Responding to Ned Lamont on Impeachment
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.
