to prevail upon congress to cancel its summer recess, to complete the unfinished business of restoring the Republic over the New Executive Branch Monarchy, through impeachment. The most common argument by the well-meaning American for why impeachment is a "waste of time" is that they will be out soon. This is like saying, while a gang is robbing a bank and down to carting away the furniture, they'll be done soon.



You don't wait until they're done. You intervene.

The damage to the Constitution and the rule of law cannot be allowed to stand, as the partisans in any party which holds a majority in the future will be able to say, "well Bush did it." Start a disastrous war based on lies? Well Bush did it. Trample the rights of even born-and-bred American citizens? Well Bush did it. Torture prisoners of war who later turned out to be innocent,

The only warning we needed that these people were out of control was when Bush declared the radical doctrine of wartime powers which over-ruled the Fourth (search and seizure) and Sixth (jury trial) Amendments of the Constitution, forever. He took powers which existed in previous wars then applied them to "a new kind of war," meaning: The permanent kind. The power to throw someone in a dungeon to rot or to ransack his home, without a warrant, are the powers of a monarch. And in America, we don't do monarchs. "


Ralph Lopez, writing on Op-Ed News.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 12:37 PM

A dialogue with Dennis Kucinich:

"Campus Progress: Why did you introduce the articles of impeachment?

Dennis Kucinich: America was led into an aggressive war based on lies. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, had nothing to do with al-Qaida or 9/11, wasn't trying to get uranium from Niger, and [had] no intention or capability of attacking the United States. There was no legitimate cause for war against Iraq, and the administration knew that, even though they led the American people to believe otherwise. We've had over 4,000 soldiers lose their lives, over a million of Iraqis have perished, [and] the war is going to cost $3 trillion. There has to be accountability.

CP: If that's true, why don't you have more support behind you?

DK: Whether or not another person supports it, even if I'm the only one, it is my obligation to stand up for the Constitution and stand up for what's right. The question is: Is there any offense that is impeachable or can the president rule with impunity without being accountable to anyone? If that's the fact, then he is not a president; he is a dictator. If we are going to continue to say the word democracy we cannot let this president get away with taking us into a war based on lies and everything that has followed from it: the destruction of civil liberties, inflation of the military budget, [and] destruction of the domestic agenda. All that goes together. Everything that's happened in the last seven years revolves around the Bush administration's taking us into Iraq.

CP: Back in 2003, you were one of the few members of Congress who didn't support the war. Why did Congress not exercise its authority to prevent the Bush administration from entering into war?

DK: All the information was on public record if you took the time to read it. But unfortunately, people don't always take the time to read. I took the time to read and I knew that there was no case for Iraq having anything to do with 9/11 and that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. There was no evidence.

CP: You're saying that all the information was already on the books. Does that mean we could have predicted the current situation in Iraq?

DK: Everything was predictable. It was predictable that if we went in there it was not going to be a short involvement. It was predictable that it was going to cost trillions of dollars. Lawrence Lindsey had told the president that it was going to cost much more than [Bush said] and he lost his job for that. It was predictable that there would be a massive loss of civilian lives with the approach that was being taken. And it was predictable that, given the Vice President's meetings with oil companies at the beginning of the war, that there was going to be a connection to oil.

CP: Where do you think public opinion stands on impeachment?

DK: I don't think people really know what this administration has done. I don't think that the public understands. That's why we have to have Judiciary Committee hearings. If you take a poll of something that the people have no idea about you're not going to get accurate results. But if people learn that Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction and that the Bush administration knew that when they told Congress that they did, do you realize how public opinion would shift very quickly? If the people were given the facts, they would know the right thing to do. When people know the truth, everything changes. That's why it's so important that that the Judiciary Committee schedules a formal impeachment hearing.

CP: As we edge closer to November, how do you think the articles of impeachment could affect the tone of campaigning and might they affect the next administration?

DK: It's quite likely that the issues that I've raised will become stronger after this election, after this president and his administration leave office. But they will not be able to escape the consequences of their violations of U.S. and international law. So I can't tell you that impeachment will have an effect at all on this election. But we have to watch and see if the [next] president will try to pardon people. We have to see what happens between the time of the election and the time of the new president taking office. That's going to be a very important period. I think the impact of the work that's being done now will become stronger as time goes on. That doesn't depend on the election that depends on the demand for truth.

CP: Are there alternatives to impeachment that still might achieve accountability you're looking for?

DK: The Constitution doesn't provide for it. The Constitution says that if the executive violates his oath of office, if he commits a crime, that he should be subject to impeachment. That's what the Constitution says. It doesn't say that he gets suspended; it doesn't say that he gets his pay docked; it doesn't say that his vacation's cancelled; it doesn't say that he loses his pension. What it says is that he should be subject to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors and if the House votes favorably, then he then goes to the Senate for a trial. That's what the Constitution sets forth. It's possible that the House could vote for impeachment and the Senate not hold a trial before the election. Somebody can be impeached after they leave office so that they'd never be able to hold another position of public trust. There is an issue here, though, that goes way beyond this moment. It's something that can only be measured within the construct of the constitution keeping [us] safe, but we're not safe as long as long as we don't know the truth. "

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 12:58 PM

Kucinich to Russert:

I — I — I didn't — I — It was an unidentified flying object, okay? It's, like, it's unidentified. I saw something. You have to keep in mind that Jimmy Carter saw a UFO, and also that more people in this country, uh, have seen UFOs than, I think, approve of George Bush's presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 01:24 PM

Amos; "that memo was from 2004."

Your rhetoric and your incorrect assertion is proof that you do not know what you are talking about and you do not read anything through.

Therefore, how can your conclusions possibly have any credibility?

The Memo was written in 1995 and declassified in 2004.

You seem to think that your rhetoris. name calling, snap judgment and posting of numerous biased, articles prove something. It only proves something about you.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 01:38 PM

AHa--the only date I see on it was in fact a declass stamp, from 2004.

How do you know when the original was written? It has no date of issue on it.

My mistake.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 12:55 AM

Look at the URL

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/1995_gorelick_memo.pdf

Washingtom Post October 3, 2001:

13 missiles were fired at a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that the Clinton administration believed was a chemical weapons factory associated with bin Laden.

Clinton's decision to attack with unmanned Tomahawk cruise missiles meant that no American lives were put in jeopardy. The decision was supported by his top national security team, which included Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, officials said.

In the aftermath of last month's attacks on the United States, which the Bush administration has tied to bin Laden, Clinton officials said their decision not to take stronger and riskier action has taken on added relevance. "I wish we'd recognized it then," that the United States was at war with bin Laden, said a senior Defense official, "and started the campaign then that we've started now. That's my main regret. In hindsight, we were at war."

Was this approved by Congress? Was it illegal?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 02:53 AM

Sawz:


I don't know.

ANd what does this have to do with whether or not Bush should be impeached? Clinton did not set up 4,000 US sons and daughters for death.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 05:07 AM

Amos, regarding your statement:

"Clinton did not set up 4,000 US sons and daughters for death."

I believe that a very good case could be built and presented to illustrate exactly the opposite of that point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 09:16 AM

A sealawyer can do anything, T. But the truth of ther matter is much simpler.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 10:57 AM

Even inaction concerning matters of security by people in power has consequences Amos - that is a simple fact of life - you don't have to be a sealawyer to realise that - like the truth it. as you say, is plain and simple.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 01:31 PM

New Book Says Bush Committed Impeachable Offense

By Jason Leopold
The Public Record
Monday, August 04, 2008


An explosive new book by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist alleges President George W. Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to create a forged document showing a link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization al-Qaeda to create a "false pretense" for war.

"The White House had concocted a fake letter from [the director of the Iraqi intelligence service] to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001," reporter Ron Suskind writes in his new book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism. "It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq – thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President's Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link."

Furthermore, Suskind alleges that the Bush administration knew Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction nor was the country an imminent threat, which is what the March 2003 invasion was predicated on.

The director of the Iraqi intelligence service informed the White House "that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion."
"They secretly resettled [the intelligence official] in Jordan, paid him $5 million – which one could argue was hush money – and then used his captive status to help deceive the world about one of the era's most crushing truths: that America had gone to war under false pretenses," Suskind writes says.

Suskind, who won Pulitzer Prize during his tenure as a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, writes in his new book that the plan to use the CIA to create a bogus link between Iraq and al-Qaeda appears to be in direct violation of a statute that prohibits the CIA from conducting cover operations "intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media."

"It is not the sort of offense, such as assault or burglary, that carries specific penalties, for example, a fine or jail time," Suskind writes. "It is much broader than that. It pertains to the White House's knowingly misusing an arm of government, the sort of thing generally taken up in impeachment proceedings."

The allegations would appear to back up claims made by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who says Congress has plenty of evidence that Bush deserves impeachment for misleading the nation into war in Iraq, authorizing torture and other grave crimes, and violating the Constitution – and it is now time to act.

Aides to Kucinich said Monday the congressman is contemplating how to best proceed with his plan to have Congress hold impeachment proceedings following a House committee hearing two weeks ago on Bush's "imperial presidency." At the hearing, Kucinich ticked off numerous high crimes and misdemeanors Bush committed during his two-terms in office.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 05:28 PM

When I interviewed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about her new book, Know Your Power , I asked her the question all of us have been asking for two years: how could sheÊtake impeachment "off the table"?Ê

Her answer:Êshe wants Democrats to control the House for many years to come, in order to stop the wealthiest 1% from "sucking the money out of the middle class" and creating a "caste system."

Many progressives disagree with Speaker Pelosi because they believe holding this administration accountable for its staggering abuse of power is essential for preserving our Constitution. They also believe the American people would reward those who defend the Constitution through a fact-based, seriousÊimpeachment effort. But at least now we understand Pelosi's long-term vision, and we can argue with her more effectively as a result.
...

(From an email promoting "The Nation" magazine)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 11:41 PM

Amos in response to your post 05 Aug 08 - 01:31 PM

Point 1:
"New Book Says Bush Committed Impeachable Offense"

Now that headline should have told you something Amos – This is nothing more than an advertisement.

Point 2:
"An explosive new book by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist alleges President George W. Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to create a forged document showing a link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization al-Qaeda to create a "false pretense" for war."

Ah it has now changed from the book "saying" that Bush committed an impeachable offence, to only alleging that he had done so.

Point 3:
"The White House had concocted a fake letter from [the director of the Iraqi intelligence service] to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001," reporter Ron Suskind writes in his new book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism. "It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq – thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President's Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link."

If this was indeed the case Amos does Ron Suskind offer any explanation at all as to why this letter was never used? I take it that it was never used or brought to the notice of the public, any member of the Senate, or any member of the House of Representatives?

Mr. Suskind and people such as yourself Amos and your "pal-de-jour" Dennis Kucinich have been spouting about the Administration's eagerness to implicate Saddam Hussein and Iraq with Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. Which of course we all know is rubbish because various members of this self-same administration tell us within days of the attacks taking place that Iraq has definitely got nothing to do with the attacks – That is a matter of record Amos.

Here is what Vice-President Dick Cheney said about it:

September 16, 2001 Meet the Press:
Russert: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
Cheney: "No."

March 24, 2002 Meet the Press:
Russert: "Iraq's Saddam Hussein. When we spoke on September 16, five days after the tragic day of September 11, I asked you if any evidence of linkage between Saddam Hussein and Iraq and al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. At the time you said no. There's an article in The New Yorker magazine by Jeffrey Goldberg which connects Iraq and Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda. What can you tell me about it?"
Cheney: "I've read the article........With respect to the connections to al-Qaeda, we haven't been able to pin down any connection there."


From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:
Russert (After showing Cheney a re-run of the September 16th 2001 interview) asked: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a Senior Iraqi Intelligence Official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business."
Russert: "What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?"
Cheney: "It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point."
   
Now then Amos, if "The White House" had done what Mr Suskind has alleged they did wouldn't this have been the perfect time to introduce this letter? I would have thought so, but they did not – possible explanation being that no such letter exists

Point 4:
"Furthermore, Suskind alleges that the Bush administration knew Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction nor was the country an imminent threat, which is what the March 2003 invasion was predicated on."

Amos please note the "alleged" again. That "Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction", well it is true that a few people (very few in fact) were stating this as being their opinion. But even they did not know that for certain. As to what Saddam Hussein and Iraq had in terms of WMD, WMD materials, delivery systems and ongoing research and development programmes, the only hard evidence to go by came from UNSCOM's last report in January 1999, plus some relatives of Saddam's who blew the cover on the Iraqi VX programme, they subsequently returned to Iraq and were promptly murdered on the orders of Saddam Hussein.

Point 5:
"The director of the Iraqi intelligence service informed the White House "that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.

They secretly resettled [the intelligence official] in Jordan, paid him $5 million – which one could argue was hush money – and then used his captive status to help deceive the world about one of the era's most crushing truths: that America had gone to war under false pretenses," Suskind writes says."

Now let's get this right Amos, one man comes bimbling out of Iraq at the eleventh hour and tells you everything is alright and that Iraq has no WMD, after UNSCOM, two relatives of Saddam Hussein and your entire intelligence network tells you differently and you believe the one man and disregard all other information? Ever heard of deliberately spreading disinformation? Thank God you are not the President of the United States of America responsible for the security and well-being of your country.

I would have thought that as an educated man capable of critical analysis you would have listed all that was "alleged" and all that "could be argued" in order to weigh up the likelihood of any of this being true. But no, you did not, all this supposition and clear evidence to the contrary allied with all that was "alleged" and all that "could be argued" all of a sudden was parlayed into becoming – "one of the era's most crushing truths" – Utterly preposterous Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 06:16 AM

BREAKING NEWS:

On Mr. Suskind's book. You remember the one Amos:

"An explosive new book by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist alleges President George W. Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to create a forged document showing a link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization al-Qaeda to create a "false pretense" for war."

Well reading through articles in the Times and the Telegraph today we discover that there was indeed a letter, and the story goes that this Iraqi Intelligence Officer was asked to write this letter in October 2003, the letter being back dated to 1st July, 2001.

Now Amos do you see any problem with that timeline with regard to the letter being of any use in creating a "false pretense" for war?

I do, October 2003? The war was over by then wasn't it? No wonder Dick Cheney could not use this letter in 2002, it hadn't even been written. Nobody could have seen it before March 2003 if it was a "White House" forgery, therefore its contents could not possibly have been used as a reason for invading Iraq.

The Iraqi's, by the bye Amos, believe the hand written letter to be genuine. But there was no public knowledge of that letter until December 2003, when the supposed author was still at liberty.

I wish Mr. Suskind every success in selling his book, it would not be his first work of fiction would it Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 11:18 AM

Amos:

How come your rock solid self righteous judgment and superior intelligence is so selective?

"Clinton did not set up 4,000 US sons and daughters for death."

He did when he failed to carry out his duties as president.

World trade center bombing
Embassy in Kenya bombing
Embassy in Tanzania bombing
Uss Kole

UBL was offered to Bill Clinton by Sudan and Clinton declined to take him into custody. All of this could have been prevented if not for that single act of bad judgment.

He weakened our military fighting forces.

You are just throwing up a smoke screen to hide offenses by past presidents that were far worse in order to make your unfounded accusations stick. Mr. self righteous "rule of law" that advocates "summary justice"

And those military people voluntarily joined to serve and die for their country so that idiots in the US can make stupid accusations.

How many of the 58,193 military dead in Vietnam were drafted?

Mr Clinton is still walking around a free man and actually campaigning but you ignore what he has done because it does not fit your extremist political agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:49 PM

Maheugate

Robert Maheu, 90, Died Monday.

Illegal activities by the JFK Administration:

The son of a grocer, Maheu was born Oct. 30, 1917, and grew up in Waterville, Maine. He majored in economics at Holy Cross College in Massachusetts before entering Georgetown University law school. In 1940 he joined the FBI and during World War II worked in counter-espionage, posing as a German sympathizer. He left the FBI in 1947.

After opening his own investigations firm in 1954, the CIA became his first steady client. He was given "cut-out" assignments, jobs involving illegal actions that could not be traced back to the agency.

His most infamous assignment was to arrange the assassination of Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Maheu recruited two top Mafia bosses, Johnny Roselli and Sam Giancana, who suggested a scheme to poison Castro, but the plot was ditched after the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. "The plan was always subject to a 'go' signal, which never came," Maheu told a Senate intelligence panel in 1975.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 01:10 PM

Sawz:

The subject of this thread, since it was begun, has been the impeachment of George W. Bush for crimes and misdemeanors while in office.

I really don't give a shit about what happened in the 1960's, and the only issue I care to bring out of the Vietnam War is how to prevent the recurrence of that egregious stupidity by putting psychopathic knotheads like W into office.

Your insistence that Clinton is responsible for Bush's errors is peabrained and beneath reason.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 01:21 PM

Amos,

Your insistence that Bush is to be held liable for clearing up Clinton's errors is peabrained and beneath reason.



The point is that the present administration has NOT been found guilty of any of the crimes that YOU accuse them of. Perhaps they should be tried- BUT until such trial, to declare them guilty without a trail is against the laws that this country operates by (ie, NO summary justice).

Feel free to try to bring such charges against them- but do not complain when those you support are then charged with crimes on the basis of equivalent evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 01:24 PM

Bruce:

Do me the courtesy of writing your own sentences instead of stealing mine.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 01:31 PM

Do ME the courtesy of commenting on the facts brought up for discussion, and NOT attack those who disagree with your view of "what must be".

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 02:13 PM

I have made no such complaints, Bruce; this is silliness and thread-drift, beyond reason.

Resolved: G.W. Bush, while President of the United States, committed offeses which under the Constitution are grounds for his impeachment by due process.

Discuss.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 02:23 PM

1. The so-called "lies" are not proven, but assumed by those who have already decided that Bush is guilty. There has been extensive discussion, and the only ones convinced by the "proof" had decided that before any evidence was even presented.

2. The actions that Bush is accused of were reasonable and correct BASED on the information available at the time that the decisions were made. International sources and UN documents were in agreement that Saddam had unaccounted for material and WMD Programs, and was in violation of the UNR that established the post-Kuwait truce.

3. There are specific counts that may well be brought against members of the Bush administration, that they exceeded their lawful authority. In those cases, the individuals should be tried and it determined IF they are guilty.

I have seen no charges that are specific to Bush, and all others could be pardoned by him, making this whole discussion moote.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 02:45 PM

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, what did Sandy Berger destroy and why???????

President Clinton designated Berger as his representative to the 9/11 Commission and related hearings, which gave Berger special access to highly classified documents in the National Archives relating to the Clinton Administration's handling of al-Qaeda and similar terror threats. Berger got around rules requiring that the documents only be reviewed with Archives' employees present, purposefully stole documents, destroyed them, and lied about it all. When caught, he first blamed Archives employees for misplacing the documents, then admitted having taken them inadvertently (this is the point at which he cut the plea deal), and finally acknowledged what was obvious from the facts that were emerging - he intentionally removed and destroyed documents.

Justice Department officials who investigated the missing documents initially were persuaded that Berger must, as he claimed, have taken documents by mistake and then destroyed them to avoid having sensitive material in his possession. The plea agreement was based on the assumption that Berger was mishandling classified material - not manhandling it.

Now, however, it is clear that there was nothing innocent or inadvertent in Berger's conduct. He has something to hide and, whatever it is, he was terrified that at least some part of it would come out of a non-criminal hearing before the Bar. With no possible criminal charges to face, he could not have claimed a right against self-incrimination. He could no longer get away with saying that he took documents accidentally, took them only to prepare for up-coming hearings (why, then, take five copies of one memo?), or didn't intend to destroy them. He would, in other words, have had to say more than he has so far.


Ronald A. Cass is Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and Author of “The Rule of Law in America".

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 03:00 PM

You're not quite correct there, Brucie.

For example, see the recent book reviews on the intentional forgery. See the Downuing Street meeting minutes, the substance of which were repeatedly denied while Bush pretended to be trying other options than war. See the infamous State of the Union assertion falsely portraying Iraqi acquisition of tubes and of uranium.
These are just a few off the top of my hand. The man painted a false picture repeatedly by explicitly lying or by innuendo and false implication ("the smoking gun must not be a mushroom cloud", used by both him and Rice)(). The presentation he practically forced Colin Powell tod o at the UN was a compkletely false picture.
The man's presentation has been riddled with duplicity and double-talk and false communication and forked tongue bull-manure for eight years.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 03:04 PM

Well, Amosie,

I have to disagree with your interpretation. The statements that were made as CONDITIONALS I read as such - IF we let him continue he WOULD IN THE FUTURE.

Sorry if you did not understand- but the rest of the world did.

As for the book, that is about as solid evidence as the reports of Clinton shooting that press secretary ( who committed "suicide and was still holding the gun.) No evidence presented.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 03:13 PM

As far as I can see, this thread isn't about convicting W. It's about impeaching W and letting the impeachment process take care of the question of whether or not to convict.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 05:39 PM

Ah, clarity, ah, wisdom!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 06:49 PM

In 1922, Edward L. Doheny and Harry Sinclair bribed Albert Fall, the secretary of the interior in the Warren G. Harding administration, for secret leases to drill on two oil-rich fields held by the U.S. Navy as emergency reserves in the event of war or serious disruption of supplies. One of those fields was called Elk Hills in Bakersfield, Calif. The other, just outside of Caspar, Wyo., was called Teapot Dome.

In 1973, during the gasoline crisis, President Richard Nixon tried to lease Elk Hills to increase domestic oil production. Congress stopped the deal.

In 1984, 1986 and 1987, the Reagan administration proposed selling Elk Hills for $1.5 billion to reduce the deficit. Congress, again, blocked the efforts.

In 1996, as part of Gore's "reinventing government" package, he recommended that Elk Hills be sold. Clinton approved the plan. The deal was included in the 1996 defense authorization bill that Congress approved.

Occidental Petroleum bought Elk Hills for $3.65 billion which tripled its U.S. oil and natural gas reserves in the process.

The founder of Occidental is Armand Hammer who had, in his own words, Albert Gore Sr., "in his back pocket." When the current vice president's father left the U.S. Senate in 1970, Hammer, a primary sponsor of the Communist Party USA and a personal friend of V.I. Lenin and Josef Stalin, provided him with a $500,000-a-year job and a seat on Occidental's board.

When the younger Gore was elected to Congress, Gore received $20,000 a year from Occidental for mineral rights on his farm. The zinc mine on his land, makes Gore one of the biggest polluters in the state.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, Occidental gave $50,000 to the Clinton-Gore re-election effort in response to one of Gore's "no-controlling-legal-authority" phone calls from his office in the White House. Occidental has given more than $470,000 in soft money to various Democratic committees and causes since 1992.

Gore declared: "I will not go along with an agenda that is of Big Oil, by Big Oil, and for Big Oil."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 07:28 PM

Wel, thanks for the great contribution to the issue of whether or not Bush should be impeached. It is very persuasive, and especially when taken with a number of earlier rejoinders about the proper topic of this thread, I think I have come to the conclusion that you are, indeed, beyond understanding, outside of any two-way exchange of ideas, and fixed on and obsessed with the idea that this thread should be stopped and blocked and thwarted from being aired; In short, a dim bulb, one saucer short of a full set, or else an obstreperous and intransigent obstructionist by nature.

This confirms me in my opinion, in facty, that Bush was raised up to his position by the interference of the unqualified supporting the unethical to do the unconscionable.


And therefore, should all the more be summonsed to answer for it under the law.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 07:43 PM

"I regard the President as my public servant whom I pay, and berate him as a lousy employee.. I come on as an old fashioned patriot, neither supine nor more revolutionary than is necessary for my modest goals."

~ Paul Goodman, The Society I Live In Is Mine, 1962

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 08:23 PM

Your posts are out of context in a vain attempt to scapegoat GWB.

From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 06 - 11:37 PM

"CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING"

You give Clinton and Gore a pass.

In fact you praise the crooked, evil, oil man Gore because of his global warming agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 09:36 PM

You are an intransigent peabrain, sometimes, pal. Looky here. The context of this thread is THE IMPEACHMENT OF GEORGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY FOR CRIMES AGAINST THE NATION AND PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Read that several times over and perhaps it will sink in.

Al Gore and Bill Clinton, Woodrow Wilson, William Henry Harrison,ames Polk, Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter have no bearing on the issue whatsoever.


Get that through your obdurate scheiss-laden turkey-driven micro-cephalic skull, would you?

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 11:22 PM

I love you too Amos but where is your context that you claim is everything?

You claim other presidents have nothing to do with this but then you assert that GWB's rating is worse than any other president. Seems you just change the rules when ever it suits your agenda.

Wicked Willy Clinton's running of Guantanamo:

Despite signals on the campaign trail that he intended to shut down the camp [Guantanamo], Clinton changed his mind [Lied???]. As a result, the [Haitian] refugees remained, even after he assumed office, in leaky barracks with poor sanitation, surrounded by razor wire and guard towers. They responded with a hunger strike, and after raucous protests against their confinement, a number were thrown in the naval brig as if they were criminals. Worse still, federal authorities refused to release the sickest Haitians, even though military physicians on Guantanamo lacked the means to treat them.

The Clinton White House justified this atrocious conduct in terms that sound strikingly familiar today. Justice Department attorneys maintained that foreigners held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay have absolutely no legal rights, whether under the Constitution, federal statutes, or international law. According to this logic, the Clinton White House was free to treat the detainees however it pleased.

The Haitians were luckier than today's detainees; American law students and human rights lawyers took up their cause, and more than a year after the camp was established, the case finally came to trial in a federal district court in Brooklyn, N.Y. The judge ultimately rejected Clinton's position and issued what now seems, with the benefit of hindsight, like a critically important decision. The Haitians on Guantanamo, he ruled, were entitled to constitutional due process, including the right to a lawyer, the right to proper medical care, and the right not to be held indefinitely without charge. The judge reasoned that because Guantanamo Bay is under the "complete jurisdiction and control" of the United States, prisoners there had to be accorded certain fundamental constitutional rights.

In response, the Clinton administration finally shut down the camp and allowed the Haitians to come to the United States. At the same time, though, the administration managed to undo the new precedent recognizing due process rights for foreigners on Guantanamo. In negotiations with attorneys for the refugees, the Justice Department agreed that it would not appeal the ruling, but only if the lower court decision was vacated—that is, erased from the books. The refugees' lawyers agreed to the deal because they feared they would lose if the case went to the Supreme Court, which had already intervened in favor of the government at earlier stages of the litigation. As a result, the judge's landmark decision that due process applies on Guantanamo doesn't exist anymore, technically speaking.

Why did the Clinton Justice Department insist on snuffing out the precedential value of the Guantanamo ruling? In later interviews, Clinton national security officials explained that they feared future refugee crises in the Caribbean and couldn't afford a court precedent that might limit their options for handling the situation. Using words that have a prophetic ring today, one official commented that White House advisers wanted "maximum flexibility" on Guantanamo, "confident that they would do the right thing but not wanting to be forced by the law to have to do so."
shortly after the 9/11 attacks. While U.S. forces were rounding up terrorist suspects on the battlefield in Afghanistan, the current Bush administration asked Justice Department lawyers to identify any legal constraints against detaining those suspects at Guantanamo Bay. The lawyers concluded that the detainees would have no right to challenge their detention in court. And sure enough, their legal memo noted that the 1993 Haitian decision on due process had been vacated and was of no concern.

Geprgie boy was just following along in Willie's footsteps.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 11:44 PM

Amos wants to keep this a secret:

In a deal cut in June 2000 under President Clinton, the New York Post reports that Halliburton won 11 Navy contracts worth $110 million to build jails at Guantanamo Bay, a base in Kuwait, a ferry terminal on Vieques, an air station in Spain, a breakwater in the Azores and facilities slammed by a typhoon in Guam.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 11:56 PM

So if we want to do something to end these abuses of power by people like Clinton, Bush, and others, do we ignore all of them or do we go after the one who is currently in office so that we can clean up the presidency?

Ignoring might sound like a good idea since we don't want to hold one of them to a different standard than we hold the rest of them. But that won't accomplish anything at all.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 12:24 AM

OK, weiner-head. It WAS all Clinton's fault. Sure, whatever you say. Bush was not really a President, he was just running down old Willie's clock, following his footsteps, had no initiative, and we've actually been in a hot war with the Iraqis. since Adlai Stepheson's days.

You just can't get it, can you.

Bill Clinton's crimes are attributable to a different human being.

Why do you believe Clinton's offenses should exonerate G.W.? What possible rationale can you offer for such a legal twist?


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 04:13 AM

"So if we want to do something to end these abuses of power by people like Clinton, Bush, and others, do we ignore all of them or do we go after the one who is currently in office so that we can clean up the presidency?" - CarolC

By all means "go after the one who is currently in office" to your hearts content, but please, please do not attempt to present the case that every fault in God's creation is the fault of him and his Administration alone.

The identification of Iraq as a country and a regime that posed a threat to the United States of America, its national interests, its allies and to the region as a whole occured during the Presidency of Bill Clinton - It was not something fabricated by George W. Bush or by anyone in his administration. Damn near exactly the same people presented the case against Iraq to Bush in 2001 that presented the case to Clinton in 1998 - Big difference was that 9/11 demonstrated how vulnerable the United States of America was to asymetric attack, while Clinton did little or nothing about the problem, Bush did take action to remove the threat.

In addition to the work undertaken by the Intelligence and Security agencies of the United States of America, Congress also independently evaluated the perceived threat and came to exactly the same conclusion, so how on earth they can impeach a President for acting on the results of their own deliberations on a matter of national security I am rather at a loss to fathom. I can certainly see a reason for impeachment if George W. Bush had ignored the threat, as Clinton more or less did.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 10:13 AM

Aw fwer CHrissakes, T, are you really going to trot out that old damned chestnut? The big difference in Iraq was that it had disassembled all its mass-destruction arsenal by the time Bush got into office.

And BUsh did NOT take action to remove the threat. He took action to invade a country that was not particularly involvwedf witht he threat, and claimed it was. It was a blundering piece of foreign-relations idiocy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 11:00 AM

Why do the supposed offenses of GWB exonerate Clinton and Gore?

"And BUsh did NOT take action to remove the threat"

What threat was that? You claim Iraq was not a threat.

Maybe GWB should have turned back the clock to when Sudan was trying to hand UBL over to Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 12:03 PM

Jeeze, Sawz, you're getting more circular and disjointed every day. What threat ? Read the damn thread, bright-eyes!! Just above my post, Teribus said that GW took action to handle the threat.

Although T's reasooning in this case is superficial and inadequate, you can certainly see the ciontextual bridge from what he said, and my next post. Don't act dumber than you actually are--it verges on the incredible.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 12:04 PM

Iraq "had disassembled all its mass-destruction arsenal by the time Bush got into office" - Eh? That was definitely not known as of March 2003, read the final report of Dr. Hans Blix to the UN Security Council.

