In Light Of The Evidence-How Can Anyone Doubt The Impeachability of this President

[kpete]

In light of this evidence,
how can one doubt the impeachability of this president.

Bush's Impeachable Offenses, Part 1
How president misled public into an illegal war
Jodin Morey (CrunchBoy)
Published 2007-01-19


PART 1: ILLEGAL WAR

Link to an amazing chronological account of the actions of President George W. Bush leading U.S. illegally to war with Iraq.

http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=340571&rel_no=1&back_url=<br%20/>

[porphyrian]

1. Only ignorance or denial can explain it. - n/t

[shadowknows69]

2. or willing compliance in the case of some politicians and the media

n/t

[porphyrian]

4. True. I was only addressing people who weren't lying. - n/t

[auntAgonist]

3. thanks for posting this kpete!

I've taken the liberty of sharing it with the folks on another forum too.

much appreciated.

aA
kesha

[kpete]

5. you are welcome

and peace to you auntAgonist!

[WiseButAngrySara]

6. DU (and you, kpete) has already posted Parts I thru n to the 100th!

I don't doubt it.

I've not yet read your links but I will. Again, thanks!

[democrank]

7. Impeach him before

he kills any more people.

[sam sarrha]

8. dont need to impeach him.. just outright ARREST the bastard, frog walk him out of the White House

how many felonies has he committed in the last year alone.. violated his oath of office, i bet he didn't even sign it to prevent arrest as a president.. by not signing it he can avoid being charged with felonies, he is just impersonating a president, a misdemeanor.. arrest him for that.

politicians do that all the time, and judges too, to reduce crimes under oath to misdemeanors.. they just dont sign it... we can get rid of * , cheney, the attorney general, condie all at the same time

[mmonk]

9. In light of the evidence, no doubt.

If only the people who rely on mainstream papers and corporate media broadcast news could be shown.

[emulatorloo]

10. well you gotta convince the Republican Senators to vote for it

That's basically what it comes down to. I tried working on mine, but he is a hopeless case.

[Wizard777]

22. No you don't! THE HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT

We have more than enough votes there.

[onenote]

24. have you polled the Democratic members of the House

HOw can you be so certain we have the votes right now? I suspect a significant number of Democrats in the House are more than willing to support investigations and oversight hearings, unrelated to impeachment, but are not yet willing to come out for impeachment at this point.

[Wizard777]

25. Are you saying this is not The Peoples' House?

Who cares what THEY think? It what WE think that matters. My Rep. is John Sarbanes (D)Md. He's the Son of ourrecently retired Senator Paul Sarbanes. I voted for him for one reason. When my answers didn't fit into his campaign workers script. They Shut up and listened. It was amazing. His dad was called play it safe Sarbanes and we let John know that's NOT what we expected from him. We expect Government Accountability at all levels. So I'm absolutely confident that if we support Impeachment (and we do) John will vote for it. I like what I've heard from him so far. I think he's off to a good start. I don't know about everyone elses Rep. Have you contacted yours?

[onenote]

26. my congressman is a repub -- and he's not about to support impeachment

at this stage, if ever.

Yes, its the People's House. But did your member make impeachment part of his campaign? I doubt it. So, while its great that people contact him and urge him to take up the cause, the plain fact is that most members are unlikely to do so at this point -- rather, they will push for (and we should strongly encourage them in this regard) hearings/investigations that are not seen as tied to an impeachment effort, but rather are being undertaken for their own sake.

