A United Coalition of Bloggers for the Impeachment of George W. Bush
How to Build a Police State
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
"The political justifications for spying resemble those the Fascists used to cement their hold over Germany as President Bush uses national security to assume dictatorial powers to spy on US citizens. Dictatorial governments often seize power to protect their citizens from an evil or outside threat. The Roman emperors usurped power to protect their citizens from civil wars. Stalin protected the state from capitalists and foreign intruders. Hitler protected Germany from France, the communists and the Jews, and Saddam Hussein protected his people from warring religious factions.
A standard Bush tactic, the current propaganda blitz drums up fear of another attack to gain support and condemns Democrats, who Bush, Cheney and Rove suggest are unpatriotic and soft on terrorism. There's no substance to these arguments, which seek to extend presidential power; "executive privileges" similar to ones Bush used to conduct secret meetings with oil conglomerates to set energy policy, and to set policy on torturing prisoners and imprisoning Americans indefinitely without trial."
The Velvet Revolution Rolls....
Monday, January 30, 2006
Give it up for the Velvet Revolution
Conservative Rag Uses Abortion Issue to Counter Impeachment
Check out the latest commentary in The Conservative Voice
. Basically, they are trying to convince "christians, conservatives, and republicans" to vote for Republican nominees in the 2006 elections to avoid impeachment, not because impeachment isn't justified, but because impeachment could lead to a democratic government with "abortion on demand, speak[ing] out against Intelligent Design and prayer in schools, lobby[ing] for gay marriage..." You see, it isn't about what is best for America with these folks
, it's about fanatic ideology.
They could care less if Bush violates the US Constitution or takes us to war on lies...
The Texas Observer's 'Mea Culpa!'
Saturday, January 28, 2006
From The Texas Observer
"We Texans are a major source of this deterioration into crisis. The leading Democrats of the state so dishonored the liberal traditions of their party that in the resulting political vacuum, Bush was elected Governor here, and from Austin he mounted the campaign that a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court illegally decreed made him President. After that, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, from Sugar Land, crafted his scheme to use corporate money to widen the Republicans’ majority in the Texas delegation to Washington, D.C., battening down right-wing GOP control of the House and the Congress. The third President from Texas and his Republican Congress then waged aggressive war on Iraq, drove the nation into insolvency to further enrich the already rich, and just for good measure tore up the Constitution....
"If impeachment does not become possible, let me broach with you the idea that a grand jury, federal or state, should indict Bush and Cheney for their manifold official crimes. Are we, as we are so often piously assured, “a nation of laws and not of men,” or is the President above the law if his party controls the House and can block impeaching him?
"The Constitution is silent on whether a seated President and Vice President can be indicted, while in office, for crimes committed while they have held those offices. Constitutional lawyers are congenitally prone to announcing that this cannot be done because it would disrupt the ongoing business of the government. But it is time to do it, if necessary absent impeachment, for exactly that reason—to disrupt the continuation of THIS government.
"I have not yet found one constitutional lawyer who can cite a Supreme Court case or any other judicial precedent prohibiting their indictment—if you know of one please let me hear from you. In 1973 Nixon’s attorney general said the President can’t be indicted, but why should Nixon’s attorney general bind us...?
From The Cranky Blogger....
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Thanks to The Cranky Blogger at Things That Suck
From AfterDowningStreet.org: Countering the Lies About Impeachment
"Impeachment is not likely to gain political traction, said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist. 'Only hard-core Democratic partisans want to see Bush impeached, so it just turns people off.'" --The Dallas Morning NewsThe article: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/012606dnnatnsa.173c9eb8.htmlThe reporter: email@example.comThe pundit: firstname.lastname@example.orgThe facts:POLLING OF AMERICAN PUBLIC ON IMPEACHMENT
Among American adults, 53% agreed and 42% disagreed with the statement:
"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
Among Democrats 76% agreed, and 22% disagreed.
Oct. 29 – Nov. 2, 2005, Zogby International poll, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, +/- 2.9% margin of error.
Among American adults 52% agreed and 43% disagreed with the statement:
"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
Among Democrats 71% agreed, and 24% disagreed.
January 9-12, 2006, Zogby International poll, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, +/- 2.9% margin of error.
Among American adults, 50% agreed and 44% disagreed with the statement:
"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."
Many felt strongly: 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.
Among Democrats 72% agreed, 59% strongly agreed, 23% disagreed, and 11% strongly disagreed.
Oct. 6-9, Ipsos Public Affairs poll, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, +/- 3.1% margin of error.Note on Methodology
The above polls asked about support for impeachment if Bush committed certain acts, rather than asking simply about support for impeachment. Pollsters predicted that asking simply about impeachment without any context would produce a large number of "I don't know" responses. The results may miss significant numbers who support Bush's impeachment for other reasons.
