Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati"The President Cannot Ignore an Impeachment"
After months of revelations about his ham-handed attempts to politicize investigations and prosecutions by U.S. Attorneys and sections of the Department of Justice he heads, after his repeated refusals to cooperate with Congress and his deliberate attempts to deceive the House and Senate judiciary committees, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has invited impeachment to an extent rarely seen in the long and sordid history of executive assaults on the rule of law.
And Congressman Jay Inslee is answering the invitation.
The Washington Democrat moved Tuesday to introduce a resolution that directs the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Inslee's initiative is a serious one, and he is in many senses precisely the right member of the House to be making this push.
As a former prosecutor, he is well acquainted with the requirements of the oath that all House members swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic." He is, as well, a member of the Democratic establishment in the House, a relatively moderate representative who is on good terms with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But, most significantly, he is a representative from a state with an active impeachment movement.
For more than a year, the Washington for Impeachment campaign has demanded that Congress act to hold members of the Bush-Cheney administration to account for their high crimes and misdemeanors. Inslee has heard those demands, loud and clear, and he recognizes their broad appeal. Thus, his move to open an impeachment inquiry is proceeding on the precise lines that the founders intended.
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason and their compatriots believed that impeachment should be an organic process, driven by public outrage over executive excess. They intended that the people would raise the call for accountability and that the federal legislators closest to the grassroots, members of the House, would take it up.
Pelosi -- who today admitted that as member of her caucus, as opposed to its leader, she "would probably advocate" for impeachment -- upset the organic process with her declaration last year that "impeachment is off the table." She was speaking specifically about President Bush, but her words chilled efforts to hold any members of the administration to account.
The chill began to come off in a meaningful way when a maverick member of the Democratic caucus, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. Fourteen House members, most of them stalwart progressives who are made of sturdier stuff than Pelosi and her lieutenants, have agreed so far to cosponsor Kucinich's resolution. They have taken the right stand and their numbers will grow.
But Inslee's initiative is of a different character. He is no maverick. And he has attracted cosponsors from the mainstream of the caucus, including a number of former prosecutors. Initial cosponsors included Xavier Becerra of California, Michael Arcuri of New York, Ben Chandler of Kentucky, Dennis Moore of Kansas, Bruce Braley of Iowa and Tom Udall of New Mexico. And as word of the initiative spread, more members indicated that they would sign on, including Oregon Democrats Earl Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio.
Inslee's initial plan was to solicit support from former prosecutors, many of whom serve on the Judiciary Committee. But his resolution is attracting attention from many of the 122 members who in May cosponsored a resolution by California Democrat Adam Schiff "expressing no confidence in the performance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and urging the President to request his resignation."
It has become clear that the administration has no intention of abandoning Gonzales -- especially with Vice President Cheney's Monday declaration that "I'm a big fan of Al's." So Inslee has offered the appropriate response.
"It's indefensible to allow the continued violation of American privacy, and it's indefensible to treat the truth with such cavalier disregard when talking to the American people and Congress," the congressman says. "So if the president won't do his job (and either seek the Attorney General's resignation or fire him) we'll do ours."
As a former prosecutor, Inslee is doing things by the book.
His resolution does not feature explicit articles of impeachment. Rather, it initiates a process that should lead to the writing of articles by the House Judiciary Committee -- along lines similar to those seen during the period before the committee voted for three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon. "Our resolution follows the careful procedure of conducting a thorough investigation before the House would decide on articles of impeachment -- a fairness the attorney general did not afford to his fired U.S. attorneys," explains Inslee.
If the committee chooses to free itself from Pelosi's grip and do its work, and if it approaches the task seriously, it will have no difficulty developing articles of impeachment against Gonzales. Politicizing federal investigations and prosecutions and lying to Congress are classic examples of impeachable offenses. So too, by any reasonable measure, should be faking up flimsy justifications for torture, warrantless wiretapping and other abuses of civil liberties.
The clear evidence of wrongdoing will not lead allies of the administration to roll over and let an impeachment move against Gonzales advance easily. Texas Congressman Lamar Smith, the Bush partisan who is the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, hastily denounced Inslee's initiative. "The call by Democrats to impeach Attorney General Gonzales is a misuse of congressional power for purely political reasons and a waste of the American publics' money and time," grumbled Smith.
The Texan is wrong. If House Democrats were to avoid proposing the impeachment of Gonzales -- presumably out of a desire to let the Attorney General "twist in the wind" and further discredit a Republican administration and its congressional allies -- that would be a "misuse of congressional power for purely political reasons."
Impeaching Gonzales is not merely an appropriate use of congressional power. It is the only appropriate use of congressional power in this circumstance.
It is, as well, what Inslee's constituents want. Washington for Impeachment director Linda Boyd hailed the introduction of the impeachment resolution and declared, "We will impeach to restore the rule of law!"
Boyd's got it right.
Impeachment is not merely about Gonzales. It is about renewing the Constitutionally-dictated system of checks and balances that virtually collapsed during the first six years of the Bush-Cheney interregnum. President Bush's disregard for the rule of law, and for the cautious assertions of the House and Senate up to this point, has created a Constitutional crisis. Impeachment, alone, is the proper response to that crisis.
"The president cannot ignore an impeachment," says Inslee, who correctly explains that, "This is the only option available to the American people."
But this may not be the only use of the option. The investigation of Gonzales will, necessarily, touch on Bush and Cheney. And, as it does, the issue of how Congress must deal with the impeachable offenses of a lawless president and vice president will, finally, be placed on the table.
John Nichols' new book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
Copyright © 2007 The Nation
80 Comments so far
Show AllIf Gonzales is impeached, or even Bush himself, he will ignore it. He will claim that he is protected by excutive privlege by which, obviously, Congress has no authority to interfere with his position and powers as the Chief Executive since the Chief Executive must be independent of Congress.
Bush has been full of bullshit since the beginning, not not the start of his administration, but from the time he began to run for the office. He lied about being uniter, not a divider and many, many other things. He has been the most divisive man ever to sit in the Oval Office, but that was a given since he was never elected, but usurped the office illegally. He promised to protect and defend the nation and the Consitution but we've seen how well he has defended the nation by, at best, allowing 9/11, though I believe he staged that, and his trampling on the Constitution. He has wasted, embezzled, stolen and squandered trillions of dollars, left the City of New Orleans to die after Hurricane Katrina, tried to destroy Social Security, murdered our soldiers by sending them to die unnecessarily and uselessly for a fake war, placed two pure evil men on the Supreme Court, and repeatedly lied to us about even whether the sun was shining.
