Impeach Bush Coalition

“They have got us in a vise.”

2007-08-04T19:58:00.000-07:00

I am giving serious consideration to turning off the clock. Up until now I have held out hope that the Congress of the United States of America would finally come to its senses and Impeach George W. Bush for his admitted criminal violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Today, that hope is just about gone.

I just read this, Democrats Feel Pressure on Spy Program, in the New York Times. The fact that the Bush administration is trying to get FISA re-written to cover its prior illegal acts should be the final piece of evidence needed to indict (impeach) him. Bush has been arguing since he admited violating FISA that he always had the authority to do so. If he is asking for the authority now, he didn't have it then. Slam dunk, folks.

Instead, the House of Representatives appears ready to change the law to accommodate the criminal. The unkindest cut of all is that my former Representative and good friend, Louise Slaughter, is quoted as follows:

“They have got us in a vise,” Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York and chairwoman of the Rules Committee, said as she left a Saturday afternoon meeting where senior Democrats were debating how to handle the issue in the final hours before recess.

I don't know Nancy Pelosi and I had just about given up on John Conyers, but Louise was always someone I could count on.

Say it ain't so, Louise!

Hagel Mentions Impeachment....Again!

2007-03-27T04:27:00.000-07:00

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska mentions impeachment again. This time, he does it on television. Crooks and Liars has the video HERE.

The Emperor's New Whitewash

2007-03-11T08:07:00.000-07:00

Surprise, surprise, the administration is misusing its intelligence gathering powers.

It's all over the news that the FBI abused its authority under the PATRIOT Act. Lost in all these revelations about our top law enforcers breaking the law was this item of criminal cover-up:

Privacy Board Clears U.S. Spy Programs
Remember when the President of the United States started illegally spying on Americans in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act way back in 2001? Well, this same criminal administration decided it needed to police itself, so it set up a five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Board in 2005. Last week, the board issued its report. Surprise, surprise, the illegal spying program got a clean bill of health.

How does the Emperor continue to get away with whitewashing his impeachable crimes? He appoints his good buddies to investigate him ...

Bush appointed [Carol] Dinkins, a Republican, to chair the board. A longtime friend of the Bush family, she was treasurer of Bush's first campaign for governor of Texas, and she is a longtime partner in the law firm of Vinson & Elkins, where Gonzales was once a partner.

... and, hey presto, no criminal activity here!

From Daily Kos: McGovern Says Bush Worse Than Nixon, Calls For Impeachment

2007-03-08T16:30:00.000-08:00

by quaoar

If anyone should know an impeachable offense when he sees one, it should be George McGovern, the victim of Richard Nixon's no-holds-barred 1972 scorched-earth campaign.

Thirty-five years later, an 84-year-old McGovern sees an even bigger threat to the United States that he fought for as a decorated WWII bomber pilot -- the Bush Administration. Cheney -- he told an interviewer for the Madison, Wisc., Capital Times -- should resign.

More HERE

Republican Senator Suggests Impeachment

2007-03-06T14:15:00.000-08:00

"Before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment."

This is a quote from Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Read the whole article HERE.

Impeach Cheney?

2007-02-11T14:36:00.000-08:00

Recently uncovered news certainly solidifies the case for impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. Major Danby at Daily Kos has the details HERE.

The Clock is Still Running

2007-02-07T04:34:00.000-08:00

The impeachable offense that George W Bush admitted to 416 days ago is still on the table.

James Banford recently brought us up to date on the case for impeachment in Bush Is Not Above the Law. He reminded us of the grounds: Violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Then he pointed out that:

The issue is not original. Among the charges approved by the House Judiciary Committee when it recommended its articles of impeachment against President Nixon was "illegal wiretaps." President Nixon, the bill charged, "caused wiretaps to be placed on the telephones of 17 persons without having obtained a court order authorizing the tap, as required by federal law; in violation of Sections 241, 371 and 2510-11 of the Criminal Code."

Under his program, President Bush could probably be charged with wiretapping not 17 but thousands of people without having obtained a court order authorizing the taps as required by federal law, in violation of FISA.

How many more days before the 110th Congress puts Impeachment back on the table?

From The Crisis Papers: Only America Can Restore America's Honor

2007-01-31T19:13:00.000-08:00

In six short years, the Bush regime has transformed the United States from an exemplar of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, to a pariah and a threat to international law and order. A recent BBC poll of twenty-six countries has found that, by a plurality of 49 to 32 percent, the United States is believed to play a "mainly negative" role in the world. These scores report a continuing decline in international respect for the United States. As Dave Zweifel writes: "We no longer are viewed as a beacon of freedom for the world, but a nation to be vilified for its war-mongering, its torturing and its refusal to work with other countries."

This transformation is due, in no small part, to the neo-conservative determination to have the United States impose a so-called "benevolent global hegemony" upon the world, and to the subsequent implementation of this objective in Iraq.

The neo-con "new world order" would be accomplished through the threat or use of the unrivaled military power of the one remaining super-power, the United States. This remarkable plan for a "Pax Americana" was no secret. It was, in fact, clearly articulated in 1997 by a policy group, the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC). When first published, the PNAC "project" was merely a proposal. But with the appointment of George Bush to the presidency in 2001, the project was promoted to the status of United States policy, as most of the PNAC founders joined the Bush Administration. (For a history and analysis of PNAC, see Bernard Weiner: "Bush's Grand Game: A 'PNAC Primer' Update.").

More HERE

Impeachment Would Be Welcomed

2007-01-29T20:46:00.000-08:00

The latest Newsweek poll should cause the impeachment naysayers to rethink their position.

Somebody please explain why impeachment is still "off the table"?

Real patriots defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic

2007-01-26T19:16:00.000-08:00

Veterans for Peace (VFP) made it clear today that not only do we need to get our troops out of Iraq, but Congress needs to impeach the president at the same time.

"We have to curtail the power of the executive so that whoever is in office next knows that there are limitations to that power," VFP Executive Director Michael McPhearson said.

"We need to impeach this president so we can get back on track and grow this country the way it should be."

How Long Will It Take Before We See This?

2007-01-23T00:01:00.000-08:00

Is New Mexico Next?

2007-01-22T23:59:00.000-08:00

Is New Mexico the latest state to consider an impeachment resolution? Perhaps....

Bush Has Stopped Beating Up on FISA.

2007-01-20T12:04:00.000-08:00

One of the questions prosecutors aren't allowed to ask a defendant is "Have you stopped beating up on your wife?" If the defendant answers, Yes, he is currently guilty. If the defendant answers, No, he is still guilty if the statute of limitations hasn't run out.

George Bush's attorney, Alberto Gonzales, announced this week that the President has stopped beating up on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the statute of limitations hasn't run out. After Bush admitted in December 2005 to violating FISA for more than four years, Attorney General Gonzales defended his boss by saying that FISA did not apply. Now Gonzales says that, not only does it apply, but they have decided to obey the law, five years too late.

In a normal world where normal rules of criminal procedure apply, a felon who admits to violating the law is indicted. In the constitutional separation of powers, an indictment is called IMPEACHMENT. The 109th Congress failed to impeach (indict) Bush after he admitted to high crimes in 2005. Now he has affirmed his confession through his attorney in 2007. Will the 110th Congress also shirk its DUTY TO IMPEACH?

From David Swanson: The Public Relations of Impeachment

2007-01-18T09:18:00.000-08:00

Excerpt:

"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.

"It is a relatively short journey to see failure to demand impeachment as a moral failure. If we go into the next presidency with the next president free to launch wars on the basis of lies, torture, murder, detain without charge, spy without warrant, rewrite laws with signing statements, hide the workings of our government, disobey laws on his or her whim . . . I don't care what party he or she is from, I don't care if it's Nelson Mandela, you don't give that power to a human being. 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. Failure to impeach when the case is clear is politically dangerous. History shows this, and you can ask John."

More HERE

From TPM Blog: A Special Comment on Impeachment

2007-01-16T16:50:00.000-08:00

Excerpt from Neerav's Blog at TPM Cafe:

And here lies the problem we face...

If the Democrats in Congress do not impeach President Bush and his Administration for their crimes, even if all of the investigations, hearings, and oversight pointed strongly in favor of impeaching President Bush, and even if all of the evidence gathered disgusts and outrages the American people to the point of making them DEMAND that President Bush and his Administration be impeached, they will be seen as complicit in the manifold crimes and grievances against the American people. They, along with their Republican counterparts in Congress, will be both seen and deemed as equally guilty of the crimes that President Bush and his Administration have committed against the American people. Having done that, the very trust that the American people have for their elected representatives in Congress will fall to the point of having them want to do await with not only Congress and its elected officials, but the entire United States Government, which brings me to an interesting passage in the Preamble of the "Declaration of Independence", written by Thomas Jefferson on July 4th, 1776:

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

Using this very principle, the American people, having tired of President Bush, his Administration, and the Congress, who are both complicit in and guilty of, crimes that President Bush and his Administration have committed against them, if they do not hold them accountable for their actions, can do away with the current government in power and institute a new one "as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness". This can happen now, or in 2008, when more seats in Congress are up for grabs, and when the White House is also at stake. The choice is yours, and yours alone, America. If you are so outraged of how President Bush and his Administration have been both governing and abusing their Constitutional and legal authorities, then it is both your right, as well as your imperative to demand to your members of Congress to hold the President and his Administration accountable for their actions. And if you are so outraged of how Congress refuses to hold President Bush and his Administration accountable for their actions, especially if they outright refuse to impeach President Bush and his administration, making them both complicit in, and guilty of, the crimes that President Bush and his Administration have committed against the American people, then it is both your right and your imperative to do away the government and institute a new one, especially in light that the government has repeatedly overstepped its bounds, and have abused its authority, which brings me to another juicy tidbit in the Preamble of the "Declaration of Independence":

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design 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".

Your future and your security are at stake here, America. Are you willing to let it be compromised now because you do not want to hold the current government accountable for their actions, or will you take action to ensure that your government is open, honest, and accountable, and that the people you elected listen to what you have to say? Again, the choice is yours, America, and you must choose wisely, not only for the sake of this country, but for the sake of current and future generations of Americans.

Quick! Impeach him before he starts another war ... Oh, wait ...

2007-01-13T14:44:00.000-08:00

The exact number of civilian dead is still unknown.
The U.S.-backed transitional government might have had some claim to popularity on its own, but lost support when the people figured out it was, well, U.S.-backed.
The capital of the country is so dangerous its residents hardly dare step outside to fetch water.
Stop us when this starts to sound familiar.
We're talking about Somalia, where Bush et al. quietly opened a front in their "For-Us-or-Against-Us" war in December 2002, when they opened a major special operations base in neighboring Djibouti.
If you hadn't thought about Somalia since Black Hawk Down, if you just barely saw the news of the Ethiopian invansion late last month, and if word of U.S. airstrikes took a backseat to Bush's speech and the surge, you best take another look right now.
U.S. special operations forces based in Djibouti have been sneaking into Somalia with Ethiopian guides since some time in 2005.
American ground forces were with the Ethiopians from the start of the invasion on December 24, 2006.
And the C130 gunships and helicopters, whose bombings and strafing killed nomadic herdspeople but not al-Qaeda leaders, didn't have to be rushed to the region. They were already there.
What might be other passing similarities to the Iraq war? Violations of international humanitarian and human rights law? Got 'em. Flauting calls for a multilateral solution? Got it. Probability of regional instability? Got it. Global outrage and further isolation of the U.S.? Got 'em. Myopia or outright gung-hoism from the U.S. corporate media (COMA)? Got that, too.
And, oh yes, what about a wholly inadequate Democratic response?
Look for Dick Durbin to introduce a non-binding resolution: Guaranteed to "sharpen divisions" before the 2008 election, but not to stop a war, bring any troops home, or end the suffering of innocents who may not be "us," but ain't exactly "them," either.
Want to put a stop to this before it gets any worse? Pressure your Democratic representative to put impeachment back on the table.

Kagro X on Signing Statements

2007-01-05T20:01:00.000-08:00

OK, you've all seen the story by now. George W. Bush thinks he's got the right to peek through your mail without a warrant.

