Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiImpeachment: It Still Matters
Last week, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, again introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush.
They were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where no action is likely to be taken.
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., strongly supported the impeachment of President Bush three years ago.
In an interview with Harpers magazine in 2005, Conyers was asked why impeachment was important.
"To take away the excuse that we didn't know," Conyers said at the time. "So that two or four or 10 years from now, if somebody should ask, 'Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?' when the Bush administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that 'somehow it escaped our notice' that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law."
In 2005, when the Republican Party was crowing about a permanent shift in American politics that meant conservatives would control government for decades to come, Conyers was in the minority.
He couldn't get any one to pay attention to the offenses committed by the Bush administration.
But then came the Downing Street Memos, which revealed how the Iraq war was sold under false pretenses. And then came Hurricane Katrina, and the nation watched how the Bush administration left New Orleans to die. And the weight of the accumulated lies by the administration grew heavier and heavier.
Taken together, all this was how the Democrats took control of Congress in the 2006 elections. Yet one of the first acts of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., when she became Speaker of the House, was to declare that impeachment "was off the table."
The evidence continues to accumulate of the lies that were told to justify an invasion of Iraq, of the war crimes and constitutional abuses committed in the course of the so-called war on terror, of the subversion of the Constitution by the Bush administration in so many different ways.
Yet Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership in Congress want no part of impeachment. They still think impeachment is a distraction. They still think it is unnecessary, and could hurt the party's chances in November. They still think that it's better to run out the clock and let the Bush administration slink out of town.
We disagree. What Conyers said in 2005, when he was powerless to act upon his words, still holds true today, when he finally has the power to start the impeachment process.
This is about history, the historical record and ensuring the truth is known. This is about putting the blame of this nation's worst foreign policy disaster solely on the shoulders of the president who created it. This is about letting future presidents know that the rule of law still means something and that the Constitution applies to everyone.
This is not about vindictiveness and partisan politics. The acts committed by the Bush administration rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that our founders said justifies the impeachment of public officials. And if the Democrats refuse to act upon the articles of impeachment, they are no better than the administration in upholding their oaths of office. They are co-conspirators, and history will not judge them kindly for putting politics above the Constitution.
© 2008 The Reformer
81 Comments so far
Show AllGoogle question: What color are the bomblets in cluster bombs?
From first reply-- Human Rights Watch Backgrounder of October 2001:
"A key United Nations clearance expert has expressed concern about the similarity of the coloring of the yellow BLU-97/B cluster bomblets and the small yellow food aid parcels being airdropped in Afghanistan, noting that people are being encouraged to pick up the food parcels, but that picking up a bomblet would be lethal."
Both the question and the answer, by the way, have everything to do with why sensible people everywhere want the immediate impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.
Why wouldn't President Bush join the global ban on cluster bombs? Because he's sadistic?
Yes. Because he wants to blow up small girls with the one third of pretty blue bomblets that don't explode? Yes.
But let's ask him. We need to be careful with our facts. The bomblets might be yellow or red or green-- we in the United States don't know. Okay, let's do it. We'll ask him now.
He replies.
He puts so much air on the "sts" of the word
"terrorists" that his spittle drenches twenty people in his vicinity. A candle goes out.
Little birds begin to clean their beaks, their birdbath refilled at last.
Bravo!!!! Impeach you spineless democrats!!
Don't waste your vote-- vote Nader!!!!!
Personally, I think my vote is my vote and I ain't going to try to tell anyone else how to vote (other than just saying that).
A truce begets truce.
Peace,
Ken
My response to the comment above about my saying that "no vote is wasted". The poster states, "not quite true. those who stay home and do not vote–those votes are truly wasted. Voter appathy is certainly one of the roots of this problem." No, You are incorrect. These people by not voting are casting a ballot for "none of the above". And that non-vote is as valid as any vote. And many people believe that voting is a means by which the corrupted electoral process is validated. These people choose not to validate what they consider to be fraud, or irrelevant, or both. This conclusion and action is every bit as "valid" as any cast vote. Voter "apathy" is a consequence of the perceived irrelevancy of elections. Perhaps, not voting as an expression of "none of the above" is the more honest ballot cast?
There doesn't seem to be much daylight between the positions of McCain and Obama with respect to keeping "everything on the table" regarding the threat of attack (including nuclear) on Iran, and keeping "everything off the table" regarding the impeachment of the war criminal, Bush.
When Conyers first proposed impeachment, and for a time thereafter, it was a great idea. But it now has defects that overwhelm its benefits. If the House actually begins impeachment hearings they will rivet the country, taking the public eye off the November election and forcing Obama to say whether he will vote to remove W or not. It would also massively energize the Republican base to the end that Obama will get far fewer Independant and Republican votes that he now can expect AND the Democrats will take far fewer Senate and House seats than now seems probable, leaving Obama short of the Senate votes he needs on tough issues and leaving the House in the effective control of the Blue Dog Democrats. On January 20, Bush 43 will emulate Bush 41 and pardon every member of the Administration who possibly might be indicted for the multitude of criminal acts they have committed. If the House acted with the alacrity it would require to actually impeach W so as to give the Senate enough time for a trial it will be seen as a kangaroo court. After all that, if the Senate tried W before this Congress goes out of business there is nowhere near enough of the super majority votes required to actually find him guilty. It's better to lay out the crimes and misadventures of this administration by a series of hearings this year and next year by the committees with jurisdiction and lay the record open for history.