Time we throw him and his puppetmaster, Cheney, out, then go after other corruption in our government including the complicit Nancy Pelosi. And, if we elect Hillary, we will just be electing a Bush clone, Bush lite, a Bush-wanna-be who wears Democrats' clothing like the wolves of the fairy tales, or a vampire pretending to be human to find more victims.
Those catholics are exaactly the owners, and members of biggest corporations in US and the rest of the World. We all talking of Media control, and Globalism... well to let you know, the first ever made corporation was made by Templars...(catholics) Adam Weishaupt was an jezuite professor on catholic universitet in Augsburg, who after pope rulled to shut down the jezuit order went undercover, and organized Illuminati movement. His book about fundation doctrines written in 16 st. was re-written by Karl Marx with new name Comunist Manifesto. So the real utor was not Marx, but Weishaupt, an catholic jezuit.... People read the History. You will understand what is going on today, and why! This is the culimination of bloody war trough last 3 centuries. The battlefield is USA The enemey want to destroy our from God given Freedoms, and Democracy. Pope want to rule the World. This is the last prophecy to be fullfilled before Jesus Christ , our Savior, and Redeemer came to make the end. The ruler of New World Order will be pope from Vatican. This is the last pope, and he is determined to finish the work! There will be no more popes after him.
Kathydot,
If you don't know the history, it is the problem of your education, not your. They did not want you to know ... Read the fantastic book from M. Martin The keys of that blood. It was written in 1980... and today is almost fullfiled. Jezuits are these secret terrorists. They have to instale the iron rule for pope. USA will be as first sessexfull Democracy in the world also the first what will destroy Democracy, it has already began with the law that prohibit demonstrations against the war. Who ever try to demonstrate against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan will endup in jail, and his property will be confiscated by the state. The law came out under signature from G.W. Bush at 7/17/07.
Goodbye Democracy, Goodby freedom!
May Good Lord have mercy upon Americans!
Wellcome into Dark Ages!!!
Rick is right. This guy can ignore anything.
RE: scorpio69er - RESPONSE TO A FORMER NYT POSTER
Scorpio69er August 1st, 2007 3:43 pm
Scorpio69er. I was glad to see another exile of the NYT forum (not that that forum was ever, exactly, home...), following a recent post by walter_map.
You and walter_map - whose labor you acknowledged at the end of the forum - were the two strongest debunkers and ridiculers of right wing Bush-World-Speak, I always felt.
As compared with working within a progressive on-line community - where a certain amount of agreement can be assumed - you two excelled at directly parrying and ridiculing 'on the ground' right wing posts, imo. This requires an entirely different set of skills than merely thinkly progressively with one's peers.
In this respect, you and walter_map were up against a 'reality principle' of right wing thinking in the U.S. in a crucial way - i.e., in your ability to analyze and respond not just to right wing articles, but right wing posters.
I'm curious - do you still seek out and post on 'adversarial' websites?
Just as a matter of curiosity...
What CONCEIVABLE reading of recent history gives rise to the idea that the shrubberies will pay the SLIGHTEST attention to anything Congress or the Constitution says?
Impeach Abu? Sure. Go ahead. Send the Sergeant at Arms to detain him and bring him to the Senate.
See what happens.
How many divisions does the House have?
BUSH: THE CONSTITUTION IS JUST A PIECE OF PAPER.
Place: White House, the Oval Office
Time: November 2005
Occasion: Meeting of Congressional Republican leaders and President Bush regarding the renewal of the USA Patriot Act
Tell-tale exchange between Bush and one of the visitors:
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
According to our 28-percenter, the Constitution is damned by God, not blessed by God.
I suppose that God and Bush-God-talker have a better constitution in store for us.
How about sending this around the whole world? I think it will help to speed things up:
The Declaration of Independence II, August 2, 2007
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to make political changes, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that the people involved should declare the causes which impel such action.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: when a leader of a democratic republic over-extends the power given to him by the constitution (sworn to be upheld by each and every one), it is the duty of the citizens to free themselves from such leadership and to provide new guards for their future security. It was bloody revolutions in almost every advanced country that brought down the despotic kings and gave us democratic republics, and it is democratic republics that have put an end to the need of revolutions. Thanks to our founding fathers, it is within the law to change our ambitious leaders periodically, and it is also within the law to impeach our leaders when they show signs of abusing their power.
The history of our current president of the United States of America, George Bush, is the history of a long train of abuses designed to obtain absolute power both at home and abroad. To prove this accusation, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
President Bush has lied about the extent of danger coming from within and without, and by so doing has caused fear, hatred, dissention, and distrust and violence both at home and abroad. He has perjured himself by swearing to tell the truth, with a bible under one arm, and enough evidence to prove in any court of law that he has been dissembling all along. He is more concerned with silencing his opposition, and the truth that they bring, than ridding the world of terrorists. Through his Attorney General he has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices, and through his Vice President he has plunged the nation into a bloody and unnecessary preemptive war. He has broken treaties, supported torture, and sent our soldiers to fight on foreign soil under false pretenses, ill-equipped, and ill-prepared.
We therefore, the people of the United States of America, in order to regain our standing in the world, admit that we were taken in by the schemes of the overly ambitious, as have so many loyal followers before us, and that it is our moral obligation to put a stop to the reign of the Bush/Cheney/Gonzales triumvirate. As long as our constitution is upheld, our goal as a country will never be to help the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else, help one religion gain power over another, or to help our leader become dictator of the dictators. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
_______
canuckchuck, Brilliant! (as usual)
Just thinking.
"The President Cannot Ignore an Impeachment"
Don't bet on it!
We are on new ground with this administration, and they have in the pass ignored the rule of law.
In fact that as been their modus operandi all along.
Remember what they say about a cornered animal.
Marshal law around the corner?
I'm afraid that even if this is pushed forward, and successfully, then Gonzo just becomes another scapegoat and the real criminals get off scott-free. Nancy-Upholding my oath of office is off the table-Pelosi has declared as much.
The solution appears every now and then on these boards. It is simply to stop paying for the madness. When will this sink in? Or is it too much to sacrifice?
Anyway, Canuckchuck, Paul Simon would be proud:)
Any articles of impeachment of Chaney/Bush administration officials will go directly to the US Depositary of State Secrets, where it will be preserved for all time, along with the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
gabi August 2nd, 2007 1:35 am,
Usually when a person asks me "why do you come here??" the person is a gullible Dem koolaid drinker living in denial about their Bush-Enabling Dem party and what the Dems really are.