Now, nobody who reads this blog can possibly be a stranger to signing statements at this point. We've been reading about them for a long time. We've even debated a bit about what they really mean, legally and practically. That is, legally speaking, they may not turn out to offer the Bush "administration" any protection if and when they do the things they are purporting to reserve the right to do. But practically speaking, they give every indication that they may in fact be doing those things, and doing them unchallenged. Which tends to take a bit of the shine off of the more optimistic legal view.

More HERE

Bloggers Needed!

2006-12-27T15:34:00.000-08:00

Impeachment is heating up, and so is my schedule.

I'm looking for some competent bloggers to write content for this site.

Are you interested?

You must already have your own blog and/or online writing samples. Please email me if you are interested at impeachbushcoalition AT hotmail DOT com.

Thank you!

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

2006-12-25T12:52:00.000-08:00

Hey, Dean! Yo, Pelosi! Why Impeach?

2006-12-22T08:53:00.000-08:00

Pulled this explicit rant from Lukery's excellent blog:
(Disclaimer: "F" Word alert)

"Hey, Dean! Yo, Pelosi! Why impeach?

Two words: signing statements.

It's one thing to thumb your nose at the law and the process by which it's made, but to do it OVER 700 FUCKING TIMES in 6 years is beyond criminal. It's undeniable evidence of intent to consistently defy the law.

Oh, btw, the whole defence of being able to pull all of this 'cause he's a "wartime president"? Kinda requires being at war. Y'know, as in "declaration of-", which can be enacted by, yes, you guessed it, congress. "The Global War on Terror" is a tagline, not a policy or a strategy or, for that matter, A WAR. Throw that bullshit line on the pile of evidence that he doesn't give a fuck what congress, the people or anyone else thinks.

He will not listen. He will not play nice. He'll say he will and then, when you're not looking, he will fuck you. You might not know it right away (though Cheney's smirk'll be a tip off; get him too) or exactly how, but you will have been fucked. Don't expect dinner and flowers before or after.

He will not willingly step down, he will not go on his own, and he might not go quietly (gods, I hope not...), but he (and his team) have to go. He still has 2 years left in his term and if you believe he gives two choleric shits what Congress and the people think, you're almost as far removed from reality as he is."

Harper's Talking Impeachment

2006-12-17T11:32:00.000-08:00

From January 2007's issue of Harper's Magazine:

"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."

Daily Kos has more on this article HERE

CNN's Jack Cafferty Thinks Not Impeaching is 'Strange'

2006-12-11T22:18:00.000-08:00

From tonight's Situation Room on CNN, Jack Cafferty said:

"Jack Cafferty: "How you doing, Wolf? On her way out the door last week, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney introduced a bill to impeach President Bush. It's strictly symbolic and has no chance of going anywhere. She lost her congressional seat and is on her way back to civilian life. But McKinney isn't the only person who thinks President Bush may have done things that rise to the levels of high crimes and misdemeanors.

"And yet, the incoming House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has said that impeachment of the President is, quote, 'off the table.' It's all kind of strange. The incoming House Judiciary Chairman, John Conyers, had earlier sponsored a bill to investigate grounds for possible impeachment. Now, Conyers has backed off and agreed with Pelosi to rule out impeachment. Jesse Jackson wrote last week that even if Conyers won't consider impeachment of President Bush, he, quote, 'has a duty to convene serious hearings,' unquote, on the President's claims and what Jackson calls abuses to our Constitution.

"A poll that was taken right before the midterm elections showed that 28 percent of Americans say impeachment of President Bush should be a top priority. 23 percent say it should be a lower priority. And 44 percent say it shouldn't happen at all."

The Nexus Between Oversight and Impeachment.

2006-12-08T11:36:00.000-08:00

By Kagro X of Daily Kos
-------------------------

We're all for oversight. Am I right about that?

Let's talk, procedurally and mechanically, about what that means, and why impeachment is inherently a part of all of it.

I know, I know. You didn't want to hear any more about it. But the door's open, and this deserves some attention, if only for purposes of academic discussion.

Here's why:

Though we're all looking forward to some robust oversight, we've got some very basic questions we need to ask about whether and how this is going to happen.

In fact, the questions are exactly that: whether and how this is going to happen?

In the course of his six years in the presidency, George W. Bush's "administration" has forced us to confront questions about the basic nature of our constitutional government that most of us thought were well-settled, and not in favor of the position Bush has been taking on them.

Does the president have the "inherent power" to refuse to faithfully execute the laws, as provided in the Oath of Office, if he believes the law is unconstitutional? What if -- and you'll have to follow me around the circle here, because that's where he's taking us -- he believes the law is unconstitutional because he believes it's unconstitutional for Congress to pass laws that restrict his "inherent powers?"

You can pretty quickly see where this sort of hyper-aggressive legal theorizing can take you, if you're inclined to press it. And all indications are that they are so inclined:

"[W]hen it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush's understanding of the presidency, the President's team has been planning for what one strategist describes as "a cataclysmic fight to the death" over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is "going to assert that power, and they're going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation."

As you can see, that threat goes straight to the heart of the promise of Congressional oversight. The problem is that there's really no independent Constitutional or legal reason why executive branch officials would be compelled to respond to a Congressional subpoena. Congress has only very limited investigatory powers, which the courts typically limit to oversight that has a direct or at least colorable relation to proposed legislation.

But it's not that I expect the courts to find that the required nexus between the proposed oversight and possible legislative solutions is lacking. It's more than that. It's the inherent weakness of the mechanism on which we're relying: the much-vaunted "subpoena power."

Pelosi was asked what was most important about regaining majority status. "Subpoena power," she said.

So, let's look at the mechanics of subpoena power. In its investigative capacity, Congress has adopted for itself the use of a subpoena power that's roughly analogous to that more commonly seen in the judicial and law enforcement system, in which government prosecutors (employees of the executive branch) leverage the power of the judicial branch (in the form of its ability to sentence those brought before it for contempt, should they defy the subpoenas) to ensure compliance with the demands made.

But Congress is not the executive branch. Nor is it the judicial. Its independent enforcement powers are limited to only the most obscure and archaic procedure -- "inherent contempt" -- which hasn't been exercised since 1935, and with good reason: this procedure itself requires a trial before Congress. Not a particularly helpful substitute when you're trying to avoid a trial before Congress in the first place.

Instead, Congress depends for its enforcement powers on the executive branch. If you defy a Congressional subpoena, you face the possibility of charges of contempt of Congress, pursuant to the adoption of articles by whichever house is charging you. But those charges are not self-executing. In other words, they're a request that charges be brought. In order to be effective, those charges still have to be prosecuted in court, and that's up to the discretion of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. He's an employee of the "unitary executive," of course, and reports to the Attorney General.

So if you're conducting oversight of, say, the NSA spying program, and you want answers from Gonzales regarding the program's legality, and you subpoena him and he tells you to take a flying leap, what do you do?

You could try going to court, but not only will that pretty much run out the clock, but the courts are quite likely to tell you, "What are you crying to us for? You have your remedy. If you're too chicken to use it, that's your problem." They may well hand it right back to Congress as a "political question," and refuse to resolve it. After all, tied up in that question is yet another: should the legislative branch be able to leverage the judicial in order to force the executive to submit to its will?

Long story short: This is not an issue that can be resolved on moral, ethical, legal, or political grounds alone. It can be ignored for any or all of those reasons, but not resolved.

That's why I'm not requiring anyone to make up their mind today, on the spot. Just consider that there's a legitimate role for impeachment to play, even in the background, but that it must be "on the table" in order to do so. And here I would note that saying it's "off the table" does not by itself take it out of consideration. That's not what this discussion is about, and I think we can discuss the necessity of having this weapon in our hip pocket without necessarily resolving whether or not individual players in Congress did or didn't say it quite the right way.

Instead, it's about contemplating the place of impeachment as a procedural tool. Just as it's the threat of a filibuster that ultimately provides the "power" that makes the "Senatorial hold" possible, so is impeachment the power that makes Congressional subpoena power possible for use against the executive branch.

And we all want that, right?

From Jerome a Paris: Impeachment: you think the world is not watching?

2006-12-07T14:10:00.000-08:00

From Daily Kos:

Impeachment: you think the world is not watching?
by Jerome a Paris
Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 12:02:51 PM PST
So it's not politically convenient to try to impeach?

So there will be no price paid for being the worst president ever, apart for the promise of the judgement of history?

So Democrats also think it's okay to go invade another country, to get several hundred thousand of its inhabitants killed, to proudly practice and promote torture around the world, to tear up the Geneva Conventions and a whole load of international treaties, and to go grab random foreigners around the world to put them in Guantanamo and throw away the key?

So not only was Bush reelected with a real majority, but the opposition essentially says that what he did is not so profoundly illegal that it deserves to be duly sanctioned?

Way to go.

The world is watching. And it will not forget. Our current leaders may be cowards, but they won't always be there. Haven't you noticed how being anti-American makes you a popular politician and makes you win elections around the world?

Fear will not be enough when the whole world is convinced that America will not correct its current ways, and that the problem is not just the current administration.

Send 500,000 Impeachment Letters to Nancy Pelosi NOW!

2006-12-06T20:21:00.000-08:00

"More than 50,000 telegrams poured in on Capitol Hill today, so many, Western Union was swamped. Most of them demanded impeaching Mr. Nixon."
--John Chancellor, NBC News Special Report on October 20, 1973

Fax or snail mail the letter below or your own variation to:

FAX: 202-225-8259

Nancy Pelosi
2371 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

District Office:

450 Golden Gate Ave.
14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102

Email is okay, but letters and faxes are more physically imposing.

CC a copy to your congressman too. You can find their address here: http://www.house.gov

Post this around to other boards and send it to you friends, and let's see if we can get something going.

Speaker Pelosi,

The American people elected a Democratic majority to restore checks and balances, the rule of law, and our reputation as a law-abiding country in the world community. These cannot be accomplished unless President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are impeached. Their impeachable offenses dwarf those that led to proceedings against President Clinton and President Andrew Jonson, and the threatened proceeding against President Richard Nixon combined. The offenses below are already supported with evidence in the public record, including admissions of guilt. It is likely that investigations prior to impeachment would turn up even more.

IMPEACH BUSH & CHENEY FOR:

* Lying to the American people, Congress, and the world about the threat from Iraq & need for war.

* War of aggression against Iraq, which posed no threat to US.

* Death of over 600,000 Iraqis and nearly 3,000 S troops in unnecessary war.

* Exploiting 9/11 for political gain and for war to benefit oil companies and other cronies.

* Canceling Iraq’s oil contracts with foreign companies and giving them to American corporations and restructuring Iraq’s oil industry to their specification in violation of the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

* Awarding no-bid contracts to cronies for rebuilding and oil exploitation in Iraq.

* Inciting animosity toward the US by attacking Iraq and falsely claiming it was part of “War on Terror.”

* Authorizing the use of torture in violation of the Geneva Convention and US law and against the advice of the uniformed military.

* Participating in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Haiti and attempting to do so in Venezuela.

* Failure to fully cooperate with 9/11 Commission and joint congressional inquiry, and refusal to comply with Freedom of Information Act in other areas as well.

* Warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

* Issuing signing statements that contradict the plain meaning of legislation, including on issues of torture.

* Denying Americans and others habeas corpus rights even after Supreme Court ruled against it.

* Coercing government employees to lie to Congress and the American people about the cost of Medicare drug benefit, global warning, and toxic hazard of NYC after 9/11.

* Failure to provide timely aid to Hurricane Katrina victims and appointing someone with no experience to run FEMA.

* Barring Americans who disagree with the president from public events paid for with taxpayer money, and forcibly removing some with private security posing as Secret Service agents.

Listen to the American people so we can be confident we have a democracy again.

Sincerely,

Is Impeachment Really Off the Table (Part 2)?

2006-12-06T20:19:00.000-08:00

Is impeachment really off the table?

OpEdNews asks the question, HERE.

'Worst President Ever'

2006-12-03T12:11:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Post:

"Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history."

