Impeach Bush/Cheney ... On What Ground?

[doh_phooey]

Top Ten Lies:








They lied, again and again and again, big time. Impeach.

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

[MissWaverly]

1. If they connect the DOJ fiasco to election fraud

A deliberate attempt to manipulate the vote through meaningless charges
against innocent dem politicians running for office. An attempt to take away
people's right to vote by encourage "voter ID" where it was not needed.
An attempt to punish attorneys that would not participate in persecution
of people based on flimsy charges. It's all in there. And a deliberate
manipulation to prevent people from being heard when they claim they
were denied the right to vote. And a deliberate manipulation of
the EAC to produce twisted findings to favor voter fraud charges
when there was no factual basis to do so.

[doh_phooey]

4. well if you're going to nitpick

:sarcasm:

:)

[MissWaverly]

5. Hey, I like your graphic but the problem is

we have to go where the mountains of evidence leads us, lets start with election fraud, a statistical analysis of Bush drop off in
rural vote in 2004 showed that Kerry would have won in a landslide, but it did not happen, the urban vote was skewed to elect him, and the lie about the moral majority rural vote myth was born to explain his win.

[doh_phooey]

7. I got a fever ... and it ain't for more cowbell

Impeachment Fever: America's Got It!

http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/07/impeachment_fever_americas_got.html

[MissWaverly]

8. FDR was elected for 4 terms, polls never went below 50%

so what we have here is not normal

[doh_phooey]

10. Bush is no FDR

He's more of a Winston Churchill (according to himself)

[MissWaverly]

15. yes, but even Churchill was a adept at foreign affairs

while GW alas is not.

[doh_phooey]

11. Why Winston Wouldn't Stand For W

George W. Bush always wanted to be like a wartime British prime minister. He is. But it's not the one he had in mind


By Lynne Olson
Sunday, July 1, 2007; Page B01

President Bush's favorite role model is, famously, Jesus, but Winston Churchill is close behind. The president admires the wartime British prime minister so much that he keeps what he calls "a stern-looking bust" of Churchill in the Oval Office. "He watches my every move," Bush jokes. These days, Churchill would probably not care for much of what he sees.

I've spent a great deal of time thinking about Churchill while working on my book "Troublesome Young Men," a history of the small group of Conservative members of Parliament who defied British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasing Adolf Hitler, forced Chamberlain to resign in May 1940 and helped make Churchill his successor. I thought my audience would be largely limited to World War II buffs, so I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the president has been reading my book. He hasn't let me know what he thinks about it, but it's a safe bet that he's identifying with the book's portrayal of Churchill, not Chamberlain. But I think Bush's hero would be bemused, to say the least, by the president's wrapping himself in the Churchillian cloak. Indeed, the more you understand the historical record, the more the parallels leap out -- but they're between Bush and Chamberlain, not Bush and Churchill.

Like Bush and unlike Churchill, Chamberlain came to office with almost no understanding of foreign affairs or experience in dealing with international leaders. ... He surrounded himself with like-minded advisers and refused to heed anyone who told him otherwise.

Like Bush, Chamberlain also laid claim to unprecedented executive authority, evading the checks and balances that are supposed to constrain the office of prime minister. He scorned dissenting views, both inside and outside government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902304.html

[MissWaverly]

14. agreed, Winston Churchill closely studied events

and their impact, he would have never stayed the course in Iraq, he could never have concieved of a war w/o strategy only stale
rhetoric.

