Fourteen Draft Articles of Impeachment Against Bush AND Cheney

[understandinglife]

If we are to impeach, we must impeach both Bush and Cheney. It will not do any good for us to impeach Bush and have Cheney take the Oval Office and pick someone just as radical as he is. It will also not do any good for us to impeach just Cheney and allow Bush to groom John "I'm not knowledgeable" McCain for the 2008 election. Therefore, we must simultaneously impeach both of them so that the 3rd person in succession, Nancy Pelosi, would become the next President of the United States.

What remains to be done is for us to work out articles of impeachment against the President. Others may surface after the Democrats begin their job of investigating and getting to the bottom of the matter. If the Bush administration obstructs or lies to the Congressional Committee chairs, those could in and of themselves be grounds for impeachment and removal of Bush and Cheney.

In the meantime, here are the following 14 possible articles of impeachment against the President and Vice President.

1. Leaking classified information by disclosing the identity of Valerie Plame to reporters.

The President and Vice President unlawfully leaked classified information, the identity of a Non-official Cover, Valerie (Wilson) Plame, to a person or persons not authorized to receive such information, namely, Robert Novak, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune, and Matt Cooper, a reporter for Time Magazine.

Law violated:

<clip>

This is not a joke.

Read all 14.

Add your own.

Thank you ... you certainly bring more than a little substance to why we should all have hope, and why "We the People ..." need to convert our hope into deeds that will ensure future generations view a horizon of good and not an insurmountable wall of evil.

[Gregorian]

1. I'm up for it.

Add in the depleted uranium and stolen elections for fun.

K-R-etc.

[understandinglife]

2. "Federal court ruling contains grounds for impeachment"

The community is discussing impeachment proceedings against the president and possibly vice president, and it has become evident to me that the full text of ruling from this summer is not widely known. I believe it is important to the community to have this information.

<clip>

The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.

<clip>

In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA forbids. FISA is the expressed statutory policy of our Congress. The presidential power, therefore, was exercised at its lowest ebb and cannot be sustained.

<clip>

Finally, in the case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), the separation of powers doctrine is again discussed and, again, some overlap of the authorities of two branches is permitted. In that case, although Article III jurisdiction of the federal courts is found intrusive and burdensome to the Chief Executive it did not follow, the court held, that separation of powers principles would be violated by allowing a lawsuit against the Chief Executive to proceed. Id. at 701. Mere burdensomeness or inconvenience did not rise to the level of superceding the doctrine of separation of powers. Id. at 703. In this case, if the teachings of Youngstown are law, the separation of powers doctrine has been violated. The President, undisputedly, has violated the provisions of FISA for a five-year period.

<clip>

The Bush administration has in the eyes of at least one federal judge broken the law of the land. We all know the scale of the damage that's been done to the country (at least I think we do...). Why is that damage okay? Failure to prosecute crime gives the impression of approval of the crime. I just can't bring myself to say that the gravest of crimes against the Constitution should get a pass.

Neither can I and thank you for sharing your insights.

Definitely worth reading all of Crazed Weasel's first dKos diary and the full decision by .


BE AMERICA. ---

[man4allcats]

16. Many thanks for this. In a similar vein,

I recently posted in General Discussion a reference to an impeachment initiative discussed by Bob Fertik in his blog at Democrats.com. The link posted here describes the initiative and also includes a petition advocating the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for those who might wish to sign.

[understandinglife]

82. georgia10: "... forcing our government to finally follow the law."

<clip>

The goal is not merely to determine the scope and possible abuses of the warrantless spying program, but to determine what legislation should be crafted as a response to the evidence. How will Congress ensure that the program complies with the law? How will it ensure vigorous judicial and congressional oversight?

that Democrats are of "mixed minds" about how to proceed. It's important to note that the dispute isn't necessarily on the legality of the program--indeed, most Democrats, or at least the most prominent ones, have expressed their belief that the program violates the law. The question is one of strategy, of how to proceed from a PR point of view. Should Democrats wait until the ruling on the program is upheld, thus bolstering their argument that the program is indeed unconstitutional? Or should they rely on their own investigation and legal analysis?

I think the question of strategy is one that doesn't need to be resolved right away. The investigation that will take place on the domestic spying program will be lengthy, the hearings will be combative, and the executive branch is going to put up a fight at every turn. And while the legislative branch fulfills its long-overlooked duty of oversight, the judicial branch will also be proceeding with an examination of the program. There are some 48 suits filed regarding the program that will be making their way through the courts over the next several months.

forcing our government to finally follow the law.

And, it is for each of us to ensure that Our employees traverse those paths with alacrity and precision.

[pnwmom]

3. How would you prevent Cheney from resigning as soon as

the threat of impeachment was real? Then Bush would simply replace him and that replacement would be the next President.

[understandinglife]

5. I do not need to. Cheney is way too arrogant to ever resign.

Upon the House Judiciary Committee taking simultaneous action against Bush and Cheney, given the vast scale of their crimes and the already large majority of Americans whom want them out of office, it is most likely that Speaker of the House of Representatives of the 110th US Congress would, as the Constitution provides, be the next President.

Neither Bush or Cheney have the strength of character to resign.

In any event ....


IT IS (way past) TRIBUNAL TIME IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

[pnwmom]

14. It wouldn't take strength of character to resign.

Just a sense of self-preservation.

[cali]

64. What nonsense. The same could have been said of

Nixon. If impeachment looms, bush will deep six Cheney and name someone like McCain as vp, and subsequently resign himself. Don't kid yourself about the results of impeachment. As someone pointed out, self-preservation is a powerful motivator. By all means, support impeachment, but don't delude yourself about the likely outcomes.

[conscious evolution]

24. If cheney resigns after Jan.3

Bush's pick for a replacement must be approved by a Congress that the Democratic Party controls.We hold all the cards I do believe!

[pnwmom]

38. It's extremely unlikely that Congress wouldn't approve

a sitting Senator in good standing. . . for example, John McCain.

[conscious evolution]

74. You are probably right.

A guy can dream though.And sometimes dreams do come true.Especially if you work towards making them come true

[pnwmom]

77. A lot of dreams came true in November, certainly.

Here's to dreams. And to working toward them.




:toast:

[The Doctor.]

4. K+R.

Just give the investigations a little time.

Americans will be screaming for more than Impeachment.

[understandinglife]

6. Agree. & Agree.

Thank you!

