Happy Halloween
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
From David Swanson: Interview with Impeachment Author
Friday, October 27, 2006
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
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Watch Bill Maher discuss the need to impeach Bush HERE.
Is Impeachment Really Off the Table?
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
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
Sunday, October 22, 2006
--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
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 GreyHawkSun 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 terrorterms 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
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
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
By David SwansonWith "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?
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
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
Monday, October 09, 2006
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
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
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
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!"
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
The town is New Paltz, New York. They are the third New York town to vote in favor of an impeachment resolution.
