BS: A Declaration of Impeachment

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.