Former and current presidential candidates with the courage to publicly call for Bush and Cheney's impeachment:
George McGovern
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel
Ralph Nader
Barack Obama ??
"Many people regard Obama's upcoming nomination for president as a sign that change is underway and that the nightmare of Bush and Cheney will be over beginning in late January 2009. New York Times columnist Frank Rich, for example, sees Obama's emergence as a changing of the guard. Others have cited Obama's campaign as indicative of millennials beginning to take the political stage. Millions are pleased that finally an African-American is going to be nominated by one of the two major parties and see this as in and of itself a step forward.
For the well-meaning people who are feeling this way, I have this question: How can the same Democratic Party, and the same specific individuals, who have co-operated in, permitted and/or legalized the Bush regime's atrocities – including torture and war crimes – now tell us that the candidate that they endorse is the solution to the horrid things that this system and these individuals have themselves facilitated and colluded in?"
http://www.counterpunch.org/loo06162008.html
" Obama's Fla. co-chairman backs Bush impeachment" [headline]
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 06/12/08 11:04 AM [ET]
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), the Florida co-chairman of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) presidential campaign, is one of four House members to have endorsed the impeachment of President Bush.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-florida-co-chairman-backs-bush-impeachment-2008-06-12.html
Wonder how long it will take for Obama to throw Wexler under the bus???
jozef June 18th, 2008 8:09 am: "No one's vote is ever wasted. Get it?"
not quite true. those who stay home and do not vote--those votes are truly wasted. Voter appathy is certainly one of the roots of this problem.
Thats why the monopoly media tries to keep the politcal debate "civilized" and boring.
so get registered and get out and vote!
Nader is interviewed on Amy Goodman today. About Obama, Nader says, "It is Quite Clear He is a Corporate Candidate from A to Z." Needless to say, Nader is correct about this.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/18/ralph_nader_on_barack_obama_it
"and the largest military the world has ever witnessed assemble."
Its not near the largest ever assembled. Its not even of the number in the Eisenhower administration. It is the most powerful though, so your point is valid.
As to impeachment, if you haven't figured out by now its not going to happen, I certainly couldn't say anything to convince you.
" I mean things are very serious, but we need to hold onto our sense of humor."
What a good idea. And it would give some time to study history which is no longer taught in our schools.
From above: "Knocking the Democrats for not carrying on an election-year losers' drama that CAN NOT produce a conviction in a 50-50 Senate is about as goofy as proudly wasting votes on Ralph Nader (again.)"
This is an attitude that cares NOTHING about justice. The U.S. Constitution DEMANDS impeachment when malfeasance is committed by the chief executive. DEMANDS! Not an option, especially not an option based upon election year politics. How does not impeaching, not defending the U.S. Constitution make Democrats different from Republicans? It doesn't. It's like not prosecuting the Mob's obvious criminals because you think the jury will not convict them, but you have the evidence they are guilty. In the impeachment case of G.W. Bush, not impeaching is being complicit. Backing Democrats who take impeachment off the table makes YOU complicit. Isn't that. after all, why the Democrats won't back impeachment? That is, THEY ARE COMPLICIT. To prosecute Bush/Cheney means they would also prosecute themselves. Nancy, et al, won't impeach, now will she, because doing so is taking the 5th amendment!
As for Nader backers being "goofy as proudly wasting votes on Ralph Nader (again), all I can say is this attitude is the main reason why there is backlash against Democrats and why you the Democratic Party has thrown many life long Dems overboard. Using the line of thinking in the quote above voting for Al Gore and then John Kerry were "wasted" votes since neither of them sits in the White House. Democrats have thus "wasted" more votes, by far, than Nader supporters ever could. And, you are about to do it again. Obama will be the same old story. Just as John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al, USED you. Obama will use you, "again". Fundamentalist Democrats seem to have had a frontal Obamaotomy during this election cycle. Perhaps, Hillary was responsible. Run Ralph. Run! No one's vote is ever wasted. Get it? And my vote for Nader does not belong to anyone else but me contrary to what Democrats would like the country to believe.
Failure to impeach destroys the traditional checks and balances between the three co-equal branches of government that are the hallmark of this democracy that was so influential in the modern world. Failure to impeach permanently elevates the executive branch above the others and effectively wipes out key elements of the US Constitution. If the congress fails to impeach the two top criminals in the executive, then most of the congress will also be eligible for impeachment. If another president is elected this year without impeachment, then the surrender of the democracy to fascist oligarchy becomes official. Why do you think progressives are voting third parties?
superjls...
I don't even bother writing to those politicians anymore -- they don't care even if they bother to read them. It's like a battered wife asking her husband not to hit her anymore. A waste of time and energy. They already well know what the people want, but they ignore us.
