Congress Should Remove the President and Vice-President from Office Now

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23211

Congress Should Remove the President and Vice-President from Office Now
Submitted by Chip on Sat, 2007-06-02 09:43. Impeachment

Congress should remove the President and Vice-President from Office Now
by Burt Hall

"...the measures taken by the President should have shown a government in action, anxious to protect its people and determined to make it difficult for the terrorists to succeed. The critical issue is the President’s lack of response to the warnings, his absence of leadership when it really counted, and the White House cover-up since then. It was this dereliction of duty that gave the President the excuse for the war in Iraq – a war that Congress has been powerless to stop."

During the last six years the President and Vice-President have adopted a failing strategy to combat terrorism, have taken us to war unnecessarily, have ignored pressing domestic needs and have changed our world image from the most-admired country to one of the least-admired. These top officials pose the greatest danger to our country in decades and would have been replaced long ago had a parliamentary-style system of government existed here.

In the U.S. we remove high officials from office through impeachment which is decided by a majority in Congress. Framers of our Constitution wisely included impeachment provisions for those officials who manage to evade our powerful checks and balances. They can be impeached for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

There is a growing list of impeachable offenses being widely debated around the country, as well as among veteran groups and in government (at least 11 states and 85 cities have introduced or passed resolutions to petition for impeachment of both the President and Vice- President). The offenses include: taking the nation to war under false pretenses, diluting new laws and undermining legislative branch authority with signing statements, illegal wiretapping; and obstructing justice over firing of U.S. attorneys. This article adds yet another, a monumental disregard for extraordinary warnings of the 9/11 attack -- a grave breach of official duty.

For a full year following 9/11, the President opposed an independent investigation. Under pressure from 9/11 families, the Congress finally established the 9/11 Commission. The Commission was comprised of former politicians rather than experts. They were evenly divided politically – five Republicans and five Democrats, but chaired by a Republican. During much of the Commission’s existence, they suffered from lengthy delays, maddening restrictions and disputes with the White House over access to sensitive documents and witnesses.

more...

[speedoo]

1. The author makes a strong case, IMO.

He lays out the pre 9/11 negligence very well. I wish he'd done a better job of identifying his sources, however. That would make his article much more useful.

K&R

[partylessinOhio]

2. Impeach now! Save America and save lives - American and Iraqis.

Future generations will ask, "Why didn't you do something to stop Bush/Cheney?"

The voters spoke in November, 2006, almost 7 months ago. How will Congress answer for their failure to act?

:patriot: :cry:

[Triana]

3. Could and should - and at this time in history it is IMPERATIVE ...

...that they do. But WILL THEY?

WILL THEY DO WHAT IS NEEDED TO SAVE THIS COUNTRY OR CHOSE INSTEAD TO COVER THEIR POLITICAL ASSES?

Why, the latter, of course. :mad:

[dave_p]

4. 911 preparedness has to be an issue

... for '08. It needs to be out there. What better way?

Then the Iraq policy process, and the lies, and the incompetence, and Halliburton's profiteering at the troops' expense.

Impeachment doesn't even have to pass by the elections: just keep the exposures coming. Let the process be the purpose.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. Yes, the process is the purpose. n/t

[MissWaverly]

5. Must admit, I find the latest talk from Bush chilling

that he will make sure that the president after him is committed to Iraq. I wish the Congress would act, surely they must realize
that they are sworn to serve the American People not Bush, how can they ignore the unlawful deeds of this administration.
And just when are they going to get to warrantless wiretapping that Bush admitted to in 2005? Remember impeachment proceedings
were started against Clinton over perjury.

[pat_k]

9. It is criminal insanity to leave the criminally insane in charge. . .

. . . the "good guys" are REALLY off the rails this time.

For the sake of the nation, I hope they wake up to reality before it's too late.

[MissWaverly]

11. I think the only answer is impeachment x 2

I am sure that any inquiry which covers the false lead up to the Iraq War would also implicate Cheney

[pat_k]

16. Abusing signing statements to nullify McCain's anti-torture. . .

. . .amendment is enough to take Bush down. Cheney's defense of "dunking" (waterboarding) is enough to take him down. Parties to Geneva must enact the conventions in their own laws, which we did with Title 18 section 2441 (War Crimes). Gutting our war crimes statute is itself a war crime.

