What will Obama do?
Obama can go after the criminals who authorized torture.(updated below)
Former Reagan DOJ official, constitutional lawyer, and hard-core conservative Bruce Fein was one of the first prominent Americans to call for George Bush's impeachment in the wake of the illegal NSA spying scandal. Back in late 2005 and 2006, when even safe-seat Democrats like Chuck Schumer were petrified even of uttering the words "broke the law" when speaking of the Bush administration -- let alone taking meaningful action to investigate and putting a stop to the lawbreaking -- Fein wrote a column in The Washington Times forcefully and eloquently arguing:
Volumes of war powers nonsense have been assembled to defend Mr. Bush's defiance of the legislative branch and claim of wartime omnipotence so long as terrorism persists, i.e., in perpetuity. Congress should undertake a national inquest into his conduct and claims to determine whether impeachable usurpations are at hand.In 2006, Russ Feingold called Fein as one of his witnesses in support of Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush for his lawbreaking. Today, Fein is one of the witnesses who will testify before the House Judiciary Committee in favor of Dennis Kucinich's impeachment resolutions (joined by Elizabeth Holtzman, Bob Barr and several others). As KagroX details here, that the House is holding hearings on Kucinich's resolution is not, in any way, an indication that the Congress is prepared to take those resolutions seriously. Manifestly, they are not.
Yesterday, Jane Hamsher spoke with Bruce Fein on BloggingheadsTV about why the Democrats have, in general, failed to hold the Bush administration accountable for their multiple crimes (Slate yesterday detailed some of the many Bush crimes). Here is what Fein -- echoing an argument I made a couple of weeks ago -- said on that topic:
During my Democracy Now debate with him, Sunstein said: "I'd be honored but surprised if the military commissions cite some of my academic articles." But as Talk Left's Armando documented, Sunstein would be an ideal and highly likely "legal scholar" for the Bush administration to cite as part of its military tribunals, as Sunstein was an early and outspoken supporter of the theory that Bush had the authority to order military commissions (a theory which the Supreme Court rejected in Hamdan). Identically, while Sunstein now pretends to disagree with Bush's theory as to why he had the power to spy on Americans in violation of the law (Sunstein said on Democracy Now: "while I agree with Senator Feingold that the President's position is wrong"), Sunstein defended those theories as "very reasonable" when he was on right-wing talk radio with Hugh Hewitt in late 2005 during the height of the NSA controversy.
It's really hard to imagine a worse person on whom Obama could be relying as a legal adviser, let alone a potential Supreme Court nominee, and here is what Fein had to say about Sunstein's view of things:
Most revealingly of all, the Kucinich impeachment hearing today is like a parade of those whom the Beltway class mocks as Shrill, Unserious losers and Leftist radicals -- people who actually use overly excitable words like "crimes" and "prosecutions" when talking about our leaders or who, like the ACLU, actually object that most of what our Government does occurs in total secrecy. Serious, responsible Beltway establishment leaders know that courtrooms and prosecutions are only for the common people and -- for our own good -- our leaders cannot, must not and should not be exposed to any of that, and must continue to be able to shield what they do from public scrutiny.
* * * * *
NPR this morning has a story, both radio and print, regarding the left/right Strange Bedfellows citizen coalition and Money Bomb campaign targeting those responsible for the erosion of civil liberties, constitutional protections and the rule of law. The NPR story includes this:
Earlier this month, Congress passed a rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. Opponents say it gives the president too much power to tap private communications without court oversight. That argument was made none too subtly by a TV ad that ran in the home district of Chris Carney, a Pennsylvania Democrat who supported the new FISA law.Apparently, NPR isn't Comcast -- at least not in this instance -- and it thus ran the story despite Carney's pleas."Chris Carney is surrendering to Bush and Cheney the same un-American spying powers they have in Russia and communist China," the ad says.
Apparently, the ad hit a nerve. A Carney spokeswoman called the ad a "smear campaign" and said NPR should not do a story about it. But the ad was paid for by Carney's fellow Democrats.
Blue America is a political action committee promoted by Democratic bloggers like Jane Hamsher. She is disappointed with Congress since it went Democratic.
"I'm very upset with my party right now," Hamsher says. "They were given the majority, and they have a 9 percent approval rating right now for a reason."
Newsweek's Jonathan Alter has an article this week filled with all the standard anti-blogger "pajama" platitudes (along with some praise) and, along the way, Alter writes this:
But we're finding [blogging] works better for keeping on top of daily flaps than for learning genuinely new information. Bloggers rarely pick up the phone or go interview the middle-level bureaucrats who know the good stuff. It's a lot easier to chew over breaking stories and bash old media. Where do they get the information with which to bash? Often from, ahem, newspapers.Leave aside the question of how much "real reporting" bloggers do as compared to newspapers. If one looks at most of the vital disclosures of the last seven years -- whereby concealed, legally dubious behavior of one of the most secretive administrations of the modern era is exposed -- one finds that such exposure comes overwhelmingly from two sources: (1) conscientious whistle-blowers inside the Government, and (2) advocacy groups such as the ACLU, which have tirelessly waged one litigation battle after the next in order to unearth the Bush administration's secret, improper conduct.
Today, the ACLU (with whom, as I've previously disclosed, I consult on various matters) released three formerly secret Bush administration memos -- two from the CIA to the Office of Legal Counsel inside the DOJ, and one from OLC to the CIA -- which set forth, in a revoltingly clinical tone that is by now all-too-familiar, extremely permissive standards for what constitutes (and what does not constitute) "torture." Raw Story's Nick Juliano has an excellent summary of the memos' lowlights, including the assertion that treatment of detainees does not constitute "torture" as long as there is no "specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering," and the claim that interrogators are free to inflict mental harm as long as it falls short of "harm lasting months or even years after the acts were inflicted upon the prisoners."
The August 4, 2004 CIA memo (.pdf) specifically noted that "the waterboard" (sic) is not "torture," and it further points out that the President ordered that the Geneva Conventions are not always to be complied with, but rather, only "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity." The same memo also pointedly notes that the Durbin Amendment -- which bars the use of torture and "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" in all circumstances -- "is not, as of now, law."
What's particularly notable here -- beyond the fact that this is further proof that our Government has engaged in deliberate, systematic and illegal torture -- is what a closed, secretive society we've become. Even the memos which the ACLU obtained -- between four to six years old -- are heavily redacted, with the vast bulk of the legal conclusions of our Government simply blacked out (.pdf). We just don't live in an open society, as most of the most consequential actions in which our Government engages are undertaken behind an increasingly impenetrable wall of secrecy.
The vast bulk of these memoranda consist of nothing more than legal arguments as to why the Bush administration claimed it had the authority -- as the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer put it -- "to permit interrogators to use barbaric methods that the U.S. once prosecuted as war crimes." There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for these Memoranda to be concealed from the public. All they do is set forth the Executive Branch's purported understanding of the law. How can legal arguments about the President's alleged authority possibly be secret?