That's not quitting trying, it's just recognizing the reality and putting energy into something with a chance in hell of getting somewhere -- working to wake more people up and get them organized. I'm not going to play their game -- no more! You can't win, you can't break even, but you *can* get out of the game. In this case it's true: you can't negotiate with terrorists.
KC, WHAT, NO SPELL-CHECK ON YOUR COMPUTER? NOW SPELL AFTER ME; ISRAELIS,REGIME,PELOSI! I GUESS ANGER CAN SCREW UP YOUR FINGERING!
I've just about had it with Obama. My current intention is to vote for a Black -- and a woman -- and an honest Green progressive: Cynthia McKinney.
To bluepilgrim and several other commenters here: With only the slightest changes, your comment would be a perfect letter to Congress, Pelosi, Conyers, etc. And it's a great letter to the editor! You only need to add a reference to Kucinich's June 9 impeachment resolution.
I think your comment is terrific. Get it out there! We simply can't quit trying.
If the Democrats do not impeach Bush before he leaves office, they will be worse than the Republicans. They will out themselves as the useless, disgraceful, complicit clowns they are.
By the way, why isn't Obama calling for Bush's impeachment while he is running?
It certainly is the most urgent thing to do at this point.
Since Obama isn't calling for impeachment, I will urge everyone I know to vote for someone who is(hint: this candidate is popularly associated with seat belts in cars and is running a campaign that is light years ahead of Obama's on the most important issues we are now facing).
The reputation in much of the world is that the US is mostly run by and populated by a bunch of fascists and gangsters. As of now, there is no way to refute that.
As the US continues to decline into the cesspool and the world gets out from under the its thumb a common thought will be 'let it rot -- they deserve it -- America has shown it's true nature'. I'm afraid we have; the mask is gone and the monster under it is made plain for all to see.
Impeachment might have retored some semblance of honor and morality -- but America has chosen to continue down the road to Hell, and there it will rot.
IMPEACHMENT YES BUT OF WHO ???????
BUSH AND CHENEY-FINE-BUT HOW CAN WE THEN BE LEFT WITH PALOSI,AND THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP INCLUDING OBAMONATION AND CLINTON WHO HAVE BEEN WILLING COLLABORATERS !!!!!
THERE HAVE BEEN NO CRIMES OF THE CURRENT REGIEM THAT THAT BUNCH HAVE FOUND CRIMINAL !
WHY NOT OPEN ALL OF THE PRISONS AND RELEASE ALL THE PRISONERS AS THERE ARE NO PRISONERS WHO HAVE COMMITTED GREATER CRIMES THAN THE ABOVE GROUP - NONE !!
IN CT RESIDENTS HAVE THEIR KNICKERS IN A TWIST DUE TO THE RECENT " HOME INVASIONS " OF CRIMINALS BREAKING INTO FAMILY'S HOMES 'RAPING THE WOMEN AND KILLING THEM SETTING THEIR HOUSE ON FIRE AND STEALING FROM THEM,I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT BOTHERS THEM AS I THOUGHT THAT THAT MODE OF BEHAVIOR HAS BECOME AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE,ISN'T THAT WHAT WE ARE DOING IN IRAQ AND WHAT THE ISREALIS ARE DOING IN THE WEST BANK AND GAZA AFTER ALL OBAMA SAYS THAT HE APPROVES !
AFTER ALL FOLKS GET WITH THE PROGRAM, IT'S THE 21ST CENTURY AND MIGHT MAKES RIGHT ,GRAND SCALE THEFT AND MURDER ARE "ON THE TABLE " AINT THAT SO NANCY.
I think that one the reasons that Pelosi as been so dead set against impeachment is because it means that politicians can be held accountable for their actions and she and the rest of them sure as hell don't want that.
That is certainly one thing all politician fear, accountability.
They careers are based on deception and lies.. God forbid they should start being held responsible for the promises they make and the lies they tell.
After all if GW can be impeached for telling lies then we can probably impeach the the whole damn bunch of them! So, you can certainly understand their dilemma.:)
I think that one the reasons that Pelosi as been so dead set against impeachment is because it means that politicians can be held accountable for their actions and she and the rest of them sure as hell don't want that.
That is certainly one thing all politician fear, accountability.
They careers are based on deception and lies.. God forbid they should start being held responsible for the promises they make and the lies they tell.
After all even thou they might think much of GWB, is one them.. A wealthy politician.
Protect the status-qou is the bottomline.
If we, ordinary American citizens through our Congress, do not impeach and remove Bush then America will live in infamy and fully deserve the historical judgment that was for decades blamed partially on "ordinary Germans" for passively being, "Hitler's willing executioners" ---- we will all be indictable of the mortal sin of being, "Bush's willing executioners for oil".
The DeLay-Gingrich hounding of Clinton was a no-lose proposition for the government haters. If they got Clinton, great, but in the process they would totally discredit the impeachment provisions of the Constitution as little more than partisan dirty tricks.
After they drink, they always leave the punch bowl full of turds.
The most amazing thing is that there are so-called progressives, liberals and other Democrats who will argue against impeachment based on some hypothetical election year fall-out.
There is nothing more important than seeing that this administration is stopped in its tracks and that Bush, Cheney, et al, are brought to justice.