Bob

[go west young man]

20. I'm all for it but there are so many things to investigate

that I'm afraid they may fail to get them all covered. From illegal spying, to 911 failures and coverups, to election theft, to renditions and Geneva Convention violations, to torture at Abu Gharaib, to lying us into an illegal war, to flying out the Bin Ladens and other Saudi Nationals after 911, failure to investigate 911 and implement the commissions recommendations, the silencing of whistleblowers, the corruption of NASA and global warming information, Abramhoff's access, Gannons access, Katrina failures, organized voter suppression, paying for pundits and propaganda, Cheneys drunken shooting accident.(Tongue in Cheek for that last one.) There's too many to mention. Cheneys secret energy meetings need to be first up as Cheney needs to be exposed as the bad guy he is. I believe those energy meeting notes will be the catalyst for the American people wanting to know more about everything else. From 911 to Iraq to the Project For a New American Century. The case has to be made right away and the Democrats have to follow through properly if the U.S. is to regain it's moral standing in the world. If not we are destined to never be respected again. Too much has happened and too many lives have been lost. Human rights and the Geneva Convention hang in the balance. The rest of the world is watching and hoping we stand up and rescue the Constitution and take our country back.

[The Doctor.]

29. Much of that will fall into place.

As the revelations begin to come, the general populace will be more receptive to the rest.

I believe enough people will see how everything lines up that we can expect massive outrage.

It would be nice to see We The People take back the government.

[illinoisprogressive]

7. I Like the Thought of Pelosi as Prez.

And having her as the first woman president is so much more palatable than Hillary.

[stellanoir]

8. 11th Rec to my fave professor :)

Ya know. . .Cheney is rumored to have leaked Plame's ID because of his allegedly close affiliation with that Pakistani Khan guy who leaked the nuke info to Iran and North Korea. She is said to have been on to it.

Dunno if it's true but out of Wilson's mouth I also heard that under 41 there was an outrageous rivalry between Cheney and Wilson.

That's a muddied stew.

Back then, Cheney only offered conjecture and Wilson offered fact. 41 more often believed Wilson who had actually lived and operated in the region. So go figure.

It all rings true to me. . .but I can be gullible at times. (understatement)

I heartily believe that truth will win out in the end.

Silly me.

[understandinglife]

10. "I heartily believe that truth will win out in the end." So do I.

Guess we're both "silly me(s)" :)

As to Cheney v Wilson - bye, bye Dead-eye-Dickie, bye, bye ....

Peace, my friend,
Bob


BE AMERICA. ---

[stellanoir]

21. that's why it's so funny

I had only referred to him for years as "crashcart" and refused to even type his name.

So go figure that as well. There has been a sea change.

He's done more to destroy our country and what it stands for than anyone in our history.

[raysr]

9. She's going to

have to quit shooting herself in the feet for that to happen.

[Jcrowley]

11. K&R n/t

[Vidar]

12. Great post. Recommended.

[William769]

13. If you don't think this would cause a firestorm across America? You are sadly mistaken.

To Impeach both the to install Nancy Pelosi (good luck with that!).

I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy it, what I am saying is I am a realist.

[NobleCynic]

15. Indeed

Besides, impeaching and removing just Bush would be better for our chances in 2008 than trying for both. Cheney is so unlikeable compared to Bush that having him formally in charge couldn't hurt.

[Patchuli]

27. No thanks dude!

Cheney's just plain SCARY. :hide:

[The Wizard]

60. Actually,

It would take a year to Impeach the pResident and another year to impeach the veep. With a Democratic Congress providing oversight, the hamstringing of the executive might be fun to observe.
Can you see Cheney wagging his finger at us and saying "I did not make a profit on Halliburton's no-bid, open ended contracts in Iraq? We'd all be better off if they only lied about blowjobs.

[NobleCynic]

85. That's kinda the point sadly

As low as Bush's numbers in the polls are, Cheney's are far lower. High teens I think was the last I saw. If 2006 was a referendum on Bush, imagine 2008 being a referendum on Cheney.

But yeah, he is scary.

[shance]

19. God knows we NEED a firestorm - a firestorm of citizen revolt and revolution.

n/t

[understandinglife]

22. 'bout time we dealt with what we've wrought on the innocent civilians of Iraq ...

... I'd say.

And, it has nothing to do with "installing Pelosi."

It has to do with holding war criminals, who happen to represent each and every one of us, accountable for their lies, their mega-crimes against humanity and their near-dissolution of the Constitution - for starters.

Thank you for your comments,
Bob

[Senator]

56. A "realist" would look at reality

The reality is that a majority already supports impeachment as a priority:



And this is the public speaking all on their own -- without a single bit of leadership from DC Dems. In fact, this is in spite of DC Dems refusal to do the right thing.

The non-reality-based community (i.e., the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy) likes to point at the Clinton impeachment to claim that a bushcheney impeachment would "cause a firestorm across America" when there's really no reason to expect that.

The reality is that one can reasonably expect an "Inverse Clinton" reaction. The failed Clinton impeachment was launched against a popular and succesful president over an unimportant matter. The opposite would be the case now.

And no one is "installing" Pelosi. Bushcheney have the option of resignation and naming successors (to be approved by Congress) at any time. And even if Pelosi does take office, it is by the process already approved by the American People in the Constitution.

A far cry from stealing 2 elections.

---

[William769]

61. I think you need to reread those numbers.

According to the chart you gave the majority "Should not be done at all".

[Senator]

72. Only 44% is currently opposed

The numbers don't "add across." The first 3 columns are a breakdown (subsets) of the last column (total).

Combining the "priority yesses" you get 51% pro, 44% opposed, and 5% unsure.

One interesting number is the 23% of Dems who oppose -- certainly "in agreement" with the DC "leadership" (you find yourself there, no?). The lion's share of these would likely flip should the Dems unify around impeaching.

Another is that 20% of Reps already support impeaching. That number too could well go up significantly, should impeachment become a more "mainstream" possibility.

Though of course not among Fox-viewers:

Among non-Fox viewers, support for pro-impeachment candidates ranges from 60.4 percent to 75.3 percent. Among Fox viewers, it's at 1.8 percent.

The bottom line is that the public is way ahead of the petrified politicians.

--

[elocs]

90. Hello fellow realist. It's obvious that many here are not in Kansas anymore.

They act like impeachment is the be-all and end-all to everything and all the problems. You rarely ever see conviction mentioned. Plus, they are going to do all of this in 2 years. It will be interesting to see what they will be saying a year from now.

[RC]

17. Forget Impeachment already!

Nancy Pelosi is much more useful and powerful as Speaker of the House. Let the investigations begin. By the time all the i's are dotted and the T's crossed bu$h & chenney's turn would be up anyway. And if there is not a 2/3 vote for conviction... Then what?
They both would still be liable for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity after 2008. Trying them in the World Court would set a better precedent than impeachment. No revenge for Clinton that way either.

[nrnowlin]

33. Murder Cries for Justice to be Administered

Some people inanely believe and say that an eighteen-year-old
U.S. Marine recruit signs away his right to life when he joins
the United States Armed Forces, that it's his job to fight and
die in any military conflict created by his
Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States.  So
when the first of three-thousand or fifty-eight-thousand GIs
are killed in combat situations which are totally unnecessary,
created from the whims of an arrogant draft-dodging President,
people are sad but claim that the soldiers, marines, airmen,
or sailors were only doing their duty. I can't afford to
believe this, that young men and women conditioned and coerced
by a national killing machine, which has  established its
ultimate purpose for existence through extolling war, are
expected to die just to satisfy the caprice of decadent
presidential administrations.  