And yet it was only because the ACLU relentlessly pursued protracted litigation that the CIA was ordered to turn over these documents and we learned about them. That's the same way we learned about the 81-page Memorandum authored in 2003 by John Yoo that provoked such disgust back in April (that's the Memo that calmly analyzed whether "'scalding water, corrosive acid or caustic substance' thrown on a prisoner" was legal and which noted that a prior, still-secret OLC Memorandum had concluded "that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations"). And the DOJ's memoranda justifying Bush's NSA warrantless eavesdropping program -- as well as other long-abandoned, patently illegal surveillance programs -- remain concealed.
It has been left to the ACLU and similar groups (such as the Center for Constitutional Rights and Electronic Frontier Foundation) to uncover what our Government is doing precisely because the institutions whose responsibility that is -- the "opposition party," the Congress, the Intelligence Committees, the press -- have failed miserably in those duties. And while Democrats in Congress passively ignore their oversight responsibility or do the opposite by helping to conceal Bush crimes, the Democratic Party establishment goes around repudiating and even demonizing the factions that have tried to step into the void that they've left, as illustrated by this cowardly "senior Democratic lawmaker" who anonymously told The Wall St. Journal this about Obama's recent FISA vote:
"I applaud it," a senior Democratic lawmaker said. "By standing up to MoveOn.org and the ACLU, he's showing, I think, maybe the first example of demonstrating his ability to move to the center. He's got to make the center comfortable with him. He can't win if the center isn't comfortable.When Jesse Helms died last month, there was a discussion about Helms in an online email group of prominent liberal Beltway journalists, and one participant asked whether the Left has any equivalent to Jesse Helms, and a well-known "liberal" journalist responded: "Yes -- the ACLU extremists." Time's Joe Klein said last year that objections to the Senate's warrantless eavesdropping bill were merely "fodder for lawyers and civil liberties extremists" -- a phrase which GOP Rep. Pete Hoekstra then praised in National Review. The very same Beltway denizens who have so submissively enabled the radicalism of this administration simultaneously harbor and continuously spew contempt for those Shrill, Unserious "activists" -- such as the dreaded ACLU extremists -- who challenge and disrupt their little Beltway fiefdom.
Even in those rare instances of good investigative journalism -- Dana Priest's CIA black sites exposé and the Risen/Lichtblau disclosure of the NSA program -- most of the disclosures are due primarily to brave whistle-blowers inside the administration who were willing to risk their careers and even their own freedom in order to expose serious government wrongdoing. In addition to Priest and the NYT, there is Charlie Savage and Seymour Hersh and Jane Mayer and other actual journalists who have uncovered serious government wrongdoing, but those are the glaring exceptions.
Jonathan Alter can pat establishment journalists on the back as much as he wants, but the record of the establishment press over the last seven years is one characterized far more by failure and complicity than by real journalism. Alter laments that Americans "so distrust the mainstream media" that they "often prefer rumors to facts," but that's a natural and reasonable response to a media that gave us Iraqi mushroom clouds and Jessica Lynch's heroic firefight and Pat Tillman's dramatic confrontation with the Enemy and a whole slew of other government-dependent propaganda and government-promoting myths.
So much of the real journalism that is occurring isn't from TV and magazine stars but largely from severely under-paid advocates at public interest groups and anonymous government whistle-blowers who aren't even meant to be "journalists." The function of the ACLU and similar groups isn't really to uncover illegal behavior on the part of our Government. That is the intended function of the Congress, the media and the opposition party. But those institutions haven't done that -- with very rare exception, they don't do it (and in the case of Congress, one is hard-pressed to think of any real exceptions at all). As a result, the ACLU and similar groups -- with far fewer resources -- have been forced first to uncover what the Government does, to try methodically and incrementally to erode the government's wall of secrecy, to perform real journalism, in order then to engage in their real function of opposing Government encroachments and defending the Constitution, basic privacy rights and civil liberties.
(updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV - Update V)
After John McCain sought Pastor John Hagee's endorsement and then heaped praise on Hagee when he received it, a slew of publicity surrounding Hagee's extremist, offensive and outright crazed views forced McCain to repudiate Hagee and reject his endorsement. But not Joe Lieberman. Last year, the Connecticut neocon spoke at the annual convention for Hagee's group, Christians United for Israel, and in an indescribably obsequious speech, said this about the radical Pastor:
I would describe Pastor Hagee with the words the Torah uses to describe Moses, he is an "Eesh Elo Kim," a man of God because those words fit him; and, like Moses he has become the leader of a mighty multitude in pursuit of and defense of Israel.That Hagee holds views that even John McCain eventually described as "deeply offensive and indefensible" isn't impeding Joe Lieberman's close association with Hagee. This week, Hagee's group is holding its Third Annual Convention in Washington, and here is the line-up for the final night, with the event's keynote speakers listed:
As the controversy over Jeremiah Wright conclusively demonstrated, there is a glaring double standard applied to black Ministers such as Wright (who are quickly deemed scary, extremist anti-American radicals and therefore must be banished by all decent people) and white evangelical preachers such as Hagee (who can utter the most inflammatory and contemptible trash and still be treated with the utmost respect from Serious Centrists like Lieberman). More to the point, Democrats are continuously required to "repudiate" members of the so-called "Far Left" upon pain of being deemed un-Serious, while there is no such thing as "too extreme" on the Right, and Joe Lieberman is thus free to share a stage with a crazed extremist like John Hagee and depict him as a modern-day Moses and still be considered (and, at the GOP Convention, will be hailed as) a Serious, Responsible, Honorable, Centrist by our political and media elite.
UPDATE: The debate I had this morning on Democracy Now with University of Chicago Law Professor and Obama adviser Cass Sunstein (regarding his remarks this weekend concerning criminal prosecutions for Bush officials, torture, FISA and the like) can be seen and heard here. The prior segment in which I participated, regarding corporate lobbyists and the Democratic Party's Convention, can be heard here.
UPDATE II: As Atrios notes, a recent poll from a new Jewish political group found that Barack Obama is far more popular among American Jews than is Joe Lieberman:
Only 37 percent of Jews view the Connecticut Independent in a favorable light compared to 48 percent who have a negative perception. As for Obama, 60 percent of Jews view him favorably while 34 percent view him unfavorably.As is so often the case, the dominant media narrative -- Obama has a problem with Jewish voters! Lieberman's support for McCain is vital to McCain's attracting Jewish voters! -- is baseless and wrong.
At the hearing, I was joined by my colleague P.J. Meitl from the law firm of Bryan Cave. The government was represented by Gordon Kromberg, who was joined at counsel table by Steve Ward of the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Judge Brinkema specifically asked him to identify Ward and immediately noted that his office is part of the plea agreement with Dr. Al-Arian. Kromberg admitted that he was. This would be important later during sharp exchanges with Kromberg over Dr. Al-Arian’s cooperation. Kromberg admitted that the alleged contempt by Dr. Al-Arian was his refusal to answer questions from the Florida trial, which was closed with the plea agreement. In this admission, Kromberg established that Dr. Al-Arian is not being charged with failing to answer questions about the IIIT investigation — which were addressed fully in his affidavits. Rather, the government is trying to revisit the Florida trial that it lost when a jury acquitted Dr. Al-Arian of various counts (and came within two votes of acquitting him on all counts).