So "Bush did NOT take action to remove the threat."

Now what was that threat again Amos? The one identified by Congress and by the Intelligence and Security Agencies:

Undisclosed International Terrorist Organisation hostile to the USA + Undisclosed "Rogue" Regime or Government hostile to the USA + WMD arsenal, technology or materials.

Possible candidates for the role of "rogue state" came up with a number of countries, Iraq topped both evaluations as being most likely. Those evaluations had nothing to do with GWB or his administration, the President's White House Iraq Team reviewed the findings of the evaluations carried out by others.

Bush went to the UN, whereas in 1998 Clinton just attacked Iraq.

Because of the actions taken by President George W. Bush:

- Iran (Candidate for "rogue state") suspended it's uranium enrichment programme.

- Libya (Candidate for "rogue state") abandoned it's WMD programmes which included a very advanced nuclear weapons programme that nobody knew about.

- North Korea (Candidate for "rogue state") came back to six nation talks to negotiate abandonment of its nuclear weapons programme.

- Dr A. Q. Khan's illegal nuclear proliferation activities brought to light and halted.

- Iraq (Candidate for "rogue state") now with absolute certainty no longer pursues programmes aimed at the development and manufacture of WMD and their delivery system. Iraq no longer sponsors international terrorist organisations.

And that according to you is a man not taking action to address the threat to his country - I'd say that he had done rather a lot -- He most certainly "attacked2 the correct part of the equation.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 12:16 PM

Well, T, I think he does deserve some credit for a couple of those things. Indeed, I do.

I don't suppose we will ever know what exactly was Qaddafi's calculation and to what degree it was infl;uenced by actions by Bush, Bush 1, or Clinton, for that matter.

But he folded on W's watch, fair enough.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 12:31 PM

Well, since I haven't presented Bush and his administration as being responsible for everything, I guess I can ignore any suggestions that I not do so.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 12:35 PM

If people want to go after Clinton and Gore, the process they should be advocating would be something other than impeachment. They could advocate bringing them before the world court or something like that. Impeachment isn't an option for Clinton and Gore, because they're no longer in office.

This is a thread about impeachment (of the current administration). Maybe some people would like to start threads about bringing Clinton and Gore before the proper bodies to bring them to justice.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 12:37 PM

Or we can start the impeachment process for Obama NOW, in case he gets elected. After all, someone, somewhere is going to think he lied about something, sometime.

Or else just not like some decision that he makes.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 03:52 PM

That's really out of left field, amigo.

He has no crimes of record.

Your friend W., on the other hand, has a number of them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 06:33 AM

"Your friend W., on the other hand, has a number of them." - Crimes that is - So says Amos.

That by the bye is a statement of Amos's opinion it is not a statement of fact.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 10:08 AM

Amos advocates "summary justice" and we know Bubba and Gore are guilty so string 'em up.

No trial, no report to file.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 06:50 PM

Some good readin' here Amos. Or do you still prefer the left wing commie pinko shit coming from your RSS feeds?

Statement before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
Subcommittee on Europe
"Extraordinary Rendition in U.S. Counter terrorism Policy:
The Impact on Transatlantic Relations."
A Statement by Michael F. Scheuer
Former Chief, Bin Laden Unit, CIA April 17, 2007

The CIA's Rendition Program began in late summer, 1995. I authored it, and then ran and managed it against al-Qaeda leaders and other Sunni Islamists from August, 1995, until June, 1999.
A.) There were only two goals for the program:
1.) Take men off the street who were planning or had been involved in attacks on U.S. or its allies.
2.) Seize hard-copy or electronic documents in their possession when arrested; Americans were never expected to read them.
3.) Interrogation was never a goal under President Clinton. Why?
--Because it would be a foreign intelligence or security service without CIA present or in control.
--Because the take from the interrogation would be filtered by the service holding the individual, and we would never know if it was complete or distorted.
--Because torture might be used and the information might be simply what an individual thought we wanted to hear.
B.) The Rendition Program was initiated because President Clinton, and Messrs. Lake, Berger, and Clarke requested that the CIA begin to attack and dismantle AQ. These men made it clear that they did not want to bring those captured to the U.S. and hold them in U.S. custody. [perhaps this is why Bubba fumbled the ball on accepting UBL from Sudan]
1.) President Clinton and his national security team directed the CIA to take each captured al-Qaeda leader to the country which had an outstanding legal process for him. This was a hard-and-fast rule which greatly restricted CIA's ability to confront al-Qaeda because we could only focus on al-Qaeda leaders who were wanted somewhere. As a result many al-Qaeda fighters we knew were dangerous to America could not be captured.
2.) CIA warned the president and the National Security Council that the U.S. State Department had and would identify the countries to which the captured fighters were being delivered as human rights abusers.
3.) In response, President Clinton et. al asked if CIA could get each receiving country to guarantee that it would treat the person according to its own laws. This was no problem and we did so.
--I have read and been told that Mr. Clinton, Mr. Burger, and Mr. Clarke have said since 9/11 that they insisted that each receiving country treat the rendered person it received according to U.S. legal standards. To the best of my memory that is a lie.
C.) After 9/11, and under President Bush, rendered al-Qaeda operatives have most often been kept in U.S. custody. The goals of the program remained the same, although the Mr. Bush's national security team wanted to use U.S. officers to interrogate captured al-Qaeda fighters
1.) This decision by the Bush administration allowed CIA to capture al-Qaeda fighters we knew were a threat to the United States without on all occasions being dependent on the availability of another country's outstanding legal process. This decision made the already successful Rendition Program even more effective.
D.) The following particulars about the Rendition Program may be of interest to you.
1.) From its start until today, the Program was focused on senior al-Qaeda leaders and not aimed at the rank-and-file members. With only limited manpower to conduct the Rendition Program, CIA wanted to inflict as much damage on al-Qaeda as possible and therefore focused on senior leaders, financiers, terrorist operators, field commanders, strategists, and logisticians................

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 06:58 PM

"The Rendition Program was initiated because President Clinton, and Messrs. Lake, Berger, and Clarke requested that the CIA begin to attack and dismantle AQ."

Berger? is that Sandy Berger that stole stuff from the archives and destroyed it?

Do you think he was trying to hide something?

"3.) Each and every target of a rendition was vetted by a battery of lawyers at CIA and not infrequently by lawyers at the National Security Council and the Department of Justice. For each rendition target, I, and then my successors as the chief of the bin Laden/al-Qaeda operations, had to prepare and present a written brief citing and explaining the intelligence information that made the rendition target a threat to the United States and/or its allies. If the brief persuaded the lawyers, the operation went ahead. If the brief was insufficient, the lawyers disapproved and no operation was conducted against that target until additional reliable evidence was collected.
--Let me be very explicit and precise on this point. Not one single al-Qaeda leader has ever been rendered on the basis of any CIA officer's "hunch" or "guess" or "caprice." These are scurrilous accusations that became fashionable after the Washington Post's correspondent Dana Priest revealed information that damaged U.S. national security and, as result, won a journalism prize for abetting America's enemies, and when such lamentable politicians as Senators McCain, Rockefeller, Graham, and Levin followed Ms. Priest's lead and began to attack the men and women of CIA who had risked their lives to protect America under the direct orders of two U.S. presidents and with the full knowledge of the intelligence committees of the United States Congress. Both Ms. Priest and the gentlemen just mentioned have behaved disgracefully, and ought to publicly apologize to the CIA's men and women who have executed the Rendition Program. "

Must have been some dumb lawyers to violate the constitution like that, Eh?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 07:26 PM

Dear Sawzall:

My, Clinton did some bad things, did he not?

So, is it the Republican point of view that since he got away with them, they are no longer crimes and must not be prosecuted?

Or is it the Republican position that Clinton's acts WERE crimes, and should be prosecuted, as should anyone else who commits comparable crimes?

Which is it, bucky?

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Peace
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 10:39 PM

1,000

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 11:45 PM

Glad to see you contributing, there, Bruce!!! LOL


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 12:22 AM

Is it your position that only the republican presidents should be prosecuted?

A president starts up a gutsy program to combat terrorism and hands it off to the next president and suddenly the new president is labeled a criminal for doing the same thing.

One president has a shot at getting UBL handed to him and fucks it up. [probably preoccupied with more pleasurable tasks] Then, all of a sudden it is the second, president's fault that UBL is still on the loose.

Then there are the millions of gullible people being fed tripe and loving it, just eating it up, can't get enough of it. The bandwagon syndrome. They repeat the stuff with their nostrils flaring in self righteousness. They are finally proud of their country.

Once the country's security was damaged by the outing of rendition by a glory hound reporter, all the culpable people from the previous administration are clearing their throats and pointing at Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 12:52 AM

"Ignoring might sound like a good idea since we don't want to hold one of them to a different standard than we hold the rest of them. But that won't accomplish anything at all."

How about Billary for president in 2012?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 01:56 AM

Precisely. If we don't clean up the presidency now, just think how bad it will be in 2012, especially if Billary gets elected.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 08:33 AM

Rendition is a small part of the prob,em with ther Bush administration.

My position is pretty simple: George Bush and Dick Cheney should have been impeached.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 11:46 PM

No Evidence for Prize-Winning Story

By Cliff Kincaid | May 1, 2006

Based on a careful reading of the story and the facts surrounding the case, it seems clear that the allegation of "secret prisons" was embellished, either by Priest or her "sources"…

Washington Post reporter Dana Priest won a Pulitzer Prize for a story about CIA "secret prisons" in Europe that cannot be confirmed and appears to be essentially false. This puts the paper in a very difficult position. It gave back one Pulitzer, a story about a child heroin addict by Janet Cooke, after it was exposed as a fraud. So far, the only evidence that the Priest story is true is her insistence that her secret sources were telling the truth. But Priest isn't talking about the nature of those "sources" and whether fired CIA officer and John Kerry campaign contributor Mary O. McCarthy was one of them.

On April 27, during an on-line discussion, Priest said she was doubtful that any evidence proving the existence of the "secret prisons" would come from the European investigators looking into the controversy. "I will be very surprised if the EU [European Union] commissions find evidence of the prisons," she said. She made the comments in response to a question about returning the Pulitzer "until the truth is finally determined."

Priest also said, "I suggest going to the newspapers today, which carried stories about the status of the investigations."

We followed her suggestion. Those stories concerned an investigation conducted by Socialist Giovanni Fava of Italy on behalf of the European Parliament. He said he found evidence of the CIA transferring terrorists through Europe. But the stories about his investigation in the Post and New York Times did not say that he had verified the existence of "secret prisons." In fact, the Times story stated, "As for the question of secret CIA detention centers in Europe, the new report offered no hard evidence." An Associated Press story said that "Fava provided no evidence of secret CIA prisons on EU territory…"

Fava is the third European investigator who has failed to confirm the existence of the "secret prisons." Priest's ludicrous response seems to be that this is why they are (or were) "secret." This circular argument is desperation on her part to hold on to her controversial Pulitzer Prize. But with all the journalism scandals that have occurred over the years, ranging from the Janet Cooke fiasco to Jayson Blair's lying and plagiarism at the New York Times, there's just no reason for the public to accept what the media are telling us, especially when their "sources" remain anonymous and the public evidence contradicts what they have reported.

Based on a careful reading of the story and the facts surrounding the case, it seems clear that the allegation of "secret prisons" was embellished, either by Priest or her "sources," into something that sounded sensational and was more likely to make headlines across the world and win journalism prizes. The story that the CIA transferred and even detained terrorists across Europe wasn't sexy enough. So Priest or her "sources" came up with the idea that the agency maintained "secret prisons," comparable to the Soviet gulags. This was designed to get attention and it also had the effect of inciting our enemies. Priest's husband, William Goodfellow, is an official of a far-left organization, the Center for International Policy, which works with many of the liberal "human rights" groups that have exploited the "secret prisons" story abroad to make America look bad. But don't look for the Post to run any stories about that...............

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:01 AM

Some background on Cliff Kincaid. (For anyone who might be interested).

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 03:13 AM

What do the folks out where you are think about the notion of Bush-impeachment, there, Sawz?



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:35 PM

Froam an Illinois paper:

George Bush, Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft, Rove, all of the regime running this country right now and for the last eight years, are guilty of treason.

There is no lesser name for what they have done.

Treason!

Impeachment is too soft of a punishment for what they have done to this country, the people, those killed in the military and the world.

The people of the world are in need of reassurance that the United States will again be truthful and honest in dealing with the citizens of other countries. I think Barack Obama showed them that in Europe.

Elaine Gough

Westchester

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 11:30 PM

A Catalogue of Articles About Impeachment.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 12:30 AM

Every body I talk to thinks it is a waste of time and Congress has more important thing to do which they are not doing. But then, I don't talk to assholes, especially the arrogant ones.

What do the people who would actually impeach think?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 10:14 AM

First, that individuals who cause great harm by violating the law, or their oaths or charters, should be made accountable. That abusers of power should not be entrusted with it any further. That justice should be served.

I guess justice is not a high virtue amongst those you talk to, so perhaps you are talking to assholes without knowing it.
I find this is often the case with that breed.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 12:45 PM

By ROBERT WARD JR.
Robert Ward Jr. is dean of
New England School of Law.
August 13, 2008 6:00 AM

"The actions of President Bush over the last seven-plus years have significantly damaged the image of the presidency. President George W. Bush has tarnished his office to the extent that many people want the 2008 election to be held as soon as possible, rather than focus their time, energy and money on the impeachment process.

Virtually everyone I know agrees that the president and his minions should be held accountable for their trampling of our Constitution. However, just saying the words "Bush" and "impeachment" in the same sentence sends some of them into a tailspin. I firmly believe that President Bush has committed a number of impeachable offenses, such as outing a covert CIA agent, condoning torture, fabricating evidence about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and spying on American citizens.

However, I respect the opinions of those who would prefer to turn the page of history via the 2008 election instead of impeaching President George Bush. They say, "What good can come from starting a process that can't be completed prior to the November election? Time will take care of this problem on its own."

I'll concede the point that beginning such a process now might be an exercise in futility. Nevertheless, the lawyers who aided the president in running roughshod over the law ought to be held accountable. And no election or presidential pardon can protect them from this. Attorneys Monica Gooding, Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers, professor John Yoo and Judge Jay Bybee can still be required to answer the questions: "What did you know and what did you do?"

When a person is granted a license to practice law, they take a solemn oath to uphold the United States Constitution and the rule of law. I readily admit that we lawyers, in rendering services, at times straddle the line between what is ethical and what is not. Frequently, there is a tension between the responsibility of providing zealous representation and canons of ethics. But there is a difference between straddling the line and crossing it.

In many cases, it seemed as though these attorneys attempted to erase the line altogether. Under no circumstances may a lawyer advise a client on how to violate the law. Given this basic tenet, at a minimum, Ms. Gooding, Mr. Gonzales and Ms. Miers, along with others, should have to explain to their respective state bar licensing agencies why they should not be disbarred.

We attorneys have a long and revered history of policing ourselves. All of us are taught that when in doubt about providing services and violating the canons, one should err on the side of being ethical. Many of the Bush lawyers appeared to have done just the opposite.

People will argue that the threat of disciplinary action will have a chilling affect on the relationship between the chief executive and his/her attorney. They fear that public-spirited, good lawyers will decline to go into government. I simply don't buy this argument. Your average first-year law student knows that you can't counsel a client to break the law. Thus, the Bush lawyers knew or should have known this, too.

For a variety of practical reasons, President Bush is not likely to be held accountable for his actions. That task is now left to history. But lawyers answer to a higher authority than the president of the United States.

One cornerstone of our great nation is that no person is above the law, not even those who work for the president. We need to reaffirm that principle. Ms. Gooding, Mr. Gonzales, et al, ought to be forced to explain why they are entitled to continue practicing the law that they apparently were so quick to ignore."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 01:13 PM

I mighta mentioned this but with the Supreme Court Selection of George Bush in 2000 the Repubs had to "perfect storm" to do whatever the Hell they wanted... And all because of the impeqchment of Bill Clinton... Had Clinton not be impeached then maybe the electorate would have been up to it but the Clinton impeachemnt ledt such a foul taste in the wouths of voters that the Repubs knew they could get away with murder... AQnd they have...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:48 PM

"I guess justice is not a high virtue amongst those you talk to"

At least they don't advocate "summary justice"

"no person is above the law" except Bill Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:53 PM

Republicans are not cleaning up Clinton's mess. They are making things worse.

It's too late for impeachment. They should be tried as war criminals.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 03:10 PM

Clinton, you will recall, was hammered into an impeachment process for sexual misconduct and lying about it. I think it is reasonable that Bush shoulod be hammered into an impeachment process for gross dereliction of duty, abusing the Constitution, causing international chaos, causing grievous bodily harm and death to thousands of Americans, illegal acts of war -- and lying about all these; also conspiring to subvert legal process, and conspiring to commit illegal acts, extreme misconduct in waste, fiscal malfeasance and incompetence, fraud and embezzlement, possibly while entrusted with high office. And a few other things. And lying about them.

Seems fair.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:04 AM

Hoyer said today that Kucinich had "an absolute right" to raise the issue. But he questioned whether it made sense to spend time on it during what he called "the waning months" of the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:07 AM

"Is hearing to impeach Bush merely 'anger management'?

They lined up by the hundreds to be a witness to history at the Judiciary Committee's unofficial impeachment hearings of George W. Bush today.

It wasn't called that of course. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-S.F.) had balked at a real impeachment hearing. Something about fearing a voter backlash from the public, already in a bad mood about Congress' inaction on core issues. "

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:13 AM

OW, this one really cuts deep:

"Obama says despite shortcomings of Bush administration, impeachment is not acceptable
The Associated Press June 28, 2007

WASHINGTON: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:44 AM

Tough luck Amos, I am sorry that your efforts are failing so badly:

"Pelosi's Latest Justification for Barring Impeachment... 'Bush Would Never Cooperate With His Own Impeachment'
Submitted by SadInAmerica on 2008, August 4 - 11:19pm.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has continued her search for book sales and it seems her search for a plausible rationale for personally blocking any impeachment investigation of President Bush. The latest explanation can in an interview with Time Magazine. It seems that she would not allow an investigation because Bush would never have supplied incriminating evidence against himself. It seems that House investigators rely on the accused to build an impeachment case.

Before moving to the obvious problems with the latest rationale for blocking any impeachment effort for years, it is worth noting that it took the Speaker's book tour to finally prompt her to answer questions about her decision.

Only last week, Pelosi used the August body of the hosts of The View to reveal her view on impeachment: there is simply no evidence of crimes committed by President Bush.

My understanding is that her office was inundated with copies of the various documented crimes alleged against Bush. Now, Pelosi is claiming a different rationale: they could not rely on the White House and GOP supplying the evidence needed to convict:

    Nancy Shipes of Woodstown, NJ: Why have you taken impeachment off the table as an option for President George W. Bush?

    Pelosi: I took it off the table a long time ago. You can't talk about impeachment unless you have the facts, and you can't have the facts unless you have cooperation from the Administration. I think the Republicans would like nothing better than for us to focus on impeachment and take our eye off the ball of a progressive economic agenda."

---

"The American people sent us there [to Congress] to get things done," Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told reporters at a breakfast yesterday. "They didn't send us there to impeach the President."

No Democrats voted against the resolution, to send the measure to certain death in the Judiciary Committee, but 166 Republicans voted no - a tactic designed to force Democrats to address the measure publicly.

Their votes technically could have kept alive the possibility that the resolution could come up on the House floor, and Republicans wanted to expose Democrats for their "trivial and silly conspiracy theories," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for the House GOP leadership.

"There should be consequences when the Democratic leadership allows the House floor to be hijacked by the loony left," Steel said."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:41 PM

>Bugliosi, Kucinich on Executive Power.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 09:26 PM

"Rep. Robert Wexler, the Palm Beach Democrat who's turned into a fiery advocate for impeaching President Bush, is taking his campaign on the road. Specifically, to the Democratic Convention in Denver.

In an e-mail appeal circulated by the Progressive Democrats of America, Wexler urges supporters to join him on Aug. 28 for a panel discussion on "oversight, investigations and impeachment."

His goal: to make sure Bush and Vice President Cheney don't escape.

The idea that the president and vice president might finish out their terms -- without being forced to answer for the illegal use of torture, illegal politicization of the Justice Department, conspiracy to obstruct justice by ignoring congressional subpoenas and other charges, including the lies that led to the war in Iraq is one I will not even grudgingly accept.

Wexler concedes that most eyes on that Thursday will be on the party's nominee, Barack Obama, and the presidential campaign to come. And he acknowledges that he has his own reelection race to worry about -- with two opponents.

But he insists that "impeachment and accountability" deserve a place at the convention. It's a theme he's been touting for months, including at this House Judiciary Committee meeting on July 26."...(Video here.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 08:56 AM

Dear xxxx,

I need your help:

My strong and vocal stands in favor of impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney have made me a target. I am now under siege by the right wing, who are working hard to defeat me and silence the causes that we believe in.

In the eyes of the right wing, I am seen, along with Rep. Kucinich, as one of the symbols of the impeachment fight. They believe that if they defeat me – they defeat our cause.

For the last week, I've been relentlessly targeted by ultra-conservative radio and television hosts, as well as my local media. It has taken a toll. Now more than ever, I need your support to help me stay in Congress to represent your voice in Washington.

Please click here to donate to my re-election campaign.

I am pleased to report that just this week we have made real progress in our fight for accountability for this rogue Administration. Just yesterday a federal court ruled against President Bush's bogus executive privilege claims and ordered Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten to testify. In addition, this week the Judiciary Committee voted to hold Karl Rove in contempt for his refusal to testify.

I will make you this promise: No matter who criticizes me, I will continue to aggressively push for genuine accountability for this White House – including inherent contempt for Karl Rove, Josh Bolten, Harriet Miers and all of the renegade Bush officials if they do not immediately cooperate.

With your contribution today (click here) you can ensure that I will return to Congress and never back down from the causes in which we believe.

I have been one of the few lonely voices in Congress to demand accountability and now I am paying a price. The truth is I would rather lose my election than back down. But we will win if we stand together, and your contribution today will send a strong message to the right wing that our movement will not be intimidated.

Click here to donate and help me send a message to the right wing.

It's no coincidence that these attacks are increasing as I continue my outspoken stances, and Election Day approaches.

Right now, I am facing my most difficult re-election ever. While I rely on people like you to support my campaign – both of my wealthy opponents are spending their own personal money to fund their campaigns. One opponent has promised to spend a million dollars to defeat me. Another opponent has ridiculed my stance on impeachment and called for me to be impeached and removed from office.

I need your help: please click here to donate today.

From the beginning of my work on impeachment, I have been dipping into my re-election fund to help pay the significant costs of what has been a national campaign to promote impeachment. Some of you have previously donated to help keep this outreach alive, and for that, I'm thankful. I will continue to promote this cause using my campaign resources.

Now, the right wing is fueling the campaigns against me: Newspapers are reporting that my Republican opponent is seeing a major spike in contributions. We must match his supporters dollar for dollar.

If you're in a position to contribute, please help us win this race click here to donate.

If not, but you know someone who might want to, please spread the word by forwarding this email and posting it on blogs.

Every two years, Americans get to decide who represents them. Whether I'm your representative or not, I hope you know I will continue to fight to protect our Constitution.

Regardless of whether you can support me financially at this time or not, please know that I have been inspired by your hard work, words of encouragement, and unflagging commitment for our shared causes.

Your friend,

Congressman Robert Wexler



Right on Dude. Whatever

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 09:00 AM

"Whatever" -- a decisive, insightful, clear-thinking response indeed, Sawz.

You're exposing your inner mushmelon.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 10:39 AM

Right on Dude. Whatever.

You really should give this poor guy with the victim mentality holding a "will impeach for food" sign some money so he can impeach GWB and save the world.

"Geeze, T. Your pink glasses are getting overheated, dude. "

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 10:55 AM

Sorry--I meant "mushbrain".


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 03:40 PM

« Lonesome cowboy? Rethinking Bush's legacy | Main | Vacation? What vacation? That's the White House message »

Chico debates: Is impeaching Bush good use of City Council's time?
Detroit did it. Then Santa Rosa did it. Huntington Beach said no. San Francisco, Santa Cruz and Arcata all said yes. Berkeley's aye vote, natch, was unanimous.

Now comes Chico, Calif., population 85,000, to consider the impeachment of President George W. Bush. Calling itself the "Chico Impeachment Team," a group of local residents is lobbying the City Council to pass a resolution Tuesday night urging Congress to impeach Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Even though the two are due to leave office in January.

Even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has nixed the idea of bringing an impeachment vote to the floor.

"They need to be held accountable whether they have one more day in office or two more years," said Marla Crites, who presented 1,000 signatures to the council to trigger the vote.


...LAT

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:36 AM

"Ohio Senator Dennis Kucinich is not giving up his fight to have George W. Bush impeached during his last days in office. He has posted an online petition and invited U.S. citizens to assist in the collection of one million signatures by September 10 2008. Speaker for the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi has remained firm on her resolution that impeachment is "off the table." In August she told Time Magazine : "You can't talk about impeachment unless you have the facts, and you can't have the facts unless you have cooperation from the Administration. I think the Republicans would like nothing better than for us to focus on impeachment and take our eye off the ball of a progressive economic agenda." Schlagworte
Dennis Kucinich George W. Bush Impeachment Petition Signature U.S.A. But the possibility of confusing voters in the run-up to the Presidential elections has not detered Kucinich. Among his reasons for the campaign he lists that there should be a new standard set for the incoming administration and that the Bush Administration should be held accountable as soon as possible for the poor response to the catastrophe following Hurricane Katrina as well as the deaths in Iraq, both of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens that he estimates as being well over one million. " (Die Welt Online)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:00 PM

Watch the play which shows the Impeachment we've been dreaming of.

Also, good editorial HERE.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:49 PM

A great play!! Highly recommended.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 05:40 PM

It seemed to me that the actor who played Bush did have his gestures but he sounded just like Bill Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 05:42 PM

LEGACY = PRECEDANT

PRECEDANT = ITS OK NEXT TIME

its not ok

Since Impeachment is off the table for Congress
I propose BANISHMENT.

Not to his Paraguay ranch but
to Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 11:28 AM

Hey, can we get a little impeachment action here?
August 21, 2008

"THE PRESIDENT of Pakistan resigned in order to avoid impeachment for violation of his country's constitution. The governing body was prepared to move forward toward impeachment procedures.

In the United States, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have violated the Constitution of the United States as well as a number of international laws, and they are still allowed to serve. The House and Senate are supposed to provide checks and balances, but have not acted to uphold the law and start impeachment proceedings.

Our lawmakers can learn from the Pakistani government that even a president who thinks he is a king has to answer to the people. Those elected legislators who have failed the American people will pay for their lack of spine at the polls."

JOHN MURRAY
Somerville

(Boston Globe)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 11:35 AM

Conyers Asks Intelligence Officials to Discuss Bogus Iraq/Al-Qaeda Letter

Posted: 20 Aug 2008 03:00 PM CDT
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers sent a series of letters Wednesday to current and former White House and intelligence officials stating he is concerned the Bush administration may have violated federal law by allegedly ordering the CIA to create a bogus letter in late 2003 that linked Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda and wants to interview the officials to set the record straight.


The letters were addressed to former CIA Director George Tenet, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, Rob Richer, the CIA's former associate deputy director of operations, John Hannah, Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs, John MaGuire, the former head of the CIA's Iraq Operations Group, Near East Division, and A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard, the CIA's former executive director, and requests that these intelligence officials provide the committee with information about the forged letter .

The officials were identified in the recently published book The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Ron Suskind as either having first-hand knowledge that the White House ordered the CIA to create the letter to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq after weapons of mass destruction were not found or played a direct role in drafting the letter.

Richer and MaGuire gave Suskind on-the-record interviews, which the author recorded, and discussed specific details about the reasons the letter was created and that it likely emanated from Cheney's office. Both men have since recanted their statements. Richer said in a lengthy statement two weeks ago that he may sue Suskind for allegedly failing to inform him that the interviews he agreed to were being recorded.


"I am writing to follow up on recent serious allegations regarding the creation of a false letter from Tahir Jalil Habbush, Saddam Hussein's former Chief of Intelligence, to Saddam Hussein," Conyers wrote in each of the five letters that contained identical language.


"The letter, which was allegedly backdated to July 1, 2001, attempted to establish an operational link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in the period before the 9/11 attacks by specifically stating that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had received training in Iraq. At the time of the alleged decision in 2003 to concoct the false letter, the Vice President's Office had been reportedly pressuring the CIA to prove this connection as a justification to invade Iraq. The letter also falsely noted that Iraq had received a "shipment" (presumably uranium) from Niger with the assistance of al Qaeda.


"Upon careful review of the allegations concerning this matter, I have become very concerned with the possibility that this Administration may have violated federal law by using the resources of our intelligence agencies to influence domestic policy processes or opinion. The law specifically provides that "[n]o covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media."
<.s> (Emphasis added. AHJ)

Suskind wrote in his book that such a violation might constitute an "impeachable offense."


"It is not the sort of offense, such as assault or burglary, that carries specific penalties, for example, a fine or jail time," Suskind wrote. "It is much broader than that. It pertains to the White House's knowingly misusing an arm of government, the sort of thing generally taken up in impeachment proceedings."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 12:10 PM

The uprising in Pakistan was on the shoulders of most of the lawyers and judges.

In the USA most of the lawyers are not defense attorneys or prosectutors...I believe they are coporate lawyers and beaurocratic lawyers like tax consultants whose job it is to get away with a lie or mass poisoning by Monsanto or grand larceny by Halliburton.

I don't think our nation's lawyers have the guts or patriotism to do anything like what Pakistan did.

THE USA's dream of wealth IS DEAD since we exported the American dream in the for, of JP Morgan's BOGUS $93 TRILLION DOLLAR BUNDLED SUB PRIME MORTGAGE DERIVITIVES and destroyed all the money invested by every nation who bought them. We export death and war. We export a swindle. The American way is the way of the WASP MAFIA.
The education is no longer afforded by any of the middle class.
We are 16th in education and tied with Ghana and Estonia.

We AIN"T #1 in anything except crime, movies and police state investment.

We can't practice the democracy we export and we don't iomport the democracy and wealth other nations undertake.

We are the commercials we make. We are a rip off, a lie, a short sighted money grubbing, new idea hating religiously intolerant people.



Hope for this country in the near term of 10 years is for suckers.
We are more likely to have a religious civil war than an Renaisance. Its over man. finis

The inflated $93 Trillion dollars on the books of JP Morgan is but a symtom of denial and lieing to ourselves.
Ger yours and get out is the sacred credo of America today.