I contend that if only one GI, the son, daughter, mother, or
father of other Americans, dies in an unnecessary war provoked
by an American president for political reasons, then the death
of that one American GI is tantamount to murder, or, at least,
voluntary manslaughter.  In this light, I would contend that
George W. Bush and Richard Cheney are war criminals,
responsible for the deaths of nearly three-thousand young
Americans, the flower of our youth, and of over 300,000
innocent Iraqis in more then three years of senseless and
unnecessary fighting in Iraq.  Add this to the 9/11 death toll
and you have many more murder counts to add to the tally.  

If these two evil men are allowed to get away with their war
crimes, there will be no justice for the dead and their
survivors who have to go on living from day-to-day in grief. 
For this reason, impeachment charges must be brought against
both Bush and Cheney for crimes against humanity. Members of
the U.S. House of Representatives, both Republican and
Democrat, must unite behind Rep. John Conyers in bringing
charges of impeachment against the President and
Vice-President so that an indictments may go forward to the
U.S. Senate for trial.  But, moreover, the verdict of the
Senate must not only oust the two men from federal olffice,
but must go further to severely punish them as common war
criminals.           

[RC]

84. There seems to be a misconception...

"But, moreover, the verdict of the Senate must not only oust the two men from federal office, but must go further to severely punish them as common war criminals."

There seems to be a misconception that impeachment would involve punishment beyond removal from office. That is not true. Look it up in the Constitution. The only penalty for being found guilty is removal from office, period.

The best way to get these guys permanently out of circulation is investigations for their War Crimes and Their Crimes Against Humanity. There can be no presidential pardons for the World Court decisions.

The public's memory is very short. Let's not be in too much of a hurry. That will work against us. Time the investigations to be concluded around election time in 2008. A similar situation work this past election to gain control of both the House and Senate.

[Yukari Yakumo]

49. Agreed

All this ballyhooing for impeachment is much ado about nothing. Chimpy doesn't even have two years left. And investigations will at least take those two years to complete. Congress could be doing more important things like getting our boys home and fixing all of the crooked messes the last congress made.

Investigations should concentrate on War Crimes... and all evidence should be handed over to Germany, or whoever would prosecute Chimp & Co. as War Criminals.

[Yukari Yakumo]

50. -

double post :P

[Senator]

52. The "World Court" is not our option to choose

The way war crime prosecution works is that treaty signatories commit to try and punich their own war criminals. Only if the country fails to do so, does it become the duty of the entire world to apprehend and bind over the accused to the World Court.

This is why impeachment is a necessary first step to any further action. It is through impeachment that the American People are relieved of liability/culpability for the actions committed in their names by the never-elected, never-legitimate regime.

For this reason, even if noting else happens and the Senate does not convict/remove, the House must impeach. Even if it happens after they leave office. Even posthumously.

The stain is currently on the nation. And will remain there without impeachment.

--

[davhill]

18. What about just Channey

I suspect Bush is just a front man anyway. And even a lot of Republicans who would fight bitterly a Bush impeachment might go along with an impeachment of the bipartisanly hated Channey.

[Disturbed]

23. The U.S. Constitution

Impeachment is the process that enables a legislative body to remove a public official from office; it is composed of two parts: (1) an accusation or indictment and (2) a trial.

This practice has its roots in English constitutional history. Members of Parliament employed impeachment against royally appointed Stuart officials in the 1600s. The concept was brought to the American colonies, where legislative assemblies used it against royal officials. Few other countries have provisions for impeachment.

The U.S. Constitution makes the following provisions for the impeachment of federal officials:

Article I, Section 2

Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3

Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party, (defendant), convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Under this two-part procedure, the House of Representatives is charged with initiating the process by bringing articles of impeachment against an accused official. The Senate, in turn, tries the accused on the charges provided by the House. Few guidelines exist for these Senate trials. If the President has been impeached, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is designated to preside; the Vice-President has presided in all other instances.

A two-thirds vote of the Senate is necessary to convict and remove the official from office. Those so convicted are barred from holding federal office in the future.

No rule prevents the impeachment of members of the House or Senate, but that action has never been successfully taken.

The Constitution also makes reference to those offenses deemed to be impeachable:

Article II, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Treason and bribery are usually clearly understood concepts, but "high crimes and misdemeanors" are open to a wide latitude of interpretation. Some constitutional scholars have argued that only criminal offenses meet that standard, but others have maintained that a simple breach of the public trust is sufficient.

During the Constitutional Convention, some of the Framers urged that "maladministration" be added to the list of impeachable offenses. Others wisely opposed that addition, fearing that impeachment might become a trivial political matter.

[conscious evolution]

25. According to CorpGovActivist threads

He is saying that Waxman has proof of cheney's involvment in bribery during his time with Haliburton/KBR.
D.A. Smith,A former Hal employee,recieved misdirected e-mails concerning the coverup,which he turned over to Waxman.
Cheney is going down.

[midnight]

66. Do you have any idea when Waxman is going to apply this

info.? Also do you know if Cheney is Jewish? Not that it matters, but someone I was speaking with said he was.

[conscious evolution]

75. Corp is hinting

taht it may come very soon after the Congress comes back into session.I have to admit though that I may be reading more into it than is the case.
I do recommend reading thru his and IdesofOctobers journals.They are fascinating reading and there is the possibility that I may have missed something more substantial in the matter.

[truedelphi]

68. My fingers are firmly crossed... n/t

[jmowreader]

95. It's true that few other countries have the impeachment process we do

Those "other countries," and Great Britain as well, have the Motion of No Confidence. (The major difference between Impeachment and Motion of No Confidence is that impeachment is punishment for a crime, and Motion of No Confidence is used when the government is just incompetent...the time to use this against Shrub would have been before 9/11/2001 when America had two first ladies.)

I think the biggest problem with our system of government, at least as far as how we choose our leadership, is that our terms are fixed: two years for a Representative for as many terms as we want to put up with them, four years for a president with two terms the limit, and six years for a Senator for as many terms as they can buy.

Most countries that elect their leadership have "maximum terms"--the leadership can call for elections before the current term ends--and the motion of no confidence. Some places also have recall elections. Motions of no confidence are parliamentary actions in which Parliament declares that it has "lost confidence" in the ruling government; the government is required then to either resign or call a general election. In countries which run British-style, or "Westminster" parliaments, there's an even more fun way to run off a government: loss of supply. The bill that authorizes the government to spend money is called the Supply Bill. If parliament defeats it, the government must resign because a government that can't spend money isn't much of a government.

[grizmaster]

108. high crimes and misdemeanors are whatver the House decides

they are. The wording was specifically chosen to cover actions that might not be criminal in and of themselves.