[Metta]

2. Elizabeth Vargas - all about that.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070607A.shtml

[MissWaverly]

3. You mean Elizabeth de la Vega

and her excellent book: US v. Bush, a fictional book but based on fact, arguments for impeachment

Article: 57: The Defendants' Massive Fraud to "Market" an invasion of Irag. "On or about September 4, 2002, Bush staged a photo
opportunity with a bipartisian group of congressional leaders, after which he falsely and fraudently announced that Iraq posed a serious threat to the safety of the U.S. and the world, while concealing from Congress and the American people the material facts
that (a) he had no reasonable basis whatsoever for his assertion; (b) he had never discussed the legitimacy of the grounds for an attack against Iraq with anyone; (c) he had never extensively reviewed existing intelligence regarding any possible threat from
Iraq; (d) he had not requested an updated intelligence assessment on Iraq; (e) the United States intelligence assessment then in
effect stated that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a nuclear weapons program; and (f) the IC had consistently reported
that Iraq had no involvement in 9/11 and no relationship with al Quaeda.

She has 63 proposed articles for indictment and a draft of Overt Acts - "A" through "N", hey we know it's summertime, and our
congresscritters smell campaign money out there; they can just draft her proposed indictment, they can read it over
in less than 1 hour and have Conyers review it in a day or two.

Forgot to add this: Elizabeth de la Vega is a retired federal prosecutor and is not some blogger in her pajamas dreaming stuff
up, she is basing this draft on hours of research and her experience in our legal system.

[BeFree]

6. It's time

To be free of these crooks. And if we all just pull together, we can do this.

[MissWaverly]

9. I am in favor, let's get impeachment for these crooks

[doh_phooey]

12. Tell Pelosi

http://www.pelosiwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=195

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/codepink/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=546&t=np.dwt

[MissWaverly]

16. Cindy told her better than I can

She won't listen to us, but I am going to donate to Cindy if she runs against Nancy.

[doh_phooey]

17. Tonight Abrams is saying there is no reason to impeach

How did this guy get to run MSNBC???

[koopie57]

20. It would be easier to find a reason not to impeach them. nt

[doh_phooey]

18. House speaker faces 'impeach' chants at ribbon-cutting

By SCOTT LINDLAW

It should have been a festive occasion for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but the ribbon-cutting of a new federal building turned into a skirmish with anti-war protesters.

About a dozen people chanted "Impeach now!" as Pelosi spoke at the dedication of the $144 million, 18-story landmark office complex, which boasts cutting-edge energy efficiency features. The demonstrators also unfurled a large "impeach" banner that directly faced Pelosi and other speakers.

As Pelosi and other dignitaries prepared to snip the ceremonial ribbon, a heckler shouted: "How about cutting the funding for war?"

After the ribbon-cutting, Pelosi told reporters she hopes to present "once again to the president the resolution that said, the redeployment out of Iraq must be completed by no later than April 1, 2008."

http://www.fresnobee.com/384/story/81421.html

[MissWaverly]

22. excellent, keep the heat on.

It's the only way they will listen, remember, the Pukes impeached over a blue dress.

[doh_phooey]

24. if only someone would give Bush a BJ

other than his wife

[doh_phooey]

19. T-Shirt ...

[MissWaverly]

21. Oh, that's beautiful, I like that better than Picasso

:-)

[doh_phooey]

23. impeach bush & cheney

[MissWaverly]

26. I am impressed, easy to read

that's what we need, if Bush can catapult the propaganda, we can catapult the truth

:-)

[doh_phooey]

28. the placement of the words bush and cheney

how fitting ... two boobs!

[MissWaverly]

29. Ha, Ha, yes sublimal message

[doh_phooey]

31. the word is "subliminable"

for those who may have forgotten:

September 12, 2000

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: The idea of putting subliminable (sic) messages into ads is -- it's ridiculous. You know, we need to be debating the issues.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: This is referring to a major -- "U.S. Daily's" story about subliminable (sic) messages. I talked to our ad man. There's one frame out of 900.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0009/12/ip.00.html

[MissWaverly]

39. I refuse to speak chimpanzee

:-)

[doh_phooey]

57. leave no chimp behind

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/GW-Bush-Library8aug04.htm

[lonestarnot]

13. They lied costing lives, treasury, stained all the good in America.

IMPEACH!

[doh_phooey]

25. Bush v Clinton

who left the bigger stain?