I once wrote the Lincoln probably had to die for forgiveness to ever even begin. Today the super capitalist Rebels are too abundant to consider impeachment. The financial, military and religious strangle hold on America are the roots of our corruption, They are our roots. This tree of state can not grow pure fruit from corrupt polluted roots.

Even if Obama is allowed to win the only change you will get is spare change.

I on the other hand you are a member of the Christian Breakfast Club or a White House appointed laison for the Dept of religion to Mega Church Consolidated, everthing is as it should be.

The war against non Christians is only begining. IT starts by black lists and not hiring Democrats then it goes to an isidious place that you would not believe if I told you... so instead I will bid you

Good Day.

Don H


Only 3 people are likely to read my unbelieveable yet truthful BS anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 12:19 PM

It's a shame Donel that you're not cynical.
You always paint roses when it's the thorns that are cutting US.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 12:29 PM

edit

THE USA's dream of wealth IS DEAD since we exported the American dream in the form of JP Morgan's BOGUS $93 TRILLION DOLLAR BUNDLED SUB PRIME MORTGAGE DERIVITIVES. They destroyed all the money invested by every nation who bought them. We export death and war. We exported a swindle. We do not even have that enormous loss on our books. We are floating a lie in a lie in a lie of the value of the US dollar today.

All the capitol is now elsewhere in Asia the several banking families.

America is now for the shareholders first!
The problem is... When the capitol/$ of the shareholder is now 'elsewhere', America no longer works for or invests in itself.

The New World Order first proposed by Bush #1 is now deeply rooted and we all see the rotten fruit it has produced for everyone who does not make $5 million a year on the financial rape of the now crippled American middle class.

My religious nut neighbors do not aspire to a happy middle class life. They want Mega millions off the backs of their enemies in the Middle East or the blasphemous Democrats. They want the American dream of taking first and screw the rest of the immoral and evil baby killers. They are the Republican base. They are the Rebels who covertly propose a civil war by another name.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 12:45 PM

Barry
Its not cynical....it was a Political Bowel Movement ;<}

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 12:51 PM

Whew look at that thing its gotta bee 2 feet long.

Its also garbage day and time to shampoo the carpets.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 05:07 PM

Shit happens Donuel! But I haden't realized we were in the toliet until you opened my nose.
Thanks for,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 06:53 PM

he strikeout were meant to be underlined, and end at the .s. Sorry.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 11:16 AM

INTERNET BUZZ IS AS HIGH AS EVER ON "IMPEACH BUSH & CHENEY" AS 2008 ELECTION DRAWS TO A CLOSE By Kevin Stoda (Op-Ed NEws)

Even though media wonks and the Democratic Party leadership haven't got it yet, media consumers and internet users are JUST as interested as ever in seeing an impeachment of both George W. Bush and Richard (Dick) Cheney for crimes against the constitution and abuse of power.

Both YAHOO and GOOGLE SEARCH engines are showing as high (or higher) a number of hits on the topic of impeachment as they have throughout the past two years.

Currently, the search "impeach Bush Cheney" registers over 8.2 million links or hits.

GOOGLE, which of course uses different search algorithms (since autumn 2007), registers nearly 350,000 hits as of today—the highest level of links or hits registered since last December 2007.

The Washington Post began this election year by running a well-written Op-Ed by George McGovern on "Why I Believe Bush Must Go".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404308.html

In the piece, McGovern noted "I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?"

McGovern also noted some of the dozens of grounds for impeachment, including these talking points: (1) "Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' to use the constitutional standard."(2) "From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged -- perhaps even by a congressional investigation. In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has killed almost 4,000 Americans, left many times that number mentally or physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis (according to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United States is now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1 trillion, most of which we have borrowed from the Chinese and others as our national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion -- by far the highest in our national history."
(3) "All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949."

Americans, as a whole, support what McGovern had to say and have kept the basic concepts of the constitution in mind throughout the long American presidential election campaigs

That is to say—even if the TV media leadership thinks otherwise, Americans have been reading their newspapers and online news.

Many have come to accept the fact that impeachment is necessary and proper.

RECENT POLL
As of August 18, 2008 The World Net Daily reports a recent poll by the American Research Group, Inc. whereby 54% of Americans support the start of impeachment against Dick Cheney as Vice President of the United States.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56546


Meanwhile, 45% support that the same procedure be started against George W. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 11:59 AM

People are still to scared to risk being demonized as an anti God Bush bashing traitot.


THIS is about as far as most people are willing to go today...

"I am not a global war proponent who wants to promote torture and burn the Constitution while villifying all Muslims, atheists and democrates ------ NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT ! "

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 11:46 PM

Your very own USB 2.0 compatible Impeachment Machine

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 27 Aug 08 - 04:21 PM

HOBART — I received a form letter from U.S. Rep. Steve Kagen; I had inquired why he was not backing Rep. Dennis Kucinich in his quest to impeach Vice President Cheney and why no Democrats were seeking President Bush's impeachment.


He answered, in part: "The president's potentially impeachable actions include the invasion of Iraq on faulty intelligence, politically motivated firings of U.S. attorneys and the illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens. I understand your frustrations, but impeachment is not the best way to respond to their poor judgment."

I wonder, what does he have to do, have sex with someone?

I questioned three lawyers about a fictitious situation.

Question: If a CEO of any company and his administration knowingly use false information to instigate a hostile takeover of a rival company, during which a person died as a direct result, would the CEO and his administration be liable for the death? All three said yes.

Why, especially after President Bush admitted to knowing his administration used false information to instigate a war with Iraq, and over 4,000 of our brave soldiers have been murdered, are you so silent? I do not hear a rallying cry of "Impeach him" from any political group.

My heart aches for all the men and women serving our country for Bush's personal war, and for their families.

John Van Laanen
(Green Bay Press Gazette)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:54 PM

A Discussion of Treason Charges and Bush

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 04:05 AM

Thanks for the link Amos. Without any shadow of a doubt the most convoluted claptrap I have ever read. If that is what the exhaustive research and analysis into the activities of the current administration for the past seven and a half years can only come up with then there would be no prospect at all of a conviction.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 10:06 PM

Impeach the Bastards, a media composite by a 28-year old on MySpace who "has put together one of the most moving videos I have ever seen, of Bush Cheney and the rest saying one thing then exactly the opposite. Alex has captured them in their own words coming from their own mouths."


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 02:13 AM

Welcome to September Amos. How's the "impeachment" proceedings going? Karl Rove been arrested yet? Hell's teeth Dennis had best get his skates on - He, and you, are running out of time fast.

Only three more of these posts to go, thank goodness.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 11:08 AM

Ah, the loyal suppository. Once again, thanks for your constant reminder that the obviosu is not universally available.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 12:37 PM

"saying one thing then exactly the opposite" That's Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 01:45 PM

Sawz, you are rich with the odor of offal and manure.

Go watch the video.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 03:30 PM

"loyal suppository" Amos??? Tut tut.

No Amos, think of me as the loyal slave who stood at his master's shoulder as his chariot headed the triumphal procession, and whose job it was to whisper in his ear throughout that he was merely mortal and fallible as all other men.

This thread is your self-created triumphal procession, oh great Emperor and I'm just here telling you that you ain't got no clothes on. Just like your impeachment proceedings there's nothing to hang anything onto, you have neither evidence, proof or substance to your myriad accusations. As I said only three more to go thank goodness.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:13 PM

"we can take action against them -- cutting off funds, spiking their cellphones or even sending small squads in to bring a few of them at a time off for summary justice somewhere."


4) The Offense of Wiretapping Surveillance in Defiance of the Law

President Bush and Vice President Cheney admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805.

These provisions are detailed in "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens," by former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman. ".

The suspension of habeas corpus and the erosion of constitutionally provided separation of church and state are two other items that could be mentioned.

But Mrs. Holtzman, Amos made the suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:40 PM

Hell, T, no sense waxing Classic--this is no triumphal procession. When the bullies of the Republican party screamed about Bill Conton's perjury and ramrodded impeachment through on no merit, THAT was a triumphal procession, albeit a false, vindictive and hollow one, full of the mean spirit of politics in glee.

If you'd been on the job as a Turd Whisperer, you could have steered Bush away from his melodramatic blunders.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:01 PM

I don't know how much of an idiot you are in real life Sawz, but on these threads you are continuously outdoing yourself.

My remarks--which you again refuse to place in their context--were aimed at Al Queda, and you choose to believe I was supporting Bush's encroachments against the Constitution and the Magna Carta.

My remarks were given in the context of a terrible fresh wound, and aimed at the direct enemies of the country who specifically generated it. You choose to alter and twist it to make it appear as a political remark.

In twisting and altering this way, you actually place yourself far below the salt, below the dignity of conversation, because you undermine the very premises of conversation by compulsively altering things for the worse.

I think you would do well to take a sabbatical, or a vacation, or perhaps a work break.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 10:46 PM

Your writhing scatological rebuttal to the obvious does not change the facts. It was a practical and logical remark but now you have turned against it for political purposes.

What I got from your original posting was that the enemy that attacked the US was such a devious and clandestine network that it must be dealt with in unconventional ways such as spying, summary justice, following the money trail and kidnapping. You were right.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 11:15 PM

I have not turned against it, Sawz. I turned against your taking it out of context. If the Bush administration had followed my advice, the nation would have been much better off, in my opinion. But for crying out loud, man, that was seven years back!!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 08:47 AM

They did take your advice.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 10:15 AM

No, sir, they did not.

They resorted to full scale military assaults on two fronts.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 11:15 AM

From Mojave, Arizona:

"George Bush, finally the uniter


By Mikel Weisser

Friday, August 29, 2008 12:39 AM CDT



When Bob Costas interviewed George Bush for NBC's Olympic coverage on Aug. 10, attempting to take a hard line, Costas asked Bush to comment on the problems in our country. Bush replied, "I don't see any problems with our country."

Following the immediate crowd reaction of everyone in the room yelling "get that man a *&%&$@# pair of glasses" at the TV set, I, like many in the American public, came the realization that from his point of view things in America probably do look pretty rosy. After all, Bush does not have to see any problems. His problems are seen to.

The crowd he runs with - big oil, big Pharma, telecoms, Chinese bankers and big arms dealers - continue to rake in massive profits and, essentially unchecked, pursue their agendas of pillaging the Earth while chemically and entertainingly lobotomizing the masses.

The war with Iraq has gone exactly like he wanted: rambling on with no clear purpose. Even as the masses grow that are calling for impeachment, Bush knows he is safe with mainstream media willing to distract us or mute any issue, even something as large as Bush forcing the CIA to forge terrorist documents to better lie to us with.


That's right, in case you missed it, in the Aug. 5 news cycle, Ron Suskind's new book, "The Way of the World," was making huge waves with bold accusations of deceptions regarding the Iraq War, both pre- and post-invasion. The White House supposedly authorized paying an Iraqi official a cool $5 million to draft a letter linking Iraq to alleged 9/11 mastermind Mohammad Atta. The letter enjoyed a brief turn in December '03 before being dismissed as a forgery. The purpose was to lie to the American people who were getting pissed about the lack of WMDs in this country that was supposed to be an imminent threat. It was around the time that Saddam himself popped up like a "Whack-a-Mole" in time for his capture to provide some Christmas cheer. Joy over the Saddam thing buried the controversy over the forged document, until the Pulitzer Prize winning Suskind sussed it out once more, in time for Bush bashers to get another turn at trying to dethrone King George.

If the public presses it, this could be a new beginning of the end of George Bush.

Already, echoing July's concerted if diminutive Kucinich impeachment effort, many in the press and on the barstools around the land are calling Suskind's claim, if true, "an impeachable offense."

But that's only if our fractionated public were to unify in their reaction and already the disinformation machine has kicked into high gear. As before when Bush was being pressed on some issue, gasoline prices suddenly start sloping down instead of up and mainstream media has chosen to emphasize the ever-available Democratic dirty laundry, this time of Edwards in bed with whomever and Condi Rice is back to rattling her saber at Iran. This would all be well and good, in fact business as usual, if not for the fact that Fox has taken to shrieking that mainstream media are Bush haters, this convergence of distraction is a clue: Suskind is onto something and needs to be buried.

I say you can tell the man by the company he keeps. Olmert of Israel is resigning in disgrace from corruption charges while creating his own Warsaw ghetto in Gaza; and Pakistan is about to impeach Musharraf for everything from killing Benazir Bhutto to bartering in bacon grease. Like Bush, both men have made shambles of their countries, created war states where none need exist, alienated their own citizenry, repressed their political opposition often at the point of a gun and been implicated in so many shady dealings they should open a sunglasses outlet.

Of course, if open resistance leads to open oppression here in the United States, Bush and his followers are liable to prove many resisters dead right, or at least dead. If you seriously contend this characterization is over the top, ask an Iraqi whose family has died for Bush lies. It all depends on how the public reacts to the Suskind story. If enough people react, it remains our America, not his. This accusation alone, handled properly by Bush bashers, could prove to be his tipping point. If Bush is to be a uniter one last time, this may be his chance: to be universally despised."

Mikel Weisser .

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 12:11 PM

From Nashua, NH:

"Bush and Cheney both deserve impeachment
I can't believe President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have not been impeached and removed disgracefully from office.

The evidence of both lying and willfully promoting false information about Iraq to the American public and Congress is overwhelming.

These two are responsible for the thousand dead and mutilated young American men and women, not to mention the more than half a million Iraqi citizens, including women and children, who will never live normally again.

It's also been proven there was no al-Qaida or terrorists in Iraq until this was created by the decision to invade and occupy this small country. The fact that Iraq was sitting on an ocean of precious oil is most likely the real reason for this catastrophic blunder.

Nevertheless, there are only a few weeks left until these two will be free to live under the protection of U.S. security and most likely will never have to confront the disgrace they so much deserve.

The question that remains is not whether impeachment is justified, but whether they should be tried as war criminals in an international court of law. I commend U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich for at least trying (Bush impeachment resolution HR 1345), which was unsuccessful.

Where are our present political candidates on this issue?

Now is the time to speak out for all to hear. The voters are waiting and will decide who is best to lead our wonderful country.

Daniel A. Fusconi
Nashua"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 12:45 PM

"The evidence of both lying and willfully promoting false information about Iraq to the American public and Congress is overwhelming." - So states Daniel A. Fusconi of Nashua, whoever he is and wherever that is. However his statements are in line with what Amos wishes to believe so his little missive is emblazoned in Amos's thread.

Only problem with that Amos that neither you, or Mr. Fusconi can find it within yourselves to actually come up with any of this so-called evidence. What you do present is laughable, still never mind, please continue to assemble nothing more damning than opinion, it seems to keep you amused and as stated will not go on for much longer.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 01:02 PM

Dear God, Teribus, how obtuse and thick-headed do you intend to remain for the rest of this life?

This thread is fat with links to evidence.


The problem is not in the lack of evidence, but in the lack of public courage on the issue.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 04:06 PM

No Amos, this thread is fat with opinion that certain fools such as yourself rather hopefully believe to be "evidence", but which on close examination proves to be seriously wanting in fact and substance.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 04:19 PM

And the Romans and Gauls still find no credibility, sense or honesty in one another's opposing opinions, statements, and policies regarding the ongoing conflict in Gaul...!

Meanwhile, the Senate in Rome continues to question Caesar's motives. What is he really after?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 04:24 PM

Well, T, you may rant at me now from your smug alien posture.

But I feel pretty sure the day will come when the illegalities of Rove and Wolfowitz' manuvers are plainly laid down in a court of law.

Perhaps you Brits are so jaded about being lied to to your faces that it no longer offends you. You should take yourselves more seriously. (That was a jest, in case it went by unnoticed).



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 04:42 PM

If Teribus took himself any more seriously, he'd implode and vanish into a black hole. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 10:05 PM

Impeach Bush and Cheney

"PEJ News - "We demand that Congress imediately impeach both Dick Cheney and George W. Bush for deceiving the US into war, for abuse of power and for subverting the Constitution itself."

Read the full speech delivered by Dr. Bob Bowman at the 911 Truth event, at St. Ann's Academy, Victoria BC in August 08. This is one of the most powerful indictments of the US administration ever written."

www.thepatriots.us/pg_02_speech.htm

(PEJ Website)l

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 10:09 PM

"Much changed while George W. Bush was in office. Nearly 3,000 died on 9/11. Many more than that died in his wars and occupations. There are more than 27,000 wounded soldiers whose lives will never be the same. There are tens of thousands of young men and women with serious psychological problems because of what they have seen and what they have done. There are hundreds of thousands poisoned by Depleted Uranium who will suffer lives of pain and disability, and who will father thousands of children with severe birth defects. Our military services are depleted and demoralized. The VA system is overwhelmed. The National Guard and Reserves have been subjected to tour after tour, disrupting lives for even the lucky ones who return unscathed. Jobs have been lost, marriages have been destroyed, homes have been foreclosed, children have been estranged, and natural disasters like Katrina have been undealt with. And still, there was no accountability.

That was just in this country. In Iraq , things were even worse. Religious liberty was lost, mosques, churches, and synagogues which thrived under Saddam were destroyed, women lost their rights and freedoms, essential services were disrupted, people were tortured, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were killed, cities like Fallujah lie in ruins, and in spite of heroic efforts by the vast majority of our young men and women in uniform, most of the remaining people of Iraq are much worse off than they were before we "liberated" them.

More than four years of war have destroyed Iraq , destroyed our standing in the world, destroyed our national security, destroyed our civil liberties, destroyed precious lives, and brought our nation to the brink of financial disaster. And it was all predictable, because we in fact predicted it! The hundreds of billions of dollars already spent on this war have not just vanished. They have gone to Condoleezza Rice's Chevron-Texaco and Dick Cheney's Halliburton and George Bush's Carlisle Group, and through their lobbyists into the pockets of you Congressional incumbents. Perhaps that's why there has been no accountability...." Dr. Robert Bowman, Lt. Col. (ret) USAF

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 01:27 AM

Emotive crap - a work of fiction:

"There are tens of thousands of young men and women with serious psychological problems because of what they have seen and what they have done." - Substantiate

"There are hundreds of thousands poisoned by Depleted Uranium who will suffer lives of pain and disability, and who will father thousands of children with severe birth defects." - Substantiate

"Our military services are depleted and demoralized" - Really?? I somehow think that the reverse is true. But there again this drivel was written at the time your future Vice-President of choice Joe Biden was harranging General Petraeus on how "The Surge" was not working - not the Senator Biden would know one way or the other - his track record is adopt the Party line and stick to it no matter how wrong it proves to be until a different party line is adopted.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 02:48 PM

September 4, 2008

"George W. Bush has abused the authority that we, the people, entrusted to him as commander-in-chief of our military forces.


Bush has expressed his desire to keep our military forces in Iraq. Consider what has happened to our economy, plus all of the American casualties in this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand.

The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people don't want America in their nation, just as the people from Georgia do not want Russia in their nation. Bush is squealing like a stuck pig at Russia for doing the same thing he did to Iraq.

We American citizens do not want Russia to control Georgia, and we certainly do not want our armed forces or our tax money wasted in Iraq.

The "Bush government" is totally un-American. In my 81 years, Bush is the only president who promoted torture of prisoners. Our economy has gone to pot during this Bush watch.

I would be in favor of having Bush impeached before he leads us into World War III."

— Gordon Lukkasson, Salem, MA

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 07:10 AM

Well Amos, what can I say apart from the fact that I sincerely hope that you and Mr. Lukkasson learn to live with your disappointments in that:

A. President George W. Bush will not be impeached

B. The Third World War as envisioned by Mr. Lukkasson will not break out in the coming four months.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 10:43 AM

THanks, T. I agree on the probability of both remarks.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: DougR
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 05:56 PM

If you agree with Teribus Amos, why did you post the original message?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 04:03 PM

They did take your advice Amos and it worked. No further AQ attacks in America.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 05:34 PM

Because it reflects a voice of interest on the question. I don't think Bush is any less culpable just because the composite inertia is likely to prevent his impeachment from happening. It should happen, and if it did it would liekly be successful.

But it probably is not going to happen. That does not mean the truth about it should not be voiced.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 08:40 PM

Amos,

One thing vitaly flawed with that for a country that prides itself on its system of justice - no evidence that would count as such, merely opinion. Thankfully the two are different.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 09:13 PM

You and I disagree on that issue.

But I suspect you ignored the Downing Street Memo and the baldly misinforming passages in the various SOU addresses, and the innuendo of terror about nuclear strikes, and the wide array of other falsifications that are a matter of public record. As a result, you see no evidence, but it might be because you are looking from the inside of a poke.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 03:07 AM

The "Downing Street Memo" Amos is a statement of opinion - Not Fact

The State Of the Union Address is written for the President not by him.

In the wake of the costliest attack on the American population on the mainland of America in assessing and evaluating the potential threat to the country, it would be deemed prudent to assess any threat in the light of what presents the "worst case" scenario. You would be failing in your duty to do anything other than that.

As to the war - Saddam Hussein could have prevented that simply by complying - He decided not to do that. By his own admission he said that he did everything in his power to make people, particularly the states neighbouring Iraq, believe that Iraq still possessed WMD.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:23 PM

While understanding the worst case scenario is essential, I agree, it is ramapant stupidity to believe that all cases and outcomes have the same probability. It is especially stupid to act on scenarios that do not exist.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 07:42 PM

McDermott backs effort to impeach Bush
by Charles Pope, The Oregonian
Tuesday September 09, 2008, 1:30 PM


Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash.
WASHINGTON -- With only months left in his White House career, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., decided Tuesday, it's time to impeach President Bush.

"Next to declaring war, impeachment is the gravest matter the House of Representatives must consider,'' McDermott said in brief remarks from the floor.

"I fully understand the gut-wrenching consequences such a national debate could precipitate. Yet, there is one fact we cannot overlook or escape. America cannot regain its moral leadership in the world if America cannot hold its leaders accountable for their actions at home. The allegations that would warrant impeachment keep growing,'' he said.

McDermott, who has long opposed the war in Iraq and been one of Bush's most outspoken critics, said he decided to support impeachment after chewing on the question for two years.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 12:51 AM

Amos: Will you have a meltdown if GWB dosen't get impeached, Obama does not get elected and The USA wins Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 03:17 AM

Will you have a meltdown, Sawz, if ordinary human compassion re-emerges in this country?

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 02:27 PM

You imply that "human compassion" has gone somewhere.

I don't think it has gone anywhere but it seems to have been trumped by extremism. I will be pleased when the extremism subsides.

Politicians jump on the impeachment bandwagon when they determine it will help them get elected. Extremists who are looking for a "cause" to fight for are their unwitting assistants.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 02:31 PM

Often true; also true, for example, of the "no global warming" crowd.

My interest is impeachment is as a matter of simple, clear justice based on actual, discovered, facts.

If that is extremism in your book, so be it./


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 02:47 PM

One day before the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Rep. Dennis Kucinich is presenting a petition to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with 50,000 signatures urging the impeachment of President Bush -- adding to the 100,000 he has already filed.

Calling the Bush administration's military response to 9/11 "errant retributive justice," the Ohio Democrat called for a Commission on Truth and Reconciliation to "compel testimony and gather official documents" on why the Bush administration went to war in Iraq. In advance of a news conference today with grass-roots organizations lobbying Congress on the issue, Kucinich said:

Impeachment has been the first step in our efforts toward truth. The American people were lied to. We went to war based on lies. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. ...

In the face of a destructive war against Iraq, preparations for war against Iran, the initiation of a cold war with Russia, the inevitable destruction of our domestic economy from the extraordinary cost of a great military buildup, and the gutting of civil liberties, the call for impeachment has been the only remedy. Millions of Americans recognize this.

Kucinich's pitch comes one day before the nation mourns the death of 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11, and one day after Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington endorsed impeachment. McDermott visited Saddam Hussein's Iraq before the war, earning him the nickname "Baghdad Jim." Here's what he said:

For the last two years I've struggled with the issue of whether the House should impeach a sitting president. Next to declaring war, impeachment is the gravest matter the House of Representatives must consider. I fully understand the gut-wrenching consequences such a national debate could precipitate. Yet there is one fact we cannot over look or escape: America cannot regain its moral leadership in the world if America cannot hold its leaders accountable for their actions at home.

With Bush leaving office in about four months, and a presidential election campaign in full swing, no one in Washington seriously expects the impeachment drive to succeed. Pelosi has repeatedly taken the issue off the table, saying voters expect Congress to work on economic issues, not spend its remaining months trying to push Bush from office early.

But David Swanson, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org, argued in a press release that impeachment is crucial to possible criminal trials against the president and Vice President Dick Cheney once they leave office.

When Cheney and Bush finally face trial in a criminal court, their first line of defense is likely to be, "We served the American people, whose representatives chose not to impeach us." If on the other hand they are impeached even after having left office, the likelihood of prosecution and of successful prosecution will increase dramatically.

-- Johanna Neuman

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 06:12 PM

On the floor today of the House of Representatives, Washington state Rep. Jim McDermott (D-7th Congressional District) signed onto legislation that considers the impeachment of George Bush. This move continues McDermott's long-standing effort to hold the Executive Office of the U.S. government accountable for its mis-use of office and power.
So, here is the video of McDermott as he reads this statement today in Washington:

"American cannot regain its moral leadership in the world if America cannot hold its leaders accountable for their actions at home.The allegations that would warrant impeachment keep growing."

Alongside Senator Dennis Kucinich, McDermott has been outspoken on the Iraq war. McDermott was one of the first to question U.S. intelligence used to justify the war and was among the first to blast Bush and Dick Cheney for lying to the American people, including Congress, in the lead-up to the invasion.

In fact, McDermott's been saying this since 2002, when he became one of the so-called Baghdad Boys. Here is an article from the Standard, which was intended to condemn McDermott for insinuating, essentially, that McDermott was willing to portray Saddam Hussein more trustworthy than George Bush:

"The controversy ignited on September 29 when Bonior and McDermott appeared from Baghdad on ABC's "This Week." Host George Stephanopoulos asked McDermott about his recent comment that "the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war."

McDermott didn't backpedal at all: "I believe that sometimes they give out misinformation. . . . It would not surprise me if they came out with some information that is not provable, and they, they shift it. First they said it was al Qaeda, then they said it was weapons of mass destruction. Now they're going back to and saying it's al Qaeda again." When Stephanopoulos pressed McDermott about whether he had any evidence that Bush had lied, the congressman replied, "I think the president would mislead the American people."

McDermott has been vigilantly watchdogging the GOP, leading to a wire-tapping conviction for which McDermott still refused to stop charging the GOP with lying to the American public.

"There is no greater responsibility for a member of Congress than to defend the Constitution, and I fully accept my duty to protect the First Amendment, which is what this case is all about," he said, noting that 18 major news organizations filed briefs in support of his position.

"The American people have a right to know when their government's leaders are plotting to deceive them, and that is exactly what was happening during a telephone call in 1996 involving Republican House leaders, including then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Rep. John Boehner," McDermott said in the statement.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 10:44 AM

Olbermann's comments on why the Bush Admin should be impeached, and 9-11(tm)

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 01:25 PM

From wealthy Greenwich, COnnecticut (home of the Bush claN):


Richard Duffee, who has spent much of the past two years pushing for the President and Vice President to be impeached, will appear on the 4th Congressional District ballot as the Green Party candidate.
In his campaign announcement, topping the list of Mr. Duffee's platform is his demand that the U.S. fully comply with international law — including allowing the International Criminal Court to prosecute President Bush, Mr. Cheney and other members of the administration for war crimes.



While many think there is not enough time to start impeachment proceedings, Mr. Duffee said in a Tuesday interview, he disagrees. "If we don't impeach them, we are giving up on our nation," he said, pointing out that after the new Congress is in session, there are 16 days with President Bush remaining in office.

Mr. Duffee, who is a teacher, lawyer and poet, was the Green Party candidate for Congress in 2006. But he dropped out of the race in late October to endorse Democrat Diane Farrell who lost to incumbent Republican Christopher Shays. This time, Shays is also being challenged by Democrat Jim Himes of Cos Cob.

That will not likely happen this time. Remy Chevalier, Mr. Duffee's campaign manager, said if the Green Party gets enough support in this election, the party would appear on future ballots without the nearly 3,000 signatures it needed this year.

While Mr. Chevalier said he likes Mr. Shays (particularly his record on the environment) and is working with the congressman's staff to create more green collar jobs in Fairfield County, he said Mr. Shays is wrong on a lot of issues. And he doesn't know Mr. Himes well.

"The two party system is turning purple," Mr. Chevalier said Tuesday, urging alternative views be heard.

"I think we will be able to participate in the debate this year, we have crossed the hurdles with the League of Women Voters," Mr. Chevalier said. "Richard is an extraordinary professional speaker. It would step things up and it would make a more interesting campaign. I don't think the Democrats or Republicans want an exciting campaign."

When contacted about Mr. Duffee's candidacy, Michael Sachse, spokesman for Mr. Himes said, "Chris Shays' support of George Bush's policies makes replacing him crucial. We hope Mr. Duffee and his supporters eventually join us in that effort. We can't afford to be divided with so much as stake."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 03:38 PM

SEATTLE, Sept. 11 (UPI) -- A Washington congressman said he has joined the effort to impeach U.S. President George Bush on grounds he misled the country before the Iraq invasion.

U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that three recent books on the Bush administration convinced him that the president should be impeached, even though he will be out of office in January.

"It's increasingly clear to me that we were led into a war without any justification whatsoever," McDermott said in an interview Wednesday with the newspaper. "And the president deliberately did this. It wasn't an accident of any kind."

McDermott said that in the weeks before the 2003 invasion he was sometimes called "Baghdad Jim" for arguing that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and its leader, Saddam Hussein, hadn't been involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Both are now known to have been true.

Bush could be impeached even after he leaves office, McDermott said.

"There's nothing that requires that impeachment be done when someone is in office," he told the Post-Intelligencer. "The time has come for this guy to pay for what he's done."

...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 11:35 PM

I see no "actual, discovered, facts", just conflations.

Here is a good one:

"Authorizing the use of illegal chemical and radioactive weapons in military campaigns"

Care to explains the details of this "actual, discovered fact"

"The White House had concocted a fake letter from [the director of the Iraqi intelligence service] to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001"

Where is this letter at? Non existant evidence is not an "actual, discovered fact"

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who famously traveled to Baghdad last fall and pronounced President Bush a liar, accepted a cash payment less than a month later from an Iraqi-American businessman with ties to Saddam Hussein.

McDermott collected the payment from Shakir al-Khafaji, the same Detroit-based Baghdad apologist who paid former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter $400,000 two years ago to make a pro-Saddam documentary about Iraq.

Appearing live from Baghdad on the Sept. 29 broadcast of ABC's "This Week," McDermott proclaimed, "The president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war." The comment generated a firestorm of criticism in the U.S. that earned him the moniker, "Baghdad Jim."