I don't know what scholars you're referring to that say only criminal offenses meet the criteria. Everything I've ever seen written about it says the House was meant to have great lattitude in what offenses qualified.

Put it this way, they use the term misdemeanors. If that doesn't allow damn near any action to be considered impeachable what would?

[Senator]

53. They both must be accused (impeached)...

...because there is no way to practically separate their joint responsibility/actions.

---

[yellowdogmi]

26. I hate to hijack again but...

before we investigate and impeach bush and cheney we need to impeach every justice involved in the 2000 debacle. otherwize impeachment does us no good.

:patriot:

[Blutodog]

28. Fughetaboutit !

The D's have no stomach for it. Instead , they seem to think we really elected them to raise the Min. Wage and lower College Student loans. Anything , else would be upsetting. We wouldn't want to upset our valiant President would we?

[understandinglife]

36. This is about what You and I do. OK. It is about what 'We the People ...' ...

... demand of those whom We Employee to represent us are Told to Do by Us.

Think about it.

Thanks for your comments,
Bob

[nrnowlin]

30. A Matter of Law and Justice

 
I have a difficult time understanding how any honest and
upright representative or senator, of the 109th Congress, can
not consider the scientific impossibility of ten tons of steel
and titanium, the amount of material comprising the engines of
the Boeing 757 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon on
September 11, 2001, being consumed in a kerosene jet fuel fire
as incontrovertible evidence that a Boeing 757 did not crash
into the Pentagon. Furthermore, if the sore lack of 757
aircraft wreckage and the dearth of remains of, what would
inevitably be, a large quantity of engine material does not
point to misrepresentations by the 9/11 Commission, what
would? If it was a scientific impossibility for such a crash
to yield almost zero wreckage of airframe and engine
materials, and if the only conclusion that one could have
drawn was that such an aircraft could not have crashed into
the Pentagon, where, pray tell, are the alleged passengers
that supposedly perished in the crash? Moreover, if a Boeing
757 did not crash into the Pentagon, as alleged by the
Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, what doubt does that
throw on the government’s allegations that terrorists in
high-jacked commercial airliners were totally responsible for
the collapses of the WTC towers?

If there is not one bold senator or representative in Congress
willing to officially contest the findings of the 9/11
Commission, the American republic is in dire straits, nearly
at the point of no return to a regime of legitimacy. If,
perchance, charges were brought against the Speaker of the
House for personally murdering an associate member of the
House, supposedly at the same time he was standing in full
view at the podium, presiding over the House chamber, I am
doubly sure that at least one representative, of either party,
would have the temerity to stand and refute the charges on the
basis of the impossibility of the Speaker committing the act.
Therefore, if at least one representative would be willing to
challenge murder charges against the Speaker of the House, on
the basis of incontrovertible evidence and, perhaps, out of
mere political loyalty, why wouldn’t at least one
representative rise to challenge the scientific impossibility
of the 9/11 Commission Report? Have we gone so far astray from
the principles of law and justice in this republic as to allow
the Executive Branch of the federal government to deceive the
nation with impunity?

There were many facts about the happenings on 9/11 which were
not even considered by the panel of politicians that comprised
the 9/11 Commission. Had there, instead, been a panel of nine
apolitical police chiefs from nine cities in nine different
states to have comprised the commission, I sincerely believe
that the conclusions about the causes of 9/11 would have been
greatly different. Ordinary police officers, unaffected by
political consequence, are usually determined to ferret out
the relevant and material facts and to place the blame for the
crimes squarely upon the shoulders of those culpable
perpetrators.

I won’t pursue it to any degree in this writing, but will only
say that the Blue Ribbon Commission that investigated the
Japanese surprise attack at Pearl Harbor, from 1942 until
1944, was as much a farce as the 9/11 Commission. They were
pretty much the same in purpose, to produce a political ruse
to ensure that no blame would fall on the President of the
United States or any part of the Executive Branch. I will only
encourage concerned Americans to read Dr. Charles Tansill’s
book, “Backdoor to War: Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1939-41,”
and the book, “The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions
about the Bush Administration and 9/11,” written by Dr. David
Griffin, if they want to understand how two separate
presidential administrations have succeeded in being directly
responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans and
foreign nationals, and in being equally successful deceiving
enough of the American public into believing that they were
totally blameless.

Now, nearly six years after 9/11, the 110th U.S.
Congress-to-be appears ready to disregard the impeachable
offenses, many more than fourteen, for which incontrovertible
evidence shows that George W. Bush and Richard Cheney were
directly responsible. If this happens, and Bush and Cheney are
allowed to leave office to languish happily in their
undiscovered and unchallenged guilt, history will again be
cheated and the nearly five-thousand innocent lives lost on
9/11, and their survivors, will be deprived of their due
justice. Such a blatant disregard for law and justice cannot
be tolerated in a democratic constitutional republic such as
the United States of America.

[Independent_Liberal]

31. Thanks for posting understandinglife! You rock!

This is funny. I was predicting recently that 14 articles of impeachment would be voted on in the House Judiciary Committee.

I also predict:

Conyers and Waxman will set up a Special Select Committee in the House. It will be called the House Select Committee on Government Corruption, Waste, Fraud and Abuse.

Leahy and Kennedy will set up a Special Select Committee in the Senate. Leahy will chair the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings while Kennedy chairs the Special Select Committee.

Kennedy will renew the Independent Counsel law and appoint an Independent Prosecutor.

What must be investigated:

-NSA

-Iraq Intelligence

-Torture of Prisoners

-Abramoff

-Gannon

-Cunningham/Wilkes/MZM/Hookergate

-New Hampshire Phone Jamming

-Coingate

-Election Fraud

-Plame

-AIPAC/Larry Franklin/Steven Rosen/Keith Weissman/Michael Ledeen/Manucher Ghorbanifar

-Downing Street Memos

-White House Iraq Group

-Niger Forgeries

-Nigerian Bribes

-Enron

-Halliburton-Kellogg Brown & Root

-The Carlyle Group

-Harken Energy

-Bechtel

-WorldCom

-Greenberg Traurig

-Marsh & Kroll Management

-Pat Roberts/Richard Shelby Intelligence Leak Cover-Ups

-Hastert-Abramoff-Turkey-Israel-Livingston Group-Brewster Jennings-AIPAC-Feith-Perle Connections

-Secret Government Propaganda Operations in the Office of Special Plans

-Penetration of the FBI

-Leandro Aragoncillo and Philippine Spy Espionage

-Secret Energy Meetings and Energy Commission Cover-Ups

-Pentagon Psyops Units

-FEMA's Katrina Response

-Mining Disasters

-Dubai Ports Deals

-Cover-Ups of Pre-9/11 Intelligence

-9/11 Commission Cover-Ups

-9/11 Commission members with ties to oil companies and lobbyists

-Key witnesses left out of the Official 9/11 Report

-Manipulation of pre-9/11 FBI intercepts

-9/11 related corruption in government offices

-Cover-Ups involving Congress people, Federal Judges and Justice Department Personnel