Please state specifics/details of what I "printed" that was false.
This is more good news for most of us ... except the pub "enablers" who like to print insults and false news here just to continue the Dem bashing!!
Sally, August. erma why do you come here ??
Sally, why do you think you so gleefully printed false info ?? I don't get it!
Right-o impeach goofball Gonzo let the snake snirk up to the WH impeach the rest of'em, then jail for life w/o parole. THEN go after the corporations. I wonder- do they use bottled water from the tap ( oh, those clever entrepeneurs) for waterboarding or just plain well filtered tap water sans bottle.
Do a search on "It's just a God-Damned piece of paperd." Or go to http://www.theantechamber.net/V_K_Durham/PieceOfPaper.htm
Very interesting site. Chimpeach, indeed!
Criminal prosecutions of Bush Administration officials are under the exclusive control of the Department of Justice (and in turn the President), so obviously no such prosecution will be undertaken (much less completed) during the remaining 18 months of the Administration. In the interim, only impeachment offers any prospect of stopping Executive Branch excesses at home and abroad. My feeling is that because Attorney General Gonzalez is obviously following orders from the President, the President should be the main target of impeachment both because our efforts are more effective if narrowly focused and because the worst wrongdoer is the President. I do not believe we can wait for a political solution through the November 2008 elections, both because far too many disastrous things (such as war against Iran) are likely to happen before President Bush's term expires and because the apparently "electible" Presidential candidates of both parties are unlikely to make significant changes in our Government's domestic and foreign policies (witness the recent 97-0 Senate vote effectively giving the President a green light to "retaliate" against Iran for various (unsubstantiated) Iranian actions in Iraq including the "murder of American troops" (one of the legislative "findings" in the unanimous Senate resolution).) An impeachment of Gonzalez would be better than nothing, but any serious effort to stop or limit this Administration's ongoing destruction of lives abroad and constitutional government at home must include the impeachment of President Bush. Perhaps we may not succeed, but sometimes it is necessary simply to do what one believes must be done.
Our good Neanderthal Sensenbrenner, that marvellous congressman from Wisconsin, whom we know so well for not allowing the minority democrats to hold hearings on the war in the halls of Congress, says, If we impeach, then there is NO protection via executive privilege. This he said, I believe, during the Clinton mixup. So there you have it. The reason to impeach is legally quite germane: to pierce the veil of secrecy named executive privilege.
lolyland:
Government made excelend homework on nazi doctrine, and mass manipulation.
You got that part right, but blaming Catholicism for the transgressions of these leaders is off the mark and bigoted. We have plenty of leaders who aren't Catholics who also need to be held accountable.
Corporate control of our three branches of government and our fourth estate (the "free" press) is what has us in this mess. I read a couple of reports from medical professionals that the more a country's wealth rises to the top 1%, the more disenfranchised, apathetic, and unhealthy the citizenry becomes.
Dave Lindorff, you opened my eyes. You have it right and I had it wrong.
Hey Kem, if you're reading this, be glad you didn't vote for me! I'm out of my league.
Some of us knew before the 2006 "election" that NOTHING was going to change by putting more useless Dems in congress. And NOTHING has changed, nor is it about to.
Add this to the useless worthless Dem pile:
House Drops Tougher Auto Fuel Economy
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/08/01/national/w161437D77.DTL&type=politics
QUOTE: After weeks of uncertainty, House Democrats have decided against a confrontation over automobile fuel economy when they take up energy legislation later this week.
END QUOTE
Still enjoying that Dem koolaid? How's it serving you about now?
Any of you gullible Dem koolaid drinkers at all phased by this story? The Bush-Enabling Dems want to do MORE for Dictator Bush by giving him anything he wants...and more. Anybody surprised?:
Democrats Scrambling to Expand Eavesdropping
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/washington/01nsa.html
WASHINGTON, July 31 — Under pressure from President Bush, Democratic leaders in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation this week to expand the government's electronic wiretapping powers.
Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail. Such a step now requires court approval.
It would be the first change in the law since the Bush administration's program of wiretapping without warrants became public in December 2005.
In the past few days, Mr. Bush and Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, have publicly called on Congress to make the change before its August recess, which could begin this weekend. Democrats appear to be worried that if they block such legislation, the White House will depict them as being weak on terrorism.
"We hope our Republican counterparts will work together with us to fix the problem, rather than try again to gain partisan political advantage at the expense of our national security," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said in a statement Monday night.
Some civil liberties groups oppose the proposed changes, expressing concern that there might be far-reaching consequences.
"Congress needs to take its time before it implements another piece of antiterrorism legislation it will regret, like the Patriot Act," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The Bush administration clearly has abused the FISA powers it already has and clearly wants to go back to the good old days of warrantless wiretapping and domestic spying. Congress must stop this bill in its tracks."
The administration says that digital technology and the globalization of the telecommunications industry have created a legal quandary for the intelligence community. Some purely international telephone calls are now routed through telephone switches inside the United States, which means such "transit traffic" can be subject to federal surveillance laws requiring search warrants for any government eavesdropping.
Under the program of wiretapping without warrants, which began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, the N.S.A. eavesdropped on the transit traffic without seeking court approval. But in January, the administration placed the program back under the FISA law, which meant warrants were required for surveillance of the transit traffic.
In the Senate, talks were under way on Tuesday on proposed legislation among members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as Mr. Reid and the Senate leadership, Congressional aides said. Similar talks are under way in the House.
Mr. McConnell sent Congressional leaders a new legislative plan last Friday, one that was more limited than an earlier administration plan.
The White House has told Democratic lawmakers that it will accept a narrow bill now but will come back later for broader changes, including legal immunity for telecommunications companies involved in the wiretapping program.
Mr. McConnell met with Congressional leaders of both parties on Tuesday to try to reach a compromise, a spokesman for him said.
Representative Heather Wilson, Republican of New Mexico and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said, "Admiral McConnell has made the case that this change is needed and that it is a serious problem. This is too serious for political games."
One obstacle to a deal this week is a disagreement between Democrats and the White House over how to audit the wiretapping of the foreign-to-foreign calls going through switches in the United States.
The Democrats have proposed that the eavesdropping be reviewed by the secret FISA court to make sure that it has not ensnared any Americans.
The administration has proposed that the attorney general perform the review, but Democrats are unwilling to give that kind of authority to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who is under fire for what some lawmakers describe as his misleading testimony about the dismissals of federal prosecutors and the wiretapping program.