This trumps elections. It's bigger than party.
Why is that so difficult to see?
and by the way (plus i mean it...)@@@@@@
that was a joke, nothing but a joke.
I mean things are very serious, but we need to hold onto our sense of humor.
You know?
Peace,
Ken
Hey BUFFALO Ken. You remember what we almost did to the buffalo? We came really close to exterminating them. What exactly are you celebrating with that ultra american handle?
lizard you should just get over your problems with the US of A....grow up why don't you.
If you want to be helpful why don't you ..........
The history of the US is a calamity I was never taught. The heroes turn out not to be heroes. The history is like that of a leech getting plump attached first to the indians, then the indians and the blacks, then the immigrants and other countries, and now the whole world which we are threatening to suck out to death.
The difference between the truth and what we were taught is the reason America feels justified in inflicting horror on the world.
Over 1 million Iraqis have been murdered by America, and America doesn't see it fit to stop.
Run, Jane , Run. Dick has a gun. Kill, Dick, kill. Run Spot, FAST.
Oh, yeah - impeachment by the slimy, war-voting Democrats is really going to make a difference. Have you forgotten that Reublicans and Democrats foisted the rape of Iraq on us TOGETHER?
Once more, I must bear the unpopular but irrefutable news: There is no humanitarian solution to war and poverty outside of international proletarin socialist revolution. The words might seem outdated, but that is just because the task is overdue, The most important thing you can do today is to build the political party to take us there.
At minimum, CD readers must quit being suckers for the Democrats! Despite their newfound shock, they knew all along what went down, and deliberately did nothing - except vote for more war money. They mock and laugh at you in the halls of power.
And let's not forget their apparent complicity in the cover up of the 9/11 truths... The Democratic party is objectively murderous, and should never be endorsed by humanitarians of any stripe.
and yes, that was flippant.....later....CD'ers.....time is of the essence...
lizard, have you stifled another conversation?
you are effective in your own little realm.
Dream on.
George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan. A list of "great" presidents. All of them were guilty of very serious crimes and only Lincoln got punished.
Get real. Presidents of the US, and most other places, are almost always criminally inclined, and the people expect that. They elect that. They want that. And they want their share.
amazing that nothing more has been posted here...Little Brother can for sure speak the truth....and i look up humbly.....
DC has been lost for a long time.
Don't you know?
Adele, unless I'm missing something, it's not much of an argument to assert that impeachment proceedings trivialize the appropriate adjudication, e.g. a war crimes trial in an international court. Or perhaps the criminal prosecutions envisioned by Bugliosi.
You imply that it's an either-or choice, or a zero-sum game. I don't see why. First things first; impeach to begin restoring integrity to the US government, and then hand the bastards over to the Hague. Where there's a will, there's a way. I'm on board with all of the above!
And beyond that, it's hardly convincing or compelling to propose backing off the remedy of impeachment in favor of a campaign to try the misfeasors as war criminals. If impeachment is risky and problematic, putting US leaders on trial for war crimes, however desirable, is even more "impractical" than moving to impeach.
If manunkind survives for a few more generations, I very much doubt that historians will look back and say, "Why couldn't they have gotten over that IMPEACHMENT nonsense and concentrated on trying Bush for WAR CRIMES?" 8)
Thank you, VT, for leading the way, along with Dennis Kucinich, John Nichols, Bob Fertik, and Democrats.com. The rest of us must speak up. Repeating....
'As someone said in a comment somewhere, "The table is our, Ms. Pelosi, not yours." Tell her to put impeachment back on our table. Short, pointed, and true....'
Yes, SPEAK UP!! Demand justice.
Flood your senators, your district congressperson, the Speaker of the House, and the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee with letters, e-mails, and phone calls ------- as often as possible; daily if you can.
Use all means of communication. I live in CA where Feinstein and Boxer have six and seven offices respectively. My letter is going to each and every local office as well as to the two offices of Conyers and my local congressman. Still, the cost was under $8.00 in postage.
As someone said in a comment somewhere, "The table is our, Ms. Pelosi, not yours." Tell her to put impeachment back on our table. Short, pointed, and true. You don't have to write a book. You only need to be respectful (otherwise they pay no attention--hah!). Just write!!
And don't forget your newspaper. Get those letters to the editor out there. Tell your paper you want front page coverage of this most significant call for the restoration of our liberties and the Constitution.
Many thanks to Dennis, Brattleboro, Gore Vidal, and everyone who is keeping this issue alive and percolating.
justice matters daniel david you shill
"Impeachment is off the table because it is not in corporate America's interest to hang our their dirty laundry."
Can we hang out corporate America instead?
BOTTLE: I really appreciate your optimistic, out-of-the-box thinking. Life looks the same until suddenly some kind of critical mass moment arises and everything suddenly changes. The healthy individual jogs and keels over dead; the weather looks swell until a freak storm blows in. I am in "the business" of prediction and life can and often does surprise me. EVIL eventually takes itself down. It's a damned shame so many have had to become martyrs for this fatal enactment of supreme evil, aided and abetted by the engines of capitalism and the largest military the world has ever witnessed assemble. Still, and I truly believe George Lucas was prescient to the point of constructing the seminal ALLEGORY of our times (in Star Wars) as he depicted a small ad hoc group of caring visionaries capable of working together to capitalize on the singular flaw in the death star's construction/design & leadership.