A little less than a month later, on Oct. 25, McDermott accepted a check from al-Khafaji for $5,000, made out to the antiwar Democrat's "Legal Expense Trust."

McDermott set up the trust to fend off a lawsuit filed by Ohio Republican John Boehner stemming from McDermott's relationship with a Florida couple who wiretapped a 1997 conference call between Boehner and then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, along with several other Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 01:32 AM

The line you are quibbling about was part of a list of charges made against the Bush administration by the Green Party in 2006, over two years back.

Who are you asking for an explanation? Why not do your own homework and find out what they were referring to?

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 11:05 AM

Amos, you said "My interest is impeachment is as a matter of simple, clear justice based on actual, discovered, facts."

Yet when asked how these things you post are "actual, discovered, facts", You start shifting the proof of what you post off onto someone else.

This leads one to believe that what you report here is factual. They are unproven charges. Otherwise you could easily prove them. You weasel out and shift the responsibility to someone else when asked how they can possibly be "actual, discovered, facts"

Are you an echo chamber droid for the left wing Blogosphere or a teacher, handing out homework?

By the way McDermott owes Boehner $850,000+ and $600,000 to his lawyers so no wonder he is asking for donations and using impeachment as a carrot.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 11:28 AM

Jesus, Sawz.

The process of impeachment--or criminal trial if it comes to that--will determine the degree and detail of the facts as they bear on the charges. All I can do is offer what people have said, and what logic can be brought to bear on it. It is a fact that the Green Party made those charges.

If the Green Party makes a claim about Bush in 2006, it just seems really strained for you to ask me two years later, to do your due diligence for you in addressing the point. You are just as close to the answers as I am--one Google screen away.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 01:09 PM

Amos: So you just echo what someone else said and you are not concerned if it is true or not? Arent actual discovered facts true?

"I add to this thread because I believe that airing the claims for impeachment is the right thing to do--part of trying to get the truth out about an Administration that has dramatized dark secrecy since its inception and believes in the right of citizens not to know what their government is really doing."

Apparently you own directive has fallen by the wayside and called quibbling.

Seems to me that in order to have any credibility, you would not post anything you do not know to be the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 01:53 PM

"That does not mean the truth about it should not be voiced."

Where is the truth in this conflation you posted 9 days ago:

"this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand."

When, where and how were we "cut off"? What made the price of crude oil rise and why has the price subsided?

"promoted torture of prisoners" When where and how did GWB promote torture of prisoners?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 05:08 PM

Seems to me you forget too soon about the horrors of Abu Ghraib. Or don't you think the COmmander in Chief has any responsibility for those poiicies?


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 10:51 AM

You did not answer the first part of the question and I do not think that GWB had anything to do with the Abu Ghraib fiasco. That is a conflation.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 05:24 PM

The assertion you are querying was made by an 81-year old man named Gordon Lukkasson, from Salem, MA, writing to his local paper. You should get in touch with him and see what he says about that. The origin of the quote is evident in its context, so you're being disingenuous again. Thanks, though, for learning the word 'conflation'.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 07:04 PM

The purpose for running up preposterous deficits is not merely to pay for needed programs for the country but to disable the liberals from affording any of their policies.
For the business world, the most feared and primary target for destruction are government servants who are truly competent and excellent in their efforts to serve their country.
When inferior government leaders are installed then outsourcing and privatizing jobs at 5 times the cost is claimed to be cheaper than the government doing the intended work. Plus you can employ your friends as contractors for anything whether they can do the job or not.
If government succeeds then business suffers. When Business succeeds government suffers.

Yes Virginia there is a class war and the wealthy have won. They win at the expense of the survival of the nation and the prosperity of 98% of its citizens

Impeach who ever you want. As long as the deficit game is played by either party the eventual destruction of the country is assured.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 08 - 10:33 PM

From Political COrtex:

U.S.: Respect World-Wide Demands for Bush Impeachment   
By Bob Kendall
09/14/2008 10:57:40 AM EST

"In the September 11 Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter Levi Pulkkinen reveals that Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott is joining the call to oust Bush, stating:
"Impeachment group won't let even the election stop impeachment."

Cleveland Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich has long advocated the impeachment of George Bush.

"Chiefly at issue, McDermott said, is Bush's decision to mislead the country to war with Iraq.


"'It's increasingly clear to me that we were led into a war without any justification whatsoever,' McDermott said in an interview Wednesday. 'And the president deliberately did this, it wasn't an accident of any kind.'"
Linda Boyd is the founder of Washington for Impeachment. Boyd met McDermott a day before his announcements, and was delighted with McDermott's decision to join the ever widening call for impeachment.

"We have been in a state of emergency in this country for seven years now," Boyd said. "We know that Americans torture people. We know that Americans stand guard over innocent prisoners. We know Americans are killing children in Afghanistan, and Iraq and in Pakistan."

Even though Bush might not be dismissed from office, impeachment would go into the historical records, which could prevent future presidents from following Bush's example to justify his abuse of power.

When McDermott question the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 he was harassed as an ally of Saddam.

"People brushed me off and called me 'Baghdad Jim,' made some comments," McDermott said. "They said `I trust the president.'"

Recent revelations in three books influenced McDermott to recognized the tragic realities of the misbegotten Iraq War.

One book was Bob Woodward's latest, "The War Within!" Another was "The Way of the World" by Ron Suskind. "Suskind reported that Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri was working with the C.A.A. before the invasion.

The third book that influenced McDermott's decision to join the growing ranks for George Bush's impeachment is Vincent Bugliosi's work, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush," which is currently on national best seller lists.

"McDermott said he met with Sabri before the war, imploring him to allow weapons inspectors full access to the country to avoid war. Sabri said the Iraqis would but that doing so, wouldn't dissuade Bush."

McDermott states: "There's nothing that requires that impeachment be done when someone is in office."

He continued, "The time has come for this guy to pay for what he's done."    ..."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 12:53 AM

Yes, McDermott got paid for what he did for Saddam.

And all of the Harry Potter books were on the best seller lists.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 01:03 PM

Sod off, moonbat fascist.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 02:11 PM

Moonbat? fascist? How uncivilized.

I politely and civilly ask for clarification on the following statement that you posted as being the truth.

"this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand."

When, Where and How was America cut off from crude oil shipments from the big oil producing nations?

Perhaps it refers to the oil embargo in 1973 and 1974. 30 years ago.

I can't Google up any Gordon Lukkasson, from Salem, MA so I have to rely on the person that presented it here. You do read through the things you repeat here don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 06:51 PM

AG candidate backs prosecution of President Bush for murder

September 19, 2008
By DANIEL BARLOW Vermont Press Bureau

BURLINGTON — Charlotte Dennett, the Progressive Party candidate for Vermont attorney general, said Thursday that if elected she would prosecute President Bush for murder.

Dennett, an attorney from Cambridge challenging incumbent Democrat William Sorrell, was joined by Vincent Bugliosi, a famed prosecutor who took on Charles Manson in the early 1970s, at a press conference in downtown Burlington.

As Vermont attorney general, Dennett said she would appoint Bugliosi, who published a book this year called "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," as a special prosecutor to hold Bush accountable for deaths stemming from the Iraq war.

Dennett said Vermont is the ideal state to bring murder charges against Bush, since the state has carried the country's highest per capita deaths of soldiers in the war. It is also home to nearly 40 communities that moved to impeach the president last year.

"Lots of Vermonters feel very frustrated that the impeachment efforts did not go anywhere," she said. "This is another avenue for us."

Bugliosi, a 74-year-old Los Angeles resident and author of the famed "Helter Skelter" book about his prosecution of Manson, called Dennett a "valiant and patriotic woman" willing to put her reputation on the line to bring to justice what he sees as one of the worst criminal acts in recent history.

He told a small crowd gathered in downtown Burlington on Thursday morning that his book clearly lays out evidence showing that Bush and his administration misled the American people and the U.S. Congress into war in 2003.

"George Bush and his people have gotten away with thousands and thousands of murders," Bugliosi said, citing both American and Iraqi deaths in the five-year-old war. "We, the American people, cannot let him get away with this."

Bugliosi said any state attorney general or local district attorney can bring criminal charges against Bush once he leaves office early next year. He said Vermont could take on the soon-to-be ex-president by bringing conspiracy to murder charges against him, using his own public statements during the build-up to the Iraq war as evidence.

"Bush and his administration deliberately told lies to deceive people and get the support of the country behind the war," he said. "That information went out through the media and was heard by residents of the state of Vermont."

Sorrell said Thursday that promises to prosecute Bush for murder makes "good political sound bites," but said he does not believe he — or any other local or state prosecutor — has that authority.

To bring about a murder or conspiracy to murder charge against Bush, the actual crime — the death of an individual — would need to take place within his jurisdiction, Sorrell said, which in this case is the Green Mountain State.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 07:05 PM

Amazing what some people will say in order to get themselves elected isn't it Amos?? I think somebody mentioned this previously on this thread.

Now let's see a "Progressive Party" hopeful in Vermont up against the incumbent Democrat. Well she has to have some sort of gimmick to catch the attention of the media, even if it is only the Vermont Press Bureau.

I would have thought that the good people of Vermont would want an Attorney General with at least a modicum of appreciation of law and a healthy disapproval of wasting public funds in pointless litigation. You see Amos to prosecute anyone for anything you require evidence that conforms to rules of evidence - someone should tell the "Progressive Party" candidate for the Attorney Generalship of Vermont that there isn't any.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 01:42 AM

Charlotte Dennett is a self taught attorney and an investigative journalist running against a popular incumbent democrat. She has an ongoing beef with the CIA to release details of her fathers death in 1947. He was a spy working for the CIA. Grudge?

Bugliosi came to Vermont specifically to help Dennet. He is the author of a book the claims right wingers the MSM suppressed. Paranoia?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Sep 08 - 01:29 PM

"Sometimes it's better to be King Log and not King Stork. In other words, to let sleeping dogs lie.(Wow! Animal metaphors all over the place today!)"


How 'bout this one? The Queen of Pork on the Bridge to Nowhere.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 02:26 AM

http://www.democrats.com/resign

Congress Must Demand Bush and Cheney Resign

George Bush wants taxpayers to pay $700 billion - $2,333 for every many, woman, and child - to bail out Wall Street for its reckless investments in mortgage-backed securities. That's on top of $800 billion for other recent bailouts, including A.I.G., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns.

The current financial disaster is the direct result of the Bush-Cheney Administration's 8-year policy of deregulation, corruption, and greed.

President Clinton inherited huge deficits from George H.W. Bush but balanced the budget and even created surpluses. When George Bush stole the White House in 2001, the projected 10-year surplus was $5 trillion. But Bush immediately gave $2 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, then wasted $1-3 trillion invading Iraq on the basis of lies. Now Bush wants to increase the national debt to $11 trillion.

The $700 billion plan has no transparency or accountability. Worse, the plan does nothing to fix the underlying problem of foreclosures resulting from unaffordable mortgages that were sold through mortgage broker fraud while the Bush Administration turned a blind eye.

The Bush-Cheney Administration cannot be trusted to solve the massive problems they created. Before Congress gives the Bush Administration one dime of taxpayer money for financial bailouts, Congress must demand the immediate resignation of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Henry Paulson and the appointment of Speaker Nancy Pelosi as President until our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2009.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,sawzaw
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 10:07 AM

SUMMARY OF S. 900
FINANCIAL SERVICES MODERNIZATION ACT OF 1999
As Passed by the Senate on May 6, 1999

SUMMARY OF S. 900
FINANCIAL SERVICES MODERNIZATION ACT OF 1999
As Passed by the Senate on May 6, 1999

Title I

Subtitle A. Affiliations.

Sec. 101. Glass-Steagall Repealed. Repeals Section 20 of Glass-Steagall Act to permit affiliations between securities and banking companies. Repeals Section 32 of the Banking Act of 1933 to permit officers and directors to serve in those capacities with banking and securities firms.

Sec. 102. Financial Activities. Permits bank holding companies to engage in expanded activities that are financial in nature or incidental to such financial activities. The determination of financial activities will be made through a consultative process involving the Federal Reserve Board and the Secretary of the Treasury. Lists the expanded activities considered financial in nature. These activities include insurance and securities underwriting and merchant banking, among others. Expanded financial activities may be engaged in subject to the filing of a notice with the Federal Reserve Board....

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Sep 08 - 02:33 PM

The Financial Services Modernization Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, after its sponsors.

Hmmmmm....

Gramm - that would be Phil Gramm, John McCain's chief economic advisor.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 07:35 AM

David Swnson reviews a book by a conservative politician:

Bruce Fein's new book "Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy," is written by someone who admits he voted for Bush and Cheney twice, supported the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito with no apparent regrets, proposes Robert Bork as a model justice, admires Rehnquist and Scalia, supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton and wanted him convicted, served as associate deputy attorney general to Ronald Reagan and general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission under Reagan (who -- you'll recall -- eliminated the Fairness Doctrine), worked as research director for Congressman Dick Cheney when they blocked investigation of Reagan's Iran-Contra crimes and prevented his impeachment, has been a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, opposes Roe v. Wade and affirmative action and any minimum wage, supports discrimination against homosexuals, and -- in an unfortunate bit of timing -- openly declares on page 20 that he "frowns on government regulation … to manipulate or distort free market choices."

Yet, if you set aside pages 19 through 21, I agree with pretty much all the main points in this book. That they come from someone on the right has had no impact on them that I can discern. That they come from Bruce Fein has given them a unique foundation in historical and legal facts, benefitting from Fein's understanding of history, both distant and Nixonian. Fein did not support Nixon's crimes any more than Bush's and Cheney's, but he does recognize the greater gravity of the latter.

Fein's political perspective may have had some impact -- I don't know for sure -- on his choice of which crimes to focus on. His book is particularly worth reading if you want the low down on illegal spying, illegal secrecy, and illegal rendition. Fein goes very light on the war and many other crimes and abuses. On page 2 he rather obscenely refers to the "hundreds [sic] of civilians who have been killed by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan." Two serious studies have been done of the Iraqi death count resulting from the invasion and occupation, both placing the count well over a million. One is Just Foreign Policy's updated figure based on an initial but now outdated report by Johns Hopkins / Lancet. The other is an August 2007 study by the British polling company Opinion Research Business, then estimating 1.2 million, now also out of date. See: http://justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html I think you'd be hard pressed to find any neocons in Washington who would claim the total was under 10,000, except apparently for Fein.

I also object to Fein's claim on page 41 that the American people have not "flooded Pelosi's office with protesting Emails or phone calls," over her refusal to impeach. Where did Fein get such an absurd idea? From Pelosi? And he believed her? Or did he just pull it out of thin air based on the Washington Post's and the Washington Times' failure to report on the fact that we've shut Pelosi's office down with floods of Emails, faxes, and phone calls over a period of well over a year, that we've sat in her office, delivered petitions to her office, camped out endlessly in her front yard in San Francisco (which has made lots of media and generated her complaint that she can't have us arrested the way she would if we were poor people unprotected by the First Amendment), disrupted her speaking events, marched from Boston to her DC office, saturated the internet and progressive radio with complaints against her, and run Cindy Sheehan against her as an impeachment candidate for Congress.

I also disagree somewhat with some of Fein's points on pages 44-45. Fein thinks that Americans are slow to grow outraged over abuses of civil rights because most of those abused are non-Americans with foreign-sounding names. I think there is a lot of truth in that, and yet there are numerous American victims, including political prisoners like the former governor of Alabama. Americans have been spied on. American whistleblowers, including in the Justice Department -- such as Jesslyn Radack -- have had their careers destroyed as retribution for speaking out, and for speaking out against abuses of other Americans. Americans have been deceived by illegal propaganda. Americans (like Cindy Sheehan's son) have been sent to their deaths for a pile of lies. Americans live on the globe the accelerated warming of which Fein does not touch on. In short, there are specific American victims, and we are all victims of outrageous criminal acts and criminal negligence. And when Fein proposes that candidates for president should promise not to "detain without trial any American citizen," I think he is playing to the same xenophobia he diagnoses. We should not tolerate the detention without trial of anyone.

But these are minor points I'm picking out of a 204-page book that is absolutely devastating in its demand for the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney. And this is obviously a book that can be given to your right-wing uncle with the most likely chance of him not dismissing it quickly. Fein's analysis of the peril in which we find ourselves is devastating -- and depressing. Sadly, he offers no advice for what we can do about it, other than demanding impeachment. He organizes nothing, and he openly predicts failure, which is just not an effective way to encourage action. And yet it seems pure and honest, and Fein offers these dead-on accurate and ethical words of advice:

"It might be asked, if the overwhelming majority of Americans are vastly more thrilled by sporting events and creature comforts than they are by the moral challenges and burdens of self-government, then why struggle against this inexorable tide? The answer is two-fold. Anything else would be dishonorable. And you might leave footprints in the sands of time to inspire someone yet to be born to champion freedom in more propitious circumstances."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 11:50 AM

Prosecuting High-level Americans for War Crimes


JURIST Guest Columnist Benjamin Davis of the University of Toledo College of Law says "the whole world is watching" efforts in the United States - highlighted at a recent conference at Andover - to bring U.S. high-level civilians and/or generals to justice for crimes committed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars....

---

On September 13-14, 2008, over two hundred people from the United States and abroad gathered in Andover. Massachusetts for the Justice Robert Jackson Conference on the Planning for Prosecution of High Level American War Criminals sponsored by the Massachusetts School of Law. Video of the two day conference and the program are available here. As a participant, I'm providing this note to JURIST as an aide-memoire for those concerned about war crimes perpetrated by US officials that have gone unpunished over the past eight years.

Impeachment of Bush-Cheney

Notwithstanding Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement that impeachment of the most senior member of the Administration is off the table, the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney was very much on the table at the conference. In particular, it was noted that the time remaining for the Bush-Cheney administration is about the same time as it took for the impeachment of President Clinton. Moreover, the idea of a post-January 2009 impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney was raised so that they would be barred from any Federal office (such as work on federal commissions etc that prior-Presidents and Vice-Presidents have done) if the impeachment were successful. Beyond Bush and Cheney, a suggestion was made to impeach Judge Jay Bybee of the Ninth Circuit because of his enabling of torture in the now infamous Bybee-Yoo "torture memo."

Local, state and federal criminal prosecution

Local efforts such as the Brattleboro, Vermont, ordinance that calls for the arrest on sight of Bush and/or Cheney if they enter the city limits were discussed. One particular scenario examined by participants was to charge Bush and Cheney with murder of U.S. soldiers who have died in the Iraq and Afghanistan war under state law. Vincent Bugliolsi and others examined the possibilities for such criminal prosecution in state court. A candidate for Attorney General in Vermont, Charlotte Dennett, advised that if she were elected she would consider opening state murder prosecutions against Bush and Cheney. One strategy that was discussed was the possibility of having hundreds of local DA's of the 2700 in the United States start those prosecutions in municipal courts. These state criminal prosecutions would put pressure or make it easier for a federal district attorney to find the fortitude to open federal criminal complaints against United States high-level civilians and/or generals for murder and torture and/or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment. Evaluation of a broad range of potential crimes including such crimes as obstruction of justice, criminal use of classified documents, etc and the other crimes that typically catch high-level civilians was encouraged in an effort to find ways to vindicate international law rules through the domestic courts. The use of common law courts in places, such as Florida, was examined as a means to turn revisionist international law theory to the advantage of those seeking prosecution by asserting customary international humanitarian and human rights law violations as common law applicable in state courts prosecutions. The Federal Assimilated Crimes Acts could also make federal charges on customary international law grounds a possible avenue for criminal prosecution.

Foreign and international prosecution

The participants analyzed the status of and possibilities for foreign prosecution of U.S. high-level civilians and/or generals in foreign domestic courts under universal jurisdiction. The recent failed efforts in Germany and France with regard to Rumsfeld were noted. It was pointed out, however, that we should take advantage of the fact that more and more countries are enacting universal jurisdiction legislation. Efforts in England against similar persons in the English political establishment were noted. One of the more interesting tactics described started with over 200 citizens going to their local police stations in England and reporting a crime had been committed - referring to the Iraq War or torture. The police have a duty to investigate and this is a manner in which the ordinary citizen in England could get the wheels of justice rolling.

As to international prosecution, the participants discussed the possibility of referrals to the International Criminal Court of United States high-level civilians and/or generals based on crimes committed in countries which adhere to the ICC. It was noted that prosecutors in a number of foreign countries have based their politically motivated dismissals of complaints against high US officials on the mistaken notion that the accused would be prosecuted in the US (the principle of complementarity) as well as on incorrect theories of immunity. The view discussed at the conference was that domestic U.S. efforts and foreign and/or international efforts for criminal prosecution should go forward at the same time so as each can help the other advance as fast as practicable.


.... More at Jurist

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 07:32 AM

Good heavens Amos that last one amounted to one hell of a lot of words stating precisely nothing.

Note that the same characters show up Vincent Bugliolsi and Charlotte Dennett - nothing to worry about as long as these two are involved - But for the edification of the prospective candidate for the position of the State of Vermont's Attorney General - If you wish to bring a prosecution you must first show that you have a prima facie case to present, backed up with evidence that accords to the standard rules of evidence - i.e. your opinions do not count, what you would like to be true but is not does not count.

I also wonder if this pair of clowns has worked out how many co-defendents there would be??

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 11:01 AM

T:

You can make nothing out of almost anything, if you just close yoru eyes and push hard enough.

There are 35 articles ofimpeachment on record witht he COngress, and each of those 35 is substantiated with evidence.

You, however, prefer your elephants to remain invisible, I suppose, so you keep squinting as hard as you can not to acknowledge their presence in the parlor.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 11:06 AM

Impeachment is not enough. (Respect to Dennis Kucinich)....These people in the White House need to be prosecuted for their crimes.

1. War crimes.
2. Ignoring subpoenas
3. Trashing the Constitution
4. Signing Statements
5. Election fraud
6. Bilking the taxpayer with corporate bailouts

(The list goes on and nothing is done about it)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 01:01 PM

The Washington TImes, unusually enough, discusses the impeachment question based on new information on the Duumvirate's Duplicity:

"Have President Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney committed impeachable offenses for which the duumvirate should be convicted and removed from office by duping then-House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey into supporting legislation authorizing war against Iraq with twin lies -- that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had personal ties to Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; and that Saddam had miniaturized nuclear weapons, which could be unleashed by employing al Qaeda as a delivery system?

The facts - uncontradicted by either Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney - are chronicled in Barton Gellman's new book "Angler."

In late September 2002, Majority Leader Armey met the vice president in H-208 in the Capitol Building. Mr. Armey was no liberal or RINO (Republican In Name Only). He adamantly opposed taxes and earned a stellar 97 percent rating from the American Conservative Union during his long years in Congress. But Mr. Armey initially opposed an Iraqi war authorization because Saddam was no menace to the security of the United States. If Mr. Armey voted no, he would give political cover to any Democrat or Republican Doubting Thomas to vote likewise and probably foil an Iraqi war resolution.

Mr. Cheney's mission was to flip Mr. Armey. He succeeded by stooping to lies that bettered the instruction of President Clinton's perjury in Monicagate that occasioned Mr. Clinton's impeachment. According to Mr. Armey, Mr. Cheney sounded the tocsin that Iraq's "ability to miniaturize weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear," had been "substantially refined since the first Gulf war." They were "miniaturizing weapons, developing packages that could be moved even by ground personnel." Not a crumb of intelligence supported these falsehoods.

Without any supporting evidence, Mr. Cheney also maintained that al Qaeda was "working with Saddam Hussein and members of his family." He falsely added that "we now know [Iraq] ha* the ability to develop these [nuclear] weapons in a very portable fashion, and they have a delivery system in their relationship with organizations such as al Qaeda."

The vice president's lies convinced Mr. Armey to vote in favor of the Iraqi war resolution. Relying on the deceit, the majority leader explained his flip-flop on the floor of Congress: "If you're going to conduct a war on terrorism, then you must stop that person who is most likely and most able to arm the terrorists with those things that will frighten us most."

After discovering the truth, Mr. Armey lamented he could probably have prevented the Iraqi war debacle: "Had I known or believed then what I believe I know now, I would have publicly opposed the resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening, and I believe I would have done a better service to my country had I done so."

Indeed, the war in Iraq has diverted hundreds of billions of dollars that could have been better spent upgrading defenses at home; strengthened Iran, arch-enemy of the United States; caused vastly more American deaths and injuries than did the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; and made the United States less safe by creating new enemies in Iraq by flouting its sovereignty and killing innocent civilians in pursuing genuine insurgents or terrorists.

Under the law of impeachment, Mr. Bush is responsible for the misdeeds of his agents in the executive branch, including the vice president. James Madison, father of the Constitution, amplified in the House of Representatives that the president would be subject to impeachment, "if he suffers [his subordinates] to perpetrate with impunity high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States, or neglects to superintend their conduct, so as to check their excesses." Vice President Cheney, in contrast to other executive branch officials, does not serve at the pleasure of the president.

But in approaching Mr. Armey in support of Mr. Bush's legislative initiative authorizing war against Iraq, Mr. Cheney was acting as Mr. Bush's agent for whom the president was accountable.

Article II, section 4 of the Constitution declares the, "president [and] vice president ... shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of ... high crimes and misdemeanors." Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 65 that impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors are "political" offenses because "they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself." James Iredell, later appointed to the Supreme Court by President George Washington, made explicit at the North Carolina ratification convention that presidential duplicity with Congress over war or comparable matters of great national moment would be an impeachable offense.

Although his statement specifically addressed lies to the Senate, its rationale applies equally to deceit of the House of Representatives to obtain an authorization for war: "The president must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. ... If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true nature of things been disclosed to them - in this case, I ask whether, upon an impeachment for a misdemeanor upon such an account, the Senate would probably favor him."

Mr. Armey should be summoned to testify under oath before the House Judiciary Committee about his statements in "Angler" implicating Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney in lies to dupe the House of Representatives over war in Iraq. The president and vice president should be given an opportunity to respond under oath but subject to cross-examination.

..."


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 01:04 PM

Sorry Amos, not one shred of evidence and absolutely no basis for any of the 35 so called articles of impeachment - That is why Kucinich has been politely ignored and just allowed to ramble on.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 01:13 PM

"No evidence!! No evidence!! Your assertion that the elephant is like a treetrunk has no evidence!!", the blind man cried, hanging on to the tail as hard as he could. "In fact, the entire elephant story is a myth of liberal media distortions!! There could be nio such thing--it would collapse under its own weight.".

WHile it is easy to say "Not a shred of evidence" in round plum-like tones, Teribus, it requires you ignore a good deal of evidence which a more rational observer would see.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 02:10 PM

Well Amos you have been asked to produce it before and singularly have failed to do so - so, please the floor is yours - please present your evidence for the 35 articles of impeachment.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 02:21 PM

Read the thread, my boy. Read, also the two threads called "Popular Views of the Bush Administration".

When you have actually done that without your blinders on come back and ask what you want.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 02:30 PM

Group of Veterans Call for Bush Impeachment

POSTED: 1:08 pm EDT September 23, 2008
UPDATED: 1:25 pm EDT September 23, 2008


WASHINGTON -- Five members of a veterans group calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush planned to occupy a ledge at the front of the National Archives Tuesday.

The five members of Veterans For Peace, who are veterans of Vietnam and Iraq, planned to scale a 9-foot retaining fence and occupy a 35-foot high ledge, where they intend to fast for 24 hours.

The group planned to raise a banner reading, "Defend our Constitution. Arrest Bush and Cheney: War Criminals!"

(NBC4)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 02:49 PM

Article I - Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.

Not much of a "secret" then Amos. The identification of Iraq as a threat to the United States of America pre-dates the Presidency of George W. Bush by three years. Recommendations for the United States of America to take military action against Iraq pre-date the Presidency of George W. Bush by two years.

Post 911 when asked to identify the greatest potential threat to the United States of America the Joint House Security Committee and the Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America both independently identified Iraq under Saddam Hussein as posing the greatest threat. Both recommended that the President take action, he did, he went to the United Nations.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 02:57 PM

Article II - Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.

The threat posed by Iraq under Saddam Hussein's leadership was identified by the Joint House Security Committee and the Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America, not by President George W. Bush or by members of his administration.

The accusation detailed in the Article II above amounts to nothing more than opinion, and a demonstration of the author's inability to comprehend plain english. I note the author Mr. Dennis Kucinich does not make any attempt to accuse his fellow members of Congress who sat on that Joint House Security Committee - It was them after all who identified Iraq as the primary threat to the USA, any of them being impeached Amos? Dennis?? And correct me if I am in error but didn't two very senior mmembers of the Bush Administration publicly state very clearly within days of 911 that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks of 11th September, 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 03:08 PM

Article III - Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.

20 x 20 hindsight in operation here Amos?. If this holds water it has to be proven that the Bush administration knew for a fact that WMD did not exist in Iraq. What was presented at the time was the worst case scenario, i.e. that such weapons did exist. Saddam Hussein openly admits that he did everything in his power to lend credence to the belief through out the region and the world that he still maintained stocks of chemical and biological weapons. The nub of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was to establish beyond doubt what the status was, it was not to find WMD in Iraq – Oddly enough Amos to this day nobody can say with any certainty that they do not exist. What was discovered was that Saddam Hussein's WMD programmes were still running in contravention of the Safwan Agreement, that sanctions were demonstrably not working and that the "oil for food" programme was being run as a UN scam.

Basis for all evaluation was the UNSCOM Report to the United Nations Security Council in January 1999.

Every single member of the United Nations Security Council was concerned enough about the situation with regard to WMD in Iraq to vote for Resolution 1441 - Even Syria.

So where, and in what way were "the people" mislead? Neither the Senate or the House of Representatives was "mislead" - After all it was they who identified the threat, simple matter of record. Can either you, or Dennis, please detail what say "the people" have in matters affecting the security of the United States of America.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 03:18 PM

Article IV - Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.

The threat posed by Iraq under Saddam Hussein's leadership was identified by the Joint House Security Committee and by every single one of the nineteen Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America, not by President George W. Bush or by members of his administration - simple matter of record.

By the bye, the "American People" have got absolutely no say as who is, or who is not, considered to be a threat, imminent, or otherwise, to the United States of America - Mainly due to the fact that they are not privy to the necessary information required to make that assessment. Members of Congress however, do form part of that process, and indeed in this case they were key in identifying the threat weren't they Amos? Now tell us in what manner were they "mislead"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 03:19 PM

Article V - Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 03:24 PM

Article VI - Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.

In what way was House Joint Resolution 114 violated? Here it is:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Now then Amos are either you or Mr. Kucinich going to attempt to tell anybody that Iraq was in total compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq?? You'd have a pretty tough time selling that.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 06:23 PM

Read the thread, my boy. Read "this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand."