Mr. Gonzalez has insisted that a 2004 dispute between the White House and Justice Department officials that erupted in the hospital room of then Attorney General John Ashcroft related to other intelligence activities. On Sunday, The New York Times reported that the dispute centered on the data mining elements of the N.S.A.'s program, rather than on the eavesdropping, leaving open the possibility that Mr. Gonzalez had been legalistic in his testimony, but had technically not lied.
In a letter Tuesday to Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. McConnell seemed to confirm the Times account though the letter did not mention Mr. Gonzalez or his testimony.
The letter said that "shortly after 9/11, the president authorized the National Security Agency to undertake various intelligence activities designed to protect the United States from further terrorist attack. A number of these intelligence activities were authorized in one order."
The letter adds that "one particular aspect of these activities, and nothing more, was publicly acknowledged by the president and described in December 2005, following an unauthorized disclosure."
richard young August 1st, 2007 11:34 pm
I'm sure if Dictator Bush were to read your post he would appreciate your attempt to make him **appear** legitimate by your calling him "President Bush" [sic] (with a capital "P" at that!...which denotes respect). UGH.
This international war criminal and illegitimate White House resident deserves no respect from anyone.
George W Bush, as part of The Bush Crime Family/Bush Dictatorship, would also appreciate your using the mild, timid, mealy-mouthed language "Bush Administration."
UGH.
It's a goddamn regime/dictatorship. Not some wet-doily "Administration."
It's The Bush Crime Family.
curmugeon99,
This unfortunatelly will never happend. Americans are well mind controled by FBI, and all mass media. The Government made excelend homework on nazi doctrine, and mass manipulation.
Until the US populace gets the courage to take to the streets and follow the example of Gandhi's non-violent marches and demonstrations nothing will change. The people have got to WANT the Constitution restored enough to ACT accordingly. If there is no such desire, there will will be no more US Constitution (except in name only).
What a shame to let cowardice bring down such a noble experiment of human governance!!
Everyone talk and write about troubles in policy in US but nobody want to see behind the curtains, who is policymaker.... Pelossi, is an catholic, Gonzales is and catholic, Roberts is and catholic, Alito is an catholic... and so on. Remember who assasinated Linkoln? remember where he went to get refugee, to Vatican as bodyguard. Today most of all congresmans are catholics, many of them jezuits. Find the memories of Linkoln, and read what did he say who was behind all attempts to kill him, maybe you will wonder when you find that they were Jezuits!
Fed Reserves, IRS, are instituted to take money out of americans to finance all wars world wide. You would wonder to find that Feds financed Bolsevik Revolution in Russia.... and so on! No wonder that americans do not learn World History in youe schools very much.
Pope want to destroy American Democracy, including US Constitution. This Constitution is thorn in his eyes.
May God have mercy upon all honest americans!
I have a great deal of respect for John Nichols, but I have to disagree with him on this issue. The bill to impeach Alberto Gonzales is a cheap trick by Inslee and the Democratic leadership to run the growing grassroots Bush/Cheney impeachment off the tracks or onto a siding.
As I wrote in my column today, Inslee, who personally undermined the drive for a joint impeachment bill in the Washington State Legislature last March, has argued against impeachment of Bush or Cheney for a string of reasons--that it would be "divisive," that it would detract from the Democratic agenda, that it would interfere with efforts to end the Iraq War, and that the "votes aren't there" in the Senate to convict--all of which apply equally to a Gonzales impeachment. Yet after working to block impeachment of the president and vice president, Inslee is jumping at the chance to impeach Gonzales, a minor hit man in this mobster regime.
We need to ask why he has reversed himself so dramatically, and the answer is clear, especially when at this point, there isn't even any reason to impeach Gonzales. With a call out for a special prosecutor, he is much more likely to be indicted for perjury than impeached for it.
It seems clear to me that the Democratic leadership--and Inslee personally, who is taking a lot of flak back home for his repulsive role in killing off a state legislative impeachment drive--hopes that this Gonzales impeachment will give them cover for their shameless refusal to take the impeachment case to the White House.
The worst part of it is that the gonzales impeachment would probably fail, after months of effort, and then the Democrats will say there's no point in trying again with impeachment of either Bush or Cheney.
John, impeachment isn't the answer to everything, and in this case it's not a step forward, it's a wrong turn. In fact it's worse than a wrong term--it's a diversion.
Dave Lindorff
Author: "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now available in a paperback edition). Lindorff's writing is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net
QUOTE:
grandma August 1st, 2007 6:38 pm
Erma - I'm surprised to hear this, because Boxer is usually on the right side. I'm going to try to find out more. But she's a Senator, and has to wait until the House sends an impeachment motion to the Senate.
END QUOTE
Well, as I said earlier, I wasn't the least bit surprised to hear this.
I haven't expected much from Boxer since she voted "YES" for Bush's USAPATRIOT ACT, which shreds the US Constitution. Anyone who voted for that thing---Boxer, Kerry, Hillary, Feinstein, Biden et al---is a Traitor to the US Constitution as far as I'm concerned.
Impeach.
Try.
Convict.
Imprison.
Then, move on to the criminal behavior of Cheney and, then Bush.
erma's post at 4:53 pm makes a particularly important point. She underscores the necessity of understanding the real nature of the Dem Party, not the legends that have been circulated about it.
The Dems are not "spineless." That word presumes that they really intend in their sweet hearts to protect us little folks from the depredations of the rich & powerful -- but that unfortunately, they're just a bit shy & timid, & keep getting outfoxed by the Big Bad Republicans.
It is indeed crazy to believe that. The Dems with their "shy-and-ineffectual" act, and the Republicans with their entirely convincing neo-Nazi impersonation, are just 2 different faces of the same creature, and they're both joined at the hip. Both faces are very consciously cultivated. These people are not naive, & understand exactly what they're doing, and the audiences they're playing to.
If you doubt this, there's plenty of history to back it up. Or you can just sit back & watch what happens with the Gonzo impeachment. I sketched out the likely scenarios at 3:01 pm above. In brief, the best the Dems will come up with, is using a Gonzo impeachment to divert attention from pressure to impeach Bush & Cheney. And they may well not even go that far.
A good chess player plays against the opponent; a great chess player plays his game and the opponent ends up playing the great chess player's game.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
QUOTE:
MetalDog wrote:
Hopefully, if AG-AG is successfully impeached and he simply refuses to leave his office, that will drive home the point to millions more US people that the Bush crew is completely out of control.