More HERE

US Rep. McKinney: 'I Was Ready to Impeach in 2001'

2006-12-02T11:45:00.000-08:00

"US Rep. McKinney (D-GA) told a recent audience of the film American Blackout that she had written up Articles of Impeachment for President Bush five years ago in 2001."

More HERE

From MBNYC: Pondering Impeachment

2006-11-29T08:58:00.000-08:00

The constitution provides for the removal from office of the President and Vice-President for what it terms 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors'. As does so much else in our constitutional system, the idea of impeachment derives from English law. Despite their illegitimacy, impeachment and removal are therefore the legal avenue (of several available) that seems most apt for dealing with George Bush and Dick Cheney.

In judicial terms, impeachment is comparable to an indictment; at the Federal level, a simple majority of the House of Representatives is required to vote out Articles of Impeachment. These are then presented to the United States Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice, where a super-majority of two thirds is required for conviction and removal.

Notably, The Federalist Papers make clear that impeachment is a political, as opposed to a judicial, process.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

A cursory glance at the subject suggests that it's not a bad idea to untangle the judicial and political strings intertwined in the impeachment discussion.

The judicial case is reasonably clear at first glance: both Bush and Cheney regularly flaunt their breaking of established law, such as the FISA statute. They knowingly presented false evidence to the United States Congress as it was debating the authorization to use force against Iraq. They authorized the breaking of U.S. law in detainee interrogations, most notably at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. They claim discretion to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus. All of these acts, and others, stem from a theory of law embraced by this administration known as the unitary executive. The theory holds that the executive branch, under the Constitution, is free to act without restraints which the legislative and judicial branches may seek to impose. It's worth noting that there is little in either U.S. or UK precedent that would establish the unitary executive theory as valid; Charles II lost his head on a scaffold in an earlier iteration of this argument. Parallels can be seen in Lenin's dictum that the Communist Party's dictatorship over the Russian people rests "directly on force, not limited by anything, not restricted by any laws, nor any absolute rules."

More HERE

Impeachment is "Framed"

2006-11-25T15:18:00.000-08:00

Check out this site, where impeachment is clearly framed for discussion.

Should We Impeach Bush and Cheney?

Yes. In ,Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney, Eternal Hope lists fourteen grounds for impeaching Bush and Cheney. These grounds include:

1. Leaking classified information by disclosing the identity of Valerie Plame to reporters.
2. Lying to Congress--passing false information about Iraq's WMD capacities.
3. Extraordinary renditions.
4. Detentions without trial.
5. Torture.
6. Misappropriation of funds.
7. Bombing Iraq without Congressional approval.
8. Conspiracy to pass false information.
9. Lying about Niger connection.
10. Contempt of Congress.
11. Illegal wiretaps.
12. Concealment of the existence or nature of domestic intelligence programs.
13. Destruction of evidence.
14. The use of white phosphorus in Iraq.

It is clear that this administration has a pattern of breaking the law. There is sufficient evidence in the public record to justify an intrusive and thorough investigation of the administration on these and other matters. Congress needs to use its investigation powers to do a zero-based appraisal of what the administration has been doing on intelligence gathering, use of the military, oversight of contractors, and domestic operations. If clear evidence of criminality is produced, then this should be used as the narrow basis of charges against the President and Vice President for impeachment. These charges should then be further investigated specifically by the Senate, and Senators should vote to remove these officers if they have broken any federal laws or violated their Constitutional oaths.

Why should we remove these officers if all Presidents violate federal laws to some extent? Will this be good for the country?

Yes, it will be good for the country because it resets the standards for the office. Of course, Presidents from Washington to Bush have technically violated the law, and many have failed to enforce parts of it they disagreed with. The behavior of this administration is qualitatively different. The neoconservatives have sought to undermine the law itself, and they did so to help out a narrow segment of society, their rich corporations and friends. They introduced the idea that the President is above the law. Impeachment sends a strong signal that this is not the case.

The President has enormous power, and that power affects people all over the world. Its occupant must look out for what is best for us all. To do that, they must operate within the bounds of the Constitution. No one person can always understand and do what’s best. That can only come out of the legitimate operation of the system, where checks on power can limit personal influence and many minds can look at the information to render the best course of action.

When the President violates the Constitution and operates outside the checks and balances of the other branches of government, they take the country off track. This is directly related, as we’ve seen, to how well (or poorly) our government performs.

If we don't impeach Bush and Cheney, who have deliberately operated outside the limits of the Constitution and federal laws, then some other person will try to do the same thing in the future. Neither we as a country nor the world as a whole can tolerate that.

If it were simply a matter of not enforcing controversial laws until the Supreme Court had decided, then bowing to that decision, and if it were not just a matter of operating according to the best judgment of the administration until Congressional investigation and oversight indicated a change of course, then we could tolerate this administration. They have a very different concept of what is right than the average American and certainly different from what Democrats would prefer. But we can and should tolerate this difference of opinion from anyone working within the system. It is the fact that the Bush Administration has gone outside the system that warrants impeachment and removal.

More HERE

Rebuttal to Arguments Against Impeachment

2006-11-25T01:27:00.000-08:00

by Jodin Morey of http://www.opednews.com

"Arguments Against Bush Impeachment...
- If we impeach Bush, we'll get President Cheney!
Initiating the impeachment process will lead to an investigation that will implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.

"In addition, no matter who we get to replace Bush, we'll be showing those in power that anyone who breaks the law will be held accountable.

- Promoting impeachment will seem too "extreme."
Demanding that crimes be investigated is NOT extreme. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered extreme because they were pursued for actions that didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the impeachment tool is meant to be used for. Nixon's impeachment, however, was bipartisan."

More HERE

Impeachment is a Civic Responsibility

2006-11-18T13:28:00.000-08:00

[Editor's Note] I posted this over at Daily Kos earlier today, pretty taken aback by a different viewpoint on the reasons for impeachment provided by Richard Dreyfus on last night's Real Time with Bill Maher. Although it took me a few hours to get around to it, it is the perfect post to be put over here. Enjoy!

I find it inherently interesting and often invaluable to hear other people's points of view as well as provide my own. I can't tell you how many times I have had my opinion expanded by simply turning an issue on its side and considering it from another's viewpoing, whether they are a person with whom I agree or not.

I was an early supporter of impeachment. In principle, it's the right thing to do. But politically, particularly after the November 7 election, I had gone somewhat softer. Right or wrong, I'm thinking politically and realizing that 2008 is right around the corner and a 1994-esque move (ala the Republicans targeting Clinton) to constantly subpoena, investigate, and potentially impeach didn't seem to serve political ends.

Richard Dreyfus changed my mind last night in his appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher.

I'm going to literally transcribe from my DVR Dreyfus' statement with respect to impeachment. It's powerful and everyone should read and at least consider it.

The general subject was whether or not ethics will be a central concern addressed by the new Democrat-controlled Congress. From there, though, it took a very interesting turn. All emphasis in the transcripts is mine.

MAHER: And you think he [the President] should be impeached? I mean, what would that get you? Cheney as President?
DREYFUS: The two reasons that one would argue against impeachment are the Vice President and the Democratic Congress. But I'm not in favor of impeachment. I am in favor of the process. And I believe that unless the society stands against certain things, they will have endorsed certain things. Like torture, leaving the Geneva Convention...
MAHER: Right. That is well said.
DREYFUS: ...and lying to the Congress about the reasons for war. And once the Republicans are placed in the position of having to endorse torture, you've got a bad problem on your hands. And we do not realize that this is not about impeachment - it's about the other branches of the government doing their duty so that you don't hand off to a liberal or a conservative - the President - swollen powers when no one ever turns power away. No one ever says "oh no thank you - we're not going to use that".
And so whoever gets to be President will use the power handed to this President. And we will rue that day unless we stand in some way against that, even in a minority report. Even if we... if you lose an impeachment hearing - whoever "we" are - then at least you have a body that says we stand against these things. And unless you do that, then you're for them.

One word: powerful. There was further discussion of a more general nature later in the show where Dreyfus also weighed in, and I really felt that his following commentary, coupled with his thoughts on impeachment, struck a perfect chord.

The lead-in was the discussion of the guy being beaten by the LAPD. One of the other guests, Tom Morello, was lamenting our numbness and wondering why we weren't in the streets with pitchforks and torches over such a thing. Dreyfus weighed in. This is a long transcription but it's worth reading every word.

DREYFUS: That's the constancy that you can learn. You can actually learn the constancy of curiosity, and the constancy of outreach. You can learn that it is ok to keep asking the questions, and to be dissenters. And if you don't - if you're not taught it - then you don't know it. But we owe ourselves and the United States that we will pass off to our children to re-learn the tools of reason, logic, clarity, dissent, civility, and debate. And those things are the non-partisan basis of Democracy and without them, you can kiss this thing goodbye.
It is up to us - it wasn't because of a conspiracy that that this left - it was thoughtlessness - and what you have to do is get it back. And what happens now in this partisan-addicted country of ours is that Democrats are afraid that if they send their kids to Civics classes they might not come back Democrats. And Republicans are afraid their kids won't come back Republicans. But Civics - the expertise needed to understand western enlightenment and civil liberties is not something you're born with. You have to learn it.
And we teach our kids what we want them to know and we don't teach them what we don't want them to know. And that's not a conspiracy - that's human nature. And you have to - WE have to remember - that unless we teach the ideas that make America a miracle in government - a miracle - that everyone knows is a miracle - unless we teach what that means, then it will go away in your kids' lifetime. And we will be a fable. We will be a tale told about this place that used to stand up for blah blah blah.
You have to teach it. You have to find the time and creativity to teach it in school. And if you don't, then you will lose it to fundamentalists of any stripe, you will lose it to stupidity, you will lose it to the darkness. And what this country represents is a tiny twinkle of light in a history of opression and darkness and cruelty and if it lasts for more than our lifetime or our kids' lifetime it is only due to the fact that we put some effort into teaching what it is.
The ideas of America - the idea of opportunity, mobility, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly - and if you don't teach it, it will go away and in the middle of the night when the towers fall, we will not say "what am I responsible for" - we will say "tell us what to do".

There's a lot to think about in that statement. First, I was struck by the obvious idea that we teach our children what we want them to know and NOT what we don't want them to know. It's self-apparent - but the cost is not something I had considered. I immediately thought of your typical pro-life person not teaching their children about sex and birth control, rather teaching abstinence and decrying abortion. But that shoe can be placed on either foot and we have to not fear people learning the other sides of the arguments we hold dear. It is, in fact, ESSENTIAL to the idea that we have a generation forming behind us that has the ability to cherish - to understand America and American values, and to stubbornly defend ALL points of view while nudging forward that which makes us so unique as a pure form of government. That is why the impeachment process is necessary. Not to punish - but to reinforce. To stand at last and go on record as to what's acceptable and unacceptable. To save our very Democracy.

And I was also very struck by the truth of his last statement: if we don't teach it - ALL of it - then we will morph to a populace that needs to be told rather than one that inherently knows what it stands for and what that means, in terms of responsibility, to each individual in the populace.

Incidentally, Dreyfus has been, for the last two years, a Senior Associate Member of St. Anthony's College, University of Oxford, learning (as he put it) how to teach civics.

There's a lot here to think about. And I, for one, am grateful that I heard it and am able to share it here.

One little extra unrelated tidbit I'll give you - Maher, of course, does his little schtick late in the show after his second one-on-one interview. This week, it was "celebrity fragrances", wherein he had men's cologne suited to politicians and celebrities, poking fun at their missteps. This one's just a bonus:

MAHER: [getting bottle of cologne] It speaks without thinking. Splash it on your red necks - George Allen's Macaca for Men.

Heh.

The Courage to Say "Impeach"

2006-11-18T10:08:00.000-08:00

Where have all the courageous leaders gone?

"Politics as usual is coming perilously close to destroying our country. We did not elect the Dems in order for them to continue to irresponsibly lead us down this dangerous path. The time to stand up for impeachment and the preservation of democracy is now."