[marions ghost]

34. whew yeah

where can I get that bumper sticker?

[doh_phooey]

27. second ground for impeachment

The second ground for impeachment is Bush’s illegal detentions, in the United States and abroad. After 9/11, during the Ashcroft Raids, the Bush Administration rounded up 1,200 Arabs and Muslims and held them for months without charge. Many were held in solitary confinement; some were beaten and abused.

This not only violated the rights of the detainees. It also “grossly violated basic separation of powers principles by denying the judiciary any opportunity to review thousands of detentions,” the center writes in its book on impeachment.

http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx030706

[MissWaverly]

30. and then there's the devestation of Iraq

the lost lives, and the entire country has been reduced to rubble and chaos.

[doh_phooey]

32. more grounds

When our framers inserted the language “high crimes,” they had in mind such things as grave breaches of official duties, criminal negligence, abuses of public office, great crimes against society and great and dangerous offenses that subvert our Constitution. While most of these grounds apply here in one way or another, a grave breach of official duty seems to be the most relevant one:

The President, as Commander-in Chief, (1) did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster, (2) conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility and (3) exploited the tragedy to justify a misguided war and gain a second term.

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/43865

[MissWaverly]

40. yes, and in addition stole a presidential election in 2004

with the help of a politicized DOJ.

[doh_phooey]

41. there are sooooo many crimes

it's not a matter "are there grounds for impeachment" but which ones to begin with!

[MissWaverly]

43. the thing that bothered me about Bill Moyers last night

Bruce Fein, (Reagan appointee) was on there to discuss impeachment, the idea thrown out that if the Prez and Cheney came out
and said Oh, we stepped over the line, from now on we are going to be nice not naughty and respect the constitution, then
impeachment proceedings could end. I say no, we were deliberately misled into a war, there are many dead as a result of
their actions, how can we have impeachment lite for them. It's more than a matter of constitutional limits, it's a question
of "just us" or justice.

[doh_phooey]

44. that's bush's "Move On" policy

commit the crime and just move on (as he said of the Libby scandal)

[MissWaverly]

45. yes, like gee I felt real bad when I saw those photos

of Abu Ghraib, but what did you DO about it, George?

[doh_phooey]

48. a few "bad apples" (Bush's phrase after Abu Ghraib)

It is time to reckon with the weight of evidence that American forces regularly kill Iraqi noncombatants. Occupying armies with little knowledge of the local culture, fighting guerrillas who mingle among the population, have usually meant disaster for civilians. In Iraq, the impossible mission, poor training and inconsistent and irresponsible rules of engagement have compounded the problem, leading many American soldiers to conclude that endangering civilians is simply the cost of staying safe; to consider all Iraqis the enemy; or, under extreme stress, to lash out in revenge after insurgent attacks.

As described by these veterans, the occupation of Iraq has become a classic example of what psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton calls an "atrocity-producing situation." Their testimony of eroding moral constraint, a direct consequence of the untenable position in which they've found themselves, was confirmed recently by the Pentagon. A May survey by the U.S. Army Medical Command that should disturb every American found that just 47 percent of soldiers and 38 percent of marines agreed that civilians should be treated with dignity and respect.

Veterans of conscience deserve encouragement for speaking up. Instead they face a Congress that has been willfully blind to civilian casualties and has tolerated virtually no reporting on this matter from the Pentagon. It is time for a Congressional inquiry into these daily attacks on Iraqi civilians, one that traces responsibility up the chain of command. Most important, we need to wake up to the true costs of this war. If the President and his aides lie about the war with no consequence, if troops are deployed again and again to prop up a deteriorating occupation, if the rules of engagement guarantee frequent brutalization of noncombatants, then it is no wonder some soldiers conclude that their conduct has few limits. And it should come as no surprise that an occupation of this sort continues to inflame anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds. The problem is not a few "bad apples" (Bush's phrase after Abu Ghraib) but the occupation itself. It needs to end.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/12/opinion/main3049843.shtml

[MissWaverly]

49. yes and repeated assignments with no breaks and

a faceless enemy and isolated units far from the chain of command re-enforce this abuse pattern and the fact that there are just
as many contractors=soldiers with no oversight at all, this is an incredible way to fight a war.