Maybe Bugliosi is our Obi Wan wise man, and the attorneys, a young Leah and Luke team, AIM and fire the grand LIGHT that disintegrates the massive darkness that has swept our nation into a dizzying mass of grotesque and UNGODLY clouds of massive deception.
Stranger things have happened. Indeed, fiction is often weirder than non-fiction...
Bottle, Bugliosi is a smart cookie. I hope what he proposes comes to pass…
BUT, won't the Democrats and Republicans just pardon Bush or rewrite the laws (or simply ignore the laws like they have been doing up till now)? Is Kissenger in jail? Oliver North? The US government would say something like " prosecuting Bush will be too divisive and harmful to the nation", or I know, "It would reveal sources and methods". I love that one. Consider the following hypothetical courtroom scenario.
John Yoo – "Your Honour, my client cannot face trial on the charge of mass murder. The proceeding would necessitate the disclosure that the sources he relied on included the voice of Jesus Christ as channelled through his pet dog Barney.
It would also reveal the hitherto secret method that allows Bush to talk while Cheney is drinking a glass of water."
If you are witness to a robbery/murder taking place and you have the responsibility to stop it but decide to wait until the criminals move on, thinking that "things may be better" or "it will be easier to indict if we wait", then you are complicit and responsible for those same crimes.
Daniel David, you cannot understand the significance of things.
The Kucinich impeachment proceedings may seem ineffectual because Washington is loaded full of dopes, but in conjunction with Vincent Bugliosi's book and plan about indicting Bush and Cheney for mass-murder, it takes on unforeseen and unforeseeable life.
Bugliosi's involvement of course invites comparison to Charles Manson, one of the 30 murder cases he successfully prosecuted versus no losses.
But I think it also invites comparison to the Harry K. Thaw case, he being the man who shot architect Stanford White June 25, 1906 in front of a full theater audience on the roof of Madison Square Garden.
The mass murders by Bush and Cheney also occurred in the open, but in front of the whole world, with the whole world knowing very well what happened.
Given the complete case gathered and structured by Bugliosi in his best-selling book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," the best defense that Bush and Cheney can offer may be "temporary insanity" like Thaw.
Bugliosi has asked for a team of ambitious young prosecutors to come forward, promising to help them in every way.
Will they do it, further inspired perhaps by our administration's blatant contempt for justice and law?
If such a team does organize, national accountability may finally occur.
But there are other comparisons to be made among Bush, Cheney and Thaw, not to mention Bush's own great uncle James Bush, who killed his own daughter in a drunken car crash.
These names, dead and alive, share the trait of uneducability and never were able to grow in any meaningful way throughout their lifetimes.
whatfools June 17th, 2008 12:58 pm
"If Congress won't impeach then we need to send all three branches of these homocidal looting liars off to the ICC for disposal and start anew."
whatfools,
The problem, according to a recent poll exposed by CNN, is that the majority in this country can't even name the "three" branches of government. How can they possibly understand how they've been railroaded?
Uneducated and ignorant citizens are the key to the kingdom of perpetual government corruption!
RichM, June 17th, 2008 4:57 pm,
is right:
- It will never get that far — the Democrats will protect Bush & Cheney right to the bitter end — so there won't be any convictions in need of "pardons."
Please stop beating the 'it's never going to happen' drumbeat. People who regurgitate this Repug friendly mantra are really beginning to sound like operatives.
It is going to happen because WE DEMAND IT.
As one of our noted thespians so elequently put it...."It's good to be the King"
So, even now the most hard-core democrat should understand there is no difference in the two parties.
Don't vote for a lie. Vote Nader or for another independent candidate.
This is my letter to my rep in congress over this article:
To Rep. John Salazar
US House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Salazar,
I have written you several times about the Iraq War the the need for Congress to assert its role as the only ones who have
authority to go to war. I always get the same form letter back from your office that says basically, "we have to support the troops,"
blah, blah, blah.
I would like to know when we start supporting the troops by bringing them home. You acknowlege your own military service
to the country. What did that service stand for if it didn't stand for protecting the freedom and security of the country and the
law under the constitution. This is the same constitution of which you were sworn before taking office. Yet the constitution is
little more than "a damn piece of paper" as quoted from our president Bush.
I could go on but I won't. I've written enough that you know what I'm talking about without having to do too much thinking
about it. Our constitution and bill of rights are being overthrown while you pontificate and grope for political correctness.
I would ask that you search your soul if you can still find it and ask whether your complicity in crimes against the constitution
and the country might not come back and haunt you at least, and at most, put you in front of a tribunal trying you for complicity
in war crimes.
President Bush's war against Iraq, his war "on terror" is a war against humanity. Terror begets terror. Humanity is paying the
price for mr. Bush's pride and vanity and the US congress is supporting it. It is estimated that at least one million Iraqi citizens
have died while four million have been displaced from their homes. The cost to our country will be 3 trillion when all costs are
accounted for. Our troops whom you politically say you have to support, are committing suicide at an unprecedented rate.