Judge Brinkema made a number of significant statements in the hearing.
First, she warned the government that she was getting “strange signals” for this case and that the government should not be found to have harassed efforts for another governments to accept Dr. Al-Arian under the plea agreement.
Second, she stated that the plea agreement continued to apply to the case and that the government is required to deport him with expedition.
Third, she said that any resumption of custody by ICE would trigger the deportation provision.
Fourth, Judge Brinkema specifically asked for confirmation that Dr. Al-Arian had already made detailed statements to the government and repeatedly offered to take a polygraph examination to prove that he was not withholding information.
On the question of the government’s failure to deport Dr. Al-Arian, we were astonished by Mr. Kromberg’s insistence that the government did not know of any travel document issued by the Egyptian government. I objected that multiple copies were submitted to the government weeks ago and that Mr. Kromberg was personally informed of the travel documents before the indictment. Despite this record, Mr. Kromberg suggested that Dr. Al-Arian was “a man without a country” and thus could not be deported at this time.
In one of the most curious moments, the government insisted that Dr. Al-Arian had waived any claim under the statute for deportation within the 90 day period. I immediately objected and said that no such agreement was made. We agreed not to invoke the plea agreement for part of the period of negotiation. We never agreed to waive all statutory arguments of removal. The government, however, is arguing that (unlike the plea agreement) the court should just read such an understanding into prior emails between counsel. We will be submitting these emails to the court to clearly show that no such waiver occurred and the time for deportation has expired.
The government also said that Dr. Al-Arian had refused to meet face-to-face with investigators. We will be submitting material today to the court to show that Dr. Al-Arian repeatedly agreed to meet face-to-face with investigators and only refused to revisit the Florida trial. On the questions related to IIIT, Dr. Al-Arian not only submitted detailed answers but agreed to both meet with investigators and to take a polygraph examination to prove that he was not withholding information.
Next week, we will be submitted pre-trial motions as well as seeking Dr. Al-Arian’s release from ICE custody.
We are deeply grateful to Judge Brinkema for her ruling today as well as her words of concern over the “strange signals” in the case. Indeed, there is much strange about this case such as the government claiming to be deporting someone who it is trying to hold for years in a criminal indictment. Things are likely to become stranger still as the government continues its long campaign to hold Dr. Al-Arian by any means or method. We remain hopeful, however, that Dr. Al-Arian will be vindicated and that the government will be forced to comply with its commitment to allow him to leave the country.
Lead Counsel to Dr. Sami Al-Arian
In a May 25 interview on ABC’s “This Week,” former White House official Karl Rove made it clear that he has no intention of complying with the subpoena the House Judiciary Committee recently served on him. He said:
The House Judiciary Committee wants to be able to call presidential aides on its whim up to testify.
Though Rove didn’t put this in writing, it’s such a fine example of intriguing usage that I can’t resist the urge to take a close look at it.
Notice the odd placement of the word up, which would work better in a different location:
The House Judiciary Committee wants to be able to call up presidential aides on its whim to testify.
To be even more clear, I’d relocate to testify and make a slight change in wording, as follows::
The House Judiciary Committee wants to be able to call up presidential aides to testify at the Committee’s whim.
By the way, if you’d like to see a Constitutional scholar’s view of the Rove subpoena, see Jonathan Turley’s blog.
Questions? Comments?
Cheers,
Tara Treasurefield
Tara’s W
Rove was ordered to appear July 10th, but his lawyer wrote a letter telling the Committee that he would not appear voluntarily: “”While the committee has the authority to issue a subpoena, it is hard to see what this will accomplish, apart from a ‘Groundhog Day’ replay of the same issues that are already the subject of litigation.”
Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, said in a written statement:
“It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests,” Conyers said. “Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate. Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters.”
Now the question is what will Congress do in face of an every lengthening list of acts of open contempt. Congress clearly has authority to demand his appearance and the White House has wildly over-extended executive privilege. The White House, however, is hoping that the calendar rather than the constitution will end the matter.
This is not to ignore other great books out .. But to highlight FIRST some things you can feed yer lawyer friends!
Then it's on to a number of links provided by Serendipity ...
In this Article, Professor Turley addresses the use of impeachment, specifically the Senate trial, as a method of resolving factional disputes about an impeached official's legitimacy to remain in office. While the Madisonian democracy was designed to regulate factional pressures, academics and legislators often discuss impeachments as relatively static events focused solely on removal. Alternatively, impeachment is sometimes viewed as an extreme countermajoritarian measure used to "reverse" or "nullify" the popular election of a President. This Article advances a more dynamic view of the Senate trial as a Madisonian device to resolve factional disputes. This Article first discusses the history of impeachment and demonstrates that it is largely a history of factional or partisan disputes over legitimacy. The Article then explores how impeachment was used historically as a check on the authority of the Crown and tended to be used most heavily during periods of political instability. English and colonial impeachments proved to be highly destabilizing in the absence of an integrated political system. The postcolonial impeachment process was modified to convert it from a tool of factional dissension to a vehicle of factional resolution. This use of Senate trials as a Madisonian device allows for the public consideration of the full record as the foundation for a vote of "true consent." In this unique forum, an impeached official is subject to a decision of the public-through the cipher of the Senate-as to his legitimacy in carrying out constitutional duties. As such, Professor Turley concludes that, properly utilized, the Senate trial represents the quintessential Madisonian moment.
other relevant scholarly articles include:
[PDF] DETENTIONS, MILITARY COMMISSIONS, TERRORISM, AND DOMESTIC CASE PRECEDENT
C Tobias - www-rcf.usc.edu
... at 1412–21; Jonathan Turley, Tribunals and Tribulations: The Antithetical Elements
of Military Governance in a Madisonian Democracy, 70 G EO . W ASH . ...
View as HTML - Web Search
The United States of America and the International Criminal Court
DM Amann, MNS Sellers - The American Journal of Comparative Law, 2002 - JSTOR
... 5-8. On the postwar trials and the US role, see generally Gary Jonathan Bass, Stay
the Hand of Vengeance (2000 ... 677 (1999); Turley, "'From Pillar to Post ...
Web Search
SENATE TRIALS AND FACTIONAL DISPUTES: IMPEACHMENT AS A MADISONIAN DEVICE - all 7 versions »
E Policy, D Law, J Home - alumni.law.duke.edu
... In this Article, Professor Turley addresses the use of impeachment, specifically
the Senate trial, as a method of resolving factional disputes about an ...
Cached - Web Search
|
Articles of
ImpeachmentA fish rots from the head down. Downing Street Memo
The Impeachment of George W. Bush Impeach Bush now!
George W. Bush is a pathological liar. He shows his contempt for the American people whenever he says anything in public. Why do you think he smirks so often? It's because he knows he's lying and he's amused that everyone else (so he thinks) is a fool for believing him. (Lately his handlers have trained him not to smirk so often.)