END QUOTE
Yo! MetalDog...one snag there. "The People" aren't paying attention. They are reading Harry Potter and watching that new show Do you Want to Sing or whatever the name of it is.
It would drive home the point to us (the choir) but we already know. The sheep don't have a clue what's going on.
I talked with some acquaintances recently whom I thought were politically aware. Only to a degree. I mentioned Cindy Sheehan and Libby to them. They had never heard of Cindy Sheehan and did not know what I was talking about when I brought up Libby.
Uh huh.
MetalDog wrote:
"Assuming Gonzales is successfully impeached, what's to stop the President from pardoning him and telling him to stay put?"
The Constitution gives the (p-p-p)resident the right to grant a pardon to anyone for anything, specifically EXCEPT impeachment.
It is true that there is no enforcement mechanism for removal from office following successful impeachment. Since no one has ever been successfully impeached (Nixon resigned before his trial, and Clinton and Andrew Johnson were both found not guilty), there has never been a test of how the guilty person would respond.
Hopefully, if AG-AG is successfully impeached and he simply refuses to leave his office, that will drive home the point to millions more US people that the Bush crew is completely out of control.
QUOTE:
grandma August 1st, 2007 5:21 pm
Chess-players know that you don't go straight for the king - first you take out a few pawns and a few other pieces and then get at the real target, the king.
Gonzo is a pawn, but much will come out during the Gonzo investigation that will lead straight to the WH door.
It's a start, folks, and a good one.
END QUOTE
Grandma,
It is NOTHING.
"We" are NOT playing chess NOR is this a game. This is serious. We're in a dictatorship for goodness' sakes! Wake up.
So-called "investigations" may lead to the White House but it is a given that nothing will be done about it despite your wishful-thinking.
Barbara Boxer was on Ed Schultz's show this morning. A friend just told me about it. Schultz had Boxer on and he asked her about impeachment. She hemmed and hawed and he didn't put up with her. He wanted straight talk. Not political BS speak. He didn't want to hear any BS nonsense that these useless scum in congress prefer to engage in. Finally, to his question about impeachment Boxer said:
No, there will be no impeachment.
He asked her if Gonzales lied. Again, she hemmed and hawed. He didn't put up with it. He asked for a straight answer. Did Gonzales lie? She said:
YES.
But nothing will be done about it.
Grandma, you continue living in your Dem dreamland drinking your Dems' koolaid and waiting/expecting the Dems to do something that they are NOT going to do.
I called every one of these members of Congress today to urge their support also for H. Res. 333, the bill to impeach Cheney. I was told that they were supporting H. Res. 589, Rep. Inslee's bill to investigate Gonzales. No one mentioned their having withdrawn their support for H. Res. 589.
What puzzles me, though, is that the Judiciary Committees in both the Senate and the House were already on the Gonzales investigations. So how is H. Res 589 different from the hearings that were already investigating Gonzales?
OSPONSORS(15), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:
(Sort: by date)
Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 7/31/2007
Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 7/31/2007
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 7/31/2007
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] - 7/31/2007
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] - 7/31/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 7/31/2007
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 7/31/2007
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 7/31/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 7/31/2007
Rep Hooley, Darlene [OR-5] - 7/31/2007
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 7/31/2007
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 7/31/2007
Rep Moore, Dennis [KS-3] - 7/31/2007
Rep Udall, Tom [NM-3] - 7/31/2007
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 7/31/2007
I think that someone saw the word "Withdrawn" and misinterpreted the resolution as dead. My sincerest apologies for this misinformation. It gladdens my heart to see that this motion is going forward.
"Impeachment is a complete waste of time since loyalbushies will never admit their God-talker is anything other than super wonderful and perfect. Here's what should be done: first, arrest all members of the administration for confessing to illegally violating FISA - which states that even a sitting President can be arrested for said illegalities. New President Pelosi will take command until Election Day. Next, Congress needs to codify "high crimes and misdemeanors" once and for all, specifically. At the moment, the phrase is meaningless. No other law on the books is so vague and, hence, so easily avoided. Nail it down, and let the indictments fly…
Although I've been working on the "Washington for Impeachment" efforts, I actually think the suggestion above has merit. Only problem -- who would issue the warrants? Gonzales? It would be great if we could find a way to do this, but does anyone know HOW this might be done?
Let the dominoes begin their fall!
Erma - I'm surprised to hear this, because Boxer is usually on the right side. I'm going to try to find out more. But she's a Senator, and has to wait until the House sends an impeachment motion to the Senate.
I didn't mean to imply that this whole thing is a game - just using chess as an analogy. Still, game theory says that a lot of politics is based on games.
Kathyodat: If Rep. DeFazio is your congressman you should be aware that he sits on the Homeland Security Committee and when he asked to see details in closed session regarding post terror attack provisions he was DENIED by the Bush Administration. And he has top security clearance for God's sake! Google the story. (Last 2 weeks)
You should be aware that, just like on September 11, 2001 when about 25 different military "exercises" were underway, that in the month of August ("Noble Resolve") and October ("Top Off") 2007, these military exercises (Department of Homeland Security) are planned for the Portland area.
A group called "Informed Dissent" wrote a letter to Rep. DeFazio regarding their immediate concerns regarding these "terrorism exercises".
Since he's your Congressman I would suggest you might call and ask if he has since been allowed to see the "details" of the Bush Executive Order regarding "Continuity of Government" (Dictatorship)
After listening to the talk today on KPFA by Webster Tarpley (listen to it in their archives), regarding the 25...count them, 25!!! different "terrorism exercises" that were happening on Sept. 11th, 2001 (especially considering the recent warnings by Cheney, Chertoff's "gut feeling", Paul C. Roberts "Watch for Another 911/WMD Experience", Good ol Brezinski "Suggests False Flag Event Could Kick-Start Iran War") etc., if I were you I'd be checking out the group in Oregon "Informed Dissent" to see what the heck is going on in your neck of the woods.
Chess-players know that you don't go straight for the king - first you take out a few pawns and a few other pieces and then get at the real target, the king.
Gonzo is a pawn, but much will come out during the Gonzo investigation that will lead straight to the WH door.