-Pentagon Tapes

-NORAD Tapes

-Pre-9/11 Insider Trading

-Christine Todd Whitman and the EPA

-The idenitification of Mohamed Atta by "Able Danger"

-DeLay-Abramoff-Kidan-SunCruz-Boulis-Mob-Atta-Casino Connections

-Pakistan-ISI Connections

-FBI Wiretap Translations

-Money Laundering and Drug Trafficking

-Illegal Weapons Sales

-Destruction of 9/11 FAA Tapes

-Enron Afghani Pipeline Deals

-The death of Enron executive Cliff Baxter

-Arthur Anderson's destruction of Enron documents

-AIG

-Citigroup

-John O'Neill's Murder

-Pat Tillman's Death

Witnesses:

Sibel Edmonds
Richard Grove
Indira Sangh
Russell Tice
Richard Clarke
James Comey
Bunny Greenhouse
Lawrence Wilkerson
Larry Johnson
Ray McGovern

The Prosecutors:

Patrick Fitzgerald
Nathaniel Edmonds

[understandinglife]

37. Exceptional post! If anyone "rocks" -- You Do!

Thank you,
Bob

[Independent_Liberal]

46. Thank you UL!

I have a big stack of books near my bed right now. It's hard to pick what to read first. It's stuff to set the mood for January.

I've got:

All The President's Men by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein
The New York Times' The White House Transcripts
The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office by Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky
Conservatives Without Conscience by John W. Dean
The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat by Bob Woodward
Bushworld by Maureen Dowd
Stupid White Men by Michael Moore
Dude, Where's My Country? by Michael Moore
What Went Wrong in Ohio? The Conyers Report on the 2004 Presidential Election by John Conyers and Anita Miller
Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush by John W. Dean
Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward
Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil by Michael C. Ruppert
The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin

This Christmas I'm expecting to get:

George W. Bush Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Coverups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying by John Conyers, Anita Miller and Joseph Wilson
Cover-Up: What the Government is Still Hiding About the War on Terror by Peter Lance
The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute: A Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road to 9/11--and America's Response by Paul Thompson
Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11 by James Ridgeway
Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta & The 9/11 Cover-Up in Florida by Daniel Hopsicker

I'll be really busy this holiday season.

;)

[Independent_Liberal]

32. Kicked and recommended!

[EFerrari]

34. Anyone who seriously questions the wisdom of impeachment

might usefully read "Hegemony or survival" by Noam Chomsky.

He does not discuss impeachment in that book. But he does show how Bush/Cheney are placing us all in danger every single day that they are in office. And, I don't mean from foreign terrorists.

Thanks, UL. As always. A peaceful holiday to you and yours.

:kick:

[understandinglife]

39. "he does show how Bush/Cheney are placing us all in danger every single day that they are in office"

In_Deed.

Thank you Beth and peace, my friend,
Bob

[tinrobot]

35. Could you get a 2/3 majority?

To impeach with this congress, you'd need Republicans to come over.

I'd say investigate, investigate, investigate until the American people demand impeachment. Only then could you get the votes.

[Disturbed]

40. How long would an investigation of Warentless Wiretapping

take?

“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.” GW Bush April 2004

At the time of this statement GW Bush was authorizing the spying on American citizens and their communications by the National Security Agency and other U.S. police and intelligence agencies, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Pres. Bush has admitted that he authorized these Warentless Wiretaps.

[EFerrari]

43. And he authorized them BEFORE 9//11.

Busted.

[BlueStater]

54. I agree

How long could it possibly take to find dirt on this moron? He has committed impeachables offenses right in front of our very eyes and the arrogant little shit has dared us to do anything about it. His massive ego finally got the better of him.

The crap he has done is enough to impeach five presidents over.

[EFerrari]

42. The Republicans haven't been this disorganized in forty years.

How much heat do you think they are willing to take for Bush -- especially considering his family has more or less wrecked their "movement"?

They'll be the first ones to toss him overboard. Watch.

[Senator]

57. The 2/3 in the Senate is irrelevant, however...

And I do mean it is irrelevant to our side making the moral choice we must. And also irrelevant on a strategic/logical basis in that it makes no sense to only fight battles you are certain to win.

But I'm not without cautious optimism of getting a conviction. Warner, McCain, and Graham have already stood publicly against the "War Criminals Protection Act." Collins stood with them, albeit without their more obvious gravitas. Arlen Specter has already publicly scoffed at the "defenses" offered to the illegal spying. The remaining Senators I consider "rational" are Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar. And beyond that is a barrel full of the swing-staters and the most craven (Shelby, Hatch, Stevens) who are probably already polling it in their states.

The political reality though is that it only takes a few to render their option to "defend the indefensible" untenable. Once ranks are broken, it's pretty much every one for themselves.

Also, there's really nothing to "investigate."

The regime admits and "defends" clearly impeachable offenses -- like illegal spying and violating Geneva.

The "investigations" question is whether to hold "impeachment hearings" or "open-ended fact-finding hearings" on specific matters (that may or may not lead to impeachment charges).

Doing the former (while not even "required") could well be helpful to bringing more of the public (already a majority) and even Republicans back into the reality-based community where impeachment is imperative to defend the Constitution and begin to Redeem Our National Soul. Doing the latter displays weakness and sends the message that there is some uncertainty about the ongoing reality that is staring us in the face.

Besides, the American People are already demanding impeachment as a "priority:"



That is why the "off the table" comment is so damaging. It is a self-defeating prophesy regardless of whether or not there's some "strategery" behind it.

If you don't broach the accusation, you garner zero attention.

Impeachment IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

===

[BlueStater]

59. The Republicans have nothing to gain from protecting Bush's worthless ass

If anything, getting rid of the Shrubmonkey will make them more popular.

I like to think that true conservatives were never impressed with the Chimp and would've rather returned to their glory days of the Reagan years than revive Bush Sr's forgettable presidency.

[Swagman]

41. they must be impeached. Otherwise it all means nothing

[krispos42]

44. We must also not allow pardons!

If we just impeach one of them, the one that is or becomes President will just pardon the guy who got arrested.

[cstanleytech]

102. Can they even be stopped?

I don't recall any way to revoke a pardon once given from the president so what happens if Bush does pardon Cheney and the rest?
Can congress or the senate revoke a pardon?

[EFerrari]

45. "They are planning operations to protect themselves from the American people" --

Peter Dale Scott, prof emeritus UC Berkeley, former diplomat and editor, 9/11 and American Empire, Intellectuals Speak Out

See CSPAN, BookTV schedule:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2793119#2793158

[fooj]

86. Wasn't that awesome?

Watched that yesterday!:patriot:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. Right Now There Are None. Not One Official Investigation Has Yet To Take Place.