They are coming home with unprecedented mental problems. Our country portrays them as heros, but when their service is over, they're abandoned.
I have little hope that the message I'm sending in this letter will even get to you. One of your staffers will read until they know
which form letter to send and that will be the end of it. Only it won't. Your complicity and your silence about this matter is not
going to go away no matter how politically correct you are. Your dishonor and disservice to the country will not disappear from
history regardless of your political correctness.
In all humbleness, I ask you to listen to your heart, while tuning out your political brain, and stop voting to fund the war and
occupation in Iraq. Allocate money only to bringing the troops home and rehabilitating them, and rebuilding what we've
destroyed in another's country. This will be a baby step in correcting some of the problems which our American arrogance
has created.
Rand Kokernot
Obama isn't even going to get the chance to decide whether to pardon these scum or not. It will never get that far -- the Democrats will protect Bush & Cheney right to the bitter end -- so there won't be any convictions in need of "pardons."
Obama has shown zero appetite for impeachment, however. I think it's likely that in his inaugural address, he'll graciously thank Bush & Cheney for their "service to the nation." That will indicate what one can expect from the incoming Dem administration, in terms of "setting things right."
Indict! Obama, if you pardon these scum, you will be losing best opportunity to set things right by showing what happens to mass murderers, liars and thieves.
I'm not voting, let the chips fall where they will.
Bravo, r. Jackowski! I defy anyone here to contradict his statement:
IMPEACHMENT TRIVIALIZES THE WAR CRIMES!!!
All a successful impeachment can do is remove the person from government. It's a political procedure, not a criminal one.
Sometimes something should be done simply because it should be done. The Constitution requires it, and the Battleboro Reformer editorial makes an airtight case for doing it.
When Amy Goodman asked Kucinich if there was enough time, he responded that Bush/Cheney had enough time to attack Iran.
Impeachment might help that war not happen. In other words it could save our lives, our country, our economy and more.
"It is never too late to enforce the Constitution. It is never too late to uphold the rule of law. It is never too late to awaken the Congress to its sworn duties under the Constitution. But it will soon be too late to avoid the searing verdict of history when on January 21, 2009, George W. Bush escapes the justice that was never pursued by those in Congress so solely authorized to hold the President accountable." –Ralph Nader
"It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." —E.V. Debs
As someone who 1-year ago or thereabouts was screaming for months: IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT.......I've come to conclude/learn the following:
1. It ain't going to happen because the Dems are a disgraceful and shameful sham; and
2. Because it ain't going to happen, Washington, D.C. is not worth diddly (what good have the feds done for any of us peasants lately????).
The sooner D.C. is diminished (perhaps all the way to nothingness) the better as far as I'm concerned. The sooner the better for the People.
Remember "The People" --- supposedly the ones for whom this country is "of, by and for", but we should know by now it has NEVER been this way. It is all an illusion, but the curtain is coming down. Or at least, the curtain has come down for me. What about you?
Impeachment should continue to be pursued even if prospects are slim to none. In whatever small way, it at least keeps a public finger pointed at administration lawbreakers.
Meanwhile, someone in the House should consider sponsoring a resolution of censure against Bush and Cheney. This would get the lawbreaking details publicly aired in a House committee right away, and it might even generate increased heat for impeachment.
Impeachment is off the table because it is not in corporate America's interest to hang our their dirty laundry.
"r jackowski June 17th, 2008 2:23 pm
I applaud Dennis Kucinich and others who call for Impeachment, BUT I do not completely agree. Impeachment trivializes the war crimes. It has been estimated that possibly 3 million Iraqis have been slaughtered by the US since 1991 - many of them during the Bush Administration, some during the Clinton Administration. Because Clinton is complicit, some democrats would not vote for Impeachment.
The crimes are so egregious that they should be Tried in a Court, which hopefully would be less political than the Congress."
Is there some reason These People can't be impeached and then tried for war crimes? kizzy
One of the biggest reasons to investigate and impeach "ALL" who were involved with the misleading, is the prosecuted/guilty can no longer work in government. If no investigation/impeachment proceedings takes place, even after the Bush/Cheney leave office, those involved will come back to haunt our United States of America again and again.
I thought republicans stood up for the rule of law? Why aren't they now? This was their whitehouse... so my republican neighbors, what are you going to do to fix it? Criminally complicite... every repub or dem who stands silent.
Cindy doesn't realize that some of us are masochists and don't mind "bleeding fingers" in the faint hope that real change might ensue.
After reading the comments by Cindy Sheehan on various blogs out here, I see no hope of impeachment ever being on the table. Not even Obama will pursue it.
I used to have faith in John Conyers, and thought he was on on the American's people's side. But after hearing he only answers the phone to 'important' people and not ordinary citizens..and he doesn't have to do the people's bidding who elected him, I see no hope.
Fascism, a Dictator Government is taking grips on the US. It is already too late to write all the wrongs that have happened to our constitution in the past three presidencies.
At least Cindy was honest. Hope be dashed!