You said it ... and then that little tongue came out; that weird way you stick your tongue out between your lips like the little kid who knows he's fibbing. Like a snake licking a rat. — Greg Palast, commenting on George W. Bush's 2004 State of the Union speech. In particular Bush lied to the people of the United States and to the entire world when he declared in late 2002 and early 2003 that Iraq had developed and deployed "weapons of mass destruction" and was an imminent threat to its neighbors and to the U.S. itself.
... George W. Bush and the members of his administration argued, day after day, week after week, month after month, that Iraq was in possession of massive stores of mass destruction weapons that would be delivered to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda for use against the United States. ..."We have sources that tell us," said George W. Bush on February 8 2003, "that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons."
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt," continued Bush on March 17 2003, "that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." ...
George W. Bush, on March 18, had delivered a letter to Congress explicitly indicating that an attack on Iraq was an attack upon those who perpetrated September 11. Paragraph two reads, "The use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
On May 1 2003, when he announced the end of "major combat operations," Bush proclaimed, "We've removed an ally of Al Qaeda." ...
The uranium claims were based on crudely forged documents, the mobile labs were weather balloon launching platforms sold to Iraq by the British in the 1980s, the al Qaeda claims are utterly impossible to establish as true, any connection between Iraq and September 11 was publicly denied by George W. Bush himself recently, and the mass destruction weapons are utterly and completely absent.
— William Rivers Pitt: Donkeys of Mass Destruction
Bush's lies were used as a justification for launching an invasion and occupation of Iraq which has killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers and thousands of Iraqis and which has and will cost the U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars (far better spent on health, education and unemployment benefits for the workers whose jobs Bush has shipped overseas). The long-term damage to America is incalculable. Bush's lies amount to a "high crime" under the U.S. Constitution and justify impeachement and removal from office.
And not only Bush. In the run-up to the attack on Iraq Vice-President Dick Cheney claimed that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program and had recently attempted to purchase uranium, even though he knew (from the report of retired US Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the man he sent to Niger to investigate this) that this was false. He claimed that following an invasion of Iraq the Iraqis would welcome the American soldiers as liberators (instead the Iraqis are killing as many as they can). For his lies as well as his gross errors of judgment (amounting to wishful thinking) Cheney should be impeached and removed from office.
The same is true of Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice and the other neo-cons who did Israel's bidding by launching a war to remove the threat to Israel from Saddam Hussein. All should be swept away. However, as John Kaminski and Michael Ruppert have pointed out, removing Bush and his fellow sleazeballs from power will not fundamentally change the fact (in Ruppert's words), "that the system itself is corrupt and that the people controlling it — both in government, and in America's corporations and financial institutions — are criminals".
Articles on This Website
- Winning an Oilfield, Losing the World — Superpower Crimes & the Failure of Nationalism
- Marc Cooper: Uncensored Gore
[N]obody has ever wrecked the Bill of Rights as he [Bush] has. Other presidents have dodged around it, but no president before this one has so put the Bill of Rights at risk. No one has proposed preemptive war before. And two countries in a row that have done no harm to us have been bombed.
- Bev Conover: The True "Servants of Evil"
And on this day [September 11, 2003] he [Bush] has proclaimed Patriot Day of all things, having mired the US military in the depleted-uranium-laden sands of Iraq, showing no remorse for all the innocent people whose deaths he caused, telling the countries on whom he spit they have a duty to help rebuild what he has destroyed, and, after depriving his own people of vitally needed services, asking Congress for another $87 billion as partial payment on the tab he ran up — not to mention the unprecedented $500 billion hole his policies and tax cuts for the rich have put the country in — he further exploits the victims of 9/11 by sacrificing our troops on the altar of his ego and ignorance.
- Xymphora: George W. Bush, Cocaine and Community Service
- Dr. Robert Bowman: Some Dare Call It Treason — Wake Up America!
It is time for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the whole oil mafia to be removed from office and indicted for TREASON.- Ramsey Clark's Articles of Impeachment of George W. Bush et al.
President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts: ...A modified form of these Articles of Impeachment may be found here, on the website of VoteToImpeach.org, along with Ramsey Clark's Notes on Impeachment.
- Edgar J. Steele: Bush Must Go!
Articles on Other Websites
- Daniel Bacher: Bush's Illegal War
By spending taxpayers' money on military adventures, the Bush administration has taken money that could have been better spent for feeding people, building schools and economic and social development in the U.S. and throughout the world.
- Drake Bennett and Heidi Pauken: All the President's Lies
More distressing even than the president's lies, though, is the public's apparent passivity. Bush just seems to get away with it. ... [Does] the complicity of the press help to lull the public and reinforce the president's lies?
- Jon Roland: Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
[The] phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" ... refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.
- George Soros's We Deserve the Truth
- Patrick Martin: What happened to Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction"?
... the claim of chemical and biological weapons was a hoax, deliberately concocted by the Bush administration to conceal its predatory aims in the invasion of a country with the world's second largest oil reserves.
- Julian Borger: White House 'lied about Saddam threat'
A former US intelligence official who served under the Bush administration in the build-up to the Iraq war accused the White House yesterday of lying about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
- Bush is risking his credibility
What the president doesn't seem to grasp is that criticism over the uranium statement has grown because the White House has tried to kiss it off.
- Robert Scheer: What Did He Know and When Did He Know It?
We now know that the threat of deployed WMD was a blatant falsehood. What has not been established is whether the President was in on the lie. If he was, he should be impeached.
- John W. Dean: Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed. ... Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause.
- Daniel Meltzer: Was it a high crime?
If President Bush launched a lethal war, one whose ultimate domestic and global consequences still cannot be foreseen, on the basis of evidence he either knew was false or about which he should have been judiciously skeptical, then in the words of Mr. Bush's own father, former President George H. W. Bush, "this cannot stand," and he should resign or be impeached.
- Families of soldiers condemn Bush's war
- Eric Margolis: Bush Deserves To Be Impeached
The litany of lies produced by the White House and its neo-con allies would be farcical were it not for the deaths of so many Americans and Iraqis.
- LaRouche Says Charges Against Cheney Constitute Grounds For Impeachment
The charges against Cheney are centered on the fact that the Vice President repeatedly used documents, allegedly from the government of Niger, purporting to show Iraqi government efforts to purchase large quantities of uranium precursor, "yellow cake" from that African nation, long after he learned that the documents were forged.- Michael C. Ruppert: Blood in the Water: Watergate II
... it is ludicrous to expect that Cheney sent [Joseph] Wilson to investigate [the claim that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger], and then did not want a report when Wilson returned [with a negative finding]. Yet, that is the Vice President's position.
- Francis A. Boyle: It's About the Rule of Law: Impeaching George W. Bush
We need one Member of Congress with the courage, integrity, and principles of the late and great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez of Texas. Otherwise, the alternative will be an American Empire abroad, a U.S. Police State at home, and continuing wars of aggression to sustain them — along the lines of George Orwell's classic novel 1984.
- Investigate and Impeach Bush for Failing to Act on 911 Warnings — And then Lying About It
The following list contains the most serious warnings that were ignored by the Bush administration. ... Collectively, these failures justify the resignation — or impeachment — of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who are ultimately responsible for the failure of their Administration to protect the American people. ...