Until they do take place, impeachment is not an option.

[Senator]

58. There's nothing to "investigate"

The regime admits and "defends" clearly impeachable offenses -- like illegal spying and violating Geneva.

The "investigations" question is whether to hold "impeachment hearings" or "open-ended fact-finding hearings" on specific matters (that may or may not lead to impeachment charges).

Doing the former (while not even "required") could well be helpful to bringing more of the public (already a majority) and even Republicans back into the reality-based community where impeachment is imperative to defend the Constitution and begin to Redeem Our National Soul. Doing the latter displays weakness and sends the message that there is some uncertainty about the ongoing reality that is staring us in the face.

That is why the "off the table" comment is so damaging. It is a self-defeating prophesy regardless of whether or not there's some "strategery" behind it.

If you don't broach the accusation, you garner zero attention.

Impeachment IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

===

[puebloknot]

81. Post it again, and again, and again, and again, and again, Sam!

It bears repeating: "It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option."

[exlrrp]

89. Ending the War first is the patriotic option

I can't understand how people can go on so selfrighteously ascribing th moral high ground to themseleves when the most obvious moral course is the one the Democratioc leaderhsip is pursuing: ending the war first. Theyre well aware of the realities of impeaching bush and the impossiblitity of simultaneously impeaching both Bush and Cheney so theyre taking the course that saves lives--ending the war first. That IS the priority and I can't imagine anyone with the good of America in mind disagreeing with me. Or anyone who espouses Christian ethics or claims the moral high ground

They realize, as many seem not to here, that the moral high ground is ending the wear and the needless slaughter with whatever means available. If we acomplish that in any kind of good order, that will carry us into complete control in '08. If we don't we don't deserve to win in '08.

Although I have sympathy for your views, you make a cardinal error along with many others to wit: you think your assumptions and opinions are established facts, a BIG mistake. They are only assumptions and beliefs, not facts. There's plenty of others who will contest them, do NOT expect a bipartisan Kumbaya moment to impeach and even less so to remove--an insurmountable problem you blow off.

No Republican Senator is ever going to vote for a process that boots Cheney and Bush out simultaneously, making Pelosi President--it would be immediate political suicide for them. You'd need 15, assuming every Democrat voted for removal, which wouldn't be a safe assumption either. Anyone who thinks 15 Republican Senators are ever going to boot bush and Cheney out and replace them with Pelosi better change their crack dealer, the current one is doing them wrong. And no oe knows that better than Pelosi

Every diehard impeachment fan thinks theyre going to impeach Bush and Cheney simultaneously--this is nothing but wishful thinking, good for the base, but not for the reality based. There's kind of a touching naivete when people so proudly show off all their articles of impeachment like this. Unfortunately what they don't realize is whats quoted right here from the Constitution: Bloggers don't impeach presidents, talking heads don't either, the House does . (they DO, however get official documents declared false, believ it or not) One of the most critically important precedents gets blithely overlooked by the impeah now folks: neither of the two impeached Presidents were removed from office, though both were convicted in impeachment trials. And neither will this one.

What its going to take to make any impeachment charges work is a long and involved process that will be delayed and contested every step of the way by the highest paid legal experts in the country. There is no slamdunk about this, as the Democratic leadership realizes. Its not about what they'd like to do, its what theyre ABLE to do. Theyre going with what they think will do the most good--and its not impeachment

As far as I see, anyone who wants to make impeachment a priority over ending the war is not taking the moral high ground, that belongs to the ones who end the war. I want our part to be The Party That Solved The Problems, not The Party Who Was As Vindictive As Republicans

END THE WAR FIRST!!----Thats the moral thing to do!! American And Iraqi lives are more important than debating endless political points to no avail

[Senator]

94. Impeachment will end the war quicker

But the first moral, patriotic option is to end the war crimes.

Regarding what "the leadership...is well aware of," I can only urge you to go talk to one of them. They're just people. No different from you and me. There is no greater wisdom or intelligence among them -- individually or as a group. There is no privileged font of information to which they have access. They are at the mercy of the same Euphemedia we all are.

This is why they can be co-opted into a "groupthink" by those who would terrorize our nation into wars. And how they can consider stolen elections something that need not be stood against. They can be convinced to change their minds and do the right thing -- like Senator Boxer was on January 6th, 2005.

And we need to do it because impeachment is the first step in solving the problem of the war. The biggest obstacle to ending the war is the unlawful regime. We have a far better chance of getting 15 GOP Senators to defend the Constitution (and themselves against a Dem President with these newly-claimed powers) than we have of getting the bush gang to admit failure in Iraq and responsibility for the war crimes committed in all our names.

This (p)residency is a cancer on the nation. We tolerate it at our continuing peril and disgrace.

---

[exlrrp]

105. Nice Idea but you never explain how

"But the first moral, patriotic option is to end the war crimes."
I agree with that fully--now the question is how to do it quickest.

And I agree also: the first moral patriotic duty is to end the war crimes which ONLY means ending the war. Impeaching BUsh would not end the war crimes if the war was still going on..
So the immediate moral imperative is to end the war crimes by ending the war. Then we can pursue and punish war crimes but as long as people--Americans and Iraqis-- are dying every day, the moral imperative is to end the war.
Would impeaching BUsh end the war sooner than just ending the war? Explain to me how. Studying history, we see that ipeachment triaals really suck all the oxygen out of everything else, its allthe focus is on. Thats the way it was last time. What pelosi understands is in order to do the things we want we need to get some Republican Senators on our side--thats an impossibilty in the middle of an impeachment trial, the lines woud be drawn. NO republican Senator is going to approve any process in the next 2 years that boots Cheney and Bush out and leaves Pelosi President. It would be immediate politival suicide for them, might as well ask them to slash their wrists. And no one know that better than Pelosi.

And without those 15 Republican Senators approval, removal of BUsh and Chenmeiy is a dead duck. Don't even think about it or hope for it. And that makes impeachment, if it does happen another waste of time as far as America goes. A long torturous road that leads to the same place we are now.
And meanwhile the war goes on.

What our leadership gets, or understands, what impeachment fans don't is the long involved, diffficult, tenuous, hotly contested, delayed processs that impeachment is. Doesn't anyone remember Clinton's impeachment? that wsn't a slamdunk either although Clinton obviously had done the crime he was accused of (lying in a deposition) The Republicans took years to impeach Clinton when there was no war, when theyhad a bigger majority than we do and they STILL couldn't remove Clinton. And Clinton WAS guilty of the crime they accused him of.

This is what Pelosi and the others understand a lot of impeachment fans don't. They look at the most important precedent involving ipeachment: neither one of the two impeached presidents were removed from office, although both were convicted of crimes in impeachment trials. And there's no slamdunk gaurantee this one will be removed OR impeached.( as conditions are now--this may change)


Clinton's impeachment was done for Shock and Awe by the Republicans--it gave them a perfect platform to rail away at Insidious Democratic perfidy from hell to Tuesday, and all the semen stained dresses they waved projected them into the White HOuse in 2000 (after the SCOTUS gave it to them)

In terms of America's interests, though, Clinton's impeachment was a waste of time for America. The Republicans KNEW they never had enough votes to remove but went ahead and squandered $44 million of the taxpayers money an dyears of time trying to impeach and remove Clinton.


