<$BlogRSDUrl$>
Impeach Bush Coalition
A United Coalition of Bloggers for the Impeachment of George W. Bush

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

Wednesday, January 31, 2007
In six short years, the Bush regime has transformed the United States from an exemplar of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, to a pariah and a threat to international law and order. A recent BBC poll of twenty-six countries has found that, by a plurality of 49 to 32 percent, the United States is believed to play a "mainly negative" role in the world. These scores report a continuing decline in international respect for the United States. As Dave Zweifel writes: "We no longer are viewed as a beacon of freedom for the world, but a nation to be vilified for its war-mongering, its torturing and its refusal to work with other countries."

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

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

More HERE



Impeachment Would Be Welcomed

Monday, January 29, 2007
The latest Newsweek poll should cause the impeachment naysayers to rethink their position.

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



Real patriots defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic

Friday, January 26, 2007
Veterans for Peace (VFP) made it clear today that not only do we need to get our troops out of Iraq, but Congress needs to impeach the president at the same time.

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

"We need to impeach this president so we can get back on track and grow this country the way it should be."
7:16 PM :: ::

Alan :: permalink



How Long Will It Take Before We See This?

Tuesday, January 23, 2007
12:01 AM :: ::

The Bulldog Manifesto :: permalink



Is New Mexico Next?

Monday, January 22, 2007
Is New Mexico the latest state to consider an impeachment resolution? Perhaps....
11:59 PM :: ::

The Bulldog Manifesto :: permalink



Bush Has Stopped Beating Up on FISA.

Saturday, January 20, 2007
One of the questions prosecutors aren't allowed to ask a defendant is "Have you stopped beating up on your wife?" If the defendant answers, Yes, he is currently guilty. If the defendant answers, No, he is still guilty if the statute of limitations hasn't run out.

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

In a normal world where normal rules of criminal procedure apply, a felon who admits to violating the law is indicted. In the constitutional separation of powers, an indictment is called IMPEACHMENT. The 109th Congress failed to impeach (indict) Bush after he admitted to high crimes in 2005. Now he has affirmed his confession through his attorney in 2007. Will the 110th Congress also shirk its DUTY TO IMPEACH?
12:04 PM :: ::

Alan :: permalink



From David Swanson: The Public Relations of Impeachment

Thursday, January 18, 2007
Excerpt:

"The number one reason that Congress members and their staff tell you in private that they are not yet impeaching is fear of the media. The number two reason is fear of Nancy Pelosi.


"The number one reason that well-meaning citizens tell you they don't want impeachment consists of a PR strategy. People want to present an image that does not include what the corporate media says impeachment is. It is a long journey to move from seeing this as smart and strategic to seeing it as a self-defeating surrender to the corporate media.


"And the independent media isn't where it needs to be either. In part, this is because it tends to retell corporate stories in a more honest way, rather than telling stories that have been untold.


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


"Impeachment is too important to stop for consideration of elections, but if you do, and if you read John Nichol's book, you realize that impeachment is not politically dangerous. Failure to impeach when the case is clear is politically dangerous. History shows this, and you can ask John."


More HERE



From TPM Blog: A Special Comment on Impeachment

Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Excerpt from Neerav's Blog at TPM Cafe:

And here lies the problem we face...

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

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


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

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security".


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



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

Saturday, January 13, 2007
The exact number of civilian dead is still unknown.
The U.S.-backed transitional government might have had some claim to popularity on its own, but lost support when the people figured out it was, well, U.S.-backed.
The capital of the country is so dangerous its residents hardly dare step outside to fetch water.
Stop us when this starts to sound familiar.
We're talking about Somalia, where Bush et al. quietly opened a front in their "For-Us-or-Against-Us" war in December 2002, when they opened a major special operations base in neighboring Djibouti.
If you hadn't thought about Somalia since Black Hawk Down, if you just barely saw the news of the Ethiopian invansion late last month, and if word of U.S. airstrikes took a backseat to Bush's speech and the surge, you best take another look right now.
U.S. special operations forces based in Djibouti have been sneaking into Somalia with Ethiopian guides since some time in 2005.
American ground forces were with the Ethiopians from the start of the invasion on December 24, 2006.
And the C130 gunships and helicopters, whose bombings and strafing killed nomadic herdspeople but not al-Qaeda leaders, didn't have to be rushed to the region. They were already there.
What might be other passing similarities to the Iraq war? Violations of international humanitarian and human rights law? Got 'em. Flauting calls for a multilateral solution? Got it. Probability of regional instability? Got it. Global outrage and further isolation of the U.S.? Got 'em. Myopia or outright gung-hoism from the U.S. corporate media (COMA)? Got that, too.
And, oh yes, what about a wholly inadequate Democratic response?
Look for Dick Durbin to introduce a non-binding resolution: Guaranteed to "sharpen divisions" before the 2008 election, but not to stop a war, bring any troops home, or end the suffering of innocents who may not be "us," but ain't exactly "them," either.
Want to put a stop to this before it gets any worse? Pressure your Democratic representative to put impeachment back on the table.



Kagro X on Signing Statements

Friday, January 05, 2007
OK, you've all seen the story by now. George W. Bush thinks he's got the right to peek through your mail without a warrant.

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

More HERE