Majority Believes Bush Lied About War
Other polls show a majority of U.S. adults believe that Bush did in fact lie about the reasons for war. A June 23-26 ABC/Washington Post poll found 52% of Americans believe the Bush administration "deliberately misled the public before the war," and 57% say the Bush administration "intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."Historical Comparison
In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton. On average, 36% of American adults supported hearings to consider impeachment, and 26% supported actual impeachment and removal.http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling
A Forgotten Way To Impeach
Thanks to Kagro X for permission to reprint all of his impeachment articles. Here is his latest, posted at The Next Hurrah
Ooh! It's my first use of the State and Local Government category!
So I was cruising around Daily Kos the other day, and came across this diary, raising a point of parliamentary arcana. I just had to look into it.
NOTE: Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the House. This refers to Jefferson's Manual-the House uses it as a supplement to its standing rules.>>
In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: [...] by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469)
The diary linked back to another blog
, where the idea apparently originated. And to be perfectly honest with you, this read at first like just another fringe-y, kooked-out misreading of procedure. But I just happen to have an old copy of Jefferson's Manual here on the desk, and sure enough, that's just what it says. The legislature of any state or territory may transmit charges to the Congress and recommend impeachment.
Now, to be sure, there is nothing that forces the House of Representatives -- still the sole body capable of adopting actual articles of impeachment -- to act on such charges. In fact, you can be assured that they'd do everything in their power to avoid doing so.
But what a story it'd make! A little known constitutional procedure that has lain dormant for decades, never before used against a president, and pitting the duly elected and sworn legislature of a state against a federal Congress sitting on its hands and refusing to act!
What drama! What passion!
So, where to start?
Well, clearly you'll need to begin in a state with a strong Democratic majority in the legislature. That's just plain fact. And while it may be complained that it puts an unduly partisan shine on things, the bottom line is that there really are no Republicans willing to consider their duty in this matter.
With that, then, let's examine the state of the states, and partisan control of the state legislatures
. The handy-dandy chart in the link shows us that the legislatures of Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia all have Democratic majorities in both houses. But Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont have got overwhelming majorities. Veto-proof majorities (though that may not be a necessary requirement).
Hawaii's 51 House seats are occupied by: 41 Democrats and 10 Republicans.
Hawaii's 25 Senate seats are occupied by: 20 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
Massachusetts' 160 House seats are occupied by: 139 Democrats, 20 Republicans and 1 independent.
Massachusetts' 40 Senate seats are occupied by: 34 Democrats and 6 Republicans.
Rhode Island's 75 House seats are occupied by: 59 Democrats and 16 Republicans.
Rhode Island's 38 Senate seats are occupied by: 33 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
Vermont's 150 House seats are occupied by: 83 Democrats, 60 Republicans, 6 Progressives and 1 independent.
Vermont's 30 Senate seats are occupied by: 21 Democrats and 9 Republicans.
That's pretty good odds, at least based solely on partisan affiliation. Lots of leeway for "conscientious objections."
One curious side note: All four of these states have Republican governors -- some for the first time in decades. How weird is that? Will it matter? Not sure. Not only are these veto-proof majorities, but if these states abide by parliamentary rules similar to those used in Congress, a concurrent resolution approved by both houses is not subject to executive signature, and therefore not subject to veto.
But what else do these states bring to the table?
Well, according to a recent SurveyUSA poll
, the states with the three very worst approval ratings for Bush are: Rhode Island, Vermont and Massachusetts -- in all of which Bush draws at least 64% disapproval. Rhode Island actually puts Bush below 30% approval, splitting 29/68!
That's another notch in the columns of those three, then.
Now, any of those states would make a great place to start. Massachusetts has a famous Democratic tradition, of course. And it doesn't hurt that it's the home state of the last Democratic presidential candidate. But what captures my interest is that they were one of the states (along with Vermont, as a matter of fact) whose presidential electors voted to transmit additional messages to Congress
, calling for an investigation of voting irregularities in the 2004 presidential contest.
These are people who are on board with the concept of breaking tradition, and utilizing a bit of arcana when appropriate.
Vermont, of course, has a number of things going for it in this sweepstakes. Need national players with the clout to get the story heard? Vermont provides plenty: Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Pat Leahy; the only independent in the Senate (and a former Republican at that), Jim Jeffords; the only independent in the House, Bernie Sanders; and of course, Democratic National Committee Chairman and former governor, Howard Dean.
Overly concerned about partisan taint? In addition to the independent status of Jeffords and Sanders, Vermont has a relatively robust third party presence in its legislature -- the Progressives, generally a liberal-leaning bunch, but without the complicating ties of membership in the Democratic Party.
Add to that the Vermont Legislature's resolution of May 29, 2003 disapproving of the USA PATRIOT Act
and calling upon Congress to repeal specific provisions of it, and you've got a real contender.