More HERE

From Raw Story: Sheehan and Others Rally for Impeachment

2006-11-14T09:29:00.000-08:00

Excerpt:

The organizers of ImpeachForChange held a press conference Saturday, along with an impeachment rally to pressure the new Democratic majority for investigations into impeachment. The events took place at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, just across from Independence Hall, where the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution were signed.

Anti-war activist and co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace Cindy Sheehan was one of several keynote speakers at the conference. In an interview with RAW STORY, Sheehan said, "We know that in a recent Zogby Poll that was commissioned by the After Downing Street coalition that over 51 percent of Americans would be in favor of impeaching George W. Bush if it was proven that he lied about the war and about the reasons for the invasion. I was just online today and there was an MSNBC poll that said 86 percent would be in favor of impeachment of George W. Bush, and I just want to rally people all over the country, wherever I go, to encourage their Congress member and the Democratic leadership to institute an investigation that may lead to impeachment and removal from office."

Additional polls also show that a majority of Americans support such measures. A recent Newsweek poll from October 24th showed that 51 percent of Americans support impeachment, while an October 25th, USA Today/Gallup poll found 51 percent of Americans supporting "major investigations" by Democrats.

Going further back, in a CNN poll on September 9th, 57 percent of the respondents said they thought it would be good for the country "if the Democrats in Congress were able to conduct official investigations into what the Bush administration has done in the past six years."

“We are a majority and that is a phenomenal thing, given the near blackout of the media and the lack of action in Congress," said David Swanson, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org and Washington Director of Democrats.com. "When Congress and the media were doing nothing else for months, the impeachment of Clinton never got above 37%. So something remarkable is going on but people don’t know it."

More HERE

Amy Goodman Interviews Elizabeth Holtzman and Daniel Ellsberg

2006-11-11T00:20:00.000-08:00

Elizabeth Holtzman provides interesting perspective on how impeachment might develop in the House.

AMY GOODMAN: What's your response to the Speaker in waiting, Nancy Pelosi, saying [impeachment is] off the table?

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Well, it's very understandable. It was off the table to the Democrats in 1973, when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate, and you had Richard Nixon as president.

AMY GOODMAN: He had won by a landslide victory in 1972.

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: Correct. He had won by a landslide, and impeachment was off the table then. Nobody -- no Democrat was pushing for it. And, in fact, as the revelations came out, it still wasn't on the table. It took the American people, after the Saturday Night Massacre, sending a clear message to the Congress --

AMY GOODMAN: The Saturday Night Massacre being?

ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN: The firing by Richard Nixon of the special prosecutor who was investigating him. It took that clear signal from the American people, who said, "Enough is enough. We are not a banana republic. A president cannot be above the law. He cannot stop an investigation into possible criminal behavior by him or his top aides. And we want Congress to hold him accountable." So it came from the American people. It didn't come from the Congress.

It's understandable that congressional leaders, members of Congress, will be very reluctant to take this enormous step to protect our Constitution and our democracy. But the American people still -- we have a democracy. You saw what happened at the polls. Members of Congress will get it, if the American people want it.

More HERE

or Watch it HERE

John Nichols Urges Pelosi to Reconsider Impeachment

2006-11-09T15:43:00.000-08:00

In this article, John Nichols urges the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, to reconsider the decision not to impeach Bush. If Pelosi is worried about the possibility that impeachment would be political folly for the Dems, Nichols responds:

But is impeachment really a political loser? Not if history is a guide. There have been nine attempts since the founding of the republic to move articles of impeachment against a sitting president. In the cases in which impeachment was proposed by members of an opposition party, that party either maintained or improved its position in Congress at the next general election. In seven instances the party that proposed impeachment secured the presidency in the next election.

Pelosi's problem appears to be that she doesn't want to be accused of repeating the partisan misuse of impeachment that Republicans perpetrated in 1998 and 1999. But the misdeeds of Bush and Cheney are precisely the sort of wrongdoing that impeachment was designed to check and balance.

As a political reporter who has spent a good many years trying to unlock the mysteries of the Democratic Party, I contend that an openness to impeachment is not just good but essential politics for Pelosi and her caucus. The Democratic victory on Tuesday was not secured because the party proposed a bold agenda and won on it. Pelosi shied away from making presidential accountability a central theme of the campaign; arguably, she shied away from central themes in general - except, of course, the promise that Democrats will behave more admirably than Republicans.

To do something that will matter in the long term, something that will give Democrats the moral authority and the political pull that will allow them to correct the country's course, Pelosi and her fellow partisans must abandon the hyperstrategic politics of a contemporary status quo, which prevents surprises for entrenched officials, wealthy campaign contributors and powerful lobbyists. And the first step in that process involves embracing the oath members of the House take - to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

More HERE

Excellent Article on Impeachment

2006-11-09T00:12:00.000-08:00

Check it out at Mother Jones.

From Editor and Publisher: Dean Says 'No' to Impeachment

2006-11-09T00:07:00.000-08:00

The election is won. Is Dean forgetting the base that helped win the election?

Appearing on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" tonight, Democratic Party chief Howard Dean told host Jon Stewart, "I know half your audience wants us to impeach the president"-- this drew wide cheers -- "but it's not going to happen."

More HERE

From red haze Setting the Frame: Impeachment

2006-11-07T23:49:00.000-08:00

I picked this up over at Daily Kos. Written by blogger red haze.
=======================================

Setting the frame: Impeach!
by redhaze [Subscribe]
Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 11:20:46 PM PST

For those of you who would question the political expediency of impeachment, for those of you who would claim that we must deal with "more important issues" while we have a chance, and ESPECIALLY for those of you who would say that impeachment is simply not a realistic goal, I say this: What sort of example would NOT impeaching set for the future direction of this, our great country? To tacitly permit crime after crime, lie after lie, the murder and torturing of people by the stroke of a pen, the gutting of our freedoms and rights, the shredding of our constitution, and setting our country on the brink of totaltarianism. I don't know about you, but to me impeachment is not one issue among many issues, it is THE ISSUE.

Can you imagine George Bush, Dick Cheney, and all the other lying murdering theives and scoundrels among them simply walking away in 2008 and retiring in places like Crawford, Texas? It makes me sick to my stomach even thinking about it. It is, in fact, simply UNthinkable. We must never, ever allow their crimes to stand. We must take a stand here and now. We will never, ever allow this to happen again. Not in our country. Not now. Not Ever.

We are the ones who must now prosecute this war at home. And what we must seek is simple: Justice. For the sake of our nation and the future of our country, we must impeach.

More HERE

From tipping point: I Have an Impeachment Dream

2006-11-07T22:42:00.000-08:00

I noticed the following post over on Daily Kos. Of course, it wasn't recommended because "impeachment" is an unspoken subject over at Kos. Maybe that will change now that the election is over.
===============

I have an impeachment dream
by tipping point
Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 07:03:40 PM PST

I know some of you disagree with me on this, but I have a dream...that a Democratic House (and Senate?) will fully take on this President, and hold him accountable for his crimes. Before you accuse me of wanting vengeance more than good government, or playing into republican hands, hear me out.

I believe that our democracy is at a crisis point--

that after this election we will see numerous challenges and maneuvers designed to screw with the results and destroy confidence in elections by the Republicans;
that the President and the executive branch will burn the constitution before they submit to Democratic subpoenas;
that the Republican (minority) will continue to demonize the Democrats with the same old canards of tax and spend, San Francisco liberal, etc.;
that the government will enter into a gridlocked stand-off which will prevent movement on any issue, including security and Iraq, much less minimum wage, health care, and other important stuff;
that the grid-lock will be intended to allow the Republicans to come back in 08 running against a do-nothing Democratic Congress -

Much of this will happen anyway, no matter what the democrats do. So, given this climate, I believe we need House members (senate too) who will step up and be willing to immolate their political careers on the altar of truth and justice.

I don't mean "truth" and "justice" as empty rhetoric or abstractions. With regard to truth, I stood at the polls today with a Lamont sign and got a chance to talk to numerous people on the other side(s). They have different facts than I do -- if I believed what they believe to be true, I would share their politics. Until we restore an accepted and persuasive version of what happened - backed by the force of law - we cannot talk about the issues in any meaningful way. Telling the truth about Iraq, about corruption, about the energy policy will mean democrats and republicans have a solid ground from which to start. Only the law - the full weight of the process and its findings -- can provide this consensus.

As for justice, this is psychological, but no less important. There is a plague upon the land; until we cast out its source we cannot heal. This is ancient, like the Greek tragedies that end with the king exiled, or the Hebrew Bible which offers the harshest of punishments as collective purgation. The poison is in our polis, and it will take an act of ritual cleansing if we ever mean to clear the throne for a new king. Otherwise, we will continue to fight the old ghosts, the Clintons and the Bushes, and never bear up to the challenge of the present, never repent and expiate our collective civic guilt through reparative acts. I know this sounds a bit biblical and barbaric, but there's something in it, not literal but metaphorical. Justice means balancing the scales again, reasserting the law of consequences (which has atrophied so badly). If we ignore this, we authorize the worst of our leaders to give it another shot.

Nonetheless, it may well be political suicide to push for investigations and to exact official retribution on this gang of criminals. The conventional wisdom says move on, forget it, and that to engage in (what will look like) partisan revenge makes the democrats look petty and damages their future prospects. Yes and no. Individual futures might be damaged, but the party can always start fresh with new candidates. So let some of our congressmen step forward and take the hit. They have two years with a stationary target while Bush is in power - bring him and his cronies down with the facts; hold them to account for the unnecessary deaths they caused, for the corruption they condoned, and for the constitution they raped- then step aside to clear the ground for a new generation of politicians.

Yes, the democrats will taint themselves by fighting this battle, but they can deed the patch of political ground they clear to a new generation. That's my dream - that some of our congressmen and women will put the country first and their careers second. Integrity at this point means not pretending that all is well. Politics is no longer just politics, this isn't a game, the "my good friend across the aisle...we're all members of the same country club" attitude (that Colbert shocked everyone by ignoring at the Press Club event) isn't good enough in these times. You can't sit at the table with criminals and just pass the sugar. You won't get invited back, but so what?

Dems Win! Dems Win!

2006-11-07T22:34:00.000-08:00

Tonight, the Dems won the House. And right now, it looks pretty good for the Senate too.

Crossing our fingers...and waiting.

Let's Impeach the President: The Music Video

2006-11-01T23:45:00.000-08:00

JUST RELEASED!!

You can watch Neil Young's latest music video for "Let's Impeach the President."

Windowsmedia or Quicktime

Thanks to NeilYoung.com!

This video ROCKS!!!

Happy Halloween

2006-10-31T00:30:00.000-08:00

From David Swanson: Interview with Impeachment Author

2006-10-27T22:01:00.000-07:00

Today, David Swanson interviewed Dennis Loo, the author of "Impeach the President, the Case Against Bush And Cheney".

Excerpt:

David Swanson: ...yes...it's interesting because among those who ARE relatively well informed, when you bring up the topic of impeachment, at least for the past several months and probably the next two weeks at least, you never hear "there's not a good case, there's no evidence, there's no grounds."

What you hear is this litany of fears: Fear of Cheney being president, fear of looking radical, fear of it not being plausible and draining energy from something else and so on. Do you get those sorts of responses, and how do you reply to them if you do?

Dennis Loo: Yes, I do get those kinds of responses, and how do I reply to them? Well first of all, what's more important than opposing the kinds of things that this regime is responsible for? If you let this kind of injustice go unanswered, even if you don't win the particular battle that you're engaged in at the moment, you can't allow these things to go down without fighting them. There's the stripping of habeas corpus, the spying on all Americans, torturing people as official policy, murdering people on mass scale, breaching the church/state divide and on and on and on, or denying global warming and endangering the future of this planet. These are horrible things, so that's one point.