[Wizard777]

11. Congress Has Tollerated TREASON In The Past.

Reagan & Bush Sr. commited treason in declaring a paramilitary civil war on drugs. Congress laughed, citing "it's not a real war." Yet we are holding a POW in this unreal war. Gen. Manuel Noriega. The authors of the Geneva Convention saw Reagan comming. It applies even if one of the High Contracting Parties does not recognize the state of war as existing. which is Congresses official position on the war. If they recogized th estate of war as existing. They would also have to recognize that Reagan Bush Sr. have commited treason. But SCOTUS doesn't share congresses ignorance of law. That is why they gave Noriega his POW status.
So if Congress can overlook the highest crime of the land in treason. Overlooking Bush's War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, which include GENOCIDE, should be a breeze. The downside of this is that if we do not hold Bush accountable. CHINA WILL! Bush has awoken the true sleeping giant. They are preparing for war. If it comes to that we will not prevail. The population of america is 300 million. China's army is 350 million. Do the math. Also thanks to Bush. We don't have the friends that we used to that would help us oppose and defeat the true giant of China. Bush has issolated us. We're sitting ducks.

[badgerpup]

13. Yikes..

IIRC, China is also holding an awful lot of paper marked

Dere CHINA,
I.O.U. BIG $$$.
signed, gwb for USA

:hide: :yoiks:

[Wizard777]

15. Yep, Bush has that economic disaster right on schedule.

OBL should be proud of him. China's building up thier navy so they will ve avle to get here. Recently they have demonstrated that they can shoot down the satalites that our smart weapons depend upon. Without them our smart weapons are dumber than George Bush. The real yikes would be having to go up against China with Bush still in office and running the war. But Condi speaks Mandarin so she could probably negotiate for Bush to be appointed the Imperal Governer of whats left of America.

[GuvWurld]

12. Here is why I think impeachment cannot succeed

Certainly I agree impeachment is warranted and enough is currently known to justify it immediately with preliminary hearings producing anything remaining that is necessary to convince those who say there must be investigations first. I have little regard or respect for Congress's continued failure to provide oversight and initiate impeachment as a remedy they are sworn to provide (if in no other way than in the wording of their oaths of office which includes protecting the country from enemies foreign and domestic, which in this case includes a "president" for whom an explicitly defined removal process exists).

Now, with the disclaimer out of the way, I ask you to visualize impeachment. Pretend it is going swimmingly and the House sends the charges to the Senate to be heard. Now we are picturing the actual impeachment hearings where Bush and/or Cheney and/or etc. are being held accountable for conduct outside the bounds acceptable in their offices.

What's wrong with this picture? Believe me, I'd love to see it. The problem is that if you can imagine this, you are summoning the first and only time that these criminals will have allowed themselves to be held accountable. And I think they'd rather nuke Tehran or Los Angeles than allow it. Senate trial? - why, they'll literally never stand for it.

We've already lost posse comitatus and habeas corpus and all of our privacy. There's an endless set of examples to show this is now a fascist country pretending to be a capitalist democratic republic. We're not far from martial law and I think it could be only a matter of pressing impeachment before we get there.

Does that mean don't do it? Hardly. But as citizens wanting to contribute to a push for change, I think our energy can be better spent in widespread non cooperation, shutting down the parts of the system that directly harm us or at least ones which depend upon our blind obedience for continued operation. We have to have a unified grassroots for anything lasting to be accomplished. For all the time spent lobbying lawmakers, two major drawbacks emerge. First is that this represents a forfeiture of power to those who we hope will represent us. We've been repeatedly disappointed by this approach as we know our "representatives" do not behave as if they are beholden to us. The second drawback is that this approach does nothing to enhance the collective People Power essential to the kind of world we want to live in after turning this government out. We must recognize this as an essential component of any strategy for change or else we risk it becoming "same day, different figurehead."

These are the last throes of the Bush administration.

We The People have set a timetable for withdrawal.

Bush and Cheney: resign immediately.

We will rise up until you stand down.

It is a matter of natural security.

[Wizard777]

16. The Posse Comitatus Violations are TREASON !

But Congress has tollerated this from elected official in the past. It appears that Congress is more afraid of America even thinking that an elected offical might not have the countries best interets at heart than the actual acts of treason being commited. They may have had that luxury with Reagan Bush Sr.'s treason. But not anymore! The whole country knows Bush & Cheney don't give a rats ass about anyone but themselves and how much they can rob the US Treasury for with this war. We KNOW they don't have our best interests at heart. Now we're just waiting to see if this Congress is a bunch of rat bastards too. Funny thing about Treason. You either oppose it or become a part of it.