But let me just throw in one quick plug for Rhode Island. It's got the legislature. It's got the low -- and I mean low -- Bush approval ratings. But it's also got Lincoln Chafee, one of a dying breed of "moderate" Republicans, who faces what's looking like an uphill battle for reelection this year.
Would Chafee -- who has broken from the president recently on some key votes, including judicial nominations -- have it in him to stand by Bush when the I-word is on the table, the man's approval ratings are in the toilet, and his home state's legislature has sent instructions to impeach?
I don't know, but I'd love to find out!
So, is it all just some crazy pipe dream? Well, if you're asking me whether the Republican-controlled House is likely to be persuaded to move articles of impeachment at the behest of a single state legislature, the answer is obviously no. But as I said, what a story it'd make!
What would the House do with such a charge? Well, clearly it'd have to be delivered in some formal fashion. Perhaps memorialized by a motion from a sympathetic Member. At the very least recited aloud by the Reading Clerk, live on C-SPAN. But the House would have to dispose of it somehow, most likely by immediately moving to commit the charges to a committee -- likely Judiciary -- and let it rot there, or to table any motions brought seeking to recognize the transmission of the charges.
But that's just fodder for the media. "Congress Ducks State's Impeachment Charges," the headline might read. (OK, maybe that's the pipe dream.) Still, it's a story. And what if more than one state sent such charges?
But another beauty of this is that Jefferson's Manual also instructs us:
A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business. It may not even be superseded by an election case, which is also a matter of high privilege. It does not lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has been made at a previous time during that same session of Congress, previous action of the House not affecting it.
State legislatures take note, however:
A resolution simply proposing an investigation, even though impeachment may be a possible consequence, is not privileged. But where a resolution of investigation positively proposes impeachment or suggests that end, it has been admitted as of privilege.
The resolutions referred to above are actually those which would be proposed in the House, memorializing the receipt of a state's petition, but it could only help matters for state legislatures considering transmitting such charges to be explicit in framing their document in terms of impeachment. It'd be a much tougher sell to convince the House Parliamentarian that a resolution brought in the House seeking to memorialize a state legislature's resolution calling for impeachment did not actually constitute at least a resolution of investigation positively proposing impeachment. Not that the House GOP Leadership wouldn't consider overruling the Parliamentarian, of course.
So, who's up for it? Who likes Vermont for the job? Rhode Island? Someplace else? Hawaii's nice during winter.
And Yet Again....
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
....another case for impeachment
"But outside the beltway, in congressional districts all over America, the "I" word is moving out of the margins. In the wake of the revelation that federal officials have been illegally eavesdropping on American citizens without required warrants – which President George W. Bush not only admitted approving, but promised to continue under his expansive view of executive power – has propelled talk of impeachment into the political mainstream.
Although political leaders and major media outlets have been slow to pick up on the trend, national polls now show a majority of Americans support an impeachment inquiry."
Law Students Turn Their Backs on Albert Gonzalez
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
We're not buying it, Al!
An IBC Rant
The blog Musings of a Liberal Texan
hasn't been around long, but from what I've seen so far, this lady knows how to rant
"Yes, the republicans won and have the power. But guess what? 52% of the people in this country believe that Bush should be impeached! 52%! Last time a percentage was used, I believe it was 51%, it was called a mandate. So what is 52%? A direct freakin’ order? Over and over again we heard it said – mandate! mandate! mandate! all over the news. What was the percentage of people that wanted Clinton impeached? 36%? Yet silence from the media on the issue of impeachment. No amount of head bobbing, arrogant dismissal of facts, minimizing of ethical violations or deflection of attention will ever, ever justify blatant law breaking.
It is time for the democrats, the progressives of our nation to say, we pander no more. The people are with us...."
It gets better HERE
''What the President Ordered in This Case Was a Crime"
"...George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley refer to the wiretapping ordered by Bush as ''an intelligence operation in search of a legal rationale." Without a doubt, Turley added, ''What the president ordered in this case was a crime," said Turley, who bluntly told the gathering that Sensenbrenner and other House Republicans have set a dangerous precedent by refusing to permit oversight hearings.
Turley's comments on the troubling nature of the president's wiretapping initiative -- and the failure of House Republicans to aggressively investigate and challenge that initiative -- were echoed by Bruce Fein, who served as a deputy Attorney General for the Reagan administration. In addition to suggesting that the implausibility of Bush's claim that he was acting within the law should be self evident, Fein warned presidential powers must always be regulated in order to halt abuses of the moment and to prevent the development over time of an imperial presidency that can no longer be checked by Congress."