You cannot, no matter what the political justifications or logic that people are trying to advance at any moment about why you should let these things go, you cannot allow these things to go down, and secondly, as for Cheney becoming president, if impeachment proceedings and investigations were actually to start, the subtitle of our book is 'The Case Against Bush and Cheney', because we certainly don't want Cheney to take over, but if those investigations were to begin, there is no way that Cheney would survive that process, besides Bush being knocked out of office, they would both go, and their whole cabinet would go, because the kinds of crimes and corruption and terrible things that they are doing, I mean, we only see the tip of the iceberg at this point; imagine with the tip of the iceberg looking the way it looks, imagine what's under the surface. I know I haven't completely answered your question; but why don't you ask me a follow-up question, and we'll get into further.

David Swanson: (laughing)... no I think that those are excellent answers and are ones that I have tried to use as well; I think in addition, it can be useful to point out to people that Cheney is largely running things now, and to have him upfront as the face of the Republican Party would be advantageous to us, but I think your first answer is the fundamental answer; we can't let this pass, and impeachment is not for selecting a president, it's for removing a criminal president, and then we'll address the next one when he or she is in there.

Dennis Loo: Yes, absolutely. Were you and I alone in the world today to recognize that this was going on, it would still be a fight that you and I would have to fight, and then we would have to bring other people along, but it isn't only you and I, in fact; roughly 50% of the American population, the people in polls since last year, the fall of last year or late summer of last year, Zogby, at least, began polling people and asking Americans, if Bush lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, would you favor the articles of impeachment being drawn up? If he has been spying on Americans without court warrant, would you be in favor of articles of impeachment being drawn up, 40% to 50% of the people have been saying yes, so we, in fact, there is a huge latent support for impeachment.

The Democratic Party is ignoring this as an organization. If they really were a party of opposition, they could sweep the chambers of Congress simply by saying this is our platform; we need to impeach this administration, but they are not doing that obviously, so the situation, those people who say that it's not possible politically to impeach this administration, and that we would be unwise, are contributing to the demise of everything that many of these people say is so sacred; the U.S. Constitution, international law and so on and so forth; they have just taken a hatchet to these things. They are taking a bark saw to the Constitution, and the Democrats.... even the New York Times said on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, they said if you are going to filibuster anything, filibuster this, and the Democrats didn't. What did they do? John Kerry, Senator Feinstein, when they took the vote on the floor of the Senate, what did they say about this bill? Did they say this thing is unthinkable, it is barbaric? No, they didn't say these things, they said, "Oh the GOP is going to use this against people who vote No in the November elections," as if partisan bickering was the issue here, as if their careers was the issue, as if the elections of 2006 were the issue; no, the issue is much more fundamental than that, but they didn't speak to it."

More HERE

From Crooks and Liars: Bill Maher on Impeachment

2006-10-26T09:01:00.000-07:00

Watch Bill Maher discuss the need to impeach Bush HERE.

Is Impeachment Really Off the Table?

2006-10-24T13:20:00.000-07:00

On Sunday, Nancy Pelosi reiterated her pledge that, if the Democrats win back the House, "impeachment is off the table."

But is it really?

What if a congressmen, say, hmmm, I don't know who, perhaps John Conyers, were to act upon any of the numerous city council impeachment resolutions presented to the House, pursuant to Rule 603 of Jefferson's Manual?

Or what if Conyers just raises impeachment on his own?

Or maybe some other congressmen?

Perhaps a new rookie congressmen?

Maybe an ImpeachPAC endorsed congressman?

Is impeachment really off the table when 51% of Americans support it?

I doubt it.

Conservative National Review discusses this subject HERE.

Google, Bomb, Impeach

2006-10-22T23:37:00.000-07:00

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl

--AZ-01: Rick Renzi

--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth

--CA-04: John Doolittle

--CA-11: Richard Pombo

--CA-50: Brian Bilbray

--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave

--CO-05: Doug Lamborn

--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell

--CT-04: Christopher Shays

--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan

--FL-16: Joe Negron

--FL-22: Clay Shaw

--ID-01: Bill Sali

--IL-06: Peter Roskam

--IL-10: Mark Kirk

--IL-14: Dennis Hastert

--IN-02: Chris Chocola

--IN-08: John Hostettler

--IA-01: Mike Whalen

--KS-02: Jim Ryun

--KY-03: Anne Northup

--KY-04: Geoff Davis

--MD-Sen: Michael Steele

--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht

--MN-06: Michele Bachmann

--MO-Sen: Jim Talent

--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns

--NV-03: Jon Porter

--NH-02: Charlie Bass

--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson

--NM-01: Heather Wilson

--NY-03: Peter King

--NY-20: John Sweeney

--NY-26: Tom Reynolds

--NY-29: Randy Kuhl

--NC-08: Robin Hayes

--NC-11: Charles Taylor

--OH-01: Steve Chabot

--OH-02: Jean Schmidt

--OH-15: Deborah Pryce

--OH-18: Joy Padgett

--PA-04: Melissa Hart

--PA-07: Curt Weldon

--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick

--PA-10: Don Sherwood

--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee

--TN-Sen: Bob Corker

--VA-Sen: George Allen

--VA-10: Frank Wolf

--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick

--WA-08: Dave Reichert

Investigate, impeach, indict, convict and sentence

2006-10-22T06:29:00.000-07:00

GreyHawk over at Daily Kos current has a diary at the top of the recommended list on impeachment. I've asked his permission to post it over here, and he has graciously consented.

Investigate, impeach, indict, convict and sentence
by GreyHawk
Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 04:27:41 AM EDT
The diary "Newsweek: 51% of Americans support impeachment" by MarcTGFG contains some great back-and-forth discussion of the necessity and possibly utility (or futility) of impeaching Bush and Cheney with only two years left in their ~~reign of terror~~ terms of office.
We're approaching a potential landmark election. The topic is one currently reserved to bloggers, the media and the pundits; the Democrats haven't been pressing it of late. While it does, indeed, cloud the issues that must be addressed and risk deferring thought and concentration on winning the upcoming elections, it's a topic that should not be avoided. Here are my thoughts on it.
I'm going to reference MarcTGFG's diary and comments for part of this, so keep the link handy.
One point raised centered around whether the investigations are even necessary, given Bush's own admission that he has broken, and will continue to break, the law. (Read the linked comment, and the two below.)
Another poster doubted that impeachment could make it through the Senate.
Still others believed that the whole process -- impeachment, indictment and conviction -- was necessary, to properly restore our nation's integrity and to stop the train wreck that is BushCo before it can jump the tracks and avoid prosectution.
The question that hit me the hardest, however, wasn't "whether" or "should" -- it was "why bother" if we get a Dem majority back into Congress. It wasn't a question posed by a commenter; rather, it was postulated as a rather small piece within a larger comment:
"the American public may consider it petty of us to try to remove him with only two years left in his term"
It's a great thought -- I was glad that the poster, PhoenixWoman, brought it up. It left me thinking of what an adequate response would be -- could be -- to such ambivalence by even a small minority of the populace. I posted a reply, which I've reproduced below.

It's the reply that constitutes my reason for this diary tonight; please read it, and comment below on your take regarding both it, and the question of investigations and impeachment of Bush/Cheney.
These are items that I feel we must put some preparatory thought into, even as we press forward with the drive to win the impending elections. If we are not already thinking about our answers to future questions such as this, and we await the last possible moment to reflect upon them, we could very likely lose the opportunity or upper hand at playing a deciding role in the outcome.
:: :: My reply... :: ::
Pithy or not, they could do untold damage if left (0 / 0)
where they are for two years.
Every day, every signing statement, every wiretap, every time someone is whisked away in darkness for rendition and secret tribunal and every opportunity that the current Republican majority has to push through "protective" measures, a little more is chipped away at the foundations of freedom and accountability, and the light of liberty and truth shines a little less brightly.
The self-serving corruption is blatant. The arrogance and contempt for the "quaint" principles of law, of equality, of accountability and for the need for oversight within the framework of checks and balances is unbridled.
The moral and social outrage should be palpable; it grows daily.
Not a minute longer than absolutely necessary as dictated by proper procedure and observance to the process of responsible government should these people remain in office.
The "petty" principle pales in comparison to realities on the ground. Any cries of outrage at an attempt to impeach, to try, to convict and imprison these criminals should be met with the scorn and contempt for our nation that has been foisted upon us for these many years, times three.
Times ten.
...but, then again -- you, and I, and we already know this. It will be incumbent upon the new Congress to take this charge of realigning our government with our founding principles, and to do so with expedience and efficiency that belie the paramount importance of the task. For if we do not find it within the next Congress to right the wrongs of the past six years, and if these clowns of ultimate buffoonery are permitted to complete their terms unchallenged, unchecked and undeterred, then we will have well and truly lost that which our forefathers bequeathed to us; the "American Dream" will be lost, replaced by a cheap imitation born of marketing genius and built by cheap offshore labor.
And most likely stamped "Made in China" somewhere on the bottom.

Newsweek's Poll: 51% of America Favor Impeachment

2006-10-22T01:52:00.000-07:00

Not surprising to us...

Check this out!

According to Newsweek, 51% of Americans are in favor of impeachment. More specifically, "28 percent of all Americans say it should be [a high priority], 23 percent say it should be a lower priority."

Only 44% say impeachment "should not be done."

From David Swanson: The Genius of John Nichols

2006-10-17T13:15:00.000-07:00

By David Swanson

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.

But here's a taste of it:

"When the congressional Democrats failed to pursue impeachment as the necessary response to the Iran-Contra revelations of rampant illegality in the Reagan White House – rejecting the advice of Henry B. Gonzalez, the wily Texas congressman who alone introduced the appropriate articles in 1987 – they thought they were positioning the party for victory in the coming presidential election. Instead, Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, having recovered from the gentle slap on the wrist he received from Congress for his own involvement in the scandal, was elected to the presidency in 1988 by a landslide, and expected Democratic advances in Congress failed to materialize.

"Pulling punches in a political battle usually results in a knockout, with the party that holds back collapsing to the mat and struggling, often for a very long time, to finally get up again. And the Democratic Party of the George Herbert Walker Bush years, with its inexplicable penchant for pulling punches, runs the very real risk of being flattened not once but repeatedly if it fails to confront the issue of rampant wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration."

___________

"'I think that we should solve this issue electorally,' Pelosi repeatedly argued, conveniently avoiding mention of the fact that – like Andrew Johnson when he was impeached in 1868, like Harry Truman when Republicans discussed impeaching him in 1952, like Richard Nixon when the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach him in 1974, and like Bill Clinton when he was impeached in 1998 – George Bush and Dick Cheney were unlikely ever again to face the American electorate."

____________

"'How can we impeach this guy?' [Columnist Harold] Meyerson's answer was 'we can't' – not because Bush is beyond reproach but because 'to dwell on impeachment now would be to drain energy from the election efforts that need to succeed if impeachment is ever truly to be on the agenda.' So the counsel from Meyerson, one of the savvier political writers on the left, was to try a bait-and-switch. Run on health care and education, win the Congress and then, perhaps, begin to entertain questions of impeachment. The problem with such strategies is twofold: First, they misread the politics of impeachment. Second, they make impeachment nothing more than a partisan political act – precisely what House Minority Whip Leslie Arends, an Illinois Republican, termed it in 1974 when, on the eve of the House Judiciary Committee vote on articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, he declared 'Impeachment is purely a Democratic maneuver. We ought to recognize it as such and we ought to stand up as Republicans and oppose the whole scheme.' Within days, Arends looked very much the fool, as more than a third of the Judiciary Committee's Republican members, including several key conservatives, cast votes in favor of impeachment. Within weeks, Arends no longer looked but indeed was the fool, as voters swept from office dozens of Republicans who had opposed impeachment…."

Buy the book HERE

Is the "Impeach Bush" Crowd Conveniently Ignoring Complicit Democrats?

2006-10-11T15:58:00.000-07:00

The Socialist Worker Online has published an interesting article entitled "What the 'Impeach Bush' liberals ignore".

"...And while we're impeaching Bush for supporting torture, secret prisons and denial of the right of habeas corpus even to naturalized U.S. citizens, perhaps we might want to add the names of Democratic senatorial candidate Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn.), considered a "rising star" in the party, or Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) to the charge sheet. They, along with 42 of their Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate, voted to legalize these atrocities as the U.S. Congress wrapped up its business last month.