McCain's amendment passed 90-9. Even the Repubs who are AOK with torturing "tirrists" will have a tough time standing up and defending Bush's "right" to spit in their faces, nullify the laws they pass, and render them powerless.

And of course, each time Bush, Cheney, or their minions invoke the fascist fantasy of a unitary authoritarian executive they put the icing on the impeachment cake.

We have more than enough to impeach and remove with their war crimes. The House could toss in the other laws they are breaking in plain sight for "good measure" (e.g., spying on us without warrant) but it's always best to keep it simple -- the simpler the better. If the Senate doesn't remove for the first charges sent up, the House can vote out another set. Tragically, Bush and Cheney are waging war on the Constitution on so openly on many fronts, we have enough for an impeachment a month.

[MissWaverly]

26. I quite agree, then we have Fitzgerald's evidence

regarding Cheney's role in Plame, that has already been documented, we have more than enough to go on.

[pat_k]

28. Yep. Not to mention that the Hamdan ruling . . .

. . .was a declaration that three years of war crimes had already occurred at Gitmo. There was never any question that Geneva applied to all detainees. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld just confirmed that reality.

Bush signed the order declaring Gitmo to be a Geneva-free zone; Cheney used his position and power to publicly and enthusiastically defend that order. Even those who mistakenly view impeachment as a legal/judicial process (rather than the political process it is) don't have much of an argument against impeaching on charges that have already been adjudicated and reviewed by SCOTUS.

When it comes to war crimes there is no "unringing the bell." There's a reason war crimes are subject to the penalty of death. Presumably, if the risk of "crossing the line" is death, those with the power to commit war crimes would be reluctant to do anything that even approaches "the line."

[libodem]

17. I'm chilled, too

Not only that the next President is committed to Iraq but that we are so f-ing mired in that we can't get out of that Quagmire. And of all the being asleep at the wheel for 9/11, lying us into war, making torture okay, and spying on all of us, we have been driven into a hellish debt. The sheer fiscal irresponsibly would have most Republicans marching in the streets, crying at the top of their lungs from their church pews,...IF it were a Democrat in office. I don't get the hypocrisy of it's OKAY if a Republican breaks every law known to man, their constituents just look the other way and pretend not to notice. If the shoe were on the other foot, you can bet, they would all be screaming like mashed cats. What's wrong with THEM and all their family VALUES that they rub our faces in? What's wrong with US that we can stand by and let it go on. I used to wonder, when I was a girl, and our class read, Ann Frank, how could the German people just let that happen. I would think about I would have tried to stop it. Now, those poor Muslims, have become the 21st century Jews. Am I the only person who feels like the world has scapegoated a whole Religion of human beings to be picked up and tortured and imprisoned because they prey to Mecca 5 times a day?

[Psyop Samurai]

6. They should long since have been removed...

...even without the mountain of evidence of their complicity.

Let us assume for a moment their best intentions, and let us accept the official narrative at face value. (It's a stretch, I know, but let's pretend).

There is still one simple, unavoidable fact that condemns them for all time. And that is that only a dangerous psychopath would exploit such a hideous crime for their own purposes. How much moreso when those purposes include even larger crimes?

They pulled a bait-and-switch, betting that a critical, busy, undereducated mass would not notice, under the supremely malleable (and Orwellian) rhetoric of "war on terror".

With their invasion of Iraq, (the greatest recruiting tool of all time of any would-be "evil doers"), and the dog'n'pony show deceptively leading thereto (in which many of our presumed allies wittingly or unwittingly took part), coupled with the obvious abandonment of bin Laden & company (our erstwhile perpetrators and target of righteous wrath), the "war on terror" was unmistakably and irrevocably unmasked as one of the greatest criminal frauds of all time.

I, for one, though with much questioning and hesitation, took the bait, and "provisionally" went along with the Afghanistan escapade as a "best guess". After all, our "president" seemed very sincere.

When the time came for the "switch" in their confidence trick, I was not too busy and undereducated to notice. In fact, it was glaringly obvious (though I kept pinching myself, saying "this can't be"). But, indeed, it "could be". And they had unmistakably shown their cards, (a fact still not fully comprehended by most, even to this day). Our government had been hijacked by insane, psychopathic criminals and traitors.

So, I was fully "through the looking glass", before I considered any of the actual evidence of 9/11.