It's a start, folks, and a good one.
calico.tiger,
huckleberry must have removed it. It was under the "old blog" and there was one that advocated war and mass death under the "New World Order." When I saw that poem, it immediately raised a red flag in my mind. I was a fool before for nearly accusing huckleberry of being a troll, and do not want to make the same mistake twice. When I saw that poem on there, I was concerned. I do not think that huckleberry is a troll because he has contributed good things to the discussions and WANT to give him the benefit of the doubt. But the question that arose in my mind was why would he allow someone to post that or did he post it himself? That is what put me in conflict. I understand the satire, and appreciate it, and think nothing bad of huckleberry. I am sorry for getting off topic, and will try to eliminate the drama. Thank you.
""The president cannot ignore an impeachment,""
Really? Why not? No proof is offered that, if lyingGonzo was found "guilty" and impeached, there is a legal mechanism to actually remove him from office. Nor does the Senate have the authority to impose a sentence. Cheneybush's response to an impeachment of Fredo will be the same as it was to the Supreme Court, the Fed courts, and the tens of millions of Americans opposed to their destruction of all things American: go f**k yourself.
Impeachment is a complete waste of time since loyalbushies will never admit their God-talker is anything other than super wonderful and perfect. Here's what should be done: first, arrest all members of the administration for confessing to illegally violating FISA - which states that even a sitting President can be arrested for said illegalities. New President Pelosi will take command until Election Day. Next, Congress needs to codify "high crimes and misdemeanors" once and for all, specifically. At the moment, the phrase is meaningless. No other law on the books is so vague and, hence, so easily avoided. Nail it down, and let the indictments fly...
Bobbi Dykema Katsanis August 1st, 2007 4:36 pm
I don't know how much more one needs to see from the Dems for one to understand that
1) They are not scared
2) They are not afraid
3) They are not spineless
4) They are not wimps
Since Day One, after the Dems gave "their powder" to the Repugs in 2000 during the stolen "election," the Dems have had a very, very STRONG spine and a very COURGEOUS spine for HELPING AND ENABLING BUSH. Period.
The people who STILL don't understand this are those who don't want to understand it. They want to believe that the Dems are something that they are not. Please come out of your denial.
Why one ANYONE think that the Dems would impeach two of their own (Cheney/Bush) and the very people they have been helping and enabling since 2000? Why would they impeach the two people whom the Dems have been "one-with" since 2000? If they did try to impeach, the Dems would implicate themselves as well.
How much longer are you going to allow the Dems to fool you into thinking that they are something that they are clearly not? How much more does one need to see to grasp this?
How much longer are you going to drink the Dems' koolaid?
Everything this piece says about Inslee/Washington State is true of California, as well; hell, Pelosi's own constituency, the city of San Francisco, put through an impeachment resolution a year ago.
I really do wonder if part of the reason Pelosi has taken impeachment "off the table" is that if both Bush & Cheney are successfully impeached, she becomes the POTUS, and Limbaugh et al. will claim she was just gunning for the top job all along.
I also think the Dems really are scared of being accused of payback for Clinton, although the GWB-Cheney administration is a perfect example of why the Founding Fathers put impeachment procedures in the Constitution. I don't know why these fool Democrats are so afraid of being called names. I have worse things happen to me when I play with my cat.
The Bush Administration has hurt so many of our citizens, surely some talented organizers must be able to bring them together to demand impeachment. Otherwise, once the next terrorist attack happens here in the USA, Bush & Cheney become instant dictators beyond any legal restriction.
The article should be titled:
"George W. Bush Cannot Ignore an Impeachment"
I don't know why people like John Nichols tries to make Bush appear legitimate (when he is not) by referring to him as "President." Nichols even goes so far as to use a capital "P" which denotes respect. How can anyone have respect for an international war criminal and illegitimate White House resident whose regime is installing a dictatorship?
I remember after the 2000 stolen "election" that many progressives were refusing to refer to Bush as "president." Even Repug Kevin Phillips was referring to Bush as "His Fraudulency" at that time.
But since 2000 and since the 2004 stolen "election" (yet another one) most so-called "progressives" have CAVED, which seems to be the standard for most so-called "progressives." So they now refer to Bush with the "p" word, making Bush appear legitimate which is what he would prefer people do.
I haven't and never will refer to this Bush with the "p" word. The same for Cheney.
musicbenefits wrote:
QUOTE: Democrats NEED to hold MORE hearings NOW and CALL OFF the Summer Recess until Gonzales is fully investigated. END QUOTE
People have been writing for the last 6.5+ years what "Democrats NEED to do," but you see it ain't happened and it isn't going to happen. Oh, sure, they can posture, pretend, engage in theatre and charades to give the appearance that they holding some sort of "theatre hearing." It's just hot air. Nothing comes of it. They are not about to call off any Summer, Winter, Spring or Fall recess. They can go through the charade of pretending to investigate Gonzales and anybody else in the Bush Crime Family, but Nancy Pelosi (who thinks the US Constitution belongs to her) said yesterday that impeachment is NOT going to happen. NOBODY is going to be impeached she said. Wasn't a surprise to me since I don't expect them to impeach anybody to begin with. Of course the gullible Dem koolaid drinkers will have to trot out some excuse and defense for Nancy Pelosi saying this and apologize for the useless Bush-Enabling Dems and say "they're doing exactly what they should be doing...you have to give them tiiiiiiiiiiiime." (What Suckers).
I'm sure Gonzales has been told the same thing Libby was told, just be loyale to the president
and no matter what happens, you will never see the inside of a jail cell.
The entire U.S. government is corrupt and beyond redemption. A single dog-and-pony-show impeachment here or there will make little difference.
Jefferson is doing somersaults in his grave.
I'm as frustrated as anyone by the apparent spinelessness of democrats regarding (a) pursuing impeachment of Cheney and Bush, given the long list of impeachable offences, and (b) letting Bush essentially have his way on the war in Iraq. However, I'm not content with the explanation that they're simply craven cowards (although this may be the case). So what is a better explanation for their inaction? What are they waiting for?! Does anyone have a better handle on this?
"SallyUUKent August 1st, 2007 12:01 pm
Too late. Inslee has withdrawn his resolution."
That one through me for a loop.
Glad to see it was a mistake.
If the hope for Justice inspired by Rep. Inslee's resolution gains sufficient momentum, it could be just the wind we've needed to re-set this vessel to sail toward the restoration of the dignity of the American people.
I'm going to call my representatives here in New Mexico to thank and encourage them to support Rep. Inslee's resolution. And, for me, that will be a major step, since the last time I called a congressman's office was at the start of the Iraq oppression/occupation. I was living in Arizona at the time and both my senator and rep. were Republicans. I told their aides I hated them (for what they were supporting). And, I've hated that part of me ever since. Maybe, now, I can heal?