Of course, the liberal advocates of impeachment don't dwell on Democrats' complicity with Bush's impeachable offenses. Their strategy for impeachment depends on the election of a Democratic Congress that will have subpeona power to launch investigations of the Bush administration.

This may be the biggest leap of faith that the pro-impeachment liberals regularly take. They hope that once Democrats run Congress, the same group of bumblers who would not mount a filibuster against the torture bill--for fear of facing Republican attack ads accusing them of being "soft on terrorism"-- will now become champions of the people.

They forget that if the Democrats win, they will set their sights on winning the White House in 2008. And their leaders will look on the impeachment of Bush as a "divisive" sideshow that will fire up Republicans and impede their ability to rake in corporate contributions."

Hmmmmm......

More HERE

From impeachbush.tv: Impeachment is Everywhere

2006-10-09T14:39:00.000-07:00

Impeachment is everywhere

"... bringing you a short round-up of web links to recent news items, letters to the editor, and coverage of impeachment-related activity, literally from every corner of the country."

"Salt Lake City, Utah (http://tinyurl.com/hgl9w)
Kingston, New York (http://tinyurl.com/k6pjp)
Evansville, Indiana (http://tinyurl.com/g3ne7)
Keene Valley, New York (http://tinyurl.com/gcc9e)
Rolla, Missouri (http://tinyurl.com/zl4lv)
New Paltz, New York (http://tinyurl.com/jgdfx)
Old Lyme, Connecticut (http://tinyurl.com/f9qpk)
Charlotte, North Carolina (http://tinyurl.com/z7fad)
Cape Girardeau, Missouri (http://tinyurl.com/gzou7)
Washington, Connecticut* (http://tinyurl.com/fuzam)
Charleston, Illinois (http://tinyurl.com/kqy5b)
Montpelier, Vermont (http://tinyurl.com/msdq6)"

David Swanson Gives a Run Down on Impeachment

2006-10-09T14:29:00.000-07:00

Impeachment Anyone?

The Case for Taking the Tape Off Our Mouths

By David Swanson

[This piece is based on seven new books on impeachment, all briefly discussed in a final note.]

Never before has the system of government established by the U.S. Constitution been as seriously threatened; never before has the built-in remedy for the sort of threat we face been as badly needed; never before have we had as good an opportunity to use that remedy exactly as it was intended.

Congress has never impeached a President and removed him from office. Once, with Richard M. Nixon, impeachment proceedings forced a resignation. Twice, with Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, impeachment proceedings led to acquittals. On a few other occasions, Congressional efforts to advance articles of impeachment have had legal and political results. These have always benefited the political party that advanced impeachment. This was even true in the case of the Republicans' unpopular impeachment of Clinton, during which the Republicans lost far fewer seats than the norm for a majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they lost seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their strength in the House, with representatives who had led the impeachment charge winning big. (This point -- little noted but important indeed -- was made to me recently by John Nichols, author of the forthcoming book, The Genius of Impeachment.)

More HERE

From Crooks and Liars: Bring Back Nixonian Impeachment

2006-10-04T14:15:00.000-07:00

Crooks and Liars has posted video from the Stephen Colbert show re: the return of Nixon (e.g. Kissinger).... and impeachment!

Another Town Board Resolution: "Impeach Bush!"

2006-10-03T15:22:00.000-07:00

The town is New Paltz, New York. They are the third New York town to vote in favor of an impeachment resolution.

Impeachment Rally in Charlotte, N.C.

2006-09-29T11:51:00.000-07:00

"Freedom Park in Charlotte, NC will buzz with speeches and music this Saturday starting at 1 PM. The goal of all the music and speeches is nothing less than the permanent removal of George Bush and Dick Cheney."

More HERE

October Surprise

2006-09-22T12:19:00.000-07:00

Will there be an October surprise before the November midterm elections? There sure has been a lot of chatter about it on the Net.

As you probably know, a Democratic House and Senate spells doom for the Bush administration (i.e. potential impeachment and investigations). An October surprise would surely help the Republicans in tight election races.

Check out what The Nation has to say about the possibility of an October surprise.

City in Wisconsin is Putting Impeachment on the Next Ballot

2006-09-20T11:35:00.000-07:00

Excerpt:

"In Wisconsin Rapids, a referendum question will ask voters if Congress should look into impeaching the President.

The City Council voted 7-to-1 Tuesday (9/19/06) to put the question on the ballot."

More HERE

History Will Certainly Impeach Bush

2006-09-15T14:44:00.000-07:00

Excerpt:

"Never before in our history, has any leader of our country surrendered in the challenge of inspiring our people to bravery and valor, and tried to make our people act like a timid and fearful nation.

Never before in our history, never, has any President of the United States so aggressively surrendered his moral authority as leader of free world to create such worldwide anger, antipathy and fear directed not towards our enemy, but towards our President."

More HERE

Texan Works to Impeach Bush

2006-09-15T14:39:00.000-07:00

From the Lawrence Journal-World:

"Goodnow did the same thing 33 years ago in an effort to get Congress to impeach President Nixon because of the Watergate scandal..."

More HERE

Elizabeth Holtzman on Impeachment

2006-09-13T11:49:00.000-07:00

From the National Review Online:

"An interview with Elizabeth Holtzman, a leader of the impeach Bush movement. According to Holtzman, Bush doesn't need to have committed a crime, only that Congress finds that he abused his power. An excerpt:

BG: If the Democrats do retake the house, and Rep. John Conyers takes over the Judiciary Committee, do you foresee him being able to mobilize a groundswell to make this happen?

EH: It doesn't happen because Congress wants it. Impeachment can only happen when the American people demand it. And we've seen two political impeachments: one with Andrew Johnson, which was a failure and highly partisan; and one with Bill Clinton, also highly partisan and contrary to what the American people wanted. During Watergate and the Nixon impeachment proceedings, it was the American people who demanded that Congress act. If the American people don't support it, it can't happen. But if people demand it, it will happen, it can happen, and it should happen."

Responding to Ned Lamont on Impeachment

2006-09-06T14:00:00.000-07:00

According to The Hotline, Ned Lamont "stopped by the Christian Science Monitor breakfast in DC today." At the meeting, The Hotline reports the following:

Lamont said he does not support impeaching Pres. Bush and would not support House Dem efforts to move on an impeachment proceeding. Lamont: "I'd oppose that." More Lamont: "I don't think I've see anything that would be an impeachable offense."

As one of the founders of the Impeach Bush Coalition, you shouldn't be surprised to hear that I would disagree with Mr. Lamont here. Of course, when considering the other Senatorial nominees in Connecticut, Lamont is still my preference.

Nevertheless, I feel the need to reach out to Ned Lamont. He states "I don't think I've see anything that would be an impeachable offense." I'll take him on his word for it, that he truly does not think he has seen anything that would be an impeachable offense.

Well, Mr. Lamont.

Have you seen this?

How about this?

OK, what about this?

Please, please, please, Mr. Lamont.....just go read The Case for Impeachment by Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky. They set out Bush's impeachable offenses with meticulous detail. To quote them broadly here, Bush should be impeached for:

"Lying to Congress and the American people about the need to invade Iraq. It has become increasingly clear that Iraq had no nuclear program, no weapons of mass destruction, and posed no imminent threat to America. It was a lie when Bush told Americans we were at risk of attack in 2002 and 2003, and it was a lie when, on March 18, 2003, he wrote Congress to announce his invasion of Iraq, saying it posed a threat to America and was linked to 9/11.

"Refusing to cooperate with congressional and 9/11 Commission probes. To this day, the White House has refused to respond to legitimate requests from such committees for information needed to investigate 9/11, and to help guard against future attacks.

"Violating the Bill of Rights. President Bush has willfully authorized the indefinite detention without charge of U.S. citizens and the detention and deportation of legal residents, and has illegally used the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without a court order.

"Obstruction of justice. While the special counsel's investigation is continuing, it appears that Bush was at least aware of efforts to cover up, and may well have been involved in, a White House campaign to punish and discredit former ambassador Joseph Wilson by illegally exposing his wife, Valerie Plame, as an undercover CIA operative.

"War crimes. There is powerful evidence Bush authorized, promoted, and then attempted to cover up a policy of kidnapping, "renditioning" and torture, all in violation of the Geneva Conventions to which the United States is a signatory. He also waged a war of aggression, and engaged in a conspiracy to promote that war--all of which is a "crime against peace" under the Nuremberg Charter, which the United States helped to write.

"Abuse of power. Bush has willfully ignored more than 750 acts passed by Congress.

"Criminal negligence. Incompetence isn't impeachable, but, in the cases such as Bush's abject failure to deal with the threat and aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, or in his failure to adequately protect troops sent into Iraq, or to plan for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, gross incompetence becomes criminal negligence. The same is true of this president's perhaps greatest crime: his failure to deal with, and his willful obstruction of efforts to ward off, global warming."

Honestly, Mr. Lamont-- if Bush shouldn't be impeached, then what good is our constitution. If a President can ignore over 200 years of legal precedence, on a whim, without penalty, what good is our system of governance? If a President is allowed to repeatedly hide his transgressions from the American people, why even bother with the oath to uphold the Constitution?

There has never been a presidency more worthy of impeachment.

I hope you reconsider your position. Good luck against your Republican opponent, Joe Lieberman.

The Weekend of the Freeway Bloggers

2006-09-01T15:48:00.000-07:00

Well, we're doing it again.

Wanna join in?

Check it out HERE.

The Case For Impeachment: On Television

2006-08-31T12:24:00.000-07:00

On Aug. 26, C-Span aired a one-hour program on the book "The Case for Impeachment" by Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky. The program featured the two authors speaking at Robin's Books in Philadelphia.

The program is now online. It can be accessed at:
http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segid=7322&schedid=446

There is a lot of new information revealed in this program.

According to OpEdNews.com:

"Olshansky reports that there were a number of child captives "some as young as 7," who were held in a special center at Guantanamo called "Camp Iguana." She notes that the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. Is a founding signatory, require that children 12 and under be accorded special treatment in wartime, and not be treated as combatants or held as POWs.

Lindorff, in the program, lays out 10 reasons why Bush should be impeached, and lashes into Democratic Party leaders who have claimed impeachment would be "off the table" if the party were to win control of the House in November. He explains not only that members of Congress have an obligation, as part of their oaths to "uphold and defend the Constitution," to impeach for crimes against the Constitution, the Republic and the people of the U.S., but that impeachment is the perfect strategy for the November election, since 80 percent of Democrats, and over 50 percent of all voters, support the idea."

Check it out HERE!

Impeach Bush Shouted Out in Oklahoma

2006-08-28T12:55:00.000-07:00

From the Norman Transcript:

"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.

More HERE

Cafferty Rips Into the Bush Administration

2006-08-17T15:30:00.000-07:00

Cafferty is a conservative. Not one of those crazy neocons, but the old kind. The kind that actually cares about our civil liberties.

Watch him rip into the bush administration HERE.

It's Official. NSA Domestic Wiretap Program Found Unconstitutional

2006-08-17T12:13:00.000-07:00

This is certainly impeachy.

Cheney Hires Clinton's Impeachment Lawyer

2006-08-15T14:29:00.000-07:00

Perhaps good ole' Dick knows what is coming after November.

Kudos to beachblogger42

2006-08-15T13:28:00.000-07:00

beachblogger 42 just came back from his (her?) summer vacation. He (she?) has some great photos to share with us all.

In Wisconsin

2006-08-15T13:22:00.000-07:00

Impeachment brewing in Wisconsin.

The Bush Administration is Running for Cover

2006-08-11T11:22:00.000-07:00

This story is amazing.

Imagine, if you will, a thief attempting to change a law, retroactively, so that the thief's earlier transgressions would no longer be considered illegal.

Now you understand what the Bush administration is trying to do.

According the the LA Times, the Bush administration is trying to get Congress to pass amendments to the War Crimes Act so that their numerous transgressions will not be considered to be illegal.

The Bush administration has drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible criminal charges for authorizing humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal.

The White House, without elaboration, said in a statement that the bill "will apply to any conduct by any U.S. personnel, whether committed before or after the law is enacted."