Read Amos proposing "we can take action against them -- cutting off funds, spiking their cellphones or even sending small squads in to bring a few of them at a time off for summary justice somewhere." and smart bombs.

That will convince anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 11:15 PM

Oh, by all means. Be sure, too, to mishmash the context, alter the sequence and change the meaning of everything you read opbsessively so you can maintain a good argument.

Teribus: Thanks for your "case for the defense" postings. Nothing that I haven't seen before. It does not address the intentional falsification.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 11:40 PM

"Cheney's "one percent doctrine"marginalized the CIA, whose inconvenient facts (there was no al Qaeda-Iraq connection"

ABC News 1999

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 12:02 AM

TASK FORCE ON TERRORISM & UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
THE IRAQI WMD CHALLENGE -- Myths and Reality
February 10, 1998

Nobody likes the idea of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missiles capable of delivering their lethal warheads. The ramifications of their potential use in anger -- the numbers of fatalities and injured they might inflict -- are horrendous. However, as the US is getting ready to bomb in Iraq in order to address the challenge of that country's remaining WMD arsenal, one should examine dispassionately what might be conceivably accomplished, and what would be the ramifications of the massive bombing campaign the Clinton Administration is advocating.

Despite Baghdad's protestations, Iraq does have a small but very lethal operational arsenal of WMD and platforms capable of delivering them throughout the Middle East and even beyond. Although Iraq has been subjected to an unprecedented regimen of UN inspection and destruction of strategic military programs since the end of the Gulf War in the Spring of 1991, the international community has proven incapable of learning the entire scope of the Iraqi programs for fielding weapons of mass destruction, let alone eliminate these programs as mandated by the Security Council.....

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 01:41 AM

Standby for the rest of Dennis's Articles of Impeachment, most of which are too ridiculous for words.

"It does not address the intentional falsification."

What "intentional falsification" Amos? And on the part of whom? Just because you and a smattering of others believe that to have been the case doesn't make it so. You have levelled the accusation that there was "intentional falsification", all I want to know is on what grounds? Where is your evidence? Or are you merely content with a justice system based upon smear, rumour and lies? I would imagine that if you were subject to proceedings based upon such a system you would be screaming like a stuck pig at the iniquity of it.

You may well have heard all these arguements before Amos - But you have never addressed them, or countered them.

All of which Amos leads me to believe that there will be no "Impeachment" proceedings against either George W Bush or Dick Cheney.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 02:07 AM

Had we impeached when we first had the chance we would not be where we are today. Bankrupt & Broke, dispised, shunned by our allies, dumbed down in disgrace, weak & sickly, uninsured & unhealthy & going down for a third term, opps, sorry 3rd time!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 08 - 07:53 AM

Fear not Barry, the USA, the free democracies of the West and the economic system that drive them have weathered far worse storms in the past and survivied. My prediction is that they will survive this one as well, despite all the doom amd gloom spread about by the chattering left on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 10:00 AM

"we are today. Bankrupt & Broke, dispised, shunned by our allies, dumbed down in disgrace, weak & sickly, uninsured & unhealthy"

You are certainly in bad shape. Do you speak for everyone. I consider my self lucky to be living in the country with the best standard of living and the most opportunities in the entire Galaxy.

If you are skeptical, ask those people floating through shark infested waters on leaky inner tubes and those people trekking through the desert with no food or water, why they should want to come to such a hell hole as the US.

Tell them truth about America and tell them to turn around and go back before they end up like you.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 11:08 AM

I find it poignant, somehow, that in a single day's headlines three disparate voices agree on a single theme. One is Elliot Adams, a United States veteran and a direct descendant of Samuel Adams, the Founding Father.   The second is Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, a descendant of the ancient forefathers of Africa. The third is Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, the President of Iran, perhaps a descendant of ancient Darius or the founders of Mespotamian civilization.

All three of these men believe George Bush should be tried or impeached for his offenses.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 11:17 AM

" The second is Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, a descendant of the ancient forefathers of Africa. The third is Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, the President of Iran, perhaps a descendant of ancient Darius or the founders of Mespotamian civilization.

All three of these men believe George Bush should be tried or impeached for his offenses."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

thread.cfm?threadid=100351&messages=99
thread.cfm?threadid=75099&messages=856&page=1&desc=yes


You are in such good company. Going to dig up Stalin and Hitler to support your opinions, as well?

Do you even look at what you are posting???

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 11:28 AM

thread.cfm?threadid=110154&messages=94#2308147

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 11:43 AM

BB:

Oooh, nasty.

I didn't say anything about the merits of these people.

I simply remarked that all three of them made the same assertion on the same day, and that they have very contrasting backgrounds and heritages.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 06:54 PM

Amos: Are you serious when you say we should listen to the advice of Robert Mugabe and Mahmoud Ahmadinajad?

I think you need a rest. Take a vacation in Iran and / or Zimbabwe.

If you make it back alive you can tell us how much better the are presidents there than the president here. Venesuela and North Korea too.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 07:00 PM

Nastier still Sawzhole.

I remarked on a coincidence of viewpoints and you and Brucie have to go put words in my mouth, try to find some grounds for slander and defamation.

Go wash your mouth out with soap and write 100 times "I will not conflate things that are different".


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 09:49 PM

"a descendant of the ancient forefathers of Africa"

Late breaking news Amos. We are all a descendant of the ancient forefathers of Africa. Even Bush.

And exactly what was conflated? You need to wash the "this thread is horseshit" or "shut the fuck up" statement of your out of your mouth.

When did I call you an asshole like you called me? When did I accuse you of being a burger flipper and car parker like you called me?

But anyway you're still my buddy and I would flip a burger for you or park your car without hesitation even if you do post crap here and pretend it is the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 11:14 PM

I accept your offer of buddy-hood, Sawz. Your a fun sparring partner even if you are a boneheaded mammlucca.

The conflation was between my pointing out that these three guys said similar things at the same time, and your adding incorrectly the idea that that means I say we should listen to Mugabe's advice, generally, or Ahmadinajad's. As far as I know they are both untrustworthy, but to be honest, I only have second-hand reports to go on, never having corresponded with or met either of them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 07:18 AM

Amos,


"Go wash your mouth out with soap and write 100 times "I will not conflate things that are different"."

I will be reminding you of this, in comments on the "Popular opinion " threads.



" As far as I know they are both untrustworthy, but to be honest, I only have second-hand reports to go on, never having corresponded with or met either of them."

ANd I can say the same of Obama, and many of those you have quoted on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 08:17 AM

When you say Bush should be impeached and Mugabe and Ahmadinajad say the csame, what are you implying?

Don't keep is in suspense Amos. Do you think we should take "Mugabe's advice, generally, or Ahmadinajad's" or not?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 09:51 AM

I've told you what I know.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 11:46 AM

Which again amounts to nothing. Amos is only capable of repeating things like a parrot and blurting out statements like "this thread is horseshit" and "shut the fuck up".

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 09:28 AM

"I just couldn't let this get by: a recent call to stop calls for impeachment of Bush by Joe of Elk Grove Village.

He states that there is no indisputable proof to impeach Bush. Well, I have one bit of proof: How about when asked if he was still in the hunt for Bin Ladin? His response was and "I don't give it much thought anymore." That, my friend, is reason enough for me.

One of the things he is sworn to do is protect America from its enemies and he doesn't think about it much anymore. Are you kidding me?

Or maybe lying to America about weapons of mass destruction and taking us into a war we should not be in. It has cost some 4,200 fine military soldiers their lives and some 28,000 to be very seriously injured and who knows to what extent it has cost the Iraqi people, That's just for starters.

I'm sure though if he were brought before Congress or a court, he would follow the steps of all the rest who have come and gone in this administration. He would simply say "I don't remember" or "I don't recall" or what seems to be the new strategy, blame the Democrats."

Charles Bellizzi

Streamwood, Ill.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:35 AM

OK then Amos let's give Charles Bellizzi of Streamwood, Illinois his lead shall we and see how far he gets with his, "one bit of proof: How about when asked if he was still in the hunt for Bin Ladin? His response was and "I don't give it much thought anymore." That, my friend, is reason enough for me."

Does Mr. Bellizzi of Streamwood honestly believe, or expect that, the President of the United States of America should be "in the hunt for Bin Laden"?? From this, I take it that Mr. Bellizzi, like yourself Amos, when it comes to matters relating to George W. Bush as President of the United States just cannot put aside absolutley damn silly questions. As far as I am aware there have been thousands of US troops actively engaged in hunting down Osama Bin Laden and the rest of the leadership of Al-Qaeda and the Taleban in Afghanistan and along the Afghan-Pakistan Border for seven years now, they have never stopped, or tired in their efforts to capture or kill those men, in fact they've come damn close on occasion. Now can Chuck, detail the many and varied successful Al-Qaeda attacks that have resulted from lack of concentration on the part of the Chief Executive - I somehow think that he'd be pushed to do that don't you? So I think Chuck of Streamwood wouldn't get very far in the prosecution of his case.

Now the second part where Mr Bellizzi plaintively remarks:

"One of the things he is sworn to do is protect America from its enemies and he doesn't think about it much anymore. Are you kidding me?"

Oh no Mr. Bellizzi, I am not kidding you, the current holder of the Office of President of the United States of America has a far better track record with regard to protecting America than his predecessor - Now that could be easily demonstrated in any court Mr. Bellizzi wants to prosecute his case.

Once again Amos present evidence, not opinion that you think is evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:39 AM

THanks, as usual, for a sturdy rebuttal, Mister T.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 11:45 AM

Indict or impeach?
September 29, 2008

After what has happened in the last few days, it's more likely that Gov. Rod Blagojevich (Democrat) will be indicted or impeached or both.

• The Tribune reported on Sunday that convicted political fixer Tony Rezko (Obama's buddy) has talked to federal prosecutors and may cooperate in their investigation of the governor's administration. At closing arguments in Rezko's trial, a federal prosecutor told jurors that his crimes involved "the highest levels of power in Illinois." Rezko has refused to help investigators—until, apparently, now.

• The Illinois appellate court on Friday issued a ruling that could provide reason for the legislature to remove Blagojevich. He decided to spend tens of millions of dollars to expand a state health care insurance program even though the legislature wouldn't approve it. The court told Blagojevich to stop the program—and said his administration can't even identify how many people have enrolled in it.

Federal prosecutors will pursue their investigation of the Blagojevich administration's notorious pay-to-play politics. Having the cooperation of Rezko, once one of Blagojevich's closest confidants, would greatly help to determine if the governor was involved in criminal wrongdoing. All the rest of us—lawmakers, political leaders, citizens—can do is wait for the prosecutors to complete their investigation.....

Change we can believe in, brought to you by the Chicago Political Machine.

Clout Street
Blagojevich ticked off a list of elected officials who also have ties to the indicted developer. While not naming them, he made reference to everyone from Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to House Speaker Michael Madigan, his political nemesis, and Madigan's daughter, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 12:17 PM

PRetty sweeping generalities, there Sawz. Maybe you don't like dealing in specifics, and think that rumor-mongering and innuendo is the proper way to communicate. If so, you need to rethink this.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 12:55 PM

Amos,

It is somewhat.... sleazy to use "rumor-mongering and innuendo " throughout this thread, and refuse to supply specific facts when requested, and then demand that others do so when you do not like the points that they have brought up.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 01:11 PM

I'm sleazy, then, Bruce. If you don't see the differences, you're going to end up thinking that. This is just an attempt to use a bad cloud of disreputable press about someone else, to discolor the Obama campaign by implied association and innuendo. I object to it, on the basis that there is no factual support offered for the implication. Call me sleazy if you like, pal, but in my book this sort of innuendo-mongering, trying to stir up hate wioothout factual bases, is sleazy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 01:25 PM

And my comment is that many of YOUR postings are just attempts to use a bad cloud of disreputable press about someone else, to discolor the Bush administration by implied association and innuendo.


"I object to it, on the basis that there is no factual support offered for the implication. Call me sleazy if you like, pal, but in my book this sort of innuendo-mongering, trying to stir up hate without factual bases, is sleazy. "

Thus my choice of words- glad that you agree with it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 02:59 PM

Move to impeach Mugabe delayed

"Moves by opposition MPs in Zimbabwe to impeach President Robert Mugabe have been delayed.

A Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) official said the party was unable to speak to the parliamentary speaker to table the impeachment motion, but would carry on trying to do so.

The attempt to impeach Mr Mugabe comes at a time of growing unrest over surging food prices.

Robert Mugabe
Mugabe: Certain to survive impeachment attempt
The MDC holds 57 of the country's 150 parliamentary seats - enough to start proceedings but short of the two-thirds majority needed to impeach Mr Mugabe.

Although it is unlikely to get an impeachment, the MDC hopes the move will increase pressure on Mr Mugabe to resign.

MDC officials say they have not been able to pin down the speaker of parliament, Emmerson Mnangagwa, a close friend and advisor to Mr Mugabe.

"We have prepared our impeachment papers and they are ready, but we will not be able to table our motion today seeking to impeach the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe because we have not been able so far to secure an appointment with the speaker," Gibson Sibanda, leader of the MDC in parliament.

"We'll be trying to meet him tonight and we are going to table the motion tomorrow."

AMOS:

"TI find it poignant, somehow, that in a single day's headlines three disparate voices agree on a single theme. One is Elliot Adams, a United States veteran and a direct descendant of Samuel Adams, the Founding Father.   The second is Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, a descendant of the ancient forefathers of Africa. The third is Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, the President of Iran, perhaps a descendant of ancient Darius or the founders of Mespotamian civilization.

All three of these men believe George Bush should be tried or impeached for his offenses.
"

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 10:16 AM

Another month gone, welcome to October Amos.

While moves seem definitely underway to impeach Robert Mugabe, impeachment proceedings against either President George W. Bush or Vicve-President Dick Cheney are no more likely now as when this thread was launched all those years ago.

In just over 32 days you lot will have elected yourselves a new President. Hopefully he and his Vice President will concern themselves with matters in hand and all this nonsense will be forgotten.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 10:22 AM

Geeze, Bruce, I look forward to the day when you quit being a Mirror Mocker. It's just puerile.

Teribus, spout what you will mate. Your esteemed hero has done more harm to this nation under law than anyone ever entrusted with such influence before him.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 10:55 AM

Heez, Amos, *** I *** look forward to the day that you apply the same standards to others that you insist on for your own comments.



When you stop demanding that your viewpoint be given "sacred" status, and allow others the same rights that you demand for yourself, the threads will be a far more balanced, and fairer place.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 12:52 PM

The only person I expect to consider my viewpoint sacred, Bruce, is me. For everyone else, it's a sovereign choice. I do not object to people who disagree with me. I would appreciate their trying to communicate by exchanging ideas instead of murky clouds of armwaving innuendo, or jejeune rhetorical mockery, neither of which is very becoming.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 01:41 PM

"Your esteemed hero has done more harm to this nation under law than anyone ever entrusted with such influence before him." - Amos

Now Amos, you see that is the sort of remark that quite frankly mystifies me.

You, like Bobert and few others on this forum, seem to hold the avowed belief that just because someone does not dutifully fall in "line-astern" and fawningly agree with every ill-constructed fantasty, myth, misrepresentation and down-right lie regarding George W. Bush that that someone must regard GWB as an "esteemed hero", must be a "neo-con Bushite". You and those who think like you are wrong, completely wrong, but there is no way that I could ever persuade you, or the others of that so I am simply not going to attempt it. At least with George W. Bush what America got when it needed it was leadership - he unlike his predecessor was capable of taking tough decisions. Come November 4th the USA gets to chose again - In Obama you get an empty suit who can and will deliver nothing.


I do not like it when people spout complete and utter rot, based not on any actual evidence, but on a politically bias and expect that rot to be taken as gospel. I dislike it when that rot is exposed for what it is by others, that that person is then personally attacked and perfectly reasonably formed questions and substantiated facts are totally ignored.

So it is your opinion that George W. Bush, "has done more harm to this nation under law than anyone ever entrusted with such influence before him"? Well that at least is progress, if you think that all has been done "under law" then there is no question of "impeachment".

But on that premise outlined in your stated opinion - that George W. Bush, "has done more harm to this nation under law than anyone ever entrusted with such influence before him." - I would like to make this observation:

If George W. Bush's immediate predecessor had spent more time concentrating on looking after his country's interests instead of attempting to win popularity contests and continually taking the easy options matters would never have advanced to the head that they did.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 12:16 AM

posted by Dee G on Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:21 AM

Bush is old news. It makes more sense to start impeachment hearings now on President obama. Impeachment takes time, and we'll need to get obama out before he really messes things up. (Helping Iran nuke Israel, giving a weapons grade reactor to N Korea, giving CA and AZ to Mexico, "redeploying" troops from Middle East to N Central Africa, banning petroleum-based transportation, etc)

obama is guilty of all the same things as Bush.

IMPEACH obama NOW !!

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Oct 08 - 07:07 AM

Amos:

"Why do you think it is okay to spew these unfounded generalities and pretend they are facts? Don't you think this is a disservice to the democratic process. spreading false impressions? Why aren't you more responsible for your own communications?"


Or do you still insist YOU have some special rights that the rest of us do not have?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 07:04 PM

Headlined on 10/13/08:
New Book: The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush

by David Swanson    Page 1 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com


By Congressman Dennis Kucinich

With Additional Material by David Swanson and Elizabeth de la Vega
trade paperback edition • 156 pages • 5.5 x 8.5 • ISBN: 978-1-932595-42-0 • $12


Feral House offers this important and urgent publication of Dennis Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment this election season in two formats: an offset-printed paperback book available for the cost of $12 and a free downloadable PDF available below.


David Swanson's additional article explains how the Impeachment process is possible and necessary even after the guilty perp leaves office, and how they can be used for prosecution of crimes. Those wishing to purchase over ten copies of the printed book can obtain them at discount from Feral House directly. Please contact [e-mail] for costs.

"More than two centuries ago, the Founders of this country set forth a procedure for Congress to follow in the event of grave abuse of power by the Chief Executive. That process is impeachment. In the face of the monumental deceit and disregard for the Constitution that we have witnessed on the part of the President over the past seven years, Congressman Kucinich's initiation of this process is neither fanciful nor futile, neither vengeful nor vindictive; it is the sober fulfillment of his sworn duty as a Congressman to follow the law without regard to personal consequence and misguided political stratagem. It is, quite simply, an act of patriotism."
—Elizabeth de la Vega, Former Federal Prosecutor
and author of United States v. George W. Bush et. al.

"This collection of impeachable offenses should be viewed as a sampling of the crimes and abuses of President George W. Bush and his subordinates. Bush has had many accomplices — first and foremost Vice President Cheney. But our Founders created a single executive precisely so that we could hold that one person accountable for the actions of the executive branch. It is high time we did so, and millions of Americans will be urging their representatives to support the effort being led by Congressman Kucinich.

"These articles establish, and hearings would establish further, that President Bush was 'the decider' behind countless abuses of power. And, of course, his public comments have time and again advertised his indifference to the laws he is violating. Not only does overwhelming evidence show us that Bush knew his claims about WMDs to be false, but the president has shown us that he considers the question of truth or falsehood to be laughably irrelevant. When Diane Sawyer asked Bush why he had claimed with such certainty that there were so many weapons in Iraq, he replied: 'What's the difference? The possibility that [Saddam] could acquire weapons, If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger.'

"What's the difference? Hundreds of thousands of corpses and a fatal blow to the rule of law among nations. That's the difference. Unless we remove impeachment from the Constitution by failing to exercise it, in which case truth will no longer matter any more than justice or peace."
— David Swanson, creator of ImpeachCheney.org, Washington Director of Democrats.com and co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org

"Overload is the main problem—I call it outrage fatigue. The sheer multitude, not to mention magnitude, of impeachable offenses tends to dull the senses. The opportunity to dig into just one or two provided some space and focused the mind.

"At the same time, the deeper one digs, the more unimaginable the dirt that comes up. Earlier, I had not taken the time to sift through the abundant evidence of the unconscionable ways in which George Bush and George Tenet teamed up—including, in Tenet's case, lying under oath—to stave off charges of misfeasance/ malfeasance before the attacks on 9/11.

"The Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to create a system in which we could protect ourselves from unbridled power. Today, we cannot let a 21st Century string of abuses and usurpations stand without challenge.

"But the experience of the past several years shows that there is a very high hurdle in our way: no Common Sense. I refer, of course, to the courageous independent journalism of the likes of Tom Paine who stirred the innate dignity of Americans toward sacrifice for independence and freedom. Tom Paine would be horrified to see what has become of his profession today—with browbeaten journalists and former general officers doing the bidding of the corporations that own/pay them.

"In my view, impeachment proceedings are essential to:

* Reestablish the separation of powers in our Constitution as a check on the so-called unitary executive
* Prevent a budding—and catastrophic—US attack on Iran by exposing it as yet another war of aggression against a country posing no threat to the US;
* Call attention to the blood already drained from our civil liberties and staunch the bleeding.

"Impeachment proceedings may be the only way to force the captive media to inform normal citizens about what has been going on in our country. Thomas Jefferson underscored the importance of this when he said: 'Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government.'"
—Ray McGovern; former Army officer and CIA analyst;
co-founder, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

"President Bush, Cheney and other US officials have violated numerous domestic and international laws governing crime of aggression, war crime, torture, etc., and they should be not only impeached by the US Congress but also be prosecuted by a special prosecutor, to the full extent of the law before or after impeachment. That is the best way to uphold the US Constitution and the rule of law at home and abroad."
—John Kim, Esq., Attorney; author of The Crime
of Aggression Against Iraq

"The breadth of impeachable offenses committed by the Bush/Cheney administration is likely unparalleled in our nation's history. Equally unparalleled, and in many cases even more alarming and outrageous, is the lack of accountability brought to the perpetrators of these High Crimes and Misdemeanors. It is the Constitutional duty of members of Congress—members from any political party—to bring such accountability, particularly when the list of crimes began with the very acts that brought this administration into office during their elections, and right up through today when the same sort of crimes continue, and are in place to try and affect our next Presidential Election.

More on site here

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 08 - 07:57 PM

Another review article on the Impeachment book , this one from New Zealand.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 08 - 03:37 PM

Trump: I wanted Bush impeached
Posted: 01:45 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney


Trump says that Bush got the US into a war with Iraq using lies.
(CNN) – Business mogul Donald Trump told CNN Wednesday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should have sought to impeach President Bush when she had the chance.

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Trump said the president and his administration deliberately lied about the Iraq war, and congressional Democrats missed an opportunity to impeach him when the party took control of Congress in 2006.

"I was surprised that she didn't do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush," Trump said. "It was almost — it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which personally I think would have been a wonderful thing."

Pressed why he feels Bush deserved the punishment faced by only two other commanders-in-chief, Trump said the president misled the country in the run-up to the Iraq war, and that his actions were considerably more objectionable than those which led to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.

"He lied. He got us into the war with lies," Trump said. And I mean — look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And yet Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true."

In the wide-ranging interview set to air on CNN's The Situation Room at 4, 5, and 6 p.m. Wednesday, Trump also praised John McCain and said the Arizona senator still has a chance to win the White House despite recent polls showing he is substantially trailing Barack Obama.

"He's a very smart guy, he's a tough guy," he said. "I think he'd be a great president. But, he has to be John McCain and he could still probably pull it out. But, it's going to be tough."

...

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Oct 08 - 12:09 AM

There is a rumor that Sears and Roebuck has decided that their private brand of batteries was getting rather stale.

After much think tanking and casting about on the net they finally decided on a new name that surpasses even the Energizer Bunny.

Sears has decided to rename their Diehard Batteries, to Amos Batteries.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 16 Oct 08 - 01:20 AM

I'll take that as a compliment, Sawz, Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Oct 08 - 08:40 AM

Some people measure the quality of life by how many six packs of Bud they consume each weekend.

Amos measures the quality of life by how many postings he can make on Mudcat.

46784 posts so far which would be around 3000 hours invested so far while Bush was elected twice and impeached 0.

Try Bud Amos. It is much more satisfying and less stressful. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 08 - 10:16 AM

I am sorry you are so obsessed with me, man, but I am sure you will get over it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 08 - 12:28 PM

K.C. Cody, writing in the California Aggie, skips the foreplay:

"The Democrats have royally fucked us (I swear in this column, by the way). Why? Because they don't understand accountability. They're like the Arthur Anderson of American politics. That they haven't brought Bush to his knees for some sweet, impeachment-style justice is beyond shameful; Johnson replaced his secretary of war, Nixon spied and Clinton fibbed about a BJ. But Bush? Nah, the Democrats are just fine to let bygones be bygones and take impeachment off the table.

Do me a favor and look at the articles of impeachment submitted to the House by Dennis Kucinich, the only Democrat with the balls to do so (besides Hillary). Really, look at 'em (the articles, not the balls). And when you do, realize that these are just the things Bush should be impeached for that we know about, because the Democrats won't launch any prying Congressional investigations.

According to them, it doesn't matter how we got here. They'll just plug the hull of the Titanic with chewing gum and worry about accountability and prevention later. Much later. As in never.

Just look at what we've experienced over the past month. After The Great Depression, Sweden and S&L, this was not unexpected. It was inevitable. It was inevitable because of the failure to respond with accountability, prevention and vigilance to yesteryear's orgies of greed. And once those past shocks and others like them abated, so did the opportunity to respond.

But Republicans make their careers on shocks. Take the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act. The speed at which it passed was baffling; portions were even submitted only one working day after 9/11. The final bill is a 342-page wish list of prepackaged pipe dreams accumulated since Reagan meant to turn the executive branch into a Herculean phallus of ruination. Nine-eleven was their shock, and their wishes were granted.
..."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Oct 08 - 01:02 PM

Amos, pay no attention to the man in the "silly suit", you're doing a fine job updating the rest of US. It is a shame that Miss Nancy "it's off the table" P won't do want we elected her & the others to do but in time she'll pay along with Bush & Co. I do hope this comes back to bite her on the ass as much as I hope to eventually see Bush & Co imprisoned for a long time. I do hope that when Obama takes office that his administration will pursue these political criminals as well as a good few deserving others. A "Chinese Purge" would be very appopriate, put them all in "Chop, Chop Square"

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Oct 08 - 08:11 PM

I find it amusing when I see people spending a lot of time on the internet telling others they spend too much time on the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 01:03 AM

CC=18769
Amos=46784
Sawzaw=513

Impeachment=0

I think it is Amos who is obsessed with something he admits will not happen. Perpetual motion and cold fusion may yet prove to be possible.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 01:39 AM

Don't be an ass, Sawz.

When people speak out suggesting impeachment, I report it here. If you don't like it, shove off, but don't sit around mischaracterizing the thread or my intent in starting it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 02:03 AM

18769 posts in more than eight years.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 08 - 02:07 AM

The person criticizing others for making too many posts will, if they continue their current posting rate, have approximately 14,153 posts by the time they've been posting here for eight years.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Oct 08 - 12:47 AM

Gee, I feel so ashamed for pointing out to Amos that he is wasting his time. Something only a friend would do. An enemy would simply let him continue to make a fool of himself.

"The Democratic Party leadership has indicated that they have no intention of resolving to impeach him."

What was that about insanity is repeating the same thing hoping for different results.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Oct 08 - 12:52 AM

Democrats scuttle proposal to impeach Bush
Move avoids House debate
        
Boston Globe

WASHINGTON - Democrats in the House of Representatives yesterday scuttled a colleague's proposal to impeach President Bush on a wide range of charges, including lying to the American public about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, torturing war captives, and misleading Congress in an attempt to destroy Medicare.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich proposed the 35-count articles of impeachment, which will die in the Judiciary Committee.

By a 251-166 vote, the House sent the 35-count articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee, which is expected to let it die without further action. While the vote technically forces the measure to the committee for consideration, it also means the full House will avoid having to debate and vote on impeaching the 43d president.

Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat who ran for his party's presidential nomination this year, spent several hours reading into the Congressional Record his lengthy and far-reaching indictment of Bush's presidency.

He introduced the proposal as a resolution, which could be considered by the full House without going through the committee process.

While fellow Democrats have frequently used the House floor to attack Bush for his policies on Iraq, healthcare, domestic surveillance, and many of Kucinich's other grievances, none has joined him in mounting an impeachment effort.

Republicans in 2006 warned voters that Democrats would try to impeach Bush if Republicans lost their 12-year majority in Congress, as they went on to do in that year's mid-term balloting.

Democratic leaders have long objected to Kucinich's initiative, saying it would be divisive and in any case unsuccessful.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Oct 08 - 01:00 AM

I appreciate threads like this one. Someone else is doing the work of finding this information so I don't have to. I have no doubt that there are other people who read without necessarily posting as I do.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Oct 08 - 12:44 PM

All you have to do to receive propaganda is sing up for a RSS feed from some left wing nut factory like Amos does.

The he echoes it like a Parrot that has learned to repeat a few phrases the does not have the slightest idea as to the meaning or truthfulness (America's oil supply has been cut off) and Voila, a mental giant is born.

Then when you question him about what he posts, he runs and hides.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Oct 08 - 01:26 PM

Impeachment is too light. Criminal action should be taken.

We have crooks in the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Oct 08 - 01:29 PM

"I appreciate threads like this one. Someone else is doing the work of finding this information so I don't have to."

I would tend to agree with that, if that was indeed the case. But what Amos posts to this thread is not "information" it is opinion masquerading as information and which is readily leapt upon as being fact by those who want to believe it to be so. Unfortunately wanting something to be other than what it is does not alter the facts when critically examined.

Myself and others have asked repeatedly for any evidence that could establish grounds to bring about the impeachment of your current President or Vice-President. Nothing, other than opinion has ever been offered.

PS - I rather doubt that Nancy Pelosi was ever elected to impeach anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
Date: 19 Oct 08 - 06:33 PM

The impeachment process is possible and/or can be used for criminal prosecution even after George W. Bush leaves office—giving the American people a sense of hope. Even though impeachment while Bush is in office does not seem likely due to the complicity of Congress relative to the illegitimate Iraq War, Kucinich's efforts relative to impeachment and the efforts of hundreds of Americans relative to impeachment are not wasteful collectively. For example, such efforts are beneficial in that (1) legitimate accusations made in the course of Bush's presidency appropriately and importantly inform the American people and the world of Bush's abuses of power, corruption, and dishonesty; and (2) legitimate accusations, for example, in Dennis Kucinich's excellent book, "The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush," may contribute to some impeachment and/or punitive process against Bush after he leaves office.

Dennis Kucinich is my role model. Kucinich is simply the best. Congressman Kucinich has, in any case, done invaluable, noble, and exemplary work in pushing for impeachment so vigorously and single-mindedly.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 12:01 AM

You're bitterly mistaken, Sawz. What I do is post information related to thew topic and of possible interest. I count on you to use your own judgement about the merits of he pieces I point to. The rhetoric and data are only as good as your ability to assess them after all--neither a blind rejection nor a blind acceptance on your part would be intelligent.