- A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition Responds to President Bush's National Television Address of September 7, 2003
During his administration, Bush has only rarely felt that he must address the people, and does so when he fears that a sentiment is growing strong enough to challenge his illegal actions. He must then lie more [than he usually does] to convince the people of the U.S. to support his criminal endeavors, or at least acquiesce in them.
- Santa Cruz to ask Congress to consider impeaching Bush
With a sweeping 6-1 vote, the Santa Cruz City Council became the first local government in the country Tuesday [2003-09-09] to ask Congress to look into impeaching President Bush.
- Walter E. Davis, PhD: September 11th And The Bush Administration: Compelling Evidence for Complicity
Thus the possibility of complicity on the part of the Bush Administration is very real. At the very least, further and more honest investigations must take place and some accountability exacted from those responsible.
- Christopher Scheer: Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq
What follows are just the most outrageous and significant of the dozens of outright lies uttered by Bush and his top officials over the past year in what amounts to a systematic campaign to scare the bejeezus out of everybody: ...
- John W. Dean: President Bush's New Iraq Commission Won't Be Investigating the Key WMD Issue: How the Executive Order Fatally Limits Their Agenda
- Bill Vann: Bush at the UN — a war criminal takes the podium
Unlike the American people, the Bush administration is more than willing to accept the resulting increase in young American soldiers, reservists and National Guard members dying daily to secure increased profits for the administration's corporate backers.
- The Bush Body Count
This is a list of bodies, a roster of the dead, who might have been called Witnesses had they not met their untimely ends.
- John McArthur: Impeach Bush now (Also here.)
Why aren't Americans talking seriously about impeachment? After all, Mr. Bush now stands plausibly accused of the lofty crime of subverting the Constitution of the United States — that is, lying to Congress about an imminent danger to the American people in order to collect enough votes to authorize his corporate/imperial project in Iraq.
- GW Bush went AWOL
- Xymphora: More on George and Drugs
- Lori R. Price: Will Bush play the bioterror card?
- Kirwan: When Lives are Written in Invisible Ink
- Four Reasons (Five Actually) to Impeach Bush
- Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President
- William Rivers Pitt: The Ramadan Offensive
George W. Bush said the intricately coordinated and highly effective attacks [at the start of Ramadan] were a sign that the Iraqi insurgents were becoming "desperate." He described the attackers as people who "hate freedom" and "love terror." This is the reaction of a man residing comfortably in Bizarro World, a land where up is down, black is white, and reality has no place at the table.To Americans: This is Your President. A lunatic. Despicable. Worse than a disgrace to America. You like this? Do you know that you, the People, have the power to remove him from office, through your elected representatives? Let them know how you feel.
- The Bush Hitler Thing
So far, I've seen nothing to eliminate the possibility that Bush is on the same course as Hitler. And I've seen far too many analogies to dismiss the possibility. The propaganda. The lies. The rhetoric. The nationalism. The flag waving. The pretext of 'preventive war'. The flaunting of international law and international standards of justice. The disappearances of 'undesirable' aliens. The threats against protesters. The invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation. The occupation of a hostile country. The promises of prosperity and security. The spying on ordinary citizens. The incitement to spy on one's neighbors - and report them to the government. The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest. The honoring of soldiers. The tributes to 'fallen warriors'. The diversion of money to the military. The demonization of government appointed 'enemies'. The establishment of 'Homeland Security'. The dehumanization of 'foreigners'. The total lack of interest in the victims of government policy. The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill. The growing prosperity from military ventures. The illusion of 'goodness' and primacy. The new einsatzgrupen forces. Assassination teams. Closed extralegal internment camps. The militarization of domestic police. Media blackout of non-approved issues. Blacklisting of protesters — including the no-fly lists and photographing dissenters at rallies.
- A BuzzFlash editorial, 2004-02-02: In Memory of Our Soldiers Dead in Iraq, More than 3,000 Dead On 9/11, and Patriots Outed by Treasonous Bush Staff, No More Sham "Investigations" Aimed at Covering Up the Truth and Protecting the Guilty. Impeachment, Prosecution and Jail Time, Now.
- Forget About Condi's Show "Testimony" of Lies Today: That's All White House "Made for Television" Theater. If You Want the Truth, Let's Move on to Plan "B": Impeachment.
- William Saletan: Trust, Don't Verify — Bush's incredible definition of credibility
Three times, Bush repeated the answer he gave to Edwin Chen of the Los Angeles Times: "Had there been a threat that required action by anybody in the government, I would have dealt with it." Outside Bush's head, the statement was patently false: The 9/11 threat required action, and Bush failed to deal with it. But inside Bush's head, the statement was tautological: If there were a threat that required action, Bush would have dealt with it; Bush didn't deal with it; therefore, there was no threat that required action.
- Sidney Blumenthal: Hear no evil, read no evil, speak drivel
Bush's [April 2004] press conference shows just how ill-informed he is about Iraq
- Kirwan: War Has Answered!
... diplomacy [with regard to Iraq] was never even tried — because our anointed one, had talked to god and then decided, "WAR was what it had to be!" Never mind that there were laws about making those kinds of decisions. This mattered not to BUSH, because he was chosen above all men to bring freedom to the waiting world, despite the rights of other peoples, and the Constitution of the USA. Bush had his mission, and nothing as small as the US Congress or the courts were going to get between him and his mission: because he was chosen by god to do this.
- Brian Cloughley: America is Committing War Crimes in Iraq
Bush does not actually read newspapers, except the sports sections. ... Bush might prefer to get the "news du jour" through the filter and interpretation of his sycophants [Card, Rice, Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the loonies running the White House asylum], but it would serve his country better were he to read honest and accurate reports of what is going on in the land he invaded and has destroyed. He has dishonored his own country, and, alas, he has set an example to his armed forces that has resulted in conduct that I would never have thought possible on the part of Americans in uniform.
- Dr Susan Block: Bush's POW Porn
- Doug Thompson: Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides
President George W. Bush's increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader's state of mind.
- Marjorie Cohn: The Torturer-in-Chief
The Constitution mandates the impeachment of a President for high crimes and misdemeanors. There is no higher crime than a war crime. Willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, which are considered war crimes under The War Crimes Act of 1996. ... Bush impliedly admitted sanctioning willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment in his 2003 State of the Union Address. He would be liable under the doctrine of command responsibility for war crimes committed in Iraq as well. The captain goes down with his ship. It is time to call for the Impeachment of George W. Bush.
- Teresa Hampton: Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
[According to one] long-time GOP political consultant ... "We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the United States is loony tunes," he says sadly. "That's not good for my candidates, it's not good for the party and it's certainly not good for the country."