"claudius August 1st, 2007 1:58 pm
Hey everyone,
You might click on huckleberry's name. It will link you to the New World Order blog that calls for death and endless war. It is under the "old blog" and is titled "Plague of Kittens." For the record, I have not organized anything nor will I. There is no official organization. Like an ignorant fool, I sent him my email address and will not respond. Sorry to get off topic, but heads up."
claudius:
I'm confused about your alarm. Maybe you're teaching us how hard it is to fight this beast? Maybe this is another lesson in courage?
I visited huckleberry's site and it seems to me to be satire. Did I miss the precise link that frightened you?
Here are examples of his poetry which make me suspect he's no troll(or, if he were, he's convertable):
Diminution
I met an ugly man today
Who walked with horrid grace
Her beguiling bulges tout
The beatific face
I bought my soul on ebay
man, they were going steep
But I watched 'em like a bulldog
And got this one real cheap
Can you help me with my mask, sir?
Just tighten up the screws
I fear it has been slipping
Almost covering the bruise
They keep me on the path,
the paranoia and the pain.
I thank the gods for both,
They keep me from going sane.
-----------
Day 14063
I spent the day
being
eaten by loneliness,
I spent the night
with
imaginary friends,
gracious,
compassionate,
selfless,
understanding,
thoughtful,
sympathetic,
forgiving.
I awoke
and found myself
flawed
and
alone
again.
A goatherder is picked up off the street in Afganistan
He says I am not a terrorist
Why am I sent to Guantanamo
for the rest of my life?
It's so hard
I need an Abu Graib type photo-opportunity
I want a shot at redemption
Don´t want to end up a statistic
In a unmarked graveyard
Bonedigger Sandnigger
Attack dogs in my holding cell
My only crime was being poor
attacked dogs in my holding cell
Get these mutts away from me
Mr. Beerbelly Anal Jelly
They don´t find my bones as chewy anymore
CHORUS :
If you violate the Bill of Rights
I'll be right behind you, pal
I can call you Bushie
And Bushie when you call me
Call me Torquemada Al
A man walks down the street in America
He says the FBI is paying too much attention
But hell, I got a short span of attention
but why are my rights now so wrong?
Hey, where´s my wife and family?
Were they extraordinarily renditioned?
Who is Bushie's role model
Seems that his role model is Kim Jong Il
They were auducted down some alley
by some Karl Rove looking rat-faced spook
All along, along
There were incidents and accidents
There were hints and allegations
Why they hell didn't I pay attention?
CHORUS :
If you violate the Bill of Rights
I'll be right behind you, Pal
I can call you Bushie
And Bushie when you call me
Call me Torquemada Al
A man walks down the street in Iraq
It´s Bushies brave new world
Seems like it´s now the Third World
Now that Haliburton's around
He doesn´t speak the english language
He holds no local currency
He is a foreign man in his own country
He is surrounded by the sound, the sound
of car-bombs in the marketplace
making new meat for the orphanges
He looks around, around.
See's US Evangelical's building architecture
Civil war in its infancy
He says Amen! and Hallelujah!
Just somebody fucking feed me.
Every State and American needs to be protected from
–> the Bush Administration.
The United States of America. Here we Are.
It looks like We are at the point where the highest prosecutor in the land,
the Atty General NEEDS to be brought to justice.
AND NOW Bush
–> Wants to ram through the "FISA "Modernization" bill.
Its obvious what they are doing.
They have already broke the law and the are trying to legislate the coverup.
They already have the power to do what they need..
Follow the LAW and Get a Court Order.
Bush ( and Rove ) started manipulating and exploiting fear last Sat address.. And the Republicans are threatening to blame the Democrats for the next terror attack if they do not pass this bill.
The next few days will be crucial for the preservation of the Bill of Rights.
Democrats NEED to hold MORE hearings NOW
and CALL OFF the Summer Recess until Gonzales is fully investigated.
While it shows some moxie, I think impeaching Gonzales is basically a diversion from the real objective --impeaching Cheney-Bush. If Cheney is impeached (H.R. 333), Bush would probably collapse, and consequently Gonzales becomes a non-issue. I say, let's keep our eye on the bigger fish.
Ack, sorry people, bad editing. I had written:
"I say, let's keep our eye on the real on the bigger fish."
Should have read:
"I say, let's keep our eye on the bigger fish."
Apologies
"The President Cannot Ignore an Impeachment"
****************
But Pelosi can and is...que lastima!
false rumor control: I may have inadvertently contributed to this, when I wrote, in a comment on the other post in which I posted the info from Thomas: "Inslee's bill has been dropped," DC speak for "Inslee has introduced his bill." Sorry Sally! I promise not to use the word "dropped" like this in the future! -RN
IF the Democrats actually move on Gonzales -- and that's a big 'IF' -- there's every reason to believe that they will use it as a way to AVOID confronting Bush & Cheney, rather than as a preparation for it.
Such an evasion would be precisely in line with the Dems' betrayal in May on the war funding "supplemental," where they postured for months on end with "non-binding resolutions" and "timetables for withdrawal," and other sorts of pseudo-antiwar grandstanding -- before finally capitulating to Bush & giving him 100% of the requested war funding, with no strings attached.
The most likely scenario here is that the Dems won't even have the spine to make a serious effort to nail Gonzales. The 2nd most likely is that they'll go after Gonzo, but fail to get him. (Then they'll weakly shrug their shoulders & whine that they "didn't have the votes.") The 3rd most likely is that they make a serious effort to get him, but draw it out, so that by the end of it they'll say that "the country can't afford another long drawn-out divisive partisan impeachment battle." This will then be the excuse for failing to go after the head criminals in the White House.
The question is not can Bush ignore impeachment: the question ought to be when are the Democrats going to grow a spine and DO IT? Wake Up. Aint going to happen under Pelosi and he cronies.
Constitutional crisis is heating up. I'm calling my congressman (DeFazio) to thank him, but please call your representative to urge support for impeachment of Gonzales. I agree, it's opening up the story to the light of day for the public. IF the MSM takes it up. Without too much spin.
Assuming Gonzales is successfully impeached, what's to stop the President from pardoning him and telling him to stay put? He has repeatedly demonstrated his belief that the President is subject to no laws.
If Bush is going around telling people "Congress can't touch you because you're with me", then isn't he a co-conspirator in ANY crime committed by ANYONE under that umbrella of "Executive Privilege"? In other words, if Gonzales broke the law, then so did Bush.