More HERE

San Francisco Puts Impeachment on the November Ballot

2006-08-11T00:08:00.000-07:00

From ImpeachPAC.org:

San Francisco Puts Impeachment on the November Ballot

With Help From Constitution Summer, San Francisco Approves Ballot Initiative to Call for Impeachment;
Announcement Comes on Anniversary of Nixon Resignation

CONTACT: Geoffrey King, geoffrey.king@constitutionsummer.org

SAN FRANCISCO, CA --- Four City San Francisco Supervisors have put their pens to a document that will allow the city's 421,000 registered voters an up or down vote on the merits of impeaching both President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney this November 7th. The San Francisco Impeachment Ballot Initiative, like the Berkeley Impeachment Ballot Initiative approved on June 27th, 2006, was drafted in close coordination with Constitution Summer, a nonpartisan, national coalition of students at the nation's law schools and universities. Champaign-Urbana, Illinois quietly approved the first municipal presidential impeachment initiative in American history on April 11th, 2006.

News of the San Francisco decision was withheld until today because Supervisor Chris Daly, who drafted the measure, was on vacation. In addition to Supervisor Daly, Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi, Tom Ammiano, and Jake McGoldrick signed the measure. Constitution Summer helped Supervisor Daly's office select constitutionally grounded language based on the Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, which was drawn up by the attorneys at the Center for Constitutional Rights. These articles include: the Bush Administration's felonious disregard for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which governs electronic surveillance in the United States; the initiation of an illegal war of aggression based on fraudulent claims; extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention, and torture; and an unconstitutional arrogation of power to the executive branch. In addition to these Articles, Supervisor Daly added the Bush Administration's failure to adequately respond to the Hurricane Katrina disaster as a failure to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.

The Articles of Impeachment included in the San Francisco initiative, and with exception of the Katrina response issue, the rationale behind them, are available in a book entitled The Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, published by Melville House Publishing. Melville House recently organized a series of national impeachment teach-ins based on the book, the largest of which was co-sponsored and organized by Constitution Summer. Constitution Summer's teach-in was attended by hundreds of people, and the speakers included Center for Constitutional Rights Legal Director Bill Goodman, Constitution Summer Advisory Board Member Daniel Ellsberg, and Constitution Summer President Geoffrey King.

Of the San Francisco Impeachment Initiative, King says, "The President and Vice President claim that they are protecting American freedom by surveilling and disappearing anyone they please, including American citizens, by tricking the people and Congress of the United States into an unnecessary war, and by creating a massive torture bureaucracy. They claim that this behavior is lawful and constitutional, and that no other branch of government should be able to check their power. A chorus of millions of Americans is saying that the President and Vice President are wrong, and today, the City of San Francisco has complimented that chorus with an instrument of democracy, the direct referendum."

Coincidentally, Supervisor Daly's announcement of the San Francisco Impeachment Initiative coincides with the 32nd anniversary of the resignation of Richard M. Nixon. Dr. Daniel Ellsberg, a member of the Constitution Summer Advisory Board, leaked the now famous Pentagon Papers that the press ultimately used to reveal the impossibility of winning the war in Vietnam. President Nixon's retaliation against Dr. Ellsberg led directly to Nixon's resignation. Dr. Ellsberg said of Constitution Summer's work:

"The young men and women of Constitution Summer are like the people under General Washington in Valley Forge. And General Washington's ragtag group did win, incidentally."

In addition to the San Francisco initiative, lobbyists Susie Shannon of Poverty Matters and Sophie de Vries of After Downing Street met with staff from Assemblymember Paul Koretz's office in Sacramento, where Shannon and de Vries presented a petition with the names of thousands of Californians who support impeachment. Assemblymember Koretz is the author of the AJR39, a California-wide impeachment resolution that, if passed, would be transmitted to the House of Representatives via Rule 603 of Thomas Jefferson's Rules of Parliamentary Procedure, which allows state legislatures to transmit articles of impeachment directly to the House of Representatives. Rule 603 has been invoked successfully before: in 1903, Florida District Judge Charles Swayne was impeached in a process that started in the Florida State Legislature. In addition to California, resolutions to impeach President Bush are pending in the state legislatures of Illinois and Vermont.

The Next Ned LaMont

2006-08-11T00:04:00.000-07:00

Check out Carl Sheeler in Rhode Island. Is he the next Ned LaMont?

Santa Barbara Getting Started...

2006-08-10T14:40:00.000-07:00

From the Santa Barbara Independent.

"Can the American people impeach a president who has started an illegal war of aggression in defiance of the United Nations, spied on the American people, authorized the kidnapping and torture of innocent civilians, and repeatedly declared his intent to ignore laws enacted by Congress? All across the country, dozens of grassroots groups, city councils, and state legislatures are initiating impeachment inquiries and actions in response to the crimes committed by President George W. Bush and members of his administration. In May 2006, the Santa Barbara Impeachment Coalition (SBIC) joined their ranks."

More HERE

It's That Time of the Month

2006-08-07T14:19:00.000-07:00

It's that time of the month where I remind you about ImpeachPAC. ImpeachPAC is a registered political action committee focused on raising money for the support of impeachment-minded congressional candidates. In essence, ImpeachPAC is the organization you want to support if you want Bush impeached.

Have you donated yet?

And introducing...

2006-08-04T14:39:00.000-07:00

...the Progressive Blog Wire! (You might notice that the PBW is made up of a few IBC members.)

The Progressive Blog Wire is a center for reform- and progress-minded blog content sharing; a place where member bloggers share their original posts with other Blog Wire members who may, in turn, choose to publish those posts on their own blog.

I just joined today, and although I probably won't be very active there in the near foreseeable future, I am happy to support the PBW in getting off the ground. (Speaking of which, I wonder when I'll find the time to go back and blog at my original blog, The Bulldog Manifesto?)

ImpeachPAC Gets on Comcast

2006-08-04T14:30:00.000-07:00

From our good friends at ImpeachPAC.org:

Today Comcast - the nation's largest cable company - announced they would broadcast ImpeachPAC's TV ad criticizing Joe Lieberman in advance of Tuesday's primary in Connecticut.

There is one simple reason why they changed their minds - because HUNDREDS of you called Comcast's President, Brian Roberts, and politely asked Comcast to support the First Amendment.

YOU made the difference. THANK YOU!!!

Our ad was meant to have an impact, but some thought it was confusing. So we produced a shorter ad that packs a more direct punch.

It's called "Lie and Die" and you can watch it here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FV6Fbgp3J-s

I Love Vermont

2006-08-04T14:20:00.000-07:00

Honestly, I love Vermont. The more I hear about Vermont, the more I love Vermont. The impeachment train isn't slowing down in Vermont...

Constitutional Crisis. 26 Separate Laws Broken.

2006-08-03T11:58:00.000-07:00

See the VIDEO. From CNN by way of Crooks and Liars.

Turn Out the Lights....

2006-07-27T17:53:00.000-07:00

from the Pulse of the Twin Cities, Turn out the Lights.

Santa Cruz News

2006-07-25T20:39:00.000-07:00

Santa Cruz City Council to vote on Bush impeachment

From Wire Reports

SANTA CRUZ - The Santa Cruz City Council is the latest Bay Area agency to consider an advisory ballot resolution to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

If approved, voters on Nov. 7 would be asked to decide whether they want to call on Congress to "initiate proceedings for the impeachment and removal from office of" Bush and Cheney as well as calling upon the state legislature to adopt a similar resolution.

In June, the Berkeley City Council adopted a similar resolution, calling on voters to impeach the president and vice president.

More HERE

From Dave Lindorff: 10 Reasons to Impeach

2006-07-22T00:20:00.000-07:00

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.

What has been missed in almost all the mainstream media coverage of this important ruling is that this slap-down of Bush's justification for his Guantanamo decision also undermines his justification for many other of his constitutional violations.

Let's first look at the list of the president's High Crimes and Misdemeanors. They are:

1. "A Crime Against Peace." Initiating a war of aggression against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the U.S.--a war that has needlessly killed 2550 Americans and maimed and damaged over 20,000 more, while killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children, is the number one war crime according to the Nuremberg Charter, a document which was largely drawn up by American lawyers after World War II.

2. Lying and organizing a conspiracy to trick the American people and the U.S. Congress into approving an unnecessary and illegal war. This is defined as "A Conspiracy to Commit a Crime Against Peace" in the Nuremberg Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

More HERE

Add Obstruction of Justice to the List

2006-07-18T12:34:00.000-07:00

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.

More HERE

The Bush Administration Has No Defense for Illegal Wiretapping Now

2006-07-18T12:25:00.000-07:00

By Senator Russ Feingold
From Daily Kos

With the Administration doing so much to weaken our system of checks and balances, a lot of Americans were heartened to see the third branch of government - the judiciary - stand up to the Administration with the decision in the Hamdan case a few weeks ago. The Supreme Court made it crystal clear that all detainees have basic rights under U.S. and international law, and that the Administration has to scrap its plan to try some detainees held at Guantanamo Bay in military commissions that lacked basic safeguards of fairness.

As many legal thinkers, and some in this community, have pointed out, the Hamdan decision was a rebuke to an Administration that thinks it can make up its own laws. And this decision has ramifications far beyond the issue of detainees. For one thing, Hamdan completely undercuts the Administration's already weak legal argument in defense of its warrantless wiretapping program.

It is clear that the program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). But Administration officials insisted unconvincingly that the authorization for use of military force (AUMF) from September 2001 had them covered - that this resolution somehow ok'd their warantless wiretapping, even though there is no such language in the resolution, and no evidence to suggest that it was intended to give the President blanket authority to order these warrantless wiretaps.

In Hamdan, the Court made it clear that the Administration can't hide behind the AUMF anymore. The Administration tried to use the AUMF argument in the Hamdan case too - claiming that it authorized military commissions for detainees. But the Court flatly rejected that idea, just as it rejected the idea that the President's inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief trumps the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The bottom line is that the Court was not buying the extreme theories of executive power put forward by the Administration in the military commissions case, and there is no reason to think it that it would buy those same theories when they are used to justify the illegal wiretapping program.

Last week, I asked Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, about this very issue in the Judiciary Committee. He said - big surprise - that he didn't think that the Hamdan decision would affect the warrantless wiretapping program. Clearly, the Administration is going to try to brush this off, but this issue is too important, and the law is too clear, and I am going to keep demanding a straight answer.

Yesterday I wrote a letter to the President and Attorney General Gonzales urging them to reconsider the Administration's position about the legality of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping based on the Hamdan decision. I specifically urged them to consider the implications of Hamdan when they conduct their periodic reauthorization of the wiretapping program, which DOJ has indicated occurs approximately every 45 days.

The Administration's legal defense of its warrantless wiretapping program has always been threadbare, but with the Hamdan decision its argument isn't just threadbare any more - it's just plain gone.

Hamdan underscores how this Administration has played fast and loose with the Constitution and the law, and why the President should be censured for authorizing the illegal wiretapping program, for misleading the public both before and after it was revealed, and for failing to inform the appropriate members of Congress about it, as required by law. We have to demand that this Administration, and this President, protect our Constitution and our values as we protect our country. I am going to keep raising this issue - in fact, I plan on asking the Attorney General about it this morning when he comes before the Senate Judiciary Committee. So stay tuned and thanks to all of you for keeping the heat on this Administration to own up to its mistakes and abide by the rule of law.

From the Vermont Guardian: Teach to Impeach

2006-07-14T13:20:00.000-07:00

Excerpt:

"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."

Johnson described the response to the handbooks as "amazing.""

More HERE

Santa Cruz Considering....

2006-07-13T12:15:00.000-07:00

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.

More HERE

Republican Texas Congressman Wants Bush Removed

2006-07-12T11:50:00.000-07:00

By David Swanson from OpEdNews.com

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.

Millions of U.S. citizens, like Paul, support impeachment and removal from office. And we can rightly be challenged by anyone as to whether we are sacrificing enough to make it happen: are we working every moment of the day that we can to drag a few more Congress Members onto H Res 635? Are we passing resolutions in every town and city and state possible? Are we straining enough to try to shove the peace movement and the labor movement or other potentially helpful organizations onto the impeachment agenda? Are we protesting? Going to jail? Fasting? Do we wear our Impeach Bush and Cheney shirts every day?