[GuvWurld]

19. I take your point to mean

impeachment doesn't even scratch the surface of serving justice upon these war criminals.

[Wizard777]

21. "Mankind is inclinded to suffering." Declaration of Independece

I think Bush and Cheney's should begin ASAP. I'm not for leaving getting Justice up to God. I'm quite sure the hell He created is far worse than any prison we could put them in. Even if it was one of thier own over seas secret prisons where they torure Canadians and Itallians. But the rest of thier natural lives should be as close to a living hell as any person could get. After all the torment and misery they have heaped upon this country. It's the least we could for them. The very least.

[mmonk]

18. The only guarantee it won't succeed is to not do it.

[GuvWurld]

20. I did not say anything about a guarantee

I offered my speculation and asked readers to visualize something unprecedented. It would be reasonable to debate the likelihood of different scenarios, such as would they or would they not allow themselves to stand for an impeachment trial in the Senate. But ultimately I think that would be a pretty futile and meaningless discussion.

The more important point I would hope readers would address is whether we are better off working for change in ways that amass power in the growing consensus of People or if our interests are better served by continuing to give away our power to people who continue to repeatedly fail us when their only job is to represent us.

The premise here is a question of strategy, not for what those in DC should do while we cheerlead from afar, but for what we should actually do ourselves to take matters into our own hands. To this end, I agree with your brief post that we can't succeed if we don't try. My point aims to broaden the discussion about what we are trying to do.

[Senator]

28. Your "Visualizer" is Clouded by Stockholm Syndrome

You speak like a hostage whose "vision" is limited to what the perpetrator "will allow."

The meek may well inherit the earth, but they won't inherit an operable US Constitution unless and until they demand it.

Impeachment has very little to do with whether or not it can "succeed."

Only Impeachment... can even ignite "People Power."

It IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[GuvWurld]

29. I beg your pardon, sir!

I have been saying peaceful revolution is necessary, NOW! for a very long time. These are hardly the words of one sympathetic to his oppressors.

Impeachment would be better than not impeaching, I'll give you that much. But this completely misses the point of my post which is that impeachment can't succeed because of actions we should know to anticipate during the process. You don't address this. How do you imagine impeachment will work when it is a process of holding accountable people who will go to ANY length not to be held accountable? Again, I'm not saying don't try, just that we should be realistic about what to expect, and then, given that forecast, consider if we can reach the ends via different means.

You might consider that when you find yourself saying something is the ONLY way, it is a flag that you should rethink at least your language if not your range of possibilities.

In Respect and Peace,
GuvWurld

[Senator]

31. I'm suggesting that you stop begging

And you are correct that language may be the real problem. But language is critical. And yours is the language of rationalizing for inaction.

Because Impeachment is not an "accountability" mechanism. Nor is it a "revolution." Impeachment is purely for self defense. Defense from the ongoing and future actions of this regime. And from the effect of having them normalized by a failure to object.

Impeachment is required for ourselves -- not to attack, or overthrow, or punish anyone else. It is demanded of us as a duty, as parties to the contract known as the US Constitution. A contract we hold with each other, with our forefathers, and most importantly with our children.

As such, it is an end in itself. We either defend/object or we don't. There are no other "means" to achieve that.

And I did address your claim that "impeachment can't succeed" by saying that it's almost entirely beside the point. As is what the regime does or doesn't do about it. We should not be in the business of begging our "oppressors" to resign. Or threatening them to do so. Or worrying about what they might nuke next. Any concern at all about their reaction to our objection/defense is "sympathetic" to them. We should "expect" (rather, fear) nothing.

We are not afforded that luxury under the terms of our contract. We must defend our own principles, simply for the sake of nobly defending them. We must preserve our own self-respect and esteem. The chips must fall where they may.