[doh_phooey]

66. bush = INCOMPETENT & DELUSIONAL

nt

[Thothmes]

62. Detention camps

Dont think this will get much traction. If I remember correctly FDR detained 150000 American citizens whose sole crime was being of Japanese decent.

[doh_phooey]

33. come on, Congress!!!!

[marions ghost]

35. This a test.

What we have on this topic anywhere you look is a feud between the "it'll never work" pragmatists and the "it's the only right thing to do" ethicists. One view is expedient and the other view is longitudinal. Both groups may well be sincerely advocating the best course as they see it.

But the "it'll never work" argument depends on your definition of what "working" is. In a society as dysfunctional as ours, it is hard to say that avoiding impeachment will really bring us to a BETTER outcome. That argument is not very convincing. Either way we go on it, we are still on shaky ground.

Some people may have a hard time admitting to themselves that we are really beyond the point of compromise on these issues of treason and tyranny. We are in uncharted territory now. Those who have been systematically stripped of a real sense of security tend to fall back on the "safe," non-confrontational solution...at least until they are forced to face the degree of abuse they have suffered. Then they will finally go out and fight for their constitutional rights, instead of waiting for bones to be thrown to them like a pack of whipped dogs.

This is a test of our democracy if ever there was one.

[doh_phooey]

37. test of our democracy

Congress is failing the test.

First, they continue funding Bush's occupation.

Second, they continue allowing Bush to ride roughshod over the Constitution.

[marions ghost]

36. "Impeachment is not a strategy"

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0502-28.htm

Excerpt:

We are being surrounded by a world that doesn’t trust us anymore. They aren’t all hostile to us – they’ve lost faith in the power of the American people – and right to the point, as evidenced by comments such as “he should be impeached but it’s not going to happen” - we have lost faith in our own power.

It’s not personal. It’s not about how much we are embarrassed by or don’t like Bush. It has nothing to do with individual animosity and everything to do with collective power. When exit polls don’t match the official tally it doesn’t automatically mean that the time honored system of exit polls is suddenly unreliable, or that, as we were told, spouses were afraid to admit in front of each other who they voted for. It means something darker and more challenging. The American people did not take the challenge – we did what the coup expected we would do and we have been doing it ever since – until now.

We are at the “until now” moment. Democratic party leaders are uncomfortable talking about it. They think strategy. Impeachment is not a strategy. It’s a citizen action – a national correction – a collective redemption – an honest recall. It may happen city by city – state by state – but the body politic has the right, need, obligation to impeach. /snip/

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0502-28.htm

[sampsonblk]

38. Amen!!

[MissWaverly]

46. Yes, and in January 2005, Bush polled at 50%

One month after he was re-elected, that alone should tell us something about the 2004 election.

[marions ghost]

47. true

and I think a lot of people did see that and wonder... But at that time you remember, all polls and statistics were in question. Nothing was deemed reliable. Even people paying attention did not know what to believe. And that era was, in my opinion, the absolute worst period of media suppression to date. The media blackout of the true implications of the election of 2004 was criminal.

I will never forget being urged to "move on" while our most basic right as a free people was being systematically dismantled. Thanks god that's not working anymore.

[MissWaverly]

50. the scariest thing about 2004 was the spin

saying that the rural Christian vote won it for Bush, when it was actually the large urban centers that "carried" it for Bush,
if the facts had been reported then no-one would have accepted the results and here we are in 2007 still forced to accept the
bogus results.

[marions ghost]

51. We are forced to live with the results...

but I think far less people believe that the election of 04 was fair these days. The more the Bushies show their rotted core, the more believable the large body of evidence becomes.