If I put a link to an article on this thread, it is cockeyed to then challenge me on the author's point of view. I am not parroting here, merely showing others what I have come across. Your twisted sense of personal responsibility is (IMHO) off the wall here.

The fact that I provide a quote of colorful writing from KC Cody does not mean that I AM KC Cody, or even that I am answerable for what he wrote. You can call me on choosing to provide the quote, which is my responsibility, or in misrepresenting someone by selecting badly from a longer piece. But the rest of your foolish chatter is banal and inept.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 12:37 AM

I can decide for myself whether or not I think what is posted to this thread has value for me.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 01:07 PM

Amos:

Some times you claim that what you post is the truth. At other times you backpedal by claiming it is "colorful writing"

Which is it Amos, truth or bullshit? If it is a combination of both. please note the difference or if you cannot tell the difference, say so.

Otherwise you are saying that what you post is the truth.

Amos quotes:

"getting the truth out on the table on the crimes these two have been party to"

"get the truth out about an Administration that has dramatized dark secrecy since its inception"

"speaking the truth as best I can find it out"

"That does not mean the truth about it should not be voiced."

Amos is constantly railing about people not telling the truth but he holds himself to a different standard.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 01:22 PM

Oh, don't be such an ass, I beg you. If I put a post in here stating that Mister Cody states the following, the truth (to the best of my knowledge) is that he did in fact state it. If I put in a post that says 78% of people surveyed think Bush is the worstPresident in American history, pointing to a report that says so, the TRUTH is that the report was found and does in fact say so. Your notion of putting the burden on me of re-doing the job of the various editors behind the articles I provide links to is not only impossible, but riodiculous on the face of it, and your Manichean obsession that each article I link to or quote from is "either truth or bullshit" demonstrates that you have the mental capabililties of a small tin soldier with windup jaws.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 02:22 PM

Even though Amos has stated 4 times in this thread alone that he is bringing the truth, yet he denies that all of it is the truth.

What was that about a toy that you wind up? Is that sort of a machine that operates without thinking? Something that does not have the capability of detecting the truth?


Truth brought to us by Amos:

"this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand."

True__________

False __________

I can't tell _______

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 03:07 PM

Jesus, you nutball. I did not make that statement; I referresd you tot he author if it. It is true I posted a letter he wrote on this thread, published by a newspaper. It is highly probably true that the person so named in fact had the thought, wrote the letter and would be glad to explain what he was thinking of. Are you so admantly Manichean about everything in your life? Will nobody rid me of this poxy priest?


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 12:07 AM

Amos:

Why is it such a hard question? Seems like an easy one to answer to me and all I know how to do is flip burgers and park cars.

When you say you are bringing the truth and you post something here you imply that it is truth that you bring here.

Is "this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand." statement that you brought to this thread the truth or not?

Or maybe you want to weasel out of answering the question by saying you did not bring it here.

bring
Function:    verb
Inflected Form(s): brought ; bring·ing bringing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English bringan; akin to Old High German bringan to bring, Welsh hebrwng to accompany
Date: before 12th century

transitive verb to convey, lead, carry, or cause to come along with one toward the place from which the action is being regarded


truth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural truths
Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trÄ"owth fidelity; akin to Old English trÄ"owe faithful â€" more at true
Date: before 12th century

the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality
an idea that is true or accepted as true
being in accord with fact or reality
in accordance with fact : actually

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 09:20 AM

I can see reason is not going to work with you Sawz. You are so busy fighting you fail to realize it is your own foot you are fighting with.

Let me make this real clear: I do not, could not, never pretended to, and wouldn't even dream of asserting that the contents of every article I post is truth. One would have to be a complete ass to imagine I had. To attack that paper tiger is an absurd--if not insane--thing.

However, I think it is true that people are saying the things they are saying and feel the way they feel, and their viewpoints are part of the truth.

You are fortunate I am not an attack-dog, too, I thihk.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 10:37 AM

"getting the truth out on the table on the crimes these two have been party to"
"get the truth out about an Administration that has dramatized dark secrecy since its inception"
"speaking the truth as best I can find it out"
"That does not mean the truth about it should not be voiced."

All of these quotes by you indicate that you can tell it a statement is true or not when you see it. Please read the following statement and tell me if it is the truth or not. I answer your questions so please answer mine.

"this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand."

True__________

False __________

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 04:45 PM

Now that is a simple question for you Amos?

Do you have any problem answering it? I know I wouldn't, the whole premise of it is ridiculous, of course the statement is false, just examine it:

"this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand."

No crude oil exports have been cut off have they?

And I suppose it is the toppling of Hussein that is being referred to as "this Bush conflict", well examination of the figures would show that oil exports from the Persian Gulf region have in fact increased since that Bush conflict. So patently whoever you were quoting in order to get the truth out on the table in order to speak the truth as best you can find it out, hadn't a bloody clue as to what on earth he was talking about.

You quoted it now you have been asked whether or not you yourself believe it to be true or false - dead simple.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 05:12 PM

You guys really are a pair of small nutballs.

Here is the actual quote which you and Sawz are so merrily taking out of context.

September 4, 2008

"George W. Bush has abused the authority that we, the people, entrusted to him as commander-in-chief of our military forces.

Bush has expressed his desire to keep our military forces in Iraq. Consider what has happened to our economy, plus all of the American casualties in this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand.

The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people don't want America in their nation, just as the people from Georgia do not want Russia in their nation. Bush is squealing like a stuck pig at Russia for doing the same thing he did to Iraq.

We American citizens do not want Russia to control Georgia, and we certainly do not want our armed forces or our tax money wasted in Iraq.

The "Bush government" is totally un-American. In my 81 years, Bush is the only president who promoted torture of prisoners. Our economy has gone to pot during this Bush watch.

I would be in favor of having Bush impeached before he leads us into World War III."

— Gordon Lukkasson, Salem, MA

Mister Lukasson's opinio0n about Bush's impact on oil supply -- as you will plainly see above -- is one aspect of his view of the Bush administration. It may be an inaccurate part, and I haven't researched the impact of Bush's war to assess the degree of negative impact it may have had on oil imports. For example, providing guard-free munitions dumps to all comers at the start of the Iraq invasion may in fact have cost us in oil supply. Point is, I do not have any data with which to speculate about the grounds on which Mister Lukasson is basing his assertion. My own view, since you ask, is that he is probably mistaken about that particular point.

But far more important, I believe, is that the truest part of that post--one out of some 1196, I believe--is that Lukasson believes, for reasons which are much less debatable than this one, that Bush should, by rights, be impeached from office for good and sufficient reason. Economic ebbs and flows are not part of that equation, obviously, since they are not part of the actionable charges listed in the Constitution. THe other serious derelictions of duty Mister Lukasson mentions, however, are.

So perhaps you jolly 'bots could shake your heads really hard and start to focus on the relevant, the important, the consequential and the actual for a change, instead of chattering about ragtag bits and shards like a bunch of doolallies dancing in your cutty sarks.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 07:36 PM

ATTORNEYS, SCHOLARS, ACTIVIST GROUPS CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT         | Print |         E-mail
By MWC NEWS   
Translation
      


If Bush Pardons Himself or His Subordinates

The Steering Committee of the Justice Robert Jackson Conference On Prosecution of High Level War Criminals plans to demand the immediate impeachment of George W. Bush if he issues any last minute pardons covering himself or any of his subordinates. The president can be impeached and convicted even after leaving office.

The Steering Committee has released the following statement:

The presidential pardon power must not be distorted to include the power to self-pardon the president, or to pardon any staff or contractors of the executive branch, including the vice president, for crimes authorized by the president. The unconstitutionality of self pardons is discussed at length in "Pardon Me? The Constitutional Case Against Presidential Self-Pardons," by Brian C. Kalt in the Yale Law Journal, December 1, 1996: http://www.jstor.org/pss/797310

A self pardon by the President for himself or those who carried out his illegal orders to commit war crimes, said the Steering Committee of the Robert Jackson Conference, would make a mockery of the rule of law. It would, in fact, largely put an end to the rule of law. It is frankly inconceivable, said the Steering Committee, that the framers, who sought the rule of law instead of kingly tyranny, could have intended this.

The Steering Committee noted that Bush's commutation of the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who helped carry out Bush's plans, suggests the possibility of an attempted self pardon by Bush in the future. Also, the famed journalist Stuart Taylor has suggested a self pardon covering war crimes committed by Bush and his colleagues. A self pardon covering Bush and/or his subordinates, however, would require an immediate impeachment and conviction of the culprits in order to disqualify them from holding any U.S. office in the future and to avoid setting an awful precedent for future presidents to pardon their own crimes and those of subordinates.

Groups and individuals wishing to add their name to this statement can do so at http://convictbushcheney.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Massachusetts law school Dean Lawrence Velvel will chair a Steering Committee to pursue the prosecution for war crimes of President Bush and culpable high-ranking aides after they leave office Jan. 20th.

The Steering Committee was organized following a conference of leading legal authorities and scholars from the U.S. and abroad convened by Velvel on Sept. 13-14 in Andover, Mass., titled "The Justice Robert Jackson Conference On Planning For The Prosecution of High Level American War Criminals."

"If Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and others are not prosecuted," Velvel said, "the future could be threatened by additional examples of Executive lawlessness by leaders who need fear no personal consequences for their actions, including more illegal wars such as Iraq."

Besides Velvel, members of the Steering Committee include:

Ben Davis, a law Professor at the University of Toledo College of Law, where he teaches Public International Law and International Business Transactions. He is the author of numerous articles on international and related domestic law.

Marjorie Cohn, a law Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, Calif., and President of the National Lawyers Guild.

Chris Pyle, a Professor at Mount Holyoke College, where he teaches Constitutional law, Civil Liberties, Rights of Privacy, American Politics and American Political Thought, and is the author of many books and articles.

Elaine Scarry, the Walter M. Cabot Professor of Aesthetics and the General Theory of Value at Harvard University, and winner of the Truman Capote Award for Literary Criticism.

Peter Weiss, vice president of the Center For Constitutional Rights, of New York City, which was recently involved with war crimes complaints filed in Germany and Japan against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others.

David Swanson, author, activist and founder of AfterDowningStreet.org/CensureBush.org coalition, of Charlottesville, Va.

Kristina Borjesson, an award-winning print and broadcast journalist for more than twenty years and editor of two recent books on the media.

Colleen Costello, Staff Attorney of Human Rights, USA, of Washington, D.C., and coordinator of its efforts involving torture by the American government.

Valeria Gheorghiu, attorney for Workers' Rights Law Center.

Andy Worthington, a British historian and journalist and author of books dealing with human rights violations.

Initial actions considered by the Steering Committee, Velvel said, are as follows:

# Seeking prosecutions of high level officials, including George Bush, for the crimes they committed.

# Seeking disbarment of lawyers who were complicitous in facilitating torture.

# Seeking termination from faculty positions of high officials who were complicitous in torture.

# Issuing a recent statement saying any attempt by Bush to pardon himself and aides for war crimes prior to leaving office will result in efforts to obtain impeachment even after they leave office.

# Convening a major conference on the state secret and executive privilege doctrines, which have been pushed to record levels during the Bush administration.

# Designation of an Information Repository Coordinator to gather in one place all available information involving the Bush Administration's war crimes.

# Possible impeachment of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jay Bybee for co-authoring the infamous "torture memo."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 08:22 PM

Amos:

So many words when only one of two words are required to fulfill your moral obligating to answer a question posed to you by someone who answers your questions when asked.

Why are you to chicken to answer a single simple question in a direct manor?

"Your notion of putting the burden on me of re-doing the job of the various editors behind the articles I provide links to is not only impossible"

Four times in this thread you have said you are bringing the truth. The reason for the thread is to bring the truth.

Now you claim it is somebody else's job to figure out what is the truth and what is bullshit?

So it impossible for you to read a simple statement and state if it is true or not?

Maybe it impossible for you. Where is your credibility? Where is your moral fiber?

You exhibit poor judgment not only in determining what is the truth but in refusing to give direct answers to simple questions that would determine your credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 08:53 PM

murder charges mentioned in Congress



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21057.htm

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 10:43 PM

Sawzall:

Boy, I am getting plumb tired of your one-eyed snakeoil lip. Get this straight, son. Your yammering is old, off the wall and without foundation. Read my goddamned post, or if you will not, just zip your lip, figuratively speaking, and go yammer at someone else. You are twisting my statements, and acting like a crazy ADD ten-year old in a whorehouse. If you won't talk straight, then buzz off and go twist someone else's words around. Start with your whacko friend Palin--you guys deserve each other.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 10:59 PM

Some basic questions about some of the truth you claim you bring to us Amos. I hope you will fulfill your moral obligation to answer and not run and hide as usual:

"Bush has expressed his desire to keep our military forces in Iraq."

So do Obama and McCain. So if having a desire to keep our military forces in Iraq is an impeachable offense should Obama and McCain be impeached?

---

"the people from [of?] Georgia do not want Russia in their nation"
Does Mr Lukasson or Amos the truthful or Dennis the Menace want Russian troops in Gerogia? Would they complain if it was their responsibility to complain? If they did complain would it somehow be an impeachable offense?

Or maybe it is impeachable only if one complains after expressing a desire to keep our military forces in Iraq? Then would Obama and McCain be impeachable under the same reasoning?

---

"We American citizens do not want Russia to control Georgia"
So we are all Impeachable?

---

"Bush is the only president who promoted torture of prisoners"
I haven't heard of any evidence of that. However Mr Obamas associates have admitted promoting the bombing and killing of innocent people and Obama promotes them. Does that mean Obama should be impeached?

---

"plus all of the American casualties"
Mr. Clinton racked up 7500 military dead during his 8 years of peace time. Has Bush exceeded that?

---

"I would be in favor of having Bush impeached before he leads us into World War III". Is there enough time to start up world war III?

---

"Our economy has gone to pot during this Bush watch"
According to Joseph Stiglitz, the most quoted economist in the world, it was Bubba that fucked up the economy:

Clinton's Chairman Of Council Of Economic advisers, Joseph Stiglitz, Said Recession Started During Clinton's Tenure. "It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush's economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But � the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier...
... during the Clinton Administration "the groundwork for some of the problems we are now experiencing was being laid. Accounting standards slipped; deregulation was taken further than it should have been; and corporate greed was pandered to..."

Take your time Amos. As the greatest Replublican of all time said: Let him answer fully, fairly, and candidly. Let him answer with facts, and not with arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 12:34 PM

LAst time I saw anyone twist so much, he was hanging from an oak tree.

My proposition: "A citizen of the United States has voiced the following opinion." Truth Value: True.

Your implied proposition: "Amos is lying because he cannot prove that the citizen's statement is true and factual." Truth value: False, not to mention bizarre.

It seems to me, therefore, that you are invested in slander and derogation, Sawz.

Nowhere in this thread have I claimed that the opinions of other people, which I post or link to here, are all factual statements. They are opinions. You may disagree, and disprove them all you want to.

But you may not call me a liar because I make public the fact that citizens have voiced those opinions.

So, before you answer, make sure you have removed your head from its dark retreat.


A

---

Tuckahoe, NY (PRWEB) October 23, 2008 -- "Author Paul J. Landis has completed an enhanced web site and the new "Tribune Gazette" to support updates and an updated title to his book "A Real 9/11 Commission," all of which report the strong evidence that supports the decisions by the Citizens of Vermont to "indict Bush and Cheney as criminals".. There is significant new information and additional content covering a number of critical current issues, Landis told us, thus justifying the new title "A Real 9/11 Commission Will Help Free America, Now" (ISBN 0-9760408-2-4, April 2007; US $14.75, UK, £ 9.85.) The "Tribune Gazette" has been designed to provide an affordable newspaper format and mirrors the topics covered in the updated book and web site , www.wethepeoplewethemedia.com, all available now.

Landis tells us "the book had been updated and the new web site mostly completed when I learned of the actions by the Vermont citizens that inspired the new "Tribune Gazette" headline: "Another shot that will be heard around the world!"

On March 4, 2008, the citizens of Marlboro and Brattleboro, VT voted "to indict Bush and Cheney for crimes against our Constitution."

The article read: "Shall the Select board instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities and shall it be the law of the town of Marlboro that law enforcement agencies hired by the Town of Marlboro, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Marlboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?" www.wethepeoplewethemedia.com/vermont.htm

Are our courageous citizens in Vermont the first to determine that Bush and Cheney have committed criminal act, crimes against the U.S. Constitution?

"A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law--and repeatedly violates the law--thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office." "


From here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 08:58 PM

Factual statement: People have stated that Amos is lying.


Factual statement: People have stated that Amos presents opinions as facts, until called upon to provide evidence, then says they are just opinion.


Factual statement: People have stated that Amos has presented a case against Bush based ONLY upon opinion, and without considering any of the root causes for Bush's actions.


All of the above are true, right Amos????

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 01:39 PM

"Despite the uncoming end of their terms it is crucial to the integrity and reputation of our great nation that we hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their crimes against the American people and humanity at large ... we must practice what we preach to the world... Impeach Bush and Cheney.

It is never too late to do the right thing. We have some incredible messes to clean up from this administration ... so we need to pull together as Americans and get busy "cleaning house." The time is now."

Kim Tostenson - Evansville

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 02:03 PM

Reminder:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 02:05 PM

I suspect that each of those statements does not come from "people", but from a person, Bruce. People have proabbly said all kinds of nasty things about me when I wasn't around, though, so I can let it go.


:D


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 03:15 PM

Amos:

"My interest is impeachment is as a matter of simple, clear justice based on actual, discovered, facts."

So where is the proof that "this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand."?

"Last time I saw anyone twist so much, he was hanging from an oak tree. "

So whose lynching did you participate in?

Was it Summary Justice or was it preceded by a trial?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 08 - 05:31 PM

Your subtelty and capability of perception of context is about as delicate as a large stone falling off a tall building, Sawz.

When you jam together things from separate contexts and pretend they are from the same context, you create a lie.

If you cannot tell the difference between a statement of opinion, a statement of fact, and a statement of intent, you have no business reading this thread, so cease and desist. It will only upset you.

It's like this: things are different when they are not the same. Once that sinks in, uyou may start to get some traction.

Actually he was hanging from an oak tree while seated on a backyard swing, and he was twisted because he had been kicking off in the wrong direction.

Like you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 01:22 AM

Let me see. Amos claims he is bringing the truth and proven facts. Then he posts something that he has to deny is truth or factual.

Actually it is rather satisfying to read this thread because it proves over and over that some people cannot separate fact from fiction.

The official seal of the democratic party.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 12:22 PM

I am quite aware of the difference, Saw-brain.

What you fail to be aware of is the difference between reporting what people say and saying it oneself as though it were fact.

If I report that many small-brained people have flapped their hands and claimed Barack Obama is a communist Muslim, a ridiculous assertion on the face of it, it makes it no less true that the ridiculous assertion is being claimed by the people who claim it.

I wish you had a real brain, though. It would make a lot of difference to our conversations.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 12:40 PM

ANd your funny link is puerile and small-minded.

I begin to wonder what your real age is.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 05:00 PM

You have to be a certain minimum age to get a job flipping burgers and parking cars.

Perhaps that is why we don't agree. You are on the top end if the social scale I am so much farther down.

That's why you know what is best for the American people, like an elitist.

Being so amart and all and being quite aware of the difference between fact and fiction, please tell us if this is fact or fiction:

"this "Bush conflict," which has cut off our crude oil imports from the big oil-producing nations, which has caused the totally unreasonable oil prices to get out of hand."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 07:32 PM

IT's an opinion. I suspect it isn't a very well researched one, but I suggested to you some time ago that you track down the originator of the opinion and ask him why he thinks that.

If you are near the minimum age for valet and Burger King, it explains a lot about your great hunger for Manichean views, and the desire to make wicked enemies out of the "others". It takes working through situations and hammering things out a number of times in different situations to be able to understand the nuances of interactions and how the transactions of life actually work.

I am nowhere near the top end of the social scale. Obama's tax plan will definitely give a tax break.

But I commend you on your energy and hope that you learn much as you go along.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 07:49 PM

People who flip burgers and park cars are among those who will be helped the most by Obama's tax plan, as well has his health care plan.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 10:52 PM

Hopefully when Obama takes office, aside from having his hands full with setting our nation on a better path, he'll find the time & will to see that part of getting US on the right track will be the righting of wrongs done to Americans & other citizens of the world by bringing most of the Bush's present & past administration to justice, if front of the World Court for crimes against humanity, war crimes, for violating the Geneva Conventions & human rights violations & then in front of an American court for High Treason, for voilating our Constitution & for violating our civil rights. May he & his traitorous lot spend the rest of thier unnatural lives in living hell, may they never be remember, may their final resting place know no peace & remained unmarker forever, may their judgement be announced to the world & their names from then on never be mentioned again. If there is a God may he never have mercy on their souls & may the devil have his way with them from now until the 12th of never.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 11:13 PM

So even though you can tell the difference, you refuse to do so?

"I suggested to you some time ago that you track down the originator of the opinion and ask him why he thinks that."

I did Amos. I joined that blog and asked him when where and how the US was cut off and he was too chicken to answer too.

And even though I am a lowly hamburger flipper and car parker, talked down to by elitists, I have no problems with health care. I do not need any government help.

I am not a whiner looking for handouts.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 11:25 PM

Sawsall, if it's fine with you the rest of the world can go f&%#k themselves, glad that you're not your brother's keeper.

If you're not whinning then you're a selfess brat, the spoon many not be silver but it's still stuck up your you know where.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 11:43 PM

My guess is the burger flipper/car park attendant in this thread is either not what they say they are, or they're still very young and that's why they think they don't have any health care problems. My guess is that this person either has no insurance, or is under-insured, but thinks they don't need health care because they're still young and healthy.

Personally, I tend to think this person isn't a burger flipper or a car parker. I can't imagine anyone with those kinds of jobs who wouldn't want a tax break. Or maybe they would rather pay higher taxes than vote for a Black person for president.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 01:31 AM

Big hint for the folks that think they know it all. I was born in 1945.

I was determined to be a burger flipper and car parker by the same Übermensch who does not know if America's oil was cut off or not.

Perhaps someone can explain why not voting for Obama would make my taxes higher.

Obama is definitely not his brother's keeper. He flies in the most expensive campaign jet yet and wears custom made suits while his brother lives on less than $1 a month.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 03:21 AM

Ah, I see. So the one born in 1945 doesn't need to worry about health care because that person already has insurance (which they could lose, if McCain gets elected). And they'll be eligible for Medicare in two years.

Well, if that's the case, that person is already getting a hand out from other people. All of the other people in that person's insurance pool are paying for their health care. Certainly, that person is not paying for all of it him or herself. And when that person becomes eligible for Medicare, then he or she will be getting a handout from the government if he or she uses it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 03:33 AM

Not voting for Obama could cause someone's taxes to be raised if McCain becomes president and he is able to get his tax and health care plans approved. Becuase any money that is paid on that person's behalf for their insurance premiums will be taxed. If that person is paying taxes on more than $250,000, then some of that could be offset by the reduction in taxes McCain would give to people in that tax bracket. If that person is paying taxes on less than $250,000, but more than $150,000, they will probably come out about even either way tax wise (although they could lose their insurance if McCain gets elected). If they are paying taxes on less than $150,000, they will come out better under Obama's plan, and substantially so if they earn less than $100,000, because they will receive a bigger tax cut under Obama's plan than under McCain's plan, and because the insurance premiums paid on their behalf by their employer won't be taxed. And they will not find themselves suddenly without insurance as they are likely to under McCain's plan.

Burger flippers and car parkers will definitely come out way ahead of where they are now if Obama is elected and his tax and health care plans are realized.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 01:43 AM

I repeat, this burger flipper and car parker does not need nor want a handout from the government or any messing around with the health care system.

What I could use most is less whining from people that do not appreciate the fact that they live in the country that provides them with the most opportunity and highest standard of living of any country in the world.

If this is not so, why do people from countries with free health care and lower taxes invade the US?

Take the socialist utopia of Cuba for instance. If you are having trouble with health care, go to Cuba and your problems will be over.

Or Canada where there is an organization that smuggles people into the US for medical treatment before they die waiting for it in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Oct 08 - 01:58 AM

People who have insurance, as I've said before, are accepting handouts. Any money above the amount of their premiums, copays and deductables that their insurance pays for them is money they are being given as a handout from the other members of their insurance pool.

Get ready for some major messing around with the health care system if McCain gets elected, because his plan is the most radical change to our health care "system" that anyone has ever proposed.

According to his plan, any money that is paid on anyone's behalf for their insurance (employer based insurance), will be taxed. This will mean that the young and healthy members of everyone's insurance pool will opt out of their employer based plans and buy cheap insurance that only the young and healthy can get. This will leave the older people who are more in need of care as the only ones in the employer based insurance pool. This will make the premiums too expensive for many employers and employer based plans, and many, many people will lose their current insurance. And the ones who don't will have to pay taxes on theirs.

I don't need to move to another country. This country is a democracy and I can work to change what's wrong with this country instead of having to leave. That's why people leave places like Cuba to come here. But I already have this right, so there's no reason for me to go anywhere. On the other hand, people like the above poster, who seem to think that voters don't have the right to try to improve this country, those are the ones who would be more comfortable living in a dictatorship. I invite them to go find one that will allow them in. I'm sure there's plenty to choose from.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 01:24 AM

100% paid for privately with no government involvement but still "People who have insurance, as I've said before, are accepting handouts"

The same is true of any insurance, auto, homeowners.

Another myth:

"employer based insurance), will be taxed."

It already is because you cannot deduct any medical expenses from your income unless it is 10% or more of your income.

Ergo you have to pay taxes on money you earn to pay for medical insurance.

In Cuba they don't have to pay any taxes on medical insurance so moving would solve your problems. Or do you object to a country that takes from the rich and gives to the poor?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 03:19 AM

Why should I move to another country? I can work to make this one a better one. Which, to my way of thinking, is the most patriotic thing I can do.

100% percent privately funded is still a handout. As I said, in the case of private insurance, instead of the money coming from our tax dollars, that money is coming from everyone else's premiums. So every time someone's medical insurance pays their medical bills, they aren't the ones who are paying those bills, it's everyone else in their insurance pool who are paying those bills. So that makes it a handout. And really, it's no different than people getting their medical bills paid from taxpayer money. It's all coming from the same people - which is to say other people.

And in the case of taxpayer funded medical care, everyone pays in and everyone gets the same amount of access to medical care. With the system we have now, I am subsidizing the medical care of those who have insurance, but I don't have any access to medical care myself.

I am subsidizing the above poster's medical care (that's right - I am giving that poster a handout) because I have to pay higher prices for the goods and services I buy from employers who contribute money towards the medical insurance for their employees, even though I have no access to medical care myself.

So that means that the above poster is getting a handout from me for their medical care, but that poster doesn't think I should be able to have any access to medical care myself.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 03:48 AM

By the way, people don't currently pay any taxes on the money that employers pay towards their insurance premiums. But McCain has said that the way he is going to pay for his health care plan will be to cut back Medicare, and to make people pay taxes on the insurance premiums that their employers pay for.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 12:15 PM

Why should I vote for socialized medicine? Just to shut up a bunch of whiners?

Go ahead and vote. Vote any way you want. Vote early and vote often.

Instead of moving to another country that serves your needs, change the US so it is like those other countries that you would not want to move to.

You will also bring a halt to the smuggling of people from Canada to the US for medical treatment.

While you are at it, open up the borders to further degrade our health care system so everybody is equal and send the bill to the rich people, the bastards that voluntarily donate to hospitals and health care around the world.

Ever heard of Pro Mujer? Another outfit those slimy rich, capitalist, exploiters of poor people voluntarily donate too.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 08 - 03:19 PM

What to Do with Bush and Cheney?
By DENNIS LOO

It's been eight years - almost to the day – that Bush and Cheney lost the election but seized the White House anyway.

It's been four years – almost to the day – that Bush and Cheney lost the election again, but took the White House anyway.

Now we are on the verge of yet another election, the third in a row dubbed by many "the most important in our lifetime." Bush and Cheney aren't on the ballot, but those who would carry on their policies are. And once again the Democratic Party, the loyal opposition, puts forth their alternative.

What has not been broached in this election contest? What has most conspicuously been avoided?

* * *

In spite of the multitudinous evidence of their abuse of office and their horrid crimes strewn around us like rubble from an earthquake, the Bush regime remains: rotting, festering, and infecting the people, the country, and the planet, despoiling our past, our present, and setting the precedent for a future in which any president can override the law at will.

For a White House as unpopular as this to leave office Scott free can only mean that the rest of this country's political leadership has actively colluded with them.

There have been literally scores of events during the last eight years that could have and should have precipitated a legitimacy crisis, beginning with the stolen election of 2000. In every instance, the Democratic Party and the mass media have refused to expose the illegitimacy of Bush and Cheney's ascension to power and their continued rule, no matter how egregious the revelation, no matter how fundamental the trespass, no matter how widespread the people's demand for accountability and justice.

See rest of article here at CounterPunch.org.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 08:46 AM

I know I would love living in Canada where, my Canadian husband says, the health care is every bit as good as the health care here, and where it is far more accessible than it is here. But my son lives in the US, and my husband likes the weather here where we live. So yeah, I shouldn't have to leave. I should be able to stay and help improve things here for everyone. If the majority of people want universal health care (and it appears that they now do), we ought to have universal health care. That's what democracy is all about. Those whiners who don't like democracy are free to move to the totalitarian country of their choice.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 08:53 AM

By the way, talking about smuggling people into the US from Canada can't possibly scare someone (like me and my family) who has no access to health care whatever. I don't think the reality of what that means is understood by the person who is arguing with me on this subject.

Almost fifty million people in the United States of America have no access to any health care whatever. I'm going to repeat that for those who are need extra help with comprehension...

ALMOST FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DO NOT HAVE ANY ACCESS TO ANY MEDICAL CARE WHATEVER

For such people, raising the specter of what life is like in places like Canada in an effort to scare them is very silly and very futile.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 03:21 AM

"the health care is every bit as good as the health care here, and where it is far more accessible than it is here"


"Heartbeat Windsor is a private volunteer organization founded in 1989 whose purpose is to help Canadian heart patients obtain critically needed surgery in the U.S.

Canada has twelve magnetic resonance imagers used for diagnoses, or one for every 2.1 million people compared to 1,375 in the U. S. or one for every 182,000 people. In Canada there are only eleven facilities doing open heart surgery compared with 793 in the USA and fourteen sites doing organ transplants compared to 319 in the USA.

There are waits for operations such as hernias, cataracts and coronary bypass grafting. Many Canadians die before their wait is up, and this of course, saves the system money."