- Eric A. Smith: The Goods on Bush: What We Can Prove
- How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power
- Alex Salmond joins bid to have Tony Blair impeached
A 99 page report drawn up by two leading academics, details four "impeachable offences" under which Tony Blair could be charged: misleading Parliament and the country and failing to resign in consequence, negligence and incompetence, undermining the constitution and entering into a secret agreement with the President of the United States regarding the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
- Frederick Sweet: Just sitting next to a friend who expresses an anti-Bush opinion can get you into big Secret Service trouble in George W. Bush's United States
- Karl W. B. Schwarz: Demand Letter Sent To Bush By Corp CEO
- Peter Dale Scott: A Post-Election Wrap-Up: Iraq, 9/11, Drugs, Cheney, and Watergate Two, including 9/11 as an Issue for Impeachment
- Carla Binion: Bush and Cheney: reprehensible, corrupt, seeking your vote
Shouldn't we be thinking of impeaching George W. Bush and Dick Cheney instead of running them for political office? These are two of the most corrupt politicians in U.S. history. We have factual proof they're serial liars. They've hoodwinked Congress and the American people into a war based on lies.
- Open letter to the citizens of the United States of America
George Bush has turned the USA into a pariah state in the international community and before the eyes of the citizens of the world. ...Killing tens of thousands of civilians is not Christian, it is evil and the callousness with which this issue is faced by the Bush regime is witness to the coldness in their hearts and minds, a coldness which creates shock and revulsion in the community of nations. In Europe, in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America, in Canada.
- Stanley Hilton Lawsuit
- THE AWOL PROJECT An Examination of the Bush Military Files
- FBI Memo: Bush's Executive Order Approved Torture Techniques
- Matthew Rothschild: Stripping Rumsfeld and Bush of Impunity
- Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist: Bush, The Spoiled Man-Child
Unlike you or me or any human anywhere who happens to be in possession of humility or subtlety of mind, Bush, to this day, admits zero mistakes. He refuses help, rejects suggestions that everything is not dandy and swell. He is confounded by questions that dare suggest he might be somewhat inept, or failing. And he absolutely insists that America exists in some sort of bizarre utopian vacuum, isolated and virtuous and towering like a mad hobbled king over our enemies and allies alike. He is, in other words, our downfall.
- George W. Bush Must Answer to the People
- Prof. Francis A. Boyle: Campaign to Impeach President George W. Bush
Since the U.S. Supreme Court's installation of George W. Bush as President in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that demonstrates little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security.What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs.
It is clear that George W. Bush is the most hated U.S. President ever. And for good reason: He is a psychopathic mass murderer who has brought the United States of America into disgrace, despised by the rest of the world. Even worse, he is an instrument in the coming destruction of the U.S. itself. But for the future well-being of all life on Earth maybe that's not such a bad thing.
There are, however, two major problems with the removal of George W. Bush by impeachment and conviction:
- It requires a simple majority of the House of Representatives to impeach and a two-thirds majority of the Senate to convict, and both houses are controlled by the Republican party.
- It is a slow process which requires months, and in the meantime Bush, an insane psychopath, remains commander-in-chief of the world's largest arsenal and a born-again lackey of that other insane psychopath Ariel Sharon, who apparently (with U.S. assistance) is about to plunge the whole Middle East into war.
There are a few other possibilities for removing Bush. One is: Arrest the President Now! A radical course of action, but perhaps necessary if the world is not to be plunged into major wars, famines and comprehensive disaster.
Another would follow from the public recognition that George W. Bush is, if not certifiably insane, at least mentally incompetent to perform his duties as President. There is clear evidence of this, for example:
WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: I don't really understand. How is it the new [Social Security] plan is going to fix that problem?
DUBYA: Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.— Dubya explains the virtues of his Social Security plan, Tampa, Florida, Feb. 4, 2005
This is taken from Fresh Dubya (The 15 most recent Dubya declarations). This statement of Bush's plan to "save" social security is reminiscent of the well-known statement by a Marine commander in the Vietnam War, speaking of a Vietnamese village: "We had to destroy it in order to save it."
This possibility that Bush could be removed from office on the grounds of being mentally incompetent to perform his duties as President was discussed in July 2005 by Jeffrey Steinberg in his article The Plame Affair: Rove and Cheney Are Guilty As Charged:
Cheney's departure, and replacement by a qualified, experienced figure, such as several leading Republican Senators, would create the safe conditions for the removal of President George W. Bush, for the good of the nation.Procedures for the removal of Bush from office are contained in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which spells out the procedures for the removal of the President from office if he is determined to be "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." The Constitution itself demands that the President meet the standard of competence. And that is where Bush fails, miserably.
It was amusing to watch the press conference given by George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin in Bratislava on January 24th, 2005. While Putin delivered concise, coherent and intelligent answers to the questions put to him by reporters, Bush was only able to mouth platitudes about how important democracy and a free press is, and when he couldn't think of anything else to say he resorted to rambling on about how, when "Vladimir" says something, you can be sure that he means it. As if anyone thought otherwise. Seen standing next to a statesman, Bush was revealed to the entire world as a bumbling fool, and a disgrace to America as well.
A transcript of the press conference was available for awhile on the website of the L.A.Times (here), but they removed it (perhaps because it was embarrassing). The transcript provided by the Washington Post is still available here.
- Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey: Putin answers Bush word for word
The Downing Street Memo
The Watergate burglary occurred in Richard Nixon's first term as US President. Accusations of a cover-up did not stop Nixon from being re-elected in 1972. Nixon was impeached in 1974.
The US attack on Iraq occurred in Bush's first term. The charge of taking the US into an illegal and immoral war did not stop Bush from being re-elected (by means of rigged voting machines) in 2004. Were history to repeat itself Bush would be impeached in 2006.
The movement for Bush's impeachment gained strength following the publication on May 1st, 2005, of the Downing Street Memo by the Times of London.
- President must answer to Downing Street Memo
- Xymphora on the Downing Street Memo
- Walter C. Uhler: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush
If intentionally deceiving the U.S. Congress is an impeachable offence, then President Bush deserves impeachment — because every time he assured congressmen that he hoped to avoid war, he deceived them. And if commencing war without receiving Congressional approval is an impeachable offense — which it certainly is — then President Bush merits impeachment. For, strictly speaking, Bush took America to war in May 2002 when he authorized the intense bombings designed to degrade Iraq defense capacity, if not provoke a response by Saddam
- Greg Szymanski: Historic Downing Street Meeting Provides Evidence For Bush Impeachment For Violation of War Powers Act
- After the Downing Street Memo: The Case for Impeachment Builds
- Steve Cobble, The Nation, 2005-06-06: After Downing Street: A Resolution of Inquiry
The Downing Street Minutes are deserving, in the words of constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz, of an official "Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach George W. Bush, President of the United States."
- Doug Thompson, 2005-06-20: Time to Impeach a War Criminal (Also here.)
- FULL TEXT OF BRITISH BRIEFING PAPERS REVEALED: More Evidence Intel Was Fixed
- Bernard Weiner: 15 Things Learned About Bush&Co.: An Impeachment List
15. Finally, there is Iraq, which (as was the case with Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam) will be the death of Bush's legacy and which potentially could get him impeached during his term, or put on trial domestically and in The Hague after he leaves office. Thanks to insiders who have left the Administration, the demonstrable facts, and now the so-called Downing Street Memos from England, I have learned, we all have learned, that there were immense immoralities and crimes perpetrated by our own government (and the Blair regime) in preparing for, launching, and carrying out this war and occupation. And those crimes continue to this day.