Conservatives Recognize the Growing Potential For Impeachment
Right-wing magazine Insight on the News
"Impeachment proponents in Congress have been bolstered by a memorandum by the Congressional Research Service on Jan. 6. CRS, which is the research arm of Congress, asserted in a report by national security specialist Alfred Cumming that the amended 1947 law requires the president to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of a domestic surveillance effort. It was the second CRS report in less than a month that questioned the administration's domestic surveillance program.
The latest CRS report said Mr. Bush should have briefed the intelligence committees in the House and Senate. The report said covert programs must be reported to House and Senate leaders as well as the chairs of the intelligence panels, termed the "Gang of Eight.""
**UPDATE** Check out the Daily Kos diary on this same article HERE
From Brad Blog: The McLaughlin Group Talks Impeachment
Monday, January 23, 2006
Check out this EXCELLENT video
hosted by the great Brad Blog
:Issue 1: Impeachment!
Another Case For Impeachment
Drexel University professor Robert Zaller presents another case
for the impeachment of George W. Bush.
You may be surprised to know that Professor Zaller was also in favor of the Clinton impeachment!
"If Clinton deserved impeaching, Bush needs it. He has created the greatest constitutional crisis in two hundred years, and the future of the republic, degraded as it has already been by the runaway presidencies of his predecessors, may well be in the balance. I don't suggest impeachment lightly, and I don't suggest it on the basis of my disagreement with many, though not all, of Bush's policies. If the American people want to vote for bad air, polluted rivers, destruction of the biosphere and global warming, that is their democratic right. If they want corporate lobbyists to write their energy, health and safety laws, ditto. The remedy for policies you don't agree with is the next election, laying to one side the high probability that Bush was not elected but appointed president in the first place.
Why, then, does Bush require impeachment? I offer the following four articles for the consideration of the Congress..."
Add This To Your Email Signature
Friday, January 20, 2006
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.NOTE: Thanks to blogger jai Mansson, who has claimed authorship of the notice, for creating the notice. Great work jai!
The Historic Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
Thursday, January 19, 2006
The following is an excerpt from the testimony given by Gary McDowell
, Director of the Institute for U.S. Studies, University of London, as given to the United States House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution Hearing on the Background and History of Impeachment on November 9, 1998:
"In the mid-seventeenth century the notion of what constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" was expanded to include such things as negligence and improprieties while in office. Chief Justice William Scroggs, for example, was impeached in 1680 for, among other things, browbeating witnesses, cursing and drinking to excess, and generally bringing "the highest scandal on the public justice of the kingdom."(59) By the eighteenth century it was clear that impeachable offences under the rubric "high crimes and misdemeanors" were not limited to indictable crimes in common law but reached more purely political offences. In 1701 the Earl of Oxford was charged with "violation of his duty and trust".(60) And Warren Hastings was charged with maladministration, corruption in office, and cruelty towards the people of India.(61) By the time of the Federal Convention, English law on impeachments was clear that such "misdeeds . . . as peculiarly injure the commonwealth by the abuse of high offices of trust are the most proper, and have been the most usual grounds for this kind of prosecution."
59. Howell's State Trials, 35 vols. (London: R. Bagshaw, 1809-1826), VIII: 197, 200.
60. Simpson, Treatise on Federal Impeachments, p.144, n.6.
61. Ibid., pp. 168-70, n.6.
The following is an excerpt from the testimony of Michael J. Gerhardt
(College of William & Mary School of Law) as presented to the United States House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution (Hearing on the Background and History of Impeachment) held on November 9, 1998:
"The great majority of commentators who have closely examined the likely meaning of the constitutional phrase "other high crimes or misdemeanors," including, among others, Justice James Wilson,(9) Justice Joseph Story,(10) Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes,(11) Justice Arthur Goldberg,(12) Charles Black,(13) Raoul Berger,(14) George Curtis,(15) Arthur Bestor,(16) Paul Fenton,(17) Peter Hoffer and N.E.H. Hull,(18) John Feerick,(19) and John Labovitz (a former staff member of the House Judiciary Committee investigating President Nixon)(20) have reached the same conclusion -- that the phrase "other high crimes and misdemeanors" consists of technical terms of art referring to "political crimes." They also have agreed that "political crimes" had a special meaning in the eighteenth century; "political crimes" were not necessarily indictable crimes. Instead, "political crimes" consisted of the kinds of abuses of power or injuries to the republic that could only be committed by public officials by virtue of the public offices they held. Although the concept of "political crimes" uses the term "crimes," it did not necessarily include all indictable offenses. Nor were all "political crimes" (or impeachable offenses) indictable crimes."
"9. James Wilson, Lectures on the Law, No. 11, Comparison of the Constitution of the United States with that of Great Britain, 1 The Works of James Wilson 408.
10. 2 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, section 799, at 269-70 (rev. ed. 1991).