Enough is enough with the pussyfooting around. Gonzo's just a tool. Chimpeach!
The president WILL ignore the impeachment of Gonzales--hell, for how many years have Mexicans been cannon fodder--including the many thousands serving in Iraq?
Just called Rep. Jane Harman's office (36th C.D. - CA) in El Segundo and asked that she support H.R. 589 to impeach Atty. General Gonzalez.
And I called Rep. Jay Inslee's office in D.C. and thanked him for introducing the resolution. MAIN SWITCHBOARD FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
(202) 225-3121
We should send all the encouragement and thanks we can to Rep. Inslee and get on the phone right away to lobby our Reps.
I am going to go burn some candles and meditate HARD on this one.
huckleberry,
It is good to hear from you. I sent you my email address.
Screw this, I'm tired of begging.
Impeach Pelosi and Reid. They are both guilty of violating their sworn oath of office. Replace them with people who will do their duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Sally UUKent wrote: "Too late. Inslee has withdrawn his resolution."
I just called Inslee's Washington office and the aide was quite certain he had NOT withdrawn it (and she had already fielded a similar call). Where are you getting this information?
As you say, where we start impeaching doesn't matter. Start somewhere and then take them out one by one. I spend hours online signing petititions, writing to local newspapers, etc., but I have begun to hound republicans all over the country. With the numbers on this website alone, we can bombard them and remind them that they will be voted out if they don't listen to what the majority wants. I have also sensed on these commentaries that the American people are ready to hit the streets and revolt. The 9/11 general strike is a good start but you must get the word out. We can do this.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/07/362818.shtml
SallyUUKent made an unsubstantiated claim that Inslee withdrew his call to impeach Gonzo. THIS IS NOT TRUE ACCORDING TO INSLEE'S OFFICE! Our purveyor of rumor might like to redeem herself here. Give us your FACTS, Sally!
"The President Cannot Ignore an Impeachment"
Yes. He can. Too little. Too late.
I'm taking a vacation this week out by a pristine forest shrouded lake to enjoy the last few days before Hell rides in on black wings.
(sigh) Oh, well. Someday we'll rebuild.
How do you impeach the cia?
Claudius, What's your e-mail address?
This is what I have been saying in earlier posts. We cannot trust our politicians any longer. They are totally useless to us. We must handle this mess ourselves, since our do nothing Congress continues to shirk its responsibilities. I really like the idea of the strike, street protests, and will do my part to participate.
"We will impeach to restore the rule of law!"
"The president cannot ignore an impeachment,"
I'd like to see him try...
Mea culpa - it was posted on another article here on CommonDreams, and you're right, it's not true, my sincerest apologies. As of yesterday, it has been referred to the House Committee on Rules, according to the thomas.loc.gov. web site.
I suspect that the poster who wrote that misinterpreted this from that web site:
H.RES.589
Title: Directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Sponsor: Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] (introduced 7/31/2007) Cosponsors (15)
Latest Major Action: 7/31/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(15), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:
(Sort: by date)
Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 7/31/2007
Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 7/31/2007
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 7/31/2007
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] - 7/31/2007
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] - 7/31/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 7/31/2007
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 7/31/2007
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 7/31/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 7/31/2007
Rep Hooley, Darlene [OR-5] - 7/31/2007
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 7/31/2007
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 7/31/2007
Rep Moore, Dennis [KS-3] - 7/31/2007
Rep Udall, Tom [NM-3] - 7/31/2007
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 7/31/2007
I think that someone saw the word "Withdrawn" and misinterpreted the resolution as dead. My sincerest apologies for this misinformation. It gladdens my heart to see that this motion is going forward.
First Gonzo, then Messrs. Cheney and Bush. Throw the bums out!
Too late. Inslee has withdrawn his resolution. Another failure of a do nothing Congress that has lived in fear of the Bushies for the past 6 years. I can't believe how spineless these Dems are that we elected last fall. Time for action from WE THE PEOPLE. Forget the politicians - they won't and can't help us anymore. They answer to a higher power, Big Corporations. Big Money that pays for their re-election campaigns.
The only power is in the hands of the People. Us. You. Me.
DO SOMETHING!!!!! BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!!
For the moment, Gonzales is just another insulating layer providing distance to Bush-Cheney, but he will be thrown as the impeachment sacrifice with the hopes that it will be sufficient compensation.
Dems, who enabled the high crimes, fear being swept up in that same tide, when they are trying to spin their own complicity. They are unwilling to turn over any more stones that might call their own political standing into question.
I hope this proceeds. Justice demands it and one impeachement will inevitably lead to others.
I agree.
ANYTHING that exposes the American people to the manifold crimes of this bunch of thugs is a good thing.
Bringing impeachment in any form out of the closet and into the light is a good thing. Let the people see what it is.
I think that will make impeachment of Cheney and Bush more likely.
all the best
Hey everyone,
You might click on huckleberry's name. It will link you to the New World Order blog that calls for death and endless war. It is under the "old blog" and is titled "Plague of Kittens." For the record, I have not organized anything nor will I. There is no official organization. Like an ignorant fool, I sent him my email address and will not respond. Sorry to get off topic, but heads up.
President Bush can ignore impeachment and has ignored impeachment. The reason is simple: Bush is not going to impeach himself.
It's when the members of congress who have the ability to impeach ignore 'impeachment' that the real travesty lies. Here we are again almost 3 years later when impeachment or censure were first brought up and nothing has happened to W or his cohorts in crime as far as removal from office goes.
What 'the people' want is NOT what 'the people' are getting.
It seems to me that the immediate impeachment of Bush will send a signal that we seek to do right. As the information about the crimes of the executive branch begin to reveal the sorry state of the union, we will see a shift in the body politic that will be greater than that of 1968. The right-wing of both the Democrat and the Republican parties will see this as an opportunity for them to regain lost ground, but the cost will be so large that it will deplete their power even more.
When the cause is right one finds many allies. Impeach Bush Now
Jeez, a guy misses a couple of days and look at the flack he takes.
Thanks for the advertisment Claudius and Calico tiger. Although I don't appreciate the reposting of copyrighted material. =]
The post which apparently threw Claudius into a tizzy was a poem entitled "New World Order Prayer". It is still in the archive on that blog.
Yes, it should be obvious that it is satirical. Some of my work is humorous, some ascerbic, some serious. I have only recently begun posting these and don't have the layout like I want it yet. Any experienced bloggers with advice are welcome.
Sorry to take valuable post space to iron out our little troll quibbles.