That is why Impeachment is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[sweetheart]

14. impeach him for the 9/11 attacks

He and his saudi's did a public demolition to start a war,
killing american civilians in a planned op... perceived
as necessary for the wars of the greater good, and perfectly
covered up (they hoped) never expecting the number of video
footage to surface of the event.

The republicans are guilty of treason to attack the USA and
kill 3000 americans for political advantage. The punishment
for this kind of treason is rather serious.

[Wizard777]

17. The Anthrax Attack Upon Congress Also.

That was just to reduce any possible resistence to WHIG. Do you really think Congress would oppose a war over BIO/chem/nuke weapons after being the victims of a biological attack? They can't blame that on Bin Laden or Hussein. The chemicle markers on the Antrax say, Made in the USA by Uncle Sam.

[mzmolly]

23. In light of the evidence, how can anyone doubt the Republio fascist

group think? We need 67 Senators to impeach. ;)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Impeachment is politically risky. Politicians are risk averse.

Unless enough of the public demand impeachment, and it becomes politically advantageous to the politicians, it ain't gonna happen.

[pat_k]

30. Evidence shows the opposite. Impeachment is not risky.

In fact, the evidence shows that not impeaching is actually the risky option.

Washington Monthy
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0612.nichols.html">Be bipartisan: Impeach Bush
By John Nichols

. . .
The notion that impeachment is "bad politics" for an opposition party simply isn't grounded in reality. Of the nine instances when impeachment resolutions were filed against presidents, the opposition party secured the presidency in the next election seven times—most recently when Bush succeeded Clinton. After members of an opposition party pressed for impeachment in Congress, that party has almost always maintained or improved its position in the House at the next general election. After conservative Republicans proposed Truman’s impeachment in the fall of 1952, their party took control of both the House and the presidency. Democrats who moved to impeach Nixon in the summer of 1974 dramatically increased their presence in the House that fall. Even after Republicans bungled their impeachment of Clinton, their party retained control of the House—losing just five seats in the 1998 election that preceded the impeachment vote, and just two in the 2000 election that followed it. And, of course, they also captured the White House. . .

Excerpt from
"The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism,"
by John Nichols
(David Swanson's http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/621">blog)

"When the congressional Democrats failed to pursue impeachment as the necessary response to the Iran-Contra revelations of rampant illegality in the Reagan White House – rejecting the advice of Henry B. Gonzalez, the wily Texas congressman who alone introduced the appropriate articles in 1987 – they thought they were positioning the party for victory in the coming presidential election. Instead, Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, having recovered from the gentle slap on the wrist he received from Congress for his own involvement in the scandal, was elected to the presidency in 1988 by a landslide, and expected Democratic advances in Congress failed to materialize.

"Pulling punches in a political battle usually results in a knockout, with the party that holds back collapsing to the mat and struggling, often for a very long time, to finally get up again. And the Democratic Party of the George Herbert Walker Bush years, with its inexplicable penchant for pulling punches, runs the very real risk of being flattened not once but repeatedly if it fails to confront the issue of rampant wrongdoing on the part of the Bush administration."

The assumption that "Impeachment is politically risky" is born of the beltway's inexplicable addiction to tactical analysis that focuses almost exclusively on the "certain" negative consequences of action. Such one-sided "analysis" almost always results in assumptions that are the opposite of reality.

For example, in the current crisis, "opinion makers" and party insiders alternate between assurances that the nation wants Democrats to work with Bush and his toadies in Congress and warnings that the public will blast them if they impeach. The benefits of impeachment, the enormous risks of failing to impeach, and the recent polls (e.g., http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">ewsweek's) that find a majority of Americans want impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress are conspicuously absent (i.e., willfully ignored).

For more, see "Unfounded Fears and Realistic Rewards" in http://january6th.org/impeachment-clobber-rationalizations.html">To Impeach, or Not Impeach? That's the Wrong Question