11. Charles E. Hughes, The Supreme Court of the United States 19 (1928).
12. Arthur J. Goldberg, The Question of Impeachment, 1 Hastings Const. L.Q. 5, 6 (1974).
13. Charles L. Black, Impeachment: A Handbook 35, 39-40 (1974).
14. Raoul Berger, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems 58 (1974).
15. George T. Curtis, Constitutional History of the United States 260-61 (rev. ed. 1974).
16. See Arthur Bestor, Impeachment (reviewing Raoul Berger, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems (1974)), 49 Wash. L. Rev. 255, 264-66 (1973).
17. Paul S. Fenton, The Scope of the Impeachment Power, 65 Nw. U. L. Rev. 719, 726 (1971).
18. Peter Hoffer & N.E.H. Hull, Impeachment in America, 1635-1805 101 (1984).
19. John Feerick, Impeaching Federal Judges: A Study of the Constitutional Provisions, 39 Fordham L. Rev. 1, 47-58 (1970).
20. John Labovitv, Presidential Impeachment 26-89, 108-31 (1978)."
A Short History of Impeachment
has a great article on it's website detailing the history of impeachment
.Check it out
More Grounds for Impeachment...
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
From American Chronicle
" If the President is allowed to break the law on wiretapping on his own say-so, then a President can break any other law on his own say-so -- a formula for dictatorship. This is not a theoretical danger: President Bush has recently claimed the right as Commander in Chief to violate the McCain amendment banning torture and degrading treatment of detainees. Nor is the requirement that national security be at stake any safeguard. We saw in Watergate how President Nixon falsely and cynically used that argument to cover up ordinary crimes and political misdeeds.
As a matter of constitutional law, these misdeeds constitute grounds for the impeachment of President Bush and his cronies who have put him up to carrying out these illegal deeds. A President who maintains that he is above the law -- and repeatedly violates the law -- thus commits high crimes and misdemeanors."
A Socialist Perspective on Impeachment
In case you were wondering what some socialists think about impeachment, check out this article
over at World Socialist Website.
"The impeachment of Bush and Cheney would be, of course, thoroughly justified. There are ample grounds for convicting them of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” They are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq, of both Iraqis and Americans, in an illegal war whose purpose was to seize control of the world’s third largest oil reserves.
But the Democratic Party, even if it won control of Congress in the 2006 elections, has no stomach for the type of fight that would be required to remove Bush from office. This is not merely the product of the personal cowardice of the Democratic leaders. It is because the Democrats, whatever their tactical disagreements, are fundamentally in agreement with Bush’s policies. The same Democrats who admit that the war in Iraq was launched on the basis of lies nonetheless insist that the United States must maintain its occupation of the oil-rich country.
That is because the Democratic Party upholds the same social interests as the Republican Party. Both parties represent and defend the American ruling elite, the top 1 percent which controls the vast bulk of the wealth of society. The struggle against the Bush administration and its policies of war, attacks on democratic rights and destruction of jobs and living standards requires the building of a new, independent political party of the working class, based on a socialist program."
Still Illegal After All These Years....
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Gore On Board
Add Gore to the list. Yesterday, he chimed in
on impeachment. Add him to the 52% of Americans
who believe impeachment may be warranted.
From Harper's: The Index
Monday, January 16, 2006
I found a few interesting bits of info in this week's Harper's Index
51: Percentage of Americans who said in November that the Valerie Plame leak scandal was of "great importance."
49: Percentage who said, two months before President Nixon resigned, that Watergate was "very serious."
42: Percentage who said it was "just politics."
Americans Support Impeaching Bush For Unlawful Wiretapping
By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.
The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:
"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.
Why the Democrats Should Impeach Bush/Cheney Today
Friday, January 13, 2006
's Jerry Mazza has a "no nonsense" take
on the impeachment of Bush/Cheney. Here is a brief excerpt:
"I’ve got three kids, a wife, I pay my taxes. I help old ladies cross the street. And I retch on people who want to rip up the Constitution. It’s that simple. All We Are Saying Is Give The Constitution A Chance. All We Are Saying Is Give The Constitution A Chance."
The Progressive: Impeachment Calls Grow Louder
Thursday, January 12, 2006
"I’m telling you, my friends, there’s something going on at the grassroots that the mainstream media isn’t getting...."
The Nation on Impeachment
The latest issue of The Nation
has a very good article on the impeachment
of George W. Bush. It is written by Elizabeth Holtzman.
Check it out HERE
Domestic Spying & Impeachment
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Take a look at Dick Polman's article
on domestic spying.
Here are some highlights:
"How does Bush's claim of "inherent authority" square with Bush's claim that he is a "strict constructionist"? A literal reading of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reveals that it is "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance ... may be conducted" and requires that a president "during time of war" can conduct warrantless spying for a maximum of only 15 days, after which he must obtain court approval. And in a literal reading of the 2001 resolution authorizing Bush to use military force against terrorists, there are no references to domestic eavesdropping and no provisions setting aside the 1978 law."