OUr Democratic leaders can count the votes in the Senate right now as well as the Republicans could in the '90s. In order to impeach and remove both Cheney and Bush, simultaneously or not, at least 15 Republican Senators would have to approve a scheme that puts Pelosi in as President. (assuming all Democrats and Lieberman voted for it--not a safe assumption either) This is a pipe dream!!

So untill you can explain how youre going to convince at least 15 republican Senators and every Democrat to kick out Bush and Cheney and to put Pelosi in as President, the whole impeachment process is dead in the water.

Having said all this,. I'm leaving the door open for a complete change. I personally think that the evidence thats going to be put together by the investigating committees in several areas are going to create a groundswell of resentment towards Republicans, Bush and all their mismanagement that may very well lead to an overwhelming call for impeachment and the Democratic leadership may well see the vote totals different and move on it. I hope I live to see it

but that would NOT end the war sooner, that would be ending it later, ending the war sooner means RIGHT NOW!!!
End The War First!! After that, well, impeach away in the remaining few months!!!

[Senator]

109. To repeat: Removing the "biggest obstacle" is how

And stopping the war crimes does not "ONLY" mean ending the war. The war crimes of illegal detention and torture are ongoing at Gitmo. Removing the war criminals who continue to sanction them will likely end them in days. All detainees can instantly be afforded the Geneva protections they've been denied and be given access to a legal process all Amercans can be proud of.

This is the choice given to the "15 GOP Senators" by impeachment: end the torture or sanction the torture and become a war criminal yourself. Warner, McCain, and Graham have already refused to become complicit by challenging the "War Criminals Protection Act." Others will surely not want to be on the side of torture and have that be their historical legacy.

As to your other points, the "groundswell" is already here -- a majority of Americans want impeachment. And there's nothing for "investigating committees" to investigate. The impeachable offenses are admitted by the regime and already ruled on by the FISA and Supreme Court.

Now perhaps you'll explain how to end the war quickly without making it worse.

The entire planet is waiting for someone to solve that problem.

----

[puebloknot]

48. Great talking points when we telephone our Congresspersons with great regularity!

Political activist friends of mine have commented that Ms. Pelosi's "off the table" comment was inspired to some degree by her not wanting to look like she was making a grab for the presidency. If that is true, I'm afraid the incoming Speaker of the House (legally in line for the presidency after President and Vice President) will have to shoulder that burden. She may have to go through that proces from other cultures of refusing another serving of a delicacy twice, before she finally gives in with the third offering and helps herself! :)

I think Ms. Pelosi will need to prove herself in her position as Speaker before I would feel any enthusiasm for her as President -- and that will include supporting investigations and remedial action, to include impeachment (whether she knows she has the votes or not) and criminal charges.

Silence on the subject of impeachment lends consent!

[Prophet 451]

51. They must be impeached

Obviously, investigations will have to take place first but once the evidence is admitted (and we all know it's out there), the pair of them must be either impeached or, if they've left office, brought up on criminal charges.

Yes, Bush only has a little while left. Yes, he will struggle to get any repressive legislation through an unfriendly Congress. That's not the point. The point is about justice and accountability and, perhaps more importantly, a sense of closure. For the last six years, America has lived through a nightmare. Over here in England, we watched it unfold and at first, we thought there had just been a mistake. The USA had elected or allowed the selection of an upper-class oik without a brain in his head. OK, fair enough, that was a mistake and we thought the country would recognise that mistake and correct it as soon as possible. Then came the 2004 election. Now, leaving aside the evidence of vote fraud for the moment, it seemed like the USA liked living in that nightmare.

Now, finally, the country has started to wake up but in order to put that nightmare behind them, in order for the national psyche to heal, justice must be seen to be done, there must be a sense of closure, that the long dark is behind you now and you can move on. That means either impeachment or criminal charges (or both, is it possible to do both?).

Forget the practical politics for a second, forget the partisanship. This is about principle. The evidence is out there to warrant impeachment proceedings. You don't even have to look very hard for it. If Bush is cleared, fine. He had his day in court, defended himself and was vindicated in the end. That's how justice is supposed to work (i.e. not involving waterboarding) but in order for justice to be seen to be done, in order for the country to heal, investigations, which would inevitibly lead to impeachment, must be forthcoming.

[Disturbed]

55. No Investigation is needed.

Impeach them on the Warentless Wiretapping. The case has been made.

[Vinca]

62. Sounds good to me, but who will bring it to the floor and

how will they get past Madame Speaker, who is not inclined to impeach?

[nrnowlin]

63. Money and Popularity, the Mothers' Milk of Politics

Babies who are nursed in infancy usually turn out to be more healthy than formula babies. The same thing applies to money and popularity in the longevity of politicians. In the long run, a U.S. Congresswoman like Pelosi, who surely realized the blatant mandate of the electorate when Republicans were ousted from Congress by the droves, has a lot to lose by not, at least, considering impeachment against Bush and Cheney from the Speaker's podium. Her campaign money, the stuff that has propelled her to subsequent re-elections, may surprisingly dissipate, with her popularity, if she does not. And the first thing a career-politician-to-be does after getting elected is to start planning a re-election.

Fortunately, there are over a million politically active American voters who presently favor impeachment, and that number is growing every day. Sometimes it takes a little time for a waking giant, the people of the United States, to rise from a political sleep and to get the cobwebs out. The chances are pretty good that, if Michigan's John Conyers rises on the House floor to declare articles of impeachment against both Bush and Cheney, Pelosi will allow it to be heard. And I believe that there are quite a few representatives, especially the new ones, who favor impeachment.

But, I have to say that Franklin D. Roosevelt was unfortunately not impeached for his complicity in the Pearl Harbor debacle. And he, according to correct history, politically engineered the Japanese attack, from 1939-42, after secretly promising Winston Churchill that the U.S. would enter the war against Germany. Over three thousand GIs died at Pearl Harbor when Roosevelt knew, at least 72 hours prior to the attack, that it was going to happen. According to War Department documents, he ordered that the Pearl Harbor Naval Command was not to be warned. He wanted to be able to go before Congress and demand a declaration of war while declaring that a total surprise attack occurred. See any resemblance to 9/11?

[Maryland Liberal]

65. Gwen Steffani

To quote Gwen Steffani (god she's such a hottie) -Whatcha waiting for?

[understandinglife]

67. Welcome to DU - Maryland Liberal. And, I agree with you and with Ms. Steffani!

Thank you,
Bob

[Independent_Liberal]

76. Good quote, Maryland Liberal!

As you may have noticed, I'm an independent liberal. Ha! :)

[CountessMZaleska]

69. worth zero

only Pelosi can impeach and she said she won't.