In 1868 President Johnson was impeached in 3 days. Of course, there are way more Democrats around now so 6 months, even a year, is not enough time.
Every impeachment has led to the opposing party winning the White House.
Today's Democratic Party does not want to continue that unbroken streak of success. Today's Democratic Paty-led Congress (warning! oxymoron alert) has a lower approval rating than President Bush.
If the approval rating for Congress sinks any lower it will go negative, mathematically proving that more people think Congress sucks then there are alive.
It's time to sweep out the House. Don't re-elect yet again.
One could argue that Kucinich has met Conyers objective with his introduction of articles.
Conyers was looking in 2005 to prove Congress was paying attention. Kucinich provides that cover.
Same goes for Pelosi. By saying, "impeachment is off the table" she can say that she contemplated it -- that she did not sit idly by.
In essence, CYA accomplished. In conscience maybe if not in reality.
I applaud Dennis Kucinich and others who call for Impeachment, BUT I do not completely agree. Impeachment trivializes the war crimes. It has been estimated that possibly 3 million Iraqis have been slaughtered by the US since 1991 - many of them during the Bush Administration, some during the Clinton Administration. Because Clinton is complicit, some democrats would not vote for Impeachment.
The crimes are so egregious that they should be Tried in a Court, which hopefully would be less political than the Congress.
There is a growing movement for Indictment for the War Crimes. Ramsey Clark, Vincent Bugliosi, and others are working toward War Crimes Trials. Vincent Bugliosi achieved convictions in all but one of the murder cases he Tried. The case against Bush INC. is an easy win. The whole world is watching and waiting.
As is amply demonstrated by our regular partisan commenters, politics as a means to govern has been fatally transformed into an end in itself. This transformation is the fulcrum upon which our government tilted away from an aspiring constitutional democratic republic into the present decadent authoritarian empire.
Once political calculus becomes the be-all and end-all of civic life, the principles upon which our government was established, and which were intended to... well, GOVERN the operation of government become secondary-- and a distant second at that. Politics has overwhelmed principle, and is indeed generally regarded by the commentariat as "trumps".
Thus, as I have commented ad nauseam, our amoral and unprincipled political elite never considered impeachment on its MERITS, which is to say on PRINCIPLE. Instead, they treated impeachment exactly as the criminal Executive Branch treat the Geneva Convention or habeas corpus-- as "quaint" but essentially impractical obsolescences.
Naturally, impeachment opponents don't see it that way, and in any case know better than to SAY it that way. Instead, they offer one "strategic" or process-based excuse after another why impeachment was always a no-go, and at this point is so "over" that it's foolish to keep dwelling upon it.
To their credit, some impeachment opponents obviously realize that their position is fundamentally flawed, lame, and untenable. So they don't abandon entirely the notion that there ought to be some legal accountability-- instead, in accordance with their erroneous belief that "common sense" political contingencies are all that matter, they advocate addressing the risky, messy, and unpredictable issues of social justice AFTER it's politically "safe" and "reasonable" to do so. Or offer alternatives to impose accountability short of impeachment, which in their minds is virtually taboo.
Of course, assuming Obama is elected, and in spite of his expressed intentions to retroactively investigate the massive illicit and illegal conduct of the present maladministration, the "smart" political advice will be for Obama to ease off in the name of promoting that post-partisan agenda. Then he'll be advised to keep backing off until the crucial mid-term elections are held. Then he'll be advised that hell, he may as well keep on using reverse gear, at least until his second term's in the bag. But THEN the gloves come off-- yeah, right.
Incidentally, Obama's own demurrals regarding impeachment are less than encouraging; he hemmed and hawed, in effect, that bad policies and bad judgement aren't really impeachable offenses-- similar to those who argue that impeachment is so profound and weighty a matter that it really should never actually be USED at all.
Why not just legalize all crime? Oh, wait, that's called being rich and powerful. Nevermind, I must have been delusional when I thought I lived in a free country under the rule of law.
I swear, I must be living in another dimension.
I just listened to the House conveneing on C-span and would you believe some of the first items on the agenda were, a Post Office named for some schmuck in the boonies, another for golfer Chichi Rodriquez. And the empeachment process would be a distraction to House business?
Allowing bush and cheney to leave office without sanction will set a precident. That precident would mean that any president can act as bush has acted. Any president can break any and almost every law to do as he/she pleases. Do you really want that to happen DD? Arresting them after they've spent their illegally gotten gains is not a good idea. They're in the act of breaking many laws, arrest them.
Capital crimes and treason? If Congress won't impeach then we need to send all three branches of these homocidal looting liars off to the ICC for disposal and start anew.
I thought DD had discovered a new party actually inclined to defend the constitution!
Daniel David (12:28 pm) claims that you can "defend the Constitution by having a government in power that is actually inclined to do so, instead of merely PRETENDING to be progressive."
Where is the evidence for this?