"The president's lawyers stated, in a Dec. 22 letter to the Congress, that Bush ignored the 1978 law because he deemed it too slow. They wrote: "FISA could not have provided the speed and agility required." But how does that square with the fact that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act gives the president a 15-day grace period to initiate surveillance - and that FISA has rarely been an impediment? Between 1979 and 2002, the foreign intelligence surveillance court approved 15,264 warrants. It rejected four."
""President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. ... Congress should insist the president cease the spying unless or until a proper statute is enacted, or face possible impeachment." Those are the words of conservative Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan, who contends that Bush has explicitly broken the 1978 federal law that requires that a president obtain warrants."
Read it all HERE
IBC Member Gets Caught by State Trooper
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
IBC member Greg Hartnett of GregHartnett.com
had a little "run-in" with a New York State Trooper. Thanks to the First Amendent and Greg's respectful approach, everything turned out just fine.
Check out Greg's blog to see what happened
Make it a Double, Please!
Monday, January 09, 2006
From Mia Culpa
Pics from Guerilla Impeachment Day!
From the San Francisco area:
From Long Island, New York:
More from Greg Hartnett's blog HERE
From Los Angeles, CA:
From San Diego, CA:
Freep This Poll
The John Birch Society has an impeach poll
Senator Feingold Not Ruling Out Impeachment
From the UPI
"U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., says he would not rule out calling for impeachment of President Bush over secret wiretaps and spying on U.S. citizens."
Today is the DAY!!!!
Sunday, January 08, 2006
OK, today is the day
! How many signs
do you have ready?
Introducing...."The Impeach Project"
Friday, January 06, 2006
The IMPEACH project
is now up! As Kagro X of Daily Kos
"It's not an answer. It's a question.....
"I didn't make up the idea of impeachment. I wasn't the one who first suggested it might be appropriate for any particular person, guilty of any particular offense. And apparently, I wasn't even the first one to say that the word ought to be disseminated on stickers.
"What that says to me is that I was right about how I approach this thing. That I'm not giving anyone any new ideas. I'm just one of probably hundreds of people across the country who said, "Hey, I think we should talk to people about the idea of impeachment, and I'm going to do it by literally putting the word in front of their faces."
"Now, how is it that we've come to this juncture? Where hundreds of people across the country are simultaneously saying, "That's it! I can't take it anymore and I'm going to say so!"
"Now ask yourself how that could be possible without it also being highly likely that millions of Americans fee the same thing, but don't know exactly what they want to do about it. How many just have a vague feeling that they wish someone would do something, or that some stranger would just ask them on the street what they think?
"This is my way of extending my hand to those people, and inviting them back into the public square. Even if they never put up a single sticker or hang a single sign, if they turn to someone at home, at work, at random on the street, whatever, and say, "Hey, how about this NSA stuff? What are we going to do?" that will be enough.
"The idea here is this: The public square has been more or less obliterated in our modern society. We have become individual and solitary consumers of the news. At the time of the founding and for many years beyond, the idea that a looming governmental and constitutional crisis of the sort we potentially face could be reported in the newspapers and not discussed exhaustively, citizen-to-citizen, in taverns, coffee houses, on the porches of post offices and general stores, in town hall meetings -- everywhere and all across the country would have been considered absurd! Beyond belief!
"But in today's information age, while we all consider ourselves better (or at least more quickly) informed than ever before, there is no such discussion. In fact, the very opposite is true. Today, the idea that citizen-to-citizen discussion of the major issues of the day (let alone a constitutional crisis, if that's what we face) would arise spontaneously at public gathering places is what's absurd.
"No, we are today all individual and solitary consumers of news. We have the Internet at our disposal, of course. And we use it gather "virtually," to discuss what we read. But to what effect? The vast majority of the public is not here with us, and we have no way of reaching them through conventional channels. The public square has been obliterated. Paved over and replaced with a strip mall or a Wal*Mart. Today, we "gather" only in traffic jams, on line at the movie theater, or in unruly mobs demanding entry into the Best Buy for the first shot at a new video game.
"What the IMPEACH project is all about is reaching out and, to the extent possible, reestablishing the public square. If we "gather" only in traffic jams, we will address you in traffic jams. If we gather in the shopping malls, we will address you in the shopping malls. Wherever you gather, we will be there to address you. Not with a manifesto, but with a question -- albeit a rather insistent one. It has to be implied in a single word because that's all the time you'll give us. And the word is IMPEACH because it cuts immediately to the chase.
"It makes you ask, "Who?" It makes you ask, "Why?" It makes you ask, "Is it even possible?" But if it genuinely makes you ask, whether just yourself or, with luck, someone else, it does more than any blog-based manifesto has yet been able to.