And all these crimes were committed with little or no opposition from Democrats.

I'm waiting to see if they at least restore the damage Bush inflicted to the constitution.

[nrnowlin]

73. The Speaker cannot, alone, negate a call for impeachment.

Negative. Impeachment is a matter of consensus in the House. The Speaker does not have the power to override a consensus of the majority party. According to House rules, a representative who proposes impeachment, and is backed by a majority of the members of the majority party, or a plurality, must be given a roll-call vote. John Conyers knew that Pelosi was against impeachment the moment he conferred with Ramsey Clark. But he was hoping for a landslide vote against Republicans in the mid-term elections. Speaker Pelosi does not have the power to negate a consensus for impeachment.

[understandinglife]

80. Correct. Welcome to DU.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

70. K&R

[porphyrian]

71. I'll kick that. - n/t

[johnnyrocket]

78. Impeaching Bush AND Cheney is a no brainer!

Do it now dems!!

For the good of the nation. Go President Pelosi! I like the sound of that!

[whistle]

79. I totally agree

[MethuenProgressive]

83. Just use Patriot Act to arrest and jail them forever.

A blindfolded plane ride straight to Gitmo. Now *that* would be karma!

[focusfan]

87. i don't think Bush will be impeached

but I could be wrong.also another question what is going to
happen to the past do nothing congress i mean shouldn't they
get in trouble by letting Bush have his way.    

[Independent_Liberal]

98. Right, I think they will be in trouble.

Being in charge means we'll be able to prosecute them for their corruption.

[Divine Discontent]

88. THE MERE FACT THAT....

we're discussing this in such detail tells me that Ms. Pelosi should consider having tighter security around her to protect her and our country's hope & future! We would be so devastated if something like the russian spy thing happened to her.

you know one we start investigating their shit, they'll start turning on each other, and frankly, if we don't do it, they're illegal election theft (phone jamming, diebold) will be repeated in 08 so they can retain their 8 yr presidential hold on top power.



www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

[earth mom]

91. Excellent Post-Thank You! Please keep on posting pro-Impeachment threads!

The naysayers are working OVERTIME to kill Impeachment. Well two can play that game!

[Imagevision]

92. The only way amerika can redeem itself is to impeach Bush & Cheney

[Disturbed]

93. The Warentless Spying have been ruled to be Unconstitutional.

The SC will have to rule on this. It will be shocking if they rule it was not. If they rule that it was then all those who participated and authorized those taps will have to be prosecuted.

[cstanleytech]

96. Impeachment now? No

I don't think it would be a good idea for the democrats to impeach bush now as it was the republicans job to do and they failed this nation.
The democrats have regained control of the two houses finally and they can put a stopper on most of the things and hopefully repair the damage the republicans caused this country but impeaching Bush is likely to inflame the republican base and give the republicans running in 2008 the fuel they need to retake the houses and the presidency again.
I think a better option is let Bush and Cheney finish the term out and then have them both be charged as common criminals which is what they really are at this point.

[Independent_Liberal]

97. Uh no. Impeaching Bush would not inflame the base.

The longer Bush and Cheney stay in power, the more damage they cause and the atrocities continue to go on and on.

Once the investigations take place, the neocons will all rat each other out and all those Republicans who were hiding stuff from the public will crack and enough will get pissed off that the proceedings will become bipartisan. Why should the Democrats fail to do what the Republicans should've been doing? That makes no sense.

The public will get behind us. Once that happens, it's all downhill from there.

[cstanleytech]

99. RE: Uh no. Impeaching Bush would not inflame the base.

I have my doubts and while I think the democrats could impeach him but at what cost?
The republicans have in the past been able to use things the democrats have done to their advantage and my fear is if the democrats take their eye off the ball which is to stay in power in order to repair the damage the republicans have done in order to go after bush that the republican can use it as a wedge.
They just have to wait until the start of the elections for 2008 and hammer home that the democrats tried to impeach the president and the republican base will buy it hook line and sinker for the most part and turn out to support the republicans.
Best not to provide any ammo to the republicans and instead focus on whats more important which is regain complete control over all 3 houses and then press charges against the Bush and Cheney for their actions.

[understandinglife]

100. Nonsense. For starters, read Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter ...

... and spend some time - a lot of time - pondering what it means before posting any more nonsense.

[cstanleytech]

101. Ok

Ok I shall not post any more nonsense on this issue however if you do not mind I shall reserve the right to call upon this if I am proven right and say I told you so.
If you are right and trying to impeach him does not cost the democrats the whitehouse as I fear and maybe even control of the other houses you can say you told me so.
Fair enough?

[understandinglife]

103. Forget about "costing the democrats (gotcha) the whitehouse" ...

Get the "gotcha"?

Clue - I'm not a political operative. I'm an American citizen dedicated to the Constitution and the LAW.

You are playing a game ... and you lost, already, with your "democrat" term ... understand?

Doubt it.


BE AMERICA. ---

[cstanleytech]

104. Ok I think we started off on the wrong foot there.

Anyway to let you know a little about myself I voted for both Gore and Kerry and I am not playing a game like you think.
I was just pointing out why in my opinion its a bad idea to try it now.

[snappyturtle]

106. Welcome to DU!

I think you're worrying too much about nothing. As I see it, the Repugs will jump (maybe reluctantly, at first) on an impeachment bandwagon. Their party has been severely damaged by *.....and we cannot allow ANY president to disregard the laws of the land.

I understand your point.....after all the repugs use anything they can get their snarly teeth into to divide the nation. However, in this case I don't see that happening not unless they ALL want to be replaced in the next election cycle.

[WilliamPitt]

107. You can come up with 62,991 articles of impeachment if you try hard enough

The number you need to concentrate on is 67.

It is a bridge too far.

[PBass]

110. I have to respectfully disagree...

"The number you need to concentrate on is 67.

It is a bridge too far."

If there are investigations, and the investigations confirm for the general public what we here all variously know/believe to be true, it will be very very very hard for anyone in Congress to publicly oppose impeachment. If these investigations become part of the mainstream news, there will be a massive public cry for removal, with 'real' conservatives joining in.

The number of "Bush Dead Enders" in Congress who would go against the grain, would not be enough to stem the tide. Bush's approval is in the low 30s now. Post-investigation, Bush's approval could be as low as low-20s or in the teens. Not that many people would go to bat for a president with numbers that low.

The main thing is INVESTIGATIONS FIRST. Do it because it's the right thing to do, with no preconceived end result in mind. Then let the chips fall where they may.

Secondly, EXPOSING the administration is almost as good as impeachment... arguably, it's maybe even better, because it doesn't come off as a "power grab".

Either way, investigations must procede ASAP. Lets just insist on proper protocol, and give the sytstem a chance to work.