More

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 04:28 AM

Listen, I'm married to a Canadian. All of my in-laws live in Canada. None of them has any trouble getting the medical care they need, and they don't have to wait any longer for their care than people with the best insurance in the US have to wait. My husband got the exact same level of care when he lived in Canada (most of his life) as he got when he had the very best insurance money can buy here in the US. If one were to poll the people of Canada and ask them which system they would prefer - the one they have or the one we have, the vast majority of them would not give up their system in order to have one like ours. Many of them feel that their system should be funded better than it is, but very few of them would give it up.

So which country can we bus our fifty million uninsured to so they can get care?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 05:02 AM

And of course, that fifty million figure leaves out the many millions more people in the US who have insurance, who can't get the medical procedures they need because their insurance companies refuse to pay for them. Where shall we bus those people?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 04:58 PM

CC:

Obviously they need to get the hell out of this rotten country and go to Canada or Cuba. Anywhere but here.

Then all of their troubles will melt away.

Did you forget the question about Pro Mujer?

Hint: $3.1 million to Pro Mujer from the rotten, evil, greedy capitalist, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 06:19 PM

Sawz:

On whom are you projecting the attitude that Gates and his Foundation are rotten or evil?

He earned his money. Unfortunately he earned it on the backs of billions of hours of restarts, re-entering documents, frozen system debugs, reboots and reloading by American citizens, probably a trillion dollars worth at ordinary salaried rates, which he got from them for free in exchange for providing them with really second rate software for decades.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 08:54 PM

I saw what was posted about Pro Mujer. I fail to see how that helps the almost fifty million people in the US with no access to health care, and the hundreds of millions of people in the US who have insurance that doesn't pay for their medical needs. In fact, I fail to see why Pro Mujer was mentioned at all in the context of this discussion. Unless the person who brought it up in this thread is Mr. Bill Gates himself. And if that's the case, I would just like to tell him that I think Microsoft sucks.

So hundreds of millions of people should leave this country because they either can't get insurance here, or because their insurance companies won't pay for their medical needs. I'd say the person who made that suggestion hates democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 09:27 PM

CC is the one that is complaining and then she accuses someone else of hating democracy.

"DO NOT HAVE ANY ACCESS TO ANY MEDICAL CARE WHATEVER"

Funny how illegal aliens can go to an emergency room and get treated. Maybe they haven't heard your harsh shrill rhetoric yet.

Their study, also published in the Annals of Emergency medicine, found that 83 percent of emergency department visits were made by people who had a doctor, clinic or were members of a health maintenance organization.

Eighty-five percent had medical insurance and 79 percent had incomes above the poverty level.

"The mistaken belief that emergency departments are overcrowded by a small, disenfranchised portion of the U.S. population can lead to misguided policy decisions and a perception by hospital administrators that emergency patients are not as valuable to the institution as patients having elective surgery," Weber said in a statement.

"But our findings indicate that emergency departments serve as a safety net, not just for the poor and uninsured, but for mainstream Americans, and in articular those with serious and chronic illness."

The 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires any hospital taking part in Medicare -- the state-federal health care insurance program for the elderly and disabled -- to provide "appropriate medical screening" to anyone showing up at an emergency room and asking for it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 09:35 PM

Emergency rooms don't provide people with the medical care they need. The only thing emergency rooms do is stabilize people and then send them home.

Believe it or not, it is democracy in action when people identify a problem (what I suppose is being characerized as "complaining" by the above poster), and then work to correct that problem.

By the above poster's definition of "complain", our founding fathers were nothing more than a bunch of whiners. Had they taken the attitude that the poster in question has about democracy, this country would never have been created. Our forefathers would have just accepted whatever the King of England did to them without trying to do anything to change it and we would still be subjects of the English Monarch. (I understand that many people feel that there's nothing wrong with being subjects of the English Monarch, but that's a different discussion.)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 11:55 AM

Hmmmmmm.......Now into November Amos and let's see:

Karl Rove not in prison and no apparent sign of any activity whatsoever that anybody is looking to put him there.

Vice-President Dick Cheney not impeached and no sign of any "Impeachment" proceedings.

President George W. Bush not impeached and no sign of any "Impeachment" proceedings.

Must say I am looking forward to January when we can finally put this to bed.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 12:27 PM

Actually, T, he can be impeached after his term has expired. It would, of course, not remove him from office, but it would mitigate the dishonor of having placed him on his silly throne in the first place.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 01:31 PM

"

What Matters Now? The Bush/Cheney Legacy

Ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, one of many disaffected former Bush White House officials, recounts Vice-President Dick Cheney saying in a 2002 White House meeting: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

The Bush/Cheney years prove that the rule of law and truth don't matter.


This has assumed many different expressions: losing elections and getting the most votes don't matter, torture doesn't matter, committing war crimes as policy and getting caught don't matter, separation of powers doesn't matter, attacking countries that have not attacked you first doesn't matter, international law, Nuremberg, the Geneva Convention, and the UN Charter don't matter, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights don't matter, being repeatedly caught red-handed lying and committing felonies don't matter, having the Democrats holding the majority in Congress doesn't matter, science, evolution, and global warming don't matter, being an American in the face of a Category 4 hurricane doesn't matter, running up unbelievable deficits, carrying out policies that show themselves to be disasters doesn't matter, being more unpopular for a longer time than any White House in at least polling history doesn't matter …the list goes on and on. In fact, just listing the items in this manner could go on for 10,000 words or more without any elaboration attempted.


It's mind-boggling what Bush and Cheney have shown doesn't matter. The sheer magnitude of their ambitions and mission - their very audaciousness - are astonishing. But what is even more amazing … is that they have been successful. As I write these words, it appears as if they will serve out the entirety of their two illegitimately seized two terms in the White House without indictments and without impeachment.

"...Complete article here--worth the read

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 04:06 PM

Eh Amos, I would venture to guess that the next President of the United States of America, and the elected Members of Congress will have a damn sight more important things to concern themselves with than your rather ludicrous crusade, which has appears to have been based solely upon your own wishful thinking as it distinctly lacks any substantive evidence to support any grounds for Impeachment.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 05:46 PM

"Karl Rove not in prison and no apparent sign of any activity whatsoever that anybody is looking to put him there.

Vice-President Dick Cheney not impeached and no sign of any "Impeachment" proceedings.

President George W. Bush not impeached and no sign of any "Impeachment" proceedings."


Can you imagine how ANY proceedings on those lines would have overwhelmed the country this last year? The Democrats made a conscious decision NOT to even try, and to concentrate on the elections.

We shall see what happens after Jan. 20.
Crimes are still crimes, and I'd bet that some folks are even now evaluating the evidence and what it would take to present it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 08 - 05:57 PM

Teribus:

Denial is an easy virtue, but it does not suit you to beat your chest about your commitment to it. That you have chosen to blindly ignore the crimes of the Bush machine is your problem. But you would be more gracious not to trumpet your own ignorance to the world.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 01:21 AM

"DO NOT HAVE ANY ACCESS TO ANY MEDICAL CARE WHATEVER"

Does your desperate, shrill WHATEVER not include emergency room medical care?

"The emergency department (ED), sometimes termed the emergency room (ER), emergency ward (EW), accident & emergency (A&E) department or casualty department is a hospital or primary care department that provides initial treatment to patients with a broad spectrum of illnesses and injuries, some of which may be life-threatening and requiring immediate attention. Emergency departments developed during the 20th century in response to an increased need for rapid assessment and management of critical illnesses. In some countries, emergency departments have become important entry points for those without other means of access to medical care.

Upon arrival in the ED, people typically undergo a brief triage, or sorting, interview to help determine the nature and severity of their illness. Individuals with serious illnesses are then seen by a physician more rapidly than those with less severe symptoms or injuries. After initial assessment and treatment, patients are either admitted to the hospital, stabilized and transferred to another hospital for various reasons, or discharged. The staff in emergency departments not only includes doctors, nurse practitioners but physician assistants (PAs) and nurses with specialized training in emergency medicine and in house Paramedics and/or emergency medical technicians, respiratory therapists, radiology technicians, Healthcare Assistants (HCAs), medical scribes, volunteers, and other support staff who all work as a team to treat emergency patients and provide support to anxious family members."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 01:47 AM

To Amos who came out with - "That you have chosen to blindly ignore the crimes of the Bush machine is your problem.". And to BillD who said - "We shall see what happens after Jan. 20.
Crimes are still crimes, and I'd bet that some folks are even now evaluating the evidence and what it would take to present it."

There should be no need to point out to you both that you are now talking about something realms removed from any "Impeachment" proceedings which if memory serves me correctly was the subject of this thread.

In the course of the years that this thread has been running Amos and others have been invited to produce evidence that could be used to establish a case against members of the current administration - Not once has anything other than opinion ever been offered.

On the Iraq War, Amos has steadfastly refused to acknowledge that it was the Joint House Security Committee that identified Iraq as being the greatest threat to the USA, her interests and her allies. It was all 19 of the USA's Intelligence and Security Services that independently came to the same conclusion and advised the President of the day (Bill Clinton) of their findings in 1998 (If any of you doubt that then read the transcript of the speech given to Congress by Clinton on 17th February 1998).

So BillD if there are "some folks are even now evaluating the evidence" they'd better give some some thought as to how big to build the "Dock" for the accused because it would be a "mass-hysteria" event involving all members of the Senate, all members of the House of Representatives, all members of the Administration, US military Senior Chiefs and upper echlons of your security services. Because if you believe that Bush and Cheney "lied" - Then so did those supplying the information that they were supposed to have lied about.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 08:53 AM

Alright, I'll rephrase. No access to any medical care whatever without having to go bankrupt and lose their homes.

People who are poor enough to be considered indigent (and therefore eligible for not having to pay the emergency room), already have access to medical care through the medicaid program. The people who have no insurance are middle class people who don't qualify for any kind of medical assistance.

So it's a choice between receiving medical care, and becoming homeless. Being homeless is not a good way to stay alive and be healthy, especially if one is sick.

On the other hand, there are many people in the US who are dying because they can't get life-saving treatments. And many of them actually do have insurance, but their insurance refuses to pay.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 09:00 AM

However, if it is being implied that people can get their medical needs taken care of in the emergency room, that is simply wrong. People cannot do that. Emergency rooms handle emergency situations that people's regular doctors can't take care of during office hours, and urgent medical situations during hours when doctors' offices are closed (like a kid with a high fever). That's all they do.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 12:01 PM

"many people in the US who are dying because they can't get life-saving treatments"

That is in Europe and Canada. The waiting list is so long, due to socialized medicine, that they die waiting.

And regardless of your shrill claim about no MEDICAL CARE WHATEVER, emergency rooms are the safety net as per law.

"medical care - professional treatment for illness or injury"

You are forced to re-define medical care in an ideological way to support your assertions, just has you had to invent another kind of socialisim for McCain to create your double standard of judging good and bad.

Are you belligerent or just uninformed?

Smitherman won't intervene in cancer survivor's OHIP battle
Doug Williamson, Windsor Star
Published: Wednesday, March 12, 2008

A spokeswoman for health minister George Smitherman said Wednesday the minister cannot intervene in the case of Sylvia de Vries, the Windsor woman who spent $60,000 in the U.S. for life-saving ovarian cancer surgery in October of 2006 and whose claim for compensation has been denied by OHIP.

Laurel Ostfield, press secretary to Smitherman, said there are options available.

She said the case of Suzanne Aucoin, the St. Catharines woman who was awarded $70,000 in 2007 after being treated with a cancer drug out of the county, was different.
Sylvia de Vries and her husband drained their life savings so she could have life-saving cancer surgery in 2006 in the United States. OHIP is now balking at reimbursing them.
In that case, the provincial ombudsman was involved.

"All I can tell you is the deputy minister actually issued an apology to Miss Aucoin as a result of her experiences with the ministry. It was a very different circumstance." The woman has since died.

Ostfield said de Vries can appeal to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, and, if that fails, go to divisional court. De Vries's claim is being denied because she didn't fill out a prior agreement form before having her U.S. medical procedure.

"The minister cannot intervene," Ostfield said. "These laws are in place in order to protect Ontario's health care system. If payment was issued for every single circumstance, we wouldn't be able to sustain the health care system for future generations. So we do have these laws in place for a reason. There are safety nets to make sure that people don't fall through the cracks and that they do receive compensation if it was necessary or deserved."

De Vries's Toronto lawyer Kate Sellar said there is no point going to the appeal board because a prior agreement form was not obtained, and the appeal will be denied on that basis.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 12:06 PM

There is a close correlation between the merit of impeaching someone and the crimes they commit, T. Don't get all weaselly on me, now.



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 04:50 PM

Ah, but Amos, for the alleged crimes to be brought to trial there has to be evidence, and that evidence has to stand up to fairly well defined "Rules of Evidence".

Now you and others on this forum, on this and on many other threads have been repeatedly asked to provide the evidence which you yourself have said is abundant. Only thing that puzzles me is that to date you, and those others, have singularly failed to do so.

All you have ever offered is "opinion", sometimes even your own, but not one shred of evidence.

Find anything "weaselly" in that summation Amos??

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 05:03 PM

Ah, Teribus.

The promulgation of false pretexts for waging war is a fact.

The unilateral invasion of a non-combatant sovereign nation is a fact.

The evasion of law through means of various signing statements is a fact.

There are many, many others.

I am not going to be lured ionto your posturing rhetoric, while you pretend you have not seen the evidence, because it would not much matter to you WHAT evidence appeared; your mind is made up in a frozen rut of militant justification, which no reason can thaw.

Ciao.


A

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

"But our findings indicate that emergency departments serve as a safety net, not just for the poor and uninsured, but for mainstream Americans, and in particular those with serious and chronic illness."

The 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires any hospital taking part in Medicare -- the state-federal health care insurance program for the elderly and disabled -- to provide "appropriate medical screening" to anyone showing up at an emergency room and asking for it.

Sylvia de Vries and her husband drained their life savings so she could have life-saving cancer surgery in 2006 in the United States.

De Vries's Toronto lawyer Kate Sellar said there is no point going to the appeal board because a prior agreement form was not obtained, and the appeal will be denied on that basis.

the above poster's definition of "complain"

I never defined complain.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 04:40 PM

"After President Bush's reelection, elements of the left began their own attack on his legitimacy, talking of impeachment while repeating lunatic theories about deception and criminality. "


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/04/AR2008110404477.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 06:01 PM

Nothing lunatic about them, Bruce. He was already deeply enmeshed in his swamp of deceptions and criminality by 2004.



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 07:08 PM

I notice that says, "appropriate medical screening", not "free appropriate medical screening".

People still have to pay.


Anyway, it's all moot now. Obama is now the president elect.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 10:05 PM

Are you going to back pedal and revise your assertion a second time?

Was it free for Sylvia de Vries?

Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body—and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin's insurance didn't: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 11:02 PM

No, I'm not revising anything. There may be people in Canada who can't get some treatements, but there are many, many more in the US who can't get the treatments they need. Many, many, many more.

Anyway, I'm finished with these discussions. Obama has been elected, and I'm moving on to other pressing matters.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 11:18 PM

You did not say some people in Canada cannot get treatments, You said health care in Canada is every bit as good as the health care here.

And you don't want to discuss anything positive or anything good that is being done in the world by a US organization without help or support or direction by the US government like Pro Mujer.

I believe you want everyone to depend on the government for everything, not on themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 11:21 PM

That a facile, uncharitable belief to have about someone; in fact I suspect you don't believe it, but are simply using one of your weary right-wing 78RPM talking points to avoid thinking about the person you pretend to be talking to.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 01:18 PM

I am happy to announce that in light of the recent revitalization of the United States caused by the election of President Elect Obama, I feel free to discontinue my updating to this thread.

It has been an onerous duty, but one that for many years I felt had to be done as a small contribution to the conscience of the country.

I am glad to turn my back on the ugly discolored Bush years and look forward to something a little more rational, and more in keeping with the deep and undying spirit of the American people.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 05:20 PM

I missed Sawzaw's post of a couple days ago..

"
And regardless of your shrill claim about no MEDICAL CARE WHATEVER, emergency rooms are the safety net as per law.

A couple years ago, the 3rd largest hospital in my area said that they were being SEVERELY tested, both in time and money, due to the overwhelming strain on their emergency room, caused by being the "safety net" for immigrants and other poor classes who had no other option. These are people who could have avoided GOING to the ER if they had doctors or clinics available, and could have headed off minor symptoms becoming major!

   When you consider also, that many people don't live near enough TO an ER to do much good, the need for some sort of clinics and doctors in rural locales which don't demand payment for treatment. Right now, it is only a few decent doctors who essentially write off certain charges who keep many folks going.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 05:39 PM

I just did the math on how many patients each and every doctor in the US would have to take on for free if we were going to deal with the millions of people who are uninsured by expecting doctors to donate their services.

If we were going to expect doctors providing services for free to be our solution to the uninsured in this country, each doctor in the US would have to take on seven patients whose care they would provide for free.

The other problem is that even if someone could get all of their care donated to them by a doctor, that wouldn't pay for the tests, medications, hospitalizations, and other treatments that they might need, none of which anyone could expect would be donated by the people who provide those services.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 01:15 AM

"the recent revitalization of the United States"

Dow        8,695.79        -443.48        -4.85%



I am glad to see that CC is doing the math. Is it workable?

I think the best thing to do is get the cost of health care down somehow so that people can afford it. Then so many people wouldn't be locked out because of pre existing conditions.

One thing that makes it so high is medical insurance and law suits. There should be caps. I think Obama supports that. I salute him for that.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 07:33 AM

People say that one of the reasons we shouldn't have universal health care is because doctors would get paid less, and that would mean we would have fewer doctors and they wouldn't be as good. Then in the next breath they say that the real solution is to lower the cost of health care. Lowering the cost of health care would mean that doctors would get paid less (which would mean we would have fewer doctors and they wouldn't be as good?). Nobody ever seems to think of that.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 10:29 AM

Sawz:

The recent revitalization of the United States is not going to be reflected in the Dow Jones average. To look there for evidence of it is kinda dumb.

Look at Colin Powell in tears, at the face of Jesse Jackson. Look here:

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/title/.

Maybe you will understand. Maybe you won't.

The economic picture will change. But it will lag the change of the nation by a significant period.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 11:48 AM

Compliments of the Season to you Amos.......Now into December and let's see:

Karl Rove not in prison and no apparent sign of any activity whatsoever that anybody is looking to put him there.

Vice-President Dick Cheney not impeached and no sign of any "Impeachment" proceedings. The attempt to arraign him down there in Texas seems to have stalled completely and its most probable outcome looks as though the clown that instigated proceedings will be charged with wasting the courts time.

President George W. Bush not impeached and no sign of any "Impeachment" proceedings.

Only one more to go Amos looking forward to January when we can finally put this to bed.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 02 Dec 08 - 12:15 PM

It's all right with me. The wheels of justice grind exceeding slow, and all that. But as far as impeachment, the incredible urgency that we break out of the loop of criminality governing the nation has been otherwise accomplished. Bush will drift into obscurity as the least successful and most derelict President in our history. There are a few bright spots during his term that he can be credited with but they are vastly overshadowed by his complete ineptitude as a diplomat, a thinker, a speaker, a strategist, a commander, and a leader.

Stick a fork into the lamest duck yet known to duckdom. He's done. I think we've found a preferable path outward and upward.



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 11:17 AM

Ill. Gov. arrested in Obama successor probe

By MIKE ROBINSON, Associated Press

CHICAGO – Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested Tuesday on charges of conspiring to get financial benefits through his authority to appoint a U.S. senator to fill the vacancy left by Barack Obama's election as president.

According to a federal criminal complaint, Blagojevich also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, in the sale of Wrigley Field. In return for state assistance, Blagojevich allegedly wanted members of the paper's editorial board who had been critical of him fired.

A 76-page FBI affidavit said the 51-year-old Democratic governor was intercepted on court-authorized wiretaps over the last month conspiring to sell or trade the vacant Senate seat for personal benefits for himself and his wife, Patti.

The affidavit said Blagojevich discussed getting a substantial salary for himself at a nonprofit foundation or an organization affiliated with labor unions.

It said that Blagojevich also talked about getting his wife placed on corporate boards where she might get $150,000 a year in director's fees.

He also allegedly discussed getting campaign funds for himself or possibly a post in the president's cabinet or an ambassadorship once he left the governor's office.

"I want to make money," the affidavit quotes him as saying in one conversation.

U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald said in a statement that "the breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering."

"They allege that Blagojevich put a for sale sign on the naming of a United States senator," Fitzgerald said."

Among those being considered for the post include U.S. Reps. Danny Davis and Jesse Jackson Jr.

Blagojevich also was charged with using his authority as governor in an attempt to squeeze out campaign contributions.

His chief of staff, John Harris, also was arrested.

Both men were expected to appear later Tuesday before a federal magistrate in Chicago.

Corruption in the Blagojevich administration has been the focus of a federal investigation involving an alleged $7 million scheme aimed at squeezing kickbacks out of companies seeking business from the state. Federal prosecutors have acknowledged they're also investigating "serious allegations of endemic hiring fraud" under Blagojevich.

Political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko who raised money for the campaigns of both Blagojevich and Obama is awaiting sentencing after being convicted of fraud and other charges. Blagojevich's chief fundraiser, Christopher G. Kelly, is due to stand trial early next year on charges of obstructing the Internal Revenue Service.

Blagojevich took the chief executive's office in 2003 as a reformer promising to clean up former Gov. George Ryan's mess.

Ryan, a Republican, is serving a 6-year prison sentence after being convicted on racketeering and fraud charges. A decade-long investigation began with the sale of driver's licenses for bribes and led to the conviction of dozens of people who worked for Ryan when he was secretary of state and governor.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 01:47 PM

Nice to see you, Sawzall! WHat are you doing these days?



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 03:13 PM

4:42 p.m. Dec. 6
US military deaths in Iraq war at 4,209


As of Saturday, Dec. 6, 2008, at least 4,209 members of the U.S. military have died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 08:39 PM

"4,209 members of the U.S. military have died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003" - Amos

OK Amos as horrible as that is let's put things into perspective here. Reported on BBC today was that in Mexico those who are part of drug cartels/gangs - casualties (killed) THIS YEAR = 5400+

Tell me Amos how many Americans have been killed on roads in the US this year?

Right now tell me how big a disaster is Iraq?? How big a failure is Afghanistan?? You and your fellow travellers would have denied those people their opportunity to choose and condemned them to living under the repressive regimes that were their only means of existence. Tell me Amos what was the count of those killed by terrorists 1993 to 2003?? Tell me what it was 1983 to 1993?? One more time tell me what it was from 1973 to 1983?? Having gone through all that now tell if things have progressively got better??

The man that you, personally, have chosen to revile and hate, has probably done more good than you will ever realise. Why?? Because he has given the forces of evil; and Amos terrorists are evil, pause for though, they now fully realise that America, as well as Russia can and will act decisively.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 09:26 PM

I concur completely that I will probably never realize all the good the man has done.

The rest of your paean, though, is based on some ungenerous projections about those who prefer other means than violence to achieve the ends of diplomacy, a view which you have long since lost the ability to appreciate. It is also predicated on a calculus of force as the fundamental means of shifting conditions among people. I think there is a lot of dark blindness in that idea.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 08 - 04:51 AM

Diplomacy Amos!!! They want you dead no matter what you say, do, or promise. Tell me Amos what good would it have done Sharon Tate trying to "negotiate" with the Manson Family?? They were going to kill her from the moment they entered that house and nothing save a bullet would have deflected them from that purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 11:25 PM

The notion that you can extend the trait of individual psychosis to nations is so naif and counter-productive as to be really awful. It is one thing to face actual madness, and another thing altogether to use madness as a cheap label on huge numbers of people you do not know and have not communicated with. International relations are not a dark alley with murderers sliding around in them. The entire metaphor is inapt.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 11:02 PM

Blago nixed job for Jackson Jr.'s wife
   
DON BABWIN, AP

Shortly after his 2002 election, Gov. Rod Blagojevich told Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. he didn't appoint the congressman's wife as lottery director because he had refused him a $25,000 campaign donation, a person familiar with the conversation told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "Blagojevich went out of his way to say, 'You know I was considering your wife for the lottery job and the $25,000 you didn't give me? That's why she's not getting the job,'" the person said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing federal investigation.

Jackson's name has played prominently ever since Blagojevich was arrested last week on corruption charges, including allegations that he tried to sell or trade President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat for personal gain.

Jackson has been identified as one of the candidates Blagojevich was considering for the seat, and a criminal complaint said his supporters were willing to raise $1.5 million for the governor if he picked the congressman.

The complaint quotes Blagojevich as saying on federal wiretaps that an associate of the candidate offered to raise money for him if he made the Jackson appointment happen.

Jackson spokesman Kenneth Edmonds declined to comment on the account of the exchange shortly after Blagojevich's 2002 election but said the congressman, the son of civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, has approached federal investigators to discuss the governor and others for years.

"He has shared information with federal prosecutors about public corruption during the past several years, including information about Blagojevich and others," Edmonds said.

Randall Samborn, spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago, declined to comment, as did Blagojevich spokesman Lucio Guerrero.

Jackson has openly sought the Senate position but denies initiating or authorizing anyone to promise anything to Blagojevich on his behalf. The congressman has said federal prosecutors told him he is not a target of their investigation.

The person did not know whether Jackson's wife, Sandi, who has since been elected to the Chicago City Council, had asked for the state lottery job. At the time, Blagojevich was the first incoming Democratic governor after years of Republican rule and had scores of state jobs to fill.

"The governor had kind of penciled Sandi in as lottery director and then asked for contributions from the congressman," the person said.

Sandi Jackson did not immediately return a call to her office seeking comment.

In April, the Chicago Tribune reported that an examination of campaign donations to Blagojevich showed that three in four donors who gave exactly $25,000 received administration favors such as state board appointments or contracts.

It's also the same amount of money that figured prominently in the testimony of a government witness in the political corruption trial this summer of political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko.

Ali Ata, the former executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority, testified that Blagojevich spoke encouragingly about getting him a job in his administration after he personally brought him a $25,000 campaign contribution.

Rezko, who raised more than $1 million for Blagojevich's campaign fund, was convicted of shaking down companies seeking state business for campaign contributions.

The person familiar with Jackson's discussions also said Tuesday that Jackson has spoken with federal investigators about a 2006 meeting with Rezko at which the two discussed a proposed airport in Peotone, long considered a possible location for a third Chicago-area airport.

The person said Rezko told Jackson, a longtime proponent of the airport, that Blagojevich wanted to control the airport's board, but Jackson balked.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Dec 08 - 10:46 AM

Holder omitted Blagojevich link from questionnaire

Announced as a 'special investigator to the Illinois Gaming Board' in 2004 CHRIS FUSCO Staff Reporter Suntimes.com

     Before Eric Holder was President-elect Barack Obama's choice to be attorney general, he was Gov. Blagojevich's pick to sort out a mess involving Illinois' long-dormant casino license.
     Blagojevich and Holder appeared together at a March 24, 2004, news conference to announce Holder's role as "special investigator to the Illinois Gaming Board" -- a post that was to pay Holder and his Washington, D.C. law firm up to $300,000.
     Holder, however, omitted that event from his 47-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire made public this week -- an oversight he plans to correct after a Chicago Sun-Times inquiry, Obama's transition team indicated late Tuesday.
     "Eric Holder has given hundreds of press interviews," Obama transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said in a statement. "He did his best to report them all to the committee, but as he noted in the questionnaire itself, some were undoubtedly missed in the effort to reconstruct a list of them."
     Holder signed the questionnaire on Sunday -- five days after Blagojevich's arrest for allegedly putting Obama's U.S. Senate seat up for sale. The Judiciary Committee asked him to provide lists and "copies of transcripts or tape recordings of all speeches or talks delivered by you" and "all interviews you have given to newspapers, magazines or other publications."
     The March 2004 Chicago news conference where Holder and Blagojevich spoke was widely covered because of a controversial 4-1 Gaming Board vote earlier that month to allow a casino to be built in Rosemont. That vote defied the recommendation of the board's staff, which had raised concerns about alleged organized-crime links to the Rosemont casino's developer.
     Besides that, the Gaming Board's staff had been concerned that the governor had named his close friend and fund-raiser, Christopher G. Kelly, as a "special government agent" to be involved in official state negotiations about the casino. Kelly, the Sun-Times later learned, was a business partner of Tony Rezko, another Blagojevich fund-raiser who had held an option to lease a hotel site next to the proposed casino site in Rosemont.
     Rezko, also a former Obama fund-raiser, and Kelly both have denied any wrongdoing related to the casino, though both have been charged in separate, unrelated criminal cases since 2004.
     The Sun-Times disclosed Rezko's interest in the Rosemont hotel site about three weeks before the news conference announcing Holder would be involved in the casino case. Holder was not aware of the story when he opted to get involved, a source said.
     In an interview Tuesday, the Gaming Board's chief investigator in 2004 said the timing of Blagojevich's appointment of Holder raised the staff's suspicions.
     "The concern was Holder had a bias to do whatever Blagojevich wanted, which was to give the casino to Rosemont," said Jim Wagner, who was a top Chicago FBI agent before he joined the Gaming Board, from which he retired in December 2005. "We all believed the only reason Holder was coming in was to fashion an investigation that would manipulate the casino into Rosemont."
     Wagner also said the matter should be explored by the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It ought be brought up and vetted totally as to what motivated him to leave it off" the questionnaire, Wagner said.
     At the 2004 press conference, Holder stressed he would be independent.
"The governor's made quite clear to me that he has no preconceived notions as to how this should turn out, that we should follow the facts, let them lead us to wherever they take us and then report to him and to the people of the state with regard to our findings,'' he said.
     Despite the concerns of the Gaming Board's staff, Holder ended up a non-factor in the casino matter. The board -- this time listening to its staff's concerns -- refused to hire him, and Blagojevich on May 18, 2004, said he was scrapping Holder's probe.
     "Holder and his firm did some preliminary work in anticipation of the engagement, but did not undertake the investigation itself before it was canceled," said Cutter, the Obama transition team spokeswoman. "Holder and his firm received no compensation from the state for this preparatory work.
     "The 2004 press conference," she said, "was not memorable because Holder's legal work for the State of Illinois never materialized." The state gaming license once slated to be located in Rosemont has been in limbo since Holder's brief involvement in it. A process to award the license to one of three bidders is expected to wrap up soon. Rosemont -- whose officials long have denied organized crime somehow taints their suburb -- again is a finalist to become home to a casino, along with Waukegan and Des Plaines.
     A former Deputy Attorney General, Holder has faced criticism about his role in President Bill Clinton's controversial pardon of fugitive Marc Rich. His confirmation hearing is to begin Jan. 15.