"And incidentally, if it has this effect on 50,000 people an hour, for less than a dollar's worth of materials, in major cities all across the country, every day, that ain't a bad deal."
Reminder: January 8 is Guerilla Impeachment Day
Small Town City Council Demands Impeachment
The Arcata City Council in California passed a resolution this week demanding the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for, according to the San Francisco Chronicle
"misleading the American people and Congress into waging war in Iraq, failing to respond adequately to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, torturing human beings in violation of the Geneva Convention and ordering the secret surveillance of American citizens."
One city = no big deal
Hundreds of city councils = ???
3 GOP Senators Seem to Be Setting the Stage for Impeachment
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Wow! This is nice!
Hot of the presses from the Boston Globe.
Three key GOP Senators (John McCain, John W. Warner Jr, and Lindsey O. Graham) came out and bashed George W. Bush yesterday. And from the sounds of their quotes, it almost sounds like they are hinting at impeachment.
John W. Warner Jr., a Virginia Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, issued a joint statement rejecting Bush's assertion that he can waive the restrictions on the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment against detainees to protect national security.
''We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," the senators said. ''The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the administration's implementation of the new law."
Separately, the third primary sponsor of the detainee treatment law, Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told the Globe in a phone interview that he agreed with everything McCain and Warner said ''and would go a little bit further."
This is where it gets really interesting! Graham goes on to say:
"I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified," Graham said. ''If we go down that road, it will cause great problems for our troops in future conflicts because [nothing] is to prevent other nations' leaders from doing the same."
Moreover, David Golove, a New York University law professor specializing in executive power issues commented that the Senators statments "mean that the battle lines are drawn" for an escalating fight over the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches of the government.
"The president is pointing to his commander in chief power, claiming that it somehow gives him the power to dispense with the law when he's conducting war," Golove said. ''The senators are saying: 'Wait a minute, we've gone over this. This is a law Congress has passed by very large margins, and you are compelled and bound to comply with it.'"
Read the rest HERE.
Republican Congressional Candidate Favors Impeachment
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
From a Press Release
"I consider the Bush Administration to be both criminal and totalitarian and I have been saying so for months. The rest of the world sees this quite clearly.
Messers Bush and Cheney will not stop their wiretapping program even if it is challenged in court or ruled illegal by the Court or Congress. They are authoritarians, folks, and they have made it clear to everyone except for those currently running this nation's newspapers that they will pursue
their so-called war on terror as they see fit, no matter what we or our courts and Congress think.
That is why I called for the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney in my announcement for Congress back in June of '05. You probably didn't know that, because "our" Vermont media did not report it.
I will be very happy to defend my assertion above at any time, should the media or my likely opponents for Vermont's seat in Congress find their courage somehow, and engage me on the real issue in the upcoming campaign.
(Mr. Morrisseau is an announced Republican candidate for Congress from Vermont)"
Dennis Morrisseau's website
can be seen HERE
Guerilla Impeachment-- Signs Made Easy!!
Thanks again to Demspeak.com
for creating ready-to-print "IMPEACH" signs for Guerilla Impeachment Day
(January 8, 2006).
Please go HERE
and print out as many signs as you like. Then, on January 8, 2006, please post these signs all around your town on sign posts, utility polls, bulletin boards, etc. It couldn't be any easier!
Or, if you wish, get creative and make your own signs.....
The Green Party Says "Impeach Bush and Cheney Now!"
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Six hours ago, the Green Party issued the following press release
. It's nice to see there is a political party out there that isn't afraid to speak truth to power:
Congress must impeach Bush and Cheney, say Greens, citing White House lawlessness, growing threat to U.S. democracy, and war crimes.
Citing a litany of alleged high crimes and misdemeanors, abuses of power, and violations of the U.S. Constitution, Green Party leaders urged Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney as soon as possible.
"The evidence that President Bush has abused his office and betrayed the trust of the American people is now so overwhelming that failure to undertake impeachment would make Congress even more complicit in this administration's lawlessness," said Nan Garrett, Georgia Green Party co-chair and spokesperson for the National Women's Caucus. "Three more years of Bush and Cheney will do lasting damage to the rule of law and result in even more death and destruction under Bush's reckless policies."
"The Bush Administration blocked an independent probe into 9/11 while making fraudulent statements about the reasons for invading Iraq, and now admits that it spies on American citizens in disregard of legal limits. What more does Congress need before it says enough is enough?" Ms. Garrett added.
The Green Party of the United States called for Congress to commence impeachment of President Bush in July, 2003, after he ordered the invasion of Iraq. The resolution accused the President of numerous deceptions to justify the invasion, as well as violations of the U.S. Constitution (restriction in Article II on the deployment of Armed Forces to defense of U.S. borders; required adherence to international treaties in Article VI) and of international law (U.N. Charter; Geneva conventions).