Impeach not only Bush but also Cheney and Rumsfeld!
- Bush's Impeachable Offenses (Also here.)
- Dick Cheney: War Profiteer
- Joseph Hillier: President George W. Bush is now impeachable
Impeachment has now clearly become the only logical culmination of the Bush presidency. Of course the conservative, Republican controlled Congress will at first be a major impediment against any attempt to impeach their President, but Bush is neither loved nor respected by most Republicans. As the inevitability of a successful impeachment becomes obvious the rats will desert the sinking ship in droves. None would be willing to sacrifice their political careers by backing Bush, a man already well known by many in his party to be a weak, cowardly, little loser who would betray them and their principles in an instant if he thought he could save himself by doing so.
- Former CIA Analyst: Government May Be Manufacturing Fake Terrorism
[Ray McGovern] stressed that the founders [of the United States] wrote the Constitution with far sighted possibilities in mind, and we may now be at that juncture. The founders provided us with the ability to impeach any Government should it take away our liberties or any President, should he attempt to act like a King or an Emperor.
- Bill Christison: Evidence Mounts That Bush Wants New Wars
- Mike Whitney: The Greatest Strategic Disaster in American History
- The 50-Point Drop: How Did Bush Fall This Far?
Bush had 90 percent job-approval rating in days following 9/11 attacks, now has rating in the 30s.
- Walter C. Uhler: "Fixed" Intelligence from Feith's "Gestapo Office," the CIA and the Bush Administration's Impeachable Lies about Iraq's Prewar Links to al Qaeda
- Edgar J. Steele: The Crack of Doom
- John Nichols: Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby and the New Definition of "Honesty"
Bush had Prior Knowledge of the Katrina Disaster,
Did Nothing, and Lied about it
- Bush lied over Katrina
- 'Bush knew what Katrina would do'
- Katrina probe: chaos from Bush down
- Video Shows Bush Warned Before Katrina Hit
Bush has Confessed to an Impeachable Offense
Bush has confessed (on TV even) to a high crime (that is, a crime committed by someone in a high place). Why hasn't Congress begun impeachment hearings?
- 2005-12-16: Bush reportedly authorized agency to spy on Americans
- CNN, 2005-12-17: Bush acknowledges allowing eavesdropping
- Barry Grey: Bush defends illegal spying on Americans: the specter of presidential dictatorship
Bush's open defense of illegality and assertion of quasi-dictatorial powers bring the political crisis in the US to the boiling point. His defiance of Congress, the law and the Constitution are the culmination of a record of criminality. But the Bush administration has concluded, with good reason, that it will face no serious opposition from any section of the political establishment. ...Whatever its tactical differences with the Bush administration, the Democratic Party fundamentally defends the drive of US imperialism for global domination, with all of its brutal implications for the American people and the entire world.
- Bill Van Auken: Bush uses lies, fear-mongering to defend war in Iraq, police state measures at home
- Tom Flocco: Evidence indicates Bush wire-tapped alternative media
Is Bush using warrant-less spying as a pretext to monitor U.S. "enemies" list?
- Barry Grey: Bush employs "Big Lie" technique to defend illegal spying on Americans
- Bruce Schneier on Project Shamrock
[The] president can't simply decide that the law doesn't apply to him. This issue is not about terrorism. It's not about intelligence gathering. It's about the executive branch of the United States ignoring a law, passed by the legislative branch and signed by President Jimmy Carter: a law that directs the judicial branch to monitor eavesdropping on Americans in national security investigations.
But now, at last (2006-01-15), things are beginning to move ...
- Brian Knowlton: Key senator criticizes Bush anew on spying
- Bush Could Be Impeached Over Spying: Senator
- Doug Thompson: The 'I-word' comes out of the closet
- Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation: The Impeachment of George W. Bush
- Patrick Martin: Bush administration domestic spying provokes lawsuits, calls for impeachment
- Impeachment moving toward center stage
- James P. Tucker Jr.: Cheney, Bush Can Be Clipped by Voters
- American Free Press: Impeachment Drive Grows
- John W. Dean: If Past Is Prologue, George Bush Is Becoming An Increasingly Dangerous President
Of course, times have changed since 1974, and rather than retire (with the implicit acknowledgement of wrongdoing) Bush may conveniently die before he can be impeached.
But don't worry — another Bush is being groomed to take over the Presidency in January 2009, Brother Jeb.
But why should we have to wait three years? Bush reportedly (like Cheney) has a weak heart. He could die tomorrow. Then Cheney (affectionately known as "Vicious Dick" among his admirers) would become President. And he could then appoint the brother of the dearly departed as his Vice-President — obviously a fitting tribute, of course, to the valiant war-time President who died fulfilling his duty to the great nation of the United States in its noble quest to bring the blessings of Democracy and Liberty to the formerly oppressed Iraqi and Afghani people. Then Dick could conveniently have another heart attack, this time fatal, and — voila! — we get the third President Bush! And maybe even President-for-Life if some congresscritters (from both parties) succeed in their attempts to repeal the 22nd Amendment.
Of course, President Vicious Dick (currently renowned among his supporters as the author of the Cheney doctrine) would not actually have to have a fatal heart attack in order for Brother Jeb to become the third President Bush. He could simply retire, citing heart problems (brought on, naturally, by the stress of making the world safe and profitable for the likes of Chevron, Bechtel and Kellogg, Brown & Root). Thus the only obstacle to Brother Jeb's becoming US President within a year or two is the continuing incumbency of his moronic brother. This, however, is a problem that the FBI could solve with a bit of planning, in the same way that it solved the problem posed by Martin Luther King in 1968. Or if the FBI can't handle it then no doubt the CIA would be more than happy to take on the task, though by now they probably have realized that an exploding Cuban cigar won't do the trick. Perhaps an exploding pretzel?
[Note added 2007-04-25: Due to the widespread disgust among the people with George W. Bush, Jeb Bush is currently unelectable and his presidency has been postponed. The betting is now that Hillary will be "elected" in 2008. She will be blamed for the economic collapse within the U.S. during 2009-2012 (actually resulting from George's policies), paving the way for the "election" to the presidency of Brother Jeb.]
Unfortunately the reality in the U.S. in early November 2006 is no laughing matter.
- Frank Morales: Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
In the November congressional elections, widely seen as a referendum on Administration policy regarding Iraq, the voters installed a slim Democratic majority in both houses, a clear sign of their wish for American troops to be withdrawn from Iraq. George W. Bush, in typically psychopathic fashion, responded by ordering more troops to be sent to Iraq. It looks like the U.S. is headed for a constitutional crisis, in which the people can win against a ruthless dictatorship only by exposing its crimes. Ideally this will include exposing the role of elements at the top of the U.S. Administration in the planning and implementation of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
- Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith: Start Preparing Now for the Coming "Cataclysmic Fight to the Death"
- Paul Craig Roberts: Bush Must Go — Only Impeachment Can Stop Him
When are the American people and their representatives in Congress and the military going to wake up and realize that the US has an insane war criminal in the White House who is destroying all chances for peace in the world and establishing a police state in the US?Americans don't have much time to realize this and to act before it is too late. Bush's "surge" speech last Wednesday night makes it completely clear that his real purpose is to start wars with Iran and Syria before failure in Iraq brings an end to the neoconservative/Israeli plan to establish hegemony over the Middle East. ...