People just did NOT want to believe they would really steal a presidential election. Now they can see that they were capable of it.

I don't think the public would accept another one.

[doh_phooey]

52. forced to live with results only if we do nothing

impeachment is the answer (in that we hold bush accountable and make sure future generations learn from this disaster)

[MissWaverly]

56. Hey, I am for impeachment

If it is a sincere effort to provide accountability and to promote the rule of law, if it is a similar scenario to what we have just seen with the Plame investigation/pardon, no. I want real impeachment not impeach lite.

[MissWaverly]

55. I hope sincerely that you are right

I thought 2004 was all about the continuation of the 9-11 cover-up, people did it regardless of their feelings about bush, becuz
they want to cover up their own involvement in the 9-11, responsibility for ignoring volumes of intelligence before and the
handling of the crisis itself, no one was held accountable. I am hoping that the rats have now abandoned ship.

[doh_phooey]

42. Constitutional Hardball in the Bush Administration

Friday, July 13, 2007

Mark Tushnet coined the term "constitutional hardball" to describe practices that seem to transcend settled expectations of what is permissible within the constitutional order. Defenders of hardball tactics claim that they are doing nothing illegal or unconstitutional-- at most they are pushing the envelope or working in areas where questions of legality are unsettled-- while their detractors argue that they are blatantly subverting legal and constitutional norms. Mark pointed out various reasons why participants might practice constitutional hardball, including, most importantly, that they are trying to push the country from an older constitutional regime to a newer one.

For the past seven years we've been witnessing various acts of constitutional hardball from the Bush Administration. But the meaning of these hardball tactics has changed as the fortunes of the Administration have waxed and waned.

We might divide the Bush Adminstration's practices of constitutional hardball into three categories. The first are acts used to gain power. The second are acts used to attempt to transform the government into a new constitutional order. The third are acts designed to head off accountability following the failure of the attempt. The second set fit most closely Mark's original model of constitutional hardball. But the first and third set are equally important for understanding the phenomenon.

The first acts of constitutional hardball were by supporters of Bush to help get him into the White House. Some of those tactics-- purging voters from the rolls-- were actually illegal under the federal Voting Rights Act. Other acts of constitutional hardball, like the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, were based on implausible arguments that maintained the outward forms of law. Five members of the U.S. Supreme Court, who did not know what the outcome of the Florida recounts would be, stopped those recounts and twisted the law to ensure a Bush victory. Bush won this first round of constitutional hardball. Al Gore conceded, and Bush took office.

more ...

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/07/constitutional-hardball-in-bush.html

[yurbud]

53. "Ken Lay? I may have met him once, I'm not sure..."

[doh_phooey]

54. just passed him in the hall?

[yurbud]

58. see? in that pitcher, I aint even looking at him...

[doh_phooey]

60. he also claims he doesn't know Jack Abramoff

[yurbud]

61. how'm I gonna know someun if I caint purnounce or spell thur name?

[doh_phooey]

63. purnounc'n and spell'n is hard work!

hope you 'preciate my effort

[yurbud]

67. PIC: Not as hard as wiping yur own ass

[calimary]

59. Here's something...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1342717

[doh_phooey]

64. Nobody Marched To Impeach Bill Clinton!

The bottom line... Bush and Cheney have eighteen months left to their term. During this time they are capable of many more egregious crimes. Congress's failure to initiate articles of impeachment for Bush and Cheney's criminal acts is a breach of Congress's Oath "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic." If Pelosi and the 110th Congress do not uphold this Oath, they have secured their rightful places alongside Bush and Cheney as enemies of the state.

One final note: Members of both the House and the Senate have stated that impeachment is certain to fail. Let it be known that if the current Legislative Branch doesn't make an honest attempt at impeachment, they have already failed.

But If they make an honest, heart-felt and diligent try, even if they fail, at least they have done their job.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-milazzo/nobody-marched-to-impeach_b_55598.html

[doh_phooey]

65. www.worldcantwait.net