Yes, they should long since have been removed for criminal negligence on 9/11. And that's without even going down "the rabbit hole" (an endless, horrifying pursuit). But, as DUers know, this is but one panel in their crazy quilt of self-serving treason.

I'll close by repeating a prior point:

Only a dangerous psychopath would exploit such a hideous crime for their own purposes.

To me, nothing could be more self-evident. That such exploitation took place is undeniable. That these things are not obvious to the entire country, that they somehow manage to escape the entire establishment, who continue nattering endlessly around the edges, shows that we are adrift with no perceivable moral underpinnings whatsoever.

[G_j]

7. Impeachment is the only way to stop the War Criminals

from committing more war crimes.

[pat_k]

8. Just need one charge. Congress could rescue the nation in a week.

The only thing stopping them are their own irrational fears and excuses.

We just have to keep hammering away at their http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1020996&mesg_id=1023341">false memes whereever we find them.

[Karenina]

10. Indict, Impeach, Imprison!

IMPEACH: The life you save may be your own.

[L0oniX]

12. Yea, Henry Kissinger was on the 911 commission

He is an evil bastard from hell.

"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." -- Henry Kissinger

:grr:

[John Q. Citizen]

14. No he wasn't. bush proposed him to lead the commision but it was a non-starter.

[rhett o rick]

15. we can't even convince our demo Congress persons to make a strong effort against the war

We need to organize and take control of the democratic party.

[L. Coyote]

24. Congress Dems made a strong effort against the war, and the next effort to focus

energy on was NOT a redundant repeat redo redeux rehash repeat reround with the RETART. That was an obvious non-restart.

Albeit it was not overtly stated, they HAVE turned to the obvious only solution, impeachment.

"If you paint a good picture of a cow, you don't have to write cow under it" Sam Irwin.

"Presidents impeach themselves by their actions." The Professor.

[rhett o rick]

27. With respect, the dems made a weak effort to stop the war.

Even if they didn't have the votes, they could have voted no. That's all i ask. Instead it looks like they support this war monger. And now Directive 51, will they even say anything about it? Or pretend Bush isn't going to use it to make Congress even more irrelevant.

[Decruiter]

18. I'm tired of it all, aren't you? How in the hell are we all supposed to

keep on keeping on?

I truly need some help here.

No one on the "Hill" is listening to us their employers.

I think I kind of like what Gore has been hinting at when asked about the Supreme Court decision of December 12, 2000.

All that was left was armed rebellion, ummm maybe not, could we all not have all got in all of our streets then and there and shut this country down?

Free and Fair ELECTIONS.

Why are we continuing to put up with BUSH, CHENEY and all of this maladministation. This infestation of corruption and war profiteering. Why, just someone, please tell me WHY?

[L. Coyote]

25. Coming soon to a Hearing Room on your Hill. One day at a time, drip, drip, drip

HEARING: Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the DoJ Politicizing Hiring Firing USAs PART V

What questions do you want answered?

====================
Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys? -- Part V "
Senate Judiciary Committee - Full Committee - DATE: June 5, 2007 - TIME: 02:30 PM


Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on “Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys? – Part V”

1. Bradley J. Schlozman - Associate Counsel to the Director - Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Former Interim U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri
Former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice


2. Todd Graves - Former U.S. Attorney - Western District of Missouri - Kansas City, MO

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1031946

[EFerrari]

19. If these criminals are not impeached, we will know

our democracy is not broken but dead.

[Cleita]

20. I hope you are not right but deep down I think you are. n/t

[EFerrari]

21. I would like to be wrong.

But the flagrant crimes of BushCo can not be remedied simply by the 2008 federal election. And that seems to be the thinking of the Democratic leadership.

Well, political parties need to take care of themselves and we need not to confuse that with the work we need to do to restore our eroded constitution.

We need to keep speaking up, to keep the pressure on.

[Cleita]

22. Oh, dear!

The election of 2002 solved nothing, nor did the election of 2004, yet we hoped. Yes, we got our majority barely in 2006, but they are not working for what we voted for them to do. I can't even be bothered having great hopes for 2008. Yes, I will vote but I have no expectations even if we get a Democrat for President. I have a feeling it will be business in Washington as usual at our expense.

[RestoreGore]

23. Hear Hear! They should have been gone YEARS AGO

And if Congress won't do it then we should vote them out too.

[McCamy Taylor]

29. Agree! Start with Cheney and move on up!