"In early 2003, there already existed credible evidence that the war was based on White House fraud: false claims that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, sought nuclear weapons materials, and colluded with al Qaeda. But most Democrats feared accusations that they'd be soft on terrorism and unpatriotic if they criticized the invasion," said Jody Grage Haug, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States. "Three years later, after more than 2,100 U.S. troop deaths, tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, a continuing military quagmire in Iraq, and indications that the invasion and occupation inflamed anti-U.S. sentiment around the world, especially in Islamic nations, some Democrats have caught up to the Green Party."
In addition to White House falsehoods leading up to the war on Iraq, Greens listed other grounds for impeachment:
President Bush ordered the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens without obtaining a warrant in accord with the Fourth Amendment and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Recent FBI targets of surveillance (nonviolent peace and human rights organizations, Catholic Workers Group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Vegan Community Project) prove that his administration's goals have more to do with politics than with preventing terrorism. Mr. Bush's insistence that such surveillance is justified and will continue is further proof of his contempt for the law.
Numerous Bush Administration policies -- denial of due process, extraordinary rendition, secret detention centers, and torture at various sites, including Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay -- have violated U.S. and international law. Vice President Cheney attempted to gain a license from Congress for torture, even though it has been proven ineffective for gathering accurate information (e.g., Ibn Al Shaykh Al Libi's testimony about links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, later recanted). Greens noted that the agreement reached by Mr. Bush and Sen. John McCain purportedly outlawing torture allows a significant loophole (see "Tortured Logic: McCain-Bush deal has a big loophole" by James Ridgeway with Michael Roston, The Village Voice, December 19, 2005, ).
Congress must investigate whether the White House endorsed the use of outlawed weapons materials such as depleted uranium, which causes radioactive contamination of humans (U.S. troops as well as Iraqi civilians) and the environment; white phosphorus, a chemical whose use in warfare is proscribed by international agreement; and cluster bombs, which do not distinguish between civilians and combatants. Their use in Iraq is a war crime for which either the President himself or the Defense Department must be held accountable. Other war crimes, which require impeachment if based on White House orders, include the military targeting of journalists, individual reporters as well as television stations (Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi), and looting of hospitals, museums, and private homes.
"Many Americans have realized that the Bush-Cheney ideology is about installing a permanent corporate elite in power, buttressed by military power and public fear over perceived and fabricated threats, while missing real dangers to our security," said Jake Schneider, treasurer of the Green Party of the United States. "The response to Katrina, dismissed evidence of global warming, manipulated scientific research, energy policy crafted in secret with corporate lobbies, new prescription drug policy, attack on Social Security, 2000 and 2004 election irregularities, and other evidence should lay to rest any illusion about this Administration's disregard for the interests of the American people."
Impeach the S.O.B.
From Capitol Hill Blue
"I’ve always felt impeachment is the nuclear option of politics; a drastic action we call in after all else fails. That’s why I’ve been reluctant to call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush.
No longer. The reckless, arrogant actions of the man leave me with no choice but to consider that final solution.
Time to impeach the son of a bitch...."
January 8 Will Be Guerilla Impeachment Day!
Monday, January 02, 2006
OK, this comes from Kagro X at Daily Kos
It seems as though the Kos
sacks are planning a guerilla impeachment day for Sunday, January 8, 2006. The Impeach Bush Coalition is joining in!
Here is the scoop:
On Sunday, January 8, the impeachment army is going to get as many people together as possible to participate "in an effort to paper their areas with the IMPEACH
message in preparation for the Monday commute. Highway banners, yard signs, paper fliers stapled to telephone polls, bumper stickers, Avery labels... everything we can throw at them."
From Kagro X:
"That gives you a week to get ready. Interested in making signs? Follow the IMPEACH link to our wiki page and find instructions on both quick-'n-dirty methods and more elaborate signmaking, not to mention the art of hanging your creations. Interested in making stickers? Instructions and templates can be found there, too, as well as in previous IMPEACH diaries. Can't find them? Ask here! We'll give you direct links! We're easy!"
In the meantime, you have a mission -- and there should be no doubt about your willingness to accept it: organize your impeachment army in your area.
Gather your friends, family members, and whomever else you know that wouldn't mind getting involved in the impeachment fight.
Next, during this week, you and your army must make your freeway signs, banners, yard signs, paper fliers stapled to telephone polls, bumper stickers, Avery labels, etc.
Be as creative as you wish, but try to stay on point. Remember, we are doing this for impeachment.
On Sunday night, January 8, the impeachment armies will go out and paper the nation with the IMPEACH message, just in time for the Monday morning commute.Join in! Spread the word!IMPEACH BUSH
This is Now.....
Sunday, January 01, 2006
That was then......