In what way have the Democrats shown a reliable inclination to defend the Constitution? They have gone along with every single one of Bush's most antidemocratic & terrifying initiatives, without exception. Nothing Bush has wanted was too vicious, too dishonest, or too unconstitutional for the Democrats. Pelosi alone (voted into the speakership by most of the House Democrats, who certainly knew what she was all about) has been Bush/Cheney's single most important defender. The Democrats voted for most of Bush's demands themselves, like the Torture Act (Military Commissions Act of 2006) that did away with habeas corpus, & last August's warrantless spying legislation. The vermin didn't even use the non-existent WMD or Abu Ghraib as campaign issues in 2004.
At this point, we should be thinking ahead to 2009, and the repeal of the war crimes amnesty provision in the Military Commissions Act. Just because Bush and Cheney are out of office is no reason to neglect prosecuting them for torture.
Bush has basically argued that the president has the right to designate anyone he chooses an "enemy combatant," to throw them into jail, deny them access to courts, and torture them -- to death, if he so chooses. The taxpayers must pay for the machinery that accomplishes this. Likewise, the president can take the country to war based on lies, continue murderous occupations against the will of the citizenry; & spy on American citizens all the while.
Bush isn't being impeached because the Democratic Party consists almost exclusively of vermin. If they held House impeachment hearings -- which they could do TOMORROW, if they wanted to -- and if they made thorough & serious presentations, public opinion would be mightily swayed by it. If Republican votes nonetheless prevented the removal of Bush & Cheney in the Senate, it would probably hurt the Republicans even more in November. Even if it did not, at least the Democrats would have tried to defend the Constitution & the rule of law.
If on the other hand the Democrats do absolutely nothing -- which of course is exactly what they will do -- it will officially complete the corruption of the US political establishment. War crimes & blatant violations of the Constitution will have been permitted to take place with the whole world watching -- and no section of the US political establishment will have bestirred themselves to so much as lift a finger against it. This will establish terrifying precedents that future US administrations will surely make use of.
There is no phrase that really captures the full scope of the moral degeneracy of the Democratic Party -- but "filthy scum of the earth" isn't bad, as a rough first approximation.
Alanlak is right. Failure to begin impeachment proceedings would set the precedent that presidents and high government officials can violate basic principles of justice, institute illegal wars, violate rights, as they wish without penalty. This gives control of the government over to the executive and abandons democracy. We should at least begin impeachment proceedings to show that the administration's actions are unacceptable to the people: our government should be of, by, and for the PEOPLE, not the few in leadership positions and the corporations behind them.
This should not be left to the "off the table" politicians but should go to the federal courts. Vincent Bugliosi has argued in his new book 'The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder', that Bush et al should be tried for murder, prosecutions which can begin once he has left office. But a grand jury can begin hearing testimony now. This route avoids political issues and gets to the moral and legal culpability of the administration. Let's do it!
To add onto what the editorialist says is important about impeachment: it is about legal precedent. Not to act on Bush's "high crimes and misdemeanors" is to allow them to be standard operating procedure for the next president in office. Not to impeach gives the succeeding president the right to nullify legislation using signing statements, keep information from Congress,disobey constitutional law and become, de facto, an absolute dictator responsible to no one.
Impeachment is not just about dealing with a problem president, it is about saving and restoring the Constitution to the people.
Count the editors at the Brattleboro Reformer as another bunch who cannot see the forest for the trees. Knocking the Democrats for not carrying on an election-year losers' drama that CAN NOT produce a conviction in a 50-50 Senate is about as goofy as proudly wasting votes on Ralph Nader (again.)
Much yelling and grandstanding. No progress.
Win your election. Capture your agenda. Change the country. Defend the Constitution by having a government in power that is actually inclined to do so, instead of merely PRETENDING to be progressive.
Thank you Brattleboro Reformer.
God you people are so dumb it makes me sick!!
How the hell can you impeach a dictator? Who can impeach a dictator? Nobody that's who!! Your very own president (Pre- Simulation-Denture) announced he was a dictator on April 1 2002, weren't you listening? Probably not!!
Between 17 Sept 1999, and December 31 1999 America finally came out of International Bankruptcy and became a sovereign nation once again, WITHOUT A PRESIDENT. When this began, Bill Clinton said "I will be the last President of the US". The next election was a scam because the decision had already been made before the farcical court case episode, which means George Bush is either King or dictator....BOTH of which CANNOT be impeached!!
When you finally wake up (which I doubt), you will also find out that your Constitution has been suspended until such times as Bush, or the newly elected dictator sees fit to end the martial law, which was instigated via 9/11 and Katrina.
kc June 17th, 2008 11:23 pm
IMPEACHMENT YES BUT OF WHO ???????
BUSH AND CHENEY-FINE-BUT HOW CAN WE THEN BE LEFT WITH PALOSI,AND THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP INCLUDING OBAMONATION AND CLINTON WHO HAVE BEEN WILLING COLLABORATERS !!!!!
Impeach Bush/Cheney: because, as is life, it's a matter of process, and what develops from the process. In this case hopefully a more engaged public that will change our collective behavior of lying about WMD while unleashing 240,000 pounds of oxidized uranium into the environment, and lying about goodwill while spawning the atrocities of el Moetz (sp?) - especially when there is so much more, known and unknown, to live for...
Interim President - John Warner.
Interim Vice President - Chuck Hegel.