Impeach Bush Coalition
A United Coalition of Bloggers for the Impeachment of George W. Bush

Bloggers Needed!

Wednesday, December 27, 2006
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!

Monday, December 25, 2006
12:52 PM :: ::

The Bulldog Manifesto :: permalink

Hey, Dean! Yo, Pelosi! Why Impeach?

Friday, December 22, 2006
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

Sunday, December 17, 2006
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
11:32 AM :: ::

The Bulldog Manifesto :: permalink

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

Monday, December 11, 2006
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."
10:18 PM :: ::

The Bulldog Manifesto :: permalink

The Nexus Between Oversight and Impeachment.

Friday, December 08, 2006
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?
11:36 AM :: ::

The Bulldog Manifesto :: permalink

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

Thursday, December 07, 2006
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!

Wednesday, December 06, 2006
"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.


* 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.


Is Impeachment Really Off the Table (Part 2)?

Is impeachment really off the table?

OpEdNews asks the question, HERE.

'Worst President Ever'

Sunday, December 03, 2006
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."

12:11 PM :: ::

The Bulldog Manifesto :: permalink

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

Saturday, December 02, 2006
"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."

11:45 AM :: ::

The Bulldog Manifesto :: permalink