Change we can believe in?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 12:35 AM

Speaker, attorney general have stormy past with Blagojevich

DON BABWIN AP

CHICAGO -- Long before Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested on corruption charges, House Speaker Michael Madigan compared him to a tumor and suggested ways to impeach him.
    Before that, the governor had called Madigan -- a fellow Democrat -- a "George Bush Republican" and sued him for instructing Democratic lawmakers to stay home when the governor ordered them to work.
    The tortured relationship between the two is getting a public airing now that Madigan and his daughter, state Attorney General Lisa Madigan, have emerged as key players in determining the future of the embattled governor. The speaker has appointed a panel to consider impeachment, while his daughter has asked the state's highest court to remove Blagojevich from office, claiming he is unfit to serve.
    Both have tried to sound measured in their public comments about the proceedings, but the distrust between the Madigans and the governor runs deep. The relationship started to sour not long after Blagojevich finished taking the oath of office in 2003. After seemingly agreeing on a budget plan with Democratic lawmakers, he went home and vetoed big chunks of it.
    "Speaker Madigan is someone who has operated in an atmosphere when a public official gives his word, it's kept," said Mike Lawrence, former director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute. "One of the things that particularly annoyed him is he felt the governor was not good to his word."
    The son of a Democratic precinct captain and ward superintendent on Chicago's southwest side, Madigan has been a member of the House since 1971 -- serving as speaker for 25 years save two years when Republicans took the majority.
    After what happened with Blagojevich's first budget, Madigan and other lawmakers insisted that the governor sign "memorandums of understanding" with them to get his promises on paper. Madigan, a slight man who shows little emotion in public, also has been offended by the bombastic, glad-handing Blagojevich's personal behavior. That was apparent at the 2004 funeral of state Sen. Vince Demuzio.
    "Madigan told me ... Blagojevich was late, he kept the priest awaiting and then he didn't even go to the cemetery," said Charles Wheeler, head of the Public Affairs Reporting program at the University of Illinois at Springfield. "He bopped in, held up the Mass, and you could just tell that to Madigan it was the protocol equivalent of mooning the congregation."
    But Blagojevich hit one of Madigan's biggest nerves -- his sensitivity to suggestions that he got his daughter her job and calls the shots for her -- in 2004, after Lisa Madigan shut down Blagojevich's plan to mortgage the state's Chicago headquarters. She said the move was unconstitutional, but Blagojevich accused her of retaliating against him on her father's behalf.
    "I don't want to get involved in a family deal here but, you know, it's her father," Blagojevich said. "I've got two daughters. I hope they back me on stuff that I do." Lisa Madigan has long been considered a top contender for governor in 2010. A former state senator, she was elected the state's first female attorney general in 2002 and re-elected in 2006.
    The mortgage issue is far from Lisa Madigan's only dustup with Blagojevich. She and other statewide officers met with the governor in 2003 to talk about their budgets and thought they had reached an agreement on cuts. Soon after, Blagojevich publicly doubled those cuts.
    Lisa Madigan's office also investigated allegations of hiring fraud under Blagojevich but halted that investigation in 2006 at the behest of federal prosecutors. At the time, she released a letter from U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald that said his probe had yielded credible witnesses related to "very serious allegations of endemic hiring fraud" -- adding to the governor's public woes.
    The relationship between Michael Madigan and Blagojevich hit a low this summer when The Associated Press reported that Madigan was circulating a memo to legislative candidates instructing them on how to publicly call for hearings to impeach the governor.
    "One thing we learned from the (imprisoned former Gov.) George Ryan case is that we should excise a tumor when it is first discovered; not leave it in the body to continue to spread and do further harm," the memo stated.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 08:57 AM

...A bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.

The report shows how actions by these men "led directly" to what happened at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret C.I.A. prisons.

It said these top officials, charged with defending the Constitution and America's standing in the world, methodically introduced interrogation practices based on illegal tortures devised by Chinese agents during the Korean War. Until the Bush administration, their only use in the United States was to train soldiers to resist what might be done to them if they were captured by a lawless enemy.

The officials then issued legally and morally bankrupt documents to justify their actions, starting with a presidential order saying that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners of the "war on terror" — the first time any democratic nation had unilaterally reinterpreted the conventions.

NYT

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 10:02 AM

Amos, That is the funniest, most ludicrous, contradictary piece of crap I think I have ever seen you post. I mean really, have you read it??? Here it is again with a bit of common-sense thrown at it:

"...A bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges...."

Simple question here Amos does this Armed Services Comittee recommend filing criminal charges? Or is it the case that it is simply the opinion of the NYT correspondent that it might provide the basis for filing criminal charges, i.e. the aforesaid Senate Armed Services Committee actually said sweet FA about filing criminal charges.

"The report shows how actions by these men "led directly" to what happened at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret C.I.A. prisons."

What?? Donald Rumsfeld ordered English to stack naked Iraqi prisoners in a pyramid?? Where about in the report does it state that. I think that on closer investigation of what the report said with regard to treatment of prisoners, a minute proportion of personnel exceeded their orders, and that Amos does not equate to "led directly" to, not by a bloody long shot. Do you know how many prisoners passed through those establishments?? Do you know how many did so unharmed?? One thing I can tell you for certain Amos, especially with regard to Abu Ghraib, damn sight more came out unscathed from being in US custody than ever did when Saddam ran the place.


Oh, this bit is priceless:

"It said these top officials, charged with defending the Constitution and America's standing in the world, methodically introduced interrogation practices based on illegal tortures devised by Chinese agents during the Korean War."

Eh?? "charged with defending the Constitution and America's standing in the world" Where on earth did the pillock who wrote this rubbish come up with that requirement. I can just see Obama come January 19th 2009 standing there at his inauguration trotting that line out:

"I hereby solemnly swear to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the standing of America in the eyes of the World"

Absolutely brilliant!! Little hint here Amos, when it comes to defending the security of the United States of America, as far as all those "officials" goes, including you President, it is America first and foremost, that consideration above all else to the exclusion of all others, and the perception of America held by anyone outside the USA can go hang, if they didn't think that way they need sacking.

"Until the Bush administration, their only use in the United States was to train soldiers to resist what might be done to them if they were captured by a lawless enemy."

Take it the NYT is talking about "water-boarding" here eh, Amos? Now you tell me what makes that sentence idiotically ludicrous beyond belief?? Oh don't bother Amos, I'll tell you - This prat from the NYT is saying that it is perfectly OK to "water-board" your own soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines as part of their training, but it is a heinous crime against humanity to do the same to people trying their absolute damnedest to destroy you. I don't know about you Amos but I'd call that Bullshit.

On another thread Weelittledrummer put it perfectly, but paraphrased it goes something like this - If you go to war, make damn sure you win at all costs".

The NYT Prat, whose piece you felt sufficiently moved to post here then comes out with this classic:

"The officials then issued legally and morally bankrupt documents to justify their actions, starting with a presidential order saying that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners of the "war on terror" — the first time any democratic nation had unilaterally reinterpreted the conventions."

The President is quite correct, Geneva Conventions do not and should not apply to prisoners of the "war on terror". Reason behind that being that terrorists do not give two hoots for the Geneva Convention and as such they can hardly bleat about it applying to them when they themselves do not extend its protections to others in the prosecution of the acts of violence. Do you want a list of infringements of Geneva Conventions by terrorist Groups Amos??? Or do you agree with the writer of this sorry article that only democratic nations must be hampered and disadvantaged by having to obey the Geneva Conventions, while all others blythely ignore them - grow up. War IS hell, you therefore make sure that it is as short as possible and that your side wins - otherwise don't fight wars.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 11:06 AM

Good advice indeed, T. Especially the last line. Your belly-laugh, though, is a sorry piece of rationalization, AFAIAC.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 08 - 11:16 AM

"Environmental groups and members of the Senate and House of Representatives are working desperately to head off Interior Department plans to auction wilderness land in Utah for exploration by oil and gas companies.

Actor Robert Redford spoke from Utah via satellite during a Wednesday press conference held by opponents of the auction. Introduced as "a tireless advocate for the environment," he began by saying, "I have spent much of my adult life in these lands. ... For me, it's an emotional point."

"What you keep getting shocked about is how devious and secretive -- and basically, in my mind, morally criminal -- their behavior has been," Redford said of the Bush administration. "These lands are not Cheney's and Bush's. The lands are ours. ... They're part of our legacy."

"Bush may be a lame duck, but he could still quack," Redford insisted. "We just can't let it happen."

Redford, however, described himself as "pretty encouraged" by President-elect Obama's nomination of Ken Salazar for Interior Secretary. "I think very highly of him," Redford concluded.

According to a press release from the Natural Resources Defense Council, several environmental advocacy groups will challenge the Bush's administration in court in an attempt to head off Friday's auction."

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Dec 08 - 02:40 AM

Before he went to work for Obama, David Axelrod spent years working for the Daley Chicago Political Machine.

In 2005, when U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was investigating corruption in Illinois. Axelrod attacked him for trying to criminalize the sleazy style of politics in Chicago.

In an op-ed piece Axelrod insisted that trading political favors -- including jobs, known as 'pay for play' these days -- is an essential part of the process that makes government work although Obama has called for the resignation of Blagojevich for doing the same.

Axelrod has been the liaison between the Daley Machine and Barack Obama giving him the White House Senior Adviser post.

Change is coming, change we can believe in.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 11:44 PM

Illinois panel recommends governor's impeachment

Fri Jan 9, 2009 Reuters UK

By Michael Conlon and Andrew Stern

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A legislative committee on Thursday recommended the impeachment of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, citing widespread abuse of power including allegations he tried to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

If the Illinois House of Representatives votes to accept the recommendation from its investigating committee and impeach Blagojevich, he would be tried in the state Senate and face removal from office if convicted.

The two-term Democrat has denied any wrong-doing. He issued a statement saying the impeachment proceedings "were flawed, biased and did not follow the rules of law. ... When the case moves to the Senate, an actual judge will preside over the hearings, and ... the outcome will be much different."

The Illinois House could vote as soon as Friday to approve the impeachment. How soon a trial could begin was not clear.

The 21-member House committee -- 12 Democrats and nine Republicans -- voted unanimously to recommend impeachment and conviction, along with the governor's removal from office and a ban on his ever holding public office in the state again.

The committee launched hearings in the state capital, Springfield, a week after FBI agents arrested Blagojevich in December on charges he conspired to commit fraud and solicit bribes.

The charges were supported by a criminal complaint that detailed conversations laced with profanity culled from two months of court-approved wiretaps on the governor's phones.

The committee's report described as "shocking" the governor's efforts to exchange the Senate appointment for campaign contributions or high-paid jobs for him or his wife......

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE5078FV20090109

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 09 - 11:56 PM

Impeach him? Why, he never caused a single death!! What are y'all so riled about?

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Jan 09 - 01:46 AM

Legislators vote to impeach Blagojevich

Speaker of the House Michael Madigan presides over the Illinois House of Representatives as they discuss a resolution to impeach Governor Rod Blagojevich today in Springfield, Illinois. The House approved the resolution to impeach 114-1 with one member voting present.

By Ray Long and Rick Pearson January 10, 2009

Reporting from Springfield, Ill. -- The Illinois House voted Friday to impeach disgraced Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich and send him to trial in the Senate with the aim of removing the two-term Democrat from state public office forever.

The governor's Dec. 9 arrest on corruption charges was the trigger, but lawmakers unloaded six years of grievances in a swift 114-1 vote. Their action made the state's 40th governor the first in state history to be impeached.

Representatives cast aside Blagojevich's declarations of innocence, saying there was no place in government for a man who ran roughshod over the Legislature, wasted millions of dollars in state money and sought to sell state contracts and the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

"It's our duty to clean up the mess and to stop the freak show which has become Illinois government," said Democratic state Rep. Jack Franks, a longtime Blagojevich critic.

Blagojevich, who has resisted calls for his resignation from state and national leaders, including Obama, was jogging near his Chicago home when lawmakers voted........

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 02:01 AM

Wot!!!!! No impeachment???????

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 09 - 08:38 AM

Drool on, T.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 12:32 PM

Methinks Amos is the drooler.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 09 - 12:45 PM

Your sense of virtue, old Saw, is inverted, and you are deep in a sorry mire.

May you find your way out

A.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:16 PM

Let me see if I can make logic of this. Amos started this thread drooling over the impending impeachment of GWB which was a total failure.

But I am the one that is in error.

Amos brought us this "truth" that we might never have know about without his drooling fervor over a lost cause:

The Green Party of California General Assembly recently approved a resolution calling for the impeachment and consequent removal from office of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for violating their constitutional oaths and committing "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Among the alleged violations listed in the resolution are:

+ Ordering warrantless searches and seizures of American citizens' personal communications, without oversight by the legislative or judicial branches of the government..

But where is hue and cry for impeachment for Rep McDermott, ranking Democrat of the House Ethics Committee after he does this which Amos fails to inform us about?

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who traveled to Baghdad last fall and pronounced President Bush a liar, accepted a cash payment less than a month later from an Iraqi-American businessman with ties to Saddam Hussein.

McDermott collected the payment from Shakir al-Khafaji, the same Detroit-based Baghdad supporter who paid former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter $400,000 to make a pro-Saddam documentary about Iraq.

Appearing live from Baghdad on the Sept. 29 broadcast of ABC's "This Week," McDermott proclaimed, "The president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war." The comment generated a firestorm of criticism in the U.S. that earned him the moniker, "Baghdad Jim."

A little less than a month later, on Oct. 25, McDermott accepted a check from al-Khafaji for $5,000, made out to the antiwar Democrat's "Legal Expense Trust."

McDermott set up the trust to fend off a lawsuit filed by Ohio Republican John Boehner stemming from McDermott's relationship with a Florida couple who wiretapped a 1997 conference call between Boehner and then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, along with several other Republicans.

According to Amos, People like McDermott are the good guys. They get a pass when doing something illegal as long as they are Anti-War.


Yes Amos, by your own personal version of logic, you are always right.

All Hail Amos!!

Anybody that disagrees with his lynch mob mentality is simply wrong and needs to convert.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 01:05 PM

Except that I was not drooling, and I never started a thread about McDermott, about whom I know nothing, and it seems highly tangential, irrelevant, and non sequitur for you to accuse me of not mentioning him in a thread about people's views about Bush being impeached for violation of the Constitution.

And violate the Constitution he did.

His string of offenses are legion. Why you defended him all these years really escapes me, because you have never come out and said why with any credibility.

But in any case, we now have an intelligent, coherent, literate President who can understand principles, knows the Constitution and is committed to fundamental decency.

Let's let this thread die, therefore--there will be n impeachment of the Bushies, and if they are ever prosecuted for their malfeasance, it should be the subject of a different thread.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 01:32 PM

Amos:

I never defended GWB I just objected to and pointed out the fallacies in the lynch mob mentality you represent, therefore I do not have to defend something I did not do.

I have also pointed out the failure of your lynch mob tactics.

Now you are defending McDermott who was legally charged.

I assume you would like to have this tread die to conceal your excess political enthusiasm which is now becoming obvious.

While your "intelligent, coherent, literate President who can understand principles, knows the Constitution and is committed to fundamental decency" is on the job:

Karzai condemns killing of 16 Afghan civilians by US forces 25/01/09

Afghan President Hamid Karzai Sunday condemned a US military raid in eastern Afghanistan that he said killed 16 civilians, while hundreds of local villagers took to streets to denounce the US military and central government, dpa reported.

In a statement issued by his office, Karzai condemned the US military raid in Mehtar Lam district of eastern Laghman province on Friday which, he said, resulted in death of 16 civilians including two women and three children.

"Bombing Afghan villages, except for killing civilians, does not yield any other progress in the fight against terrorism," the president said in the statement.

Karzai asked for an immediate end to civilian killings and deemed the "uncoordinated attacks" as "factors that weaken the Afghan government and strengthen terrorists."

Whilst:

President Karzai Telephones US Former President, George W. Bush
January 24, 2009

President Hamid Karzai Saturday called George W. Bush, the former President of the United States.

During the conversation, President Karzai admired and thanked Mr. Bush for the efforts he made during his presidency in strengthening bilateral ties between the US and Afghanistan and extended his best wishes to him.
In return Mr. Bush also wished Afghans prosperity and success.

How long will it take you to crank up a similar Obama thread?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 01:32 PM

There was no impeachment proceedings initiated against President George W. Bush, or against Vice-President Dick Cheney because there were no grounds for Impeachment in the first place.

That is the truth that Amos, et al, failed to see, and continually failed to acknowledge when time after time they were asked to produce a single piece of evidence to substantiate their claims.

But I agree whole-heartedly that it is high time that this thread is put out of its misery.

By the bye what's that star of the democrat liberal left, Dennis Kucinich, beating his gums about these days. Surprised someone so talented didn't get some form of senior position in Obama's administration.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 01:40 PM

T:

You are deeply misled about grounds for impeachment. Thousands of cruel deaths have been laid at the doorstep of Bush's Axis of Weasels, and your glib ignoral of the matter is a reflection on your own intransigence, not the facts of the matter.

He should have been prosecuted long ago. It did not happen.

End of story.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:15 PM

Amos is highly talented in rhetoric but seriously impaired in logic.

50 billion people claiming something is true does not make it true.

Remember the "fact" that tomatoes are poison? Remember the Duke Lacrosse team did it?

Your "facts" about GWB will eventually be recognized as Urban Myths.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 02:48 PM

I doubt that Sawz; I suspect your gullibility is likely to surrender first. The idea you might be suckered by a crock of manipulative PR is probably not liekly to sink in very far, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 03:21 PM

Please explain how I am gullible Amos and what I was suckered into?

What important advance in philosophy did I fail to recognize?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 04:25 PM

You have been suckered into a highly canted few of events which has left you defending the unilateral destruction of thousands of lives on spurious grounds, and numerous other fictions in support of the late Administration's incompetence and wrong-headedness as though it was simply and wisely steering the ship of State on its due and inevitable course, rather than running it hard up on a reef through complete failure to navigate well.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:00 PM

I am sorry I can't see the Emperor's new clothes like you Amos.

I am glad I missed out on the same important advance in philosophy that you embraced.

Now that Captain Bligh is no longer steering the ship, what is going to change?

I understand the salty old bastard made into a port after being set a sea in a launch, to command 11 more ships and ended up as an Admiral but his ship was scuttled by it's new masters.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:22 PM

Lousy analogy, Queequueg. Your slavish support of an oppressive regime does you no honor. A better metaphor: you wield a harpoon for a demented master, stumping the quarterdeck in the dawn watch with his pegleg, and muttering over and over his private curses on the White Whale. You may somehow survive the collapse of the Pequod, floating off on a surplus coffin. But that's as far as it goes. You and your beloved leader have trafficked in death, and it is on your hands ineradicably, perfume it how you may.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:56 PM

Call me Ishmael my man because your stance that if you agree with me and hate Bush you are therefore smart or you must be in love with Bush and therefore stupid is but another attempt to use false logic (false dichotomy, no middle ground) to prove an argument.

Aren't there still some die hard hate Truman people around that you can team up with or did all they all give up?

Despite all you hooting about proven facts anf legions of evidence, there is nothing to base an impeachment on.

I though Bush was going to pardon Scooter, one of his partners in the alleged crime of spreading propaganda to justify a war.

Did he mess up that one too?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 06:16 PM

Yep.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 25 Jan 09 - 11:33 PM

Amos's "truths" he brings to us:

The Steering Committee noted that Bush's commutation of the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who helped carry out Bush's plans, suggests the possibility of an attempted self pardon by Bush in the future.

Ye shall smell land where there is no land.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 12:48 AM

You two still dancing?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 10:57 AM

It's kind of like dancing with a manatee.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:04 PM

Or a cactus. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:22 PM

I don't know anything about dancing with Manatees or Cactii.

Jan 29, 2009
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Gov. Rod Blagojevich was unanimously convicted at his impeachment trial and thrown out of office Thursday, ending a nearly two-month crisis that erupted with his arrest on charges he tried to sell Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat.

Blagojevich becomes the first U.S. governor in more than 20 years to be removed by impeachment.

After a four-day trial, the Illinois Senate voted 59-0 to convict him of abuse of power, automatically ousting the second-term Democrat. Democratic Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn, one of his critics, immediately became governor.

In a second 59-0 vote, the Senate further barred Blagojevich from ever holding public office in Illinois again.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:26 PM

I think Blago's impeachment was almost as well deserved as Bush's.

Of course the difference is how much spin control you can buy.



A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 12:35 AM

You spin it for free Amos.

Prepare to Impeach Obama if He Accepts Unconstitutional Powers

by Ralph Lopez

With Obama backpedaling on the investigation of torture and other Bush crimes, his promised rollback of unconstitutional Executive Branch powers seems in peril. On the prosecution of Bush crimes, Joe Biden has already given the standard slimeball cop-out you would expect from Joe Biden: "We're looking forward, we're not looking backwards." On Obama's transition website change.gov, the question which outranked all other questions from the public was on the appointment of a special prosecutor, submitted by Bob Fertik of Democrats.com. The question was disregarded, even though it had the most votes, as having been "already answered."

And today in the New York Times Obama signaled his reluctance to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate torture and warrantless wiretapping, until there was evidence. Bush admitted to approving torture, illegal surveillance, there is blood all over the floor and five bodies heaped in the corner. But we need evidence.

But the case can be made that if Obama refuses to do his duty to uphold the Constitution, then at some point when he has reasonably been given a chance, the focus of the Bush impeachment movement should transfer to him. By not explicitly renouncing the Executive Branch's new powers to declare American citizens as "enemy combatants" indefinitely, to torture them as they did Jose Padilla, to engage in warrantless wiretapping, and to break the law with impunity, he implicitly accepts these unconstitutional powers. Absent an explicit renunciation of these and their accompanying, unconstitutional legislative counterparts like the Military Commissions Act, he will be acting outside the law, as George Bush was, and he will be passing these powers on to his successor.

The economic crisis will deepen into a Darwinian quagmire no matter what Obama does. In the end it will end as all depressions end: with the strongest fatter than ever and everyone else pretty much starting all over again. This is not about another temporary economic cycle. It's about what form of government we will live under for the next one hundred years.

Obama is in a tenuous position, and it would behoove him to understand that there are those on his own left who take the constitutional form of government seriously. With powers in his own party already signaling that it will not be an easy ride, by balking at what should be an uncontroversial element in his tax plan, a $3000 tax credit for companies which hire or retrain workers, he is looking at hostility from both the right and the left. It's starting to look like Jimmy Carter all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 11:09 AM

Obama has no plans to restrict or prohibit any investigations into war crimes by the Bush administration. He need only tacitly allow them to continue.


When Karl Rove refuses to appear before Congress he can be jailed until he agrees to do so. He probably will then plead the 5th for hours.

Palin should visit Karl in jail for priceless publicity.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 11:30 AM

Karl Rove? Wasn't he supposed to have been put in prison a long time back on this thread?? Of course how silly of me, to put somebody in prison you must first prove a "prima facie" case before you have a trial and then you have to have evidence that stands up to examination and complies with rules of evidence. This thread if memory serves correct was only ever based upon unsubstantiated rumour and opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 12:54 PM

It is quite true that indicting & conviction requires good evidence.

It is also true that good evidence is hard to obtain if the suspects prove adept at hiding, obfuscating , ignoring subpoenas, inventing their own laws, which require tedious legal work to prove those 'invented' laws are false, and generally using every subterfuge known to man to avoid cooperation with ANY inquiry into their activities.

We have seen well-respected legal scholars offer opinions that many activities Rove, Bush, Gonzales and others are KNOWN to have engaged in (and often admitted) were illegal, unconstitutional and just plain naughty.

This country generally tries very hard to maintain a formal process and fair legal system, but when those at the top, charged with administering aspects of the system redefine anything THEY do as 'legal', it gets kinda awkward.

Now Rove and others, who expected their crowd to HOLD power indefinitely, are in jeopardy because they have a new administration looking at the evidence.

They are hoping that they can delay and refuse to testify, etc., until we just get tired of digging.....and that all the complications facing Obama & crew (most of which were caused by Bush & crew) will make 437 prosecutions too distracting to pursue. It is embarassing to have major figures of the previous administration on trial...and Obama is 'trying' to get some bipartisan support going. He seems to be considering what will happen if he allows full investigations of the crap we all KNOW was done!

Rove, Bush and crew have lawyers who will try everything to USE the law to AVOID the law.....it stinks, but they may manage it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 01:08 PM

I don't think rational descriptions help, here--you are explaining to a stone wall.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 01:33 PM

Oh sure, Amos... *grin*...but it needs to be 'seen' in print so 'they' are aware we are not fooled.... just like 947 posts about the Bush administration or similar items.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:06 PM

Amos:

You left out a loonie:

Harold Burbank, Connecticut Green candidate for the US House (District 5), is helping to organize a major rally to promote the impeachment bill on Monday, April 14, (3 pm to 11 pm) at the Capital Center for the Arts, 44 South Main Street in Concord, New Hampshire.

"Dan Ellsberg, Ramsey Clark and Bob Bowman, all supporters of my campaign, responded immediately to my request of them to speak at Betty Hall's Impeach Bush-Cheney Rally. An aircraft carrier task force organized around the Abraham Lincoln is steaming to the Persian Gulf as we speak to engage Iran. New Hampshire can help prevent World War III if it passes HR 24 on April 16, and it should," said Mr. Burbank, who is also a member of Veterans For Peace.

The four candidates seeking the Green presidential nomination -- Jesse Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, and Kat Swift -- have all strongly supported the Green Party's call for impeachment. Ms. McKinney introduced a motion for impeachment in December, 2006, her final month as US Representative from Georgia.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:58 PM

How's the impeachment coming Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:36 PM

Don't hold your breath, Sawz. But I think all along my point was to get the story out and the real and valid grounds made known, whether or not the Wanker was ever brought to justice.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 05:53 PM

And THAT - all of the preceding - is what makes the world go 'round. It's also a great expression of why freedom of speech is so crucial. Yet, that said, I have a sneaking suspicion that this thread more properly belongs to the non-music section than to this one.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:33 PM

Oh, is Obama going to be impeached? I hadn't heard about that. On what basis? Lying during the campaign? Is THAT an impeachable offense?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:37 PM

Speaking of the Wanker

I saw him on TV 3 days ago standing/weaving to and fro to Obama's left while Clinton stood motionless with his hand holding his other wrist. This was to be an announcment of solidarity of Presidential power to come to the aid of Haiti.

I swear ol George weaved so much that he intentionally bumped Obama's elbow all the while grinning his coed cheerleader smile.

Since then CLinton has his international group poised to make a 10 year commitment of aid to Haiti. $26 million in corporate donations and more from private donations through the Red Cross and others.

Since then Obama has mobilized and meshed aid to Haiti with the US armed forces, Navy, Marines, Army,Coast Guard and Air Force, Russia and Europe.

Since then George has pledged the same unswerving dedication that served to help all those who were caught in Hurricane Katrina's path.
He offered to relocate Haitian's to tents on the Guantanemo base inside the barbed wire and land mines to insure a zone of freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:08 PM

DougR - "Lying during the campaign? Is THAT an impeachable offense?"

HA! If only. ;-) We could impeach Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan....hell, probably ALL of them since George Washington till now! Did I say "probably"? How about "definitely"? Those no longer in office could be impeached retroactively and denied television for a year as punishment! Or if they were dead, then they could have an impeachment notice put on their gravestones.

That would be for outright lying, mind you. For just being misleading, disingenuous, manipulative, lying by ommission, exaggerating to a ridiculuous extent, and using gross personal innuendo of a totally unscrupulous sort against their opponents we could merely censure them and give them thirty whacks with the Cat o' Nine Tails on their bare behinds.

This could also be done for all those who ran against them and didn't win...such as McCaine, Gore, Kerry, etc...might as well spread the punishment around in a fair and equal manner, right?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:35 PM

DougR:

As a penance for intentionally being obtuse, your assignment is to read this whole thread and identify the impeachable offenses listed therein. Let me add that blowjobs are not an impeachable offense.


A

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: mousethief
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:47 PM

As a penance for intentionally being obtuse, your assignment is to read this whole thread and identify the impeachable offenses listed therein. Let me add that blowjobs are not an impeachable offense.

Not hardly.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: DougR
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 12:31 AM

Uh ...what about softly?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 02:13 PM

Is that even possible?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 04:24 PM

"Since then George has pledged the same unswerving dedication that served to help all those who were caught in Hurricane Katrina's path. He offered to relocate Haitian's to tents on the Guantanemo base inside the barbed wire and land mines to insure a zone of freedom."

Flashback:

"Despite signals on the campaign trail that he intended to shut down the camp [Guantanamo], Clinton changed his mind [Lied???]. As a result, the [Haitian] refugees remained, even after he assumed office, in leaky barracks with poor sanitation, surrounded by razor wire and guard towers. They responded with a hunger strike, and after raucous protests against their confinement, a number were thrown in the naval brig as if they were criminals. Worse still, federal authorities refused to release the sickest Haitians, even though military physicians on Guantanamo lacked the means to treat them. The Clinton White House justified this atrocious conduct in terms that sound strikingly familiar today. Justice Department attorneys maintained that foreigners held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay have absolutely no legal rights, whether under the Constitution, federal statutes, or international law. According to this logic, the Clinton White House was free to treat the detainees however it pleased."

Impeach Whom for what?

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 04:30 PM

47 Guantanamo detainees to be held indefinitely

ABC News Jan 23, 2010

Two unnamed US officials say 47 Guantanamo Bay detainees will be held in prison indefinitely, without charge.

They are reportedly too dangerous to be released, but cannot be tried either because the evidence against them is too flimsy or was extracted by coercion.

The outcome will dismay civil liberties groups who hoped US President Barack Obama would end the practice of detention without trial.

Moazzam Begg was a Guantanamo detainee and now directs a prisoner rights organisation, 'Cage Prisoners'.

Mr Begg says he is dismayed but not surprised by the committee's findings.

"The reality is that although they're talking about holding these 47 prisoners without charge or trial, the sad reality is they've been held for eight years without charge or trial," he said.

"So it's not as if they're going to be entering into any new arena, there's no new discussion or dialogue. The whole talk about the change has come to America was simply a lie."

The Presidential taskforce has recommended 35 of the 196 detainees left at Guantanamo Bay face prosecution.

They could be heading to the United States be trialed in either a federal court or a military commission.

US Attorney General Eric Holder has already said five of them, including the alleged September 11 mastermind, will go on trial in New York.

Today marks Mr Obama's self imposed one-year deadline to shut down the prison camp, although he conceded last year that it would be missed.

C'mon Amos, pass out the pitchforks and light up the torches. This guy needs to be impeached.

Subject: RE: BS: A Declaration of Impeachment
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Jan 10 - 11:42 PM

You need one of these Amos.