Nothing can stop the criminal Bush from instituting wider war in the Middle East that could become a catastrophic world war except an unequivocal statement from Congress that he will be impeached.
Bush has made the US into a colony of Israel. The US is incurring massive debt and loss of both life and reputation in order to silence Muslim opposition to Israel's theft of Palestine and the Golan Heights. That is what the "war on terror" is about.
But, as someone said, if Congress had ever had the courage to impeach Bush it would have happened on September 12th, 2001. There has been ample opportunity, and almost nothing was ever been done. Bush won't be impeached. Nor will Cheney. That's real bad news for the rest of us.
Despite multiple offenses and parole violations, Spahn Ranch [residence of Charles Manson and Charles "Tex" Watson] wasn't raided before [the] Tate-LaBianca [murders] because the police were expressly told they should not arrest Manson or his followers. Despite the grievous injuries they've inflicted upon the nation and the constitution, George Bush and Dick Cheney will not be impeached because Democrats have elected, for some reason, to take impeachment "off the table." Like an unmolested Manson sending his family on "creepy crawly" burglaries of canyon homes Bush will not be stopped by the law, because behind the law are the gods of Helter Skelter who are not yet finished with him. As [Los Angeles County deputy sheriff] Guillory said of Manson, so Bush is "a very ready tool" who currently enjoys the unprecedented and seemingly unaccountable permission to do the unthinkable. And because he can, something big is coming down.Only after his chaotic work is done and the last doorpost daubed in gore may he be brought low. Not to justice, because American presidents never are, but perhaps to a singular injustice that has sometimes made their acquaintance. Until then, he may as well tell us as another Texan [Watson] reportedly did, "I am the devil, and I am here to do the devil's business."
— Jeff Wells (Rigorous Intuition, 16 January 2007), We Are Family
Let him save himself who can.
A copy of (almost) the entire Serendipity website is available on CD-ROM. Details here.
Seymour Hersh on Iraq, Bush and the Neocons Bush Flubs it Again The Madness of George W. Bush The Letter of May 2006 from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to George W. Bush Serendipity Home Page
I thought I would drop by again before the students show up with their absurd comments under the popular names to drive the conversation away. I find it to be the Internet version of book burning.
I digress -
You wisely offered the rhetorical question about Congress having the nerve to move ahead with the tools at their avail. While this is a judiciary committee matter - all of the parties involved are politicians. It is difficult for me to even shadow box with the rationale of how pursuing this matter ( which no doubt requires pursuit) is politically expedient or effective considering the calendar - the political races - and - the likely dust storm of misinformation that neocon operatives, (I refuse to name them except for their poster child Kevin James which makes me simultaneously laugh and cringe)bunkered srategically all over the press, radio and TV.
It is a Constitutional responsibility, that is further complicated with its high likelihood to be a political nightmare, unless they charge Rove and others with a crime very swiftly.
Binx, I agree. Isn’t there some kind of criminal charge for deliberate refusal to appear before Congress when Rove has in fact been summoned? If it were anyone else but Rove, or some other former (or current) White House official that person would probably be under some kind of arrest, correct? Of course, JT, you can answer this one too, for those who missed your appearance on COUNTDOWN this evening. I just made it, this time.
$20,000 Dollar Pyramid
“Go!”
“Okay…. anemic…impotent…loathsome…
“Things that are slander per se”
“Impotent… anemic… loathsome”
“Things that are libel per se”
“Useless … powerless by design…”
“All things Congressional”
That’s right!
The only way that they will get Rove to appear under oath is through the Congressional power of Inherent Contempt. Will they have the stones to use it? I don’t know, but Conyers has been getting visibly pissed at Rove and the other felons so it is possible that he just may pull the trigger. It would be sight to see. I have my fingers crossed, but I am not holding my breath.
Don’t believe there is anything Congress can do to Rove that is worse than being relegated to Fixed News.
rafflaw
Spot on! I concur word for word. Thanks for saving me some typing.
Rove has many enemies. Although he thinks the “big” ideas and is a detail man as well, others still have to do some of the work-others not well placed as himself.
I suggest Congress take the McClatchy news service approach to Rove. They were one of the few larger newspapers to actually investigate the run up to the Iraq war. They did so by talking to mid level people. Those people kept telling the facts but no one was much listening in the bigger newsrooms because those idiots felt mid level people weren’t “sexy” enough to hear out. Big mistake. They name reporters kept their “insider” “”status”"(–ha, ha) and wrote what they were fed. Congress should find these mid-level people. They don’t know everything but they know a lot. Each and every time they get information they need to splash it all over the media along with anaylsis of why this stuff matters to this nation. They need to be out in front of the whitehouse spin machine, with both accurate information and analysis.
Most people are not happy with cheney-bush and minions. Congress should go to this nation and lay out the case. I believe a talk with the mid level people who did Rove’s bidding would be interesting and informing to the people of the U.S.
Jill:
Jack Anderson, the muckraking columnist, used to say that most of his best information came from secretaries and busboys and doormen. Mid-level people still are the best sources of truth because power, money, and influence doesn’t “modify” their ethics, and, finally some news-people are re-discovering that fact. Anderson said something else germane too: “The incestuous relationship between government and big business thrives in the dark.” Who is Rove working for now?
Rove probably has some skeletons in his closet that could be found if the Media actually did their job. With a little leverage, Rove will squeal like a pig to the committee.
Good point Mespo.
ARRRGGGG!
Jill
The Power of Inherent Contempt hasn’t been used for a long time - I can imagine that there are a few dozen staffers, legal consultants and legal historians making haste on a Virtual Private Network.
JT was out and about last night and had pretty much had the same interview on the subject as 3 previous times, when this came up. I’m not being critical of our host - or Olbermann - the fact his - this is apparently a tool of Congress that was last used in the 1930’s and it resulted in 10 days imprisonment for Contempt.
Then there seems to be some additional confusion and ambiguity about whether contempt of Congress is a crime against Congress or against the United States, to what distinction appears only to put it out of reach of a Presidential pardon.
Lastly, it doesn’t seem important whether or not Karl Rove can be prosecuted, convicted or pardoned - in contrast to the importance of restoring some propriety to our Government. We only have a glimpse of the wreckage this insurgency has inflicted.
The insurgents:
Looted the treasury
Infrastructure in decay
Many without healthcare
Many need financial assistance
Many have perished without a competent plan for rescue
Corruption in military and civilian military leadership is abundant
Corruption in General Servcie
Corrupt religious operatives infiltrated justice system resulting in persecution of opposition
Less powerful political opponents denied fair trails
Corrupt politicians running in concert with extremist religious leaders
Political Partisans engaged in furious propaganda and obstruction
And this isn’t Iraq - That’s right here at home.
Indeed … our government needs to prove to the American public that it can act on behalf of the American people and wrestle control of the remnants of the coup, before the next election