Just as we can very reasonably be asked such questions, Rep. Paul can be asked this one: Why have you not introduced articles of impeachment, or at least signed onto Conyers' bill for a simple bipartisan investigation?

How does Congressman Paul think history will look on one of the 435 people in a position to act who declared action needed and then sat down and did nothing, who actually summoned the courage to admit publicly that he recognized the slide to fascism, but stood aside and wished the country well as it slid down the slope? Will history smile on such behavior?

Were Paul to put his signature where his mouth is, he would become an instant hero, the chances of impeachment would dramatically increase, and the chances of impeachment being dominated entirely by partisanship would be eliminated. And Paul would catch a ton of flack from partisans, btu they'd be partisan Republicans, and I think he could handle it.

But I digress.

So, anyway, I phoned Paul's communications guy, whom I'd never spoken to before, Jeff Deist. But Deist turned out to be, like most Hill staffers, more cautious than his boss. Deist did not deny what Paul had said on the radio, but changed the topic to telling me what Deist believed.

For those who care, Deist believes that the issue that matters is Congress's failure to insist on its power to declare war. "Bush is not really the culprit, the blame is with Congress," Deist said, complaining of "Congress's cowardice."

I asked Deist if I could check with the Congressman on whether he agreed, and Deist said I could do so by sending a detailed request, explanation of the article I was writing, etc., to rep.paul@mail.house.gov

While Deist made it very clear through his defensiveness and hostility that I'd never get an interview on this topic, I'm not sure it wouldn't have an impact if, say, 10,000 people sent an Email to that address thanking Paul for his statements and asking him to do more than talk. Can you do that please?

We thank you, Congressman, but we can all talk, and talk is cheap.

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Demand Impeachment Now

http://www.davidswanson.org

DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. 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 obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.

Tea Time

2006-07-10T11:52:00.000-07:00

Who doesn't love tea?

But have you tried Impeachment Tea? Apparently, the tea is infused with peach, mint, and, of course, impeachment.

Get it? Im-peach-mint?

Some Washington Residents Trying to Force Impeachment

2006-07-10T11:46:00.000-07:00

"A group of Washington residents is petitioning town leaders for a special town meeting where local residents can debate and vote on a resolution to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for their conduct relating to the war in Iraq."

More HERE

Impeachment On Main Street, USA

2006-07-06T12:18:00.000-07:00

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

George W. Bush-- War Criminal?

2006-07-05T17:23:00.000-07:00

This was published in the LA Times recently. It's worth a read.

Rock River Runs Down Impeachment

2006-07-05T13:18:00.000-07:00

Check out the Rock River Times' summary of impeachment, HERE.

And Introducing...

2006-07-01T13:57:00.000-07:00

...Constitution Summer.

From their website:

"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."

The Silence is Deafening

2006-06-29T13:39:00.000-07:00

Ignoring the Call to Impeach Bush
by Peter Phillips

If 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."

More HERE

Fox News Talks Impeachment

2006-06-27T21:20:00.000-07:00

News Hounds has the run-down, HERE.

Dave Lindorff Takes Impeachment on the Road

2006-06-26T11:26:00.000-07:00

One of the authors of the exceptional book The Case for Impeachment, Dave Lindorff, is out on the road promoting his book...and impeachment.

Excerpt:

"Over this past week, I had a few experiences in the course of several book events for The Case for Impeachment which both illustrate the importance of this constitutionally important method of checking the actions of dangerous or criminal presidents, and the difficulty of doing so.

On Friday, I debated my Counterpunch editor, Jeff St. Clair, in a forum that was part of the International Socialist Organization conference at Columbia University in New York. Jeff crushed my argument in favor of impeachment at that forum with a brilliant monologue of one-liners that made John Stewart's "Daily Show" seem like a Dick Cavett re-run. Declaring that Bush had in five years managed to destroy the U.S. military, U.S. imperialist strategy, the U.S. economy, and any remaining credibility that the New York Times might have once had, he asked the assembled radicals in the audience to "just imagine what else he could accomplish in just two more years in office!"

More HERE.

Support the California Impeachment Resolution

2006-06-23T13:12:00.000-07:00

As some of you may know, there is a proposed impeachment resolution in California. Support for the resolution is growing, but it sure would be nice to pressure the California Legislature some more.

We sure could use your help. If California passes an impeachment resolution, it would be a huge triumph for the nation.

If you live in California, it's pretty damn easy to help out. Simply cut and paste the following proposed letter (or write your own!) into the following action page, HERE.

If you don't live in California, it's still easy to help out, but you can't use the action page. Instead, simply cut and paste the following proposed letter and email it to all of the state legislators. I have provided an email list at the end of the letter.

And now, the letter....

Dear California Legislator:

I am a concerned citizen, alarmed about the illegal and unchecked actions of President George Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney. Through a rarely exercised statute of the Jefferson Manual of the House Rules, section 603, State legislatures may set impeachment in motion. Recently your colleague, Assemblymember Paul Koretz, introduced AJR 39, a resolution calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush and
Vice President Richard Cheney.

I am writing to strongly encourage you to become a co-sponsor of this bill. Below are just a few of the undisputable illegal actions that these two "leaders" have taken on behalf of the American people. Our country's status as a beacon of democracy has been tarnished against our knowledge and will. We must hold them accountable for the carnage George W. Bush and Richard Cheney have wrought upon our great nation.

The Impeachable Offenses:

I. Conspiracy to Defraud Congress & the American People:

Lying to Congress & the American people about the reasons for the Iraq war; exceeding Presidential authority in violation of Article II of the Constitution and the War Powers Act

A. Lying about the urgency of the threat from Iraq
B. Lying about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection
C. Lying about the status of Iraq's nuclear program
D. Lying about uranium from Niger
E. Lying about aluminum tubes
F. Lying about chemical & biological weapons
G. Lying about unmanned aerial vehicles
H. Lying about mobile weapons labs
I. Conspiracy

II. Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Negligence & Obstruction of Justice:

A. Ignoring warnings about 9/11
B. Obstructing investigations into 9/11
C. Conspiracy

III. Conspiracy to Violate the Rights of Citizens & Residents of the United States:

A. Detaining without charge
B. Denying the right to a fair, speedy, public trial
C. Denying the right to habeas corpus
D. Misusing the NSA to spy on citizens, violating the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution & the FISA
E. Conspiracy

IV. Conspiracy to Violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act & the Espionage Act, and Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice:

A. Allowing the disclosure of the name of Valerie Plame Wilson
B. Lying to the American people about the President's role in the disclosure
C. Obstructing justice by lying about the President's personal, direct knowledge of the leak
D. Conspiracy

V. Conspiracy to Violate International Laws that Carry the Full Force of U.S. Law Under the United States Constitution:

A. International Law
B. Nuremberg Tribunal Charter
C. Geneva Conventions
D. Torture
E. Rendition
F. Illegal Invasion of Iraq
G. Conspiracy

VI. Conspiracy to Abuse Power, Violate the U.S. Constitution, & Commit Criminal Negligence:

A. Abuse of power - Separation of Powers - "Unitary Executive"
B. Criminal negligence - Katrina
C. Criminal negligence - Failure to protect U.S. military service members in combat zones
D. More here - treaties, environment, etc.
E. Corruption
F. Conspiracy

Sincerely,

--------------------------------------

And now the email list...

California Legislators:
Senator.Aanestad@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Ackerman@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Alarcon@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Alquist@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Ashburn@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Battin@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Bowen@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Cedillo@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Chesbro@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Cox@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Denham@sen.ca.gov
Senate.District35@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Ducheny@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Dunn@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Dutton@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Escutia@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Figueroa@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Florez@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Hollingsworth@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Kehoe@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Kuehl@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Lowenthal@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Machado@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Maldonado@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Margett@sen.ca.gov
Senator.McClintock@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Migden@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Morrow@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Murray@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Ortiz@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Perata@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Poochigian@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Romero@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Runner@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Scott@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Simitian@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Soto@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Speier@sen.ca.gov
Senator.Torlakson@sen.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Baca@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Bass@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.benoit@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.berg@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.bermudez@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.blakeslee@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Bogh@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.ron.calderon@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Canciamilla@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Chan@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Chavez@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.chu@asm.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Cogdill@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Cohn@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Daucher@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.DeLaTorre@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.devore@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.dymally@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.emmerson@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Evans@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Frommer@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblywoman.garcia@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Goldberg@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.hancock@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.haynes@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Jerome.Horton@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Shirley.Horton@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Houston@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Karnette@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.keene@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Koretz@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.lamalfa@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Lasuer@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.laird@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.leno@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Leslie@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.levine@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblywoman.lieber@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Lieu@assembly.ca.gov
assemblymember.liu@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.matthews@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.montanez@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.mullin@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.nunez@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.nava@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.McLeod@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Oropeza@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Parra@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Pavley@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.ridley-thomas@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Ruskin@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Salinas@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Vargas@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.wolk@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.Wyland@assembly.ca.gov
Assemblymember.yee@assembly.ca.gov

Thanks to Bruce Sims of the San Diego Impeach Bush Meet-Up for writing a portion of this letter. Also, thanks to the National Lawyers Guild, Chicago chapter, for writing a portion of this letter.

It's Worth Mentioning Again

2006-06-22T16:01:00.000-07:00

Are you aware that there are "Impeach Bush" clubs and meet-up groups in cities all over the nation?

Care to meet like-minded people in your city to get active about impeachment?

If so, go HERE.

More Impeachable Offenses

2006-06-21T13:02:00.000-07:00

The Chicago chapter of the National Lawyers Guild has posted about Bush's impeachable offenses.

The Impeachable Offenses:

I. Conspiracy to Defraud Congress & the American People:

Lying to Congress & the American people about the reasons for the Iraq war; exceeding Presidential authority in violation of Article II of the Constitution and the War Powers Act

A. Lying about the urgency of the threat from Iraq
B. Lying about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection
C. Lying about the status of Iraq's nuclear program
D. Lying about uranium from Niger
E. Lying about aluminum tubes
F. Lying about chemical & biological weapons
G. Lying about unmanned aerial vehicles
H. Lying about mobile weapons labs
I. Conspiracy

II. Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Negligence & Obstruction of Justice:

A. Ignoring warnings about 9/11
B. Obstructing investigations into 9/11
C. Conspiracy

III. Conspiracy to Violate the Rights of Citizens & Residents of the United States:

A. Detaining without charge
B. Denying the right to a fair, speedy, public trial
C. Denying the right to habeas corpus
D. Misusing the NSA to spy on citizens, violating the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution & the FISA
E. Conspiracy

IV. Conspiracy to Violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act & the Espionage Act, and Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice:

A. Allowing the disclosure of the name of Valerie Plame Wilson
B. Lying to the American people about the President's role in the disclosure
C. Obstructing justice by lying about the President's personal, direct knowledge of the leak
D. Conspiracy

V. Conspiracy to Violate International Laws that Carry the Full Force of U.S. Law Under the United States Constitution:

A. International Law
B. Nuremberg Tribunal Charter
C. Geneva Conventions
D. Torture
E. Rendition
F. Illegal Invasion of Iraq
G. Conspiracy

VI. Conspiracy to Abuse Power, Violate the U.S. Constitution, & Commit Criminal Negligence:

A. Abuse of power - Separation of Powers - "Unitary Executive"
B. Criminal negligence - Katrina
C. Criminal negligence - Failure to protect U.S. military service members in combat zones
D. More here - treaties, environment, etc.
E. Corruption
F. Conspiracy

More HERE

Ten Reasons Why Bush Needs to Be Impeached

2006-06-20T15:17:00.000-07:00

Listen to the audio detailing the ten most serious why Bush should be impeached. Please spread this around.

This is from David Lindorff, co-author of The Case for Impeachment.

Source: June 17 interview by Laura Flanders on Air America's Radio Nation