Beyond Impeachment

very good overview. What I see is an administration that had a set senerio, accepted intelligence that fit their spin, pressured analysts to fall into line, threatened sources that provided antithesis material and smeared those inteligence professionals who would not succumb to their heavy-handed tactics. There are many intelligence officers whose careers are now going nowhere because they tried to perform their duties for the American people.

ooops. That was a tad terse. Could have rephrased it in milder tones. The question being : why aren't the USers protesting the current regime?? I wonder at their silence --- and this is where I perceive a certain compliance. OK.....I simply don't understand how they can be so silent about all the lies that were spun for the travesty in Iraq. Maybe someone can help with this.

July 27, 2005
“This is not an isolated criminal act we are dealing with; it is an extreme and evil ideology whose roots lie in a perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam” Prime Minister Tony Blair
The “evil ideology” that underscores the war on terror is predicated on two basic theories; preemption and enemy combatants. Both of these run counter to fundamental principles of human rights and democratic governance. Both must be met head-on and defeated. There is no wiggle-room for equivocating or appeasement; this ideology is the greatest manifestation of fanaticism in the world since the rise of Nazism in the 1930’s and must be collectively challenged. As Tony Blair says, “This is not an isolated criminal act “but “an extreme and evil ideology” thrusting us towards global war and ever-increasing human rights abuse.
The preemptive doctrine overturns the conclusions of the Nuremburg Tribunals that “War is the Supreme Crime” from which all the lesser crimes naturally flow. It elevates war to a viable form of foreign policy; an acceptable means of establishing one state’s superiority over another. In the case of Iraq, where the theory was applied with the most appalling results; it has been exposed as a cruel facsimile of unprovoked aggression against a defenseless enemy. The horrific after-effects have been the destruction of Iraqi society, the death of over 100,000 civilians and an enduring conflict with no...

Quote has been trimmed

Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breezeooops. That was a tad terse. Could have rephrased it in milder tones. The question being : why aren't the USers protesting the current regime?? I wonder at their silence --- and this is where I perceive a certain compliance. OK.....I simply don't understand how they can be so silent about all the lies that were spun for the travesty in Iraq. Maybe someone can help with this.To be fair...Protests have been made in several US cities( San Fransico, Portland, Seattle, etc.) Unfortunately they have been small at this point. That does not mean that Americans are compliant with the attitudes and actions of the current administration. Move on is constantly looking for ways to show how these policies impact Americans and citizens of the entire planet.
As the media does not see this as much of a national issue...most marches go unnoticed by the national news media. This means that local coverage handles it and it is rarely shown outside of the country. While it may seem that the American public doesn't care or is party to the assanine policies of the Bush administration...it is not.
Look at the results of the last election...Slightly over a third of eligible voters elected...

Quote has been trimmed

Steps forward for the impeachment movement
Majority of U.S. public believes Bush misled the people
Buses coming from all over the U.S. for September 24

Haunted by the threat of impeachment, Bush has received the news that he dreaded most.

A majority of the U.S. public doubts the United States will win in Iraq and believes Bush intentionally misled the country about Iraq's weapons capabilities, according to a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll.

Previous Gallop polls have asked the same questions, but this was the first time that over half of those polled - 51 per cent - believed Bush deliberately misled the people when he asserted Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, USA Today said.

As we reported two weeks ago, more than "two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq," according to a recent Zogby Poll.

The war in Iraq is one of the greatest atrocities in recent times. The Bush Administration's combination of arrogance with an utter disregard for the law requires Congress to immediately proceed with filing Articles of Impeachment. Tens of millions of people know with certainty that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other leading officials lied to them. That is why the impeachment movement has developed as a nationwide grassroots political phenomenon.

On September 24, hundreds of thousands of people will be in the streets for major antiwar demonstrations in Washington DC, San Francisco and Los Angeles. The impeachment movement is organizing a major contingent for September 24 at the White House.

I'm an American and I think Mr. Bush Should be impeached for the crimes against the American people.
Namely for his involvement in 9/11, and that goes for his sidekick Channey also!

I'm an American and I think Mr. Bush Should be impeached for the crimes against the American people.
Namely for his involvement in 9/11, and that goes for his sidekick Channey also!

Quote: Originally Posted by jjw1965

I'm an American and I think Mr. Bush Should be impeached for the crimes against the American people.
Namely for his involvement in 9/11, and that goes for his sidekick Channey also!

I am glad to have an American member on this board with an open mind. Welcome here JJ and feel right at home.

With support for his war in Iraq plummeting and a massive protest against the war looming, Bush has been forced to do a little "work" this week. The White House has announced that he will take a break from his five-week vacation for a "five-day push" to try to shore up support for the war. But now the tide has turned decisively against his administration's criminal war - and there is no going back. This powerful sentiment has been stated most firmly - not by the loyal opposition of the Democratic Party, but from the people themselves. The Democrats have taken to the airwaves to announce that they support even more troops going to Iraq! It is the people that have mobilized to stop the war and it is the people who are mobilizing to force Congress to introduce articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and their partners in war crimes.
While Bush tries to hide at his ranch in Crawford for five weeks, pretending world opinion isn't against him, reality is bearing down. And when he returns to the White House, that reality will appear in front of him in a massive display on the streets. His advisors have said that he won't meet with Cindy Sheehan (who rode to Crawford in a bus emblazoned with "Impeachment") because, according to the Washington Post, "he does not care to meet with protesters or to reward them." The fact is, he and his administration can't hide. The tide of opposition is overwhelming them, along with their...

Quote has been trimmed

To slander opponents so their political positions are discredited -- Karl Rove's doctrine has been immensely effective in defeating Bush's challengers; will it now be effective in defeating grieving mother Cindy Sheehan?
By Stewart Nusbaumer
Dirty fighting is in their political blood. It’s their modus operandi. It’s their crème de menthe. By slandering and lying and thrashing they decimate enemies and capture political office -- they win, which means everything to them. Now they are eyeing Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier tragically killed in Iraq, a grieving mother protesting the war from a ditch near George Bush’s ranch. They want to slaughter the mother lamb to destroy her resonating antiwar message. They want to win again.
Henry Kissinger once joked seriously that “90 percent of politicians give the other 10 percent a bad reputation.” Hunter Thompson once said that Richard Nixon, although this could have been about the 90 percent of politicians, “could shake your hand and stab you in the back at the same time.”
But George Bush and Karl Rove are not just back-stabbers -- they make Richard Nixon look like an angel. Rove and Bush are unique. Their vulgarity is wrenching, their lies are outrageous, their maliciousness is extreme, and their morality is nonexistent. All of which is evident in their sordid thrashing of three honorable military veterans.
Campaigns of Sleaze & Malice toward Three

Quote has been trimmed

George W. Bush is the kind of guy you remember if you happen to cross his path -- at least his economics professor at Harvard Business School thinks so. Bush, you will recall, was at Harvard immediately after he left the Alabama National Guard -- if he was ever there to begin with. He openly boasted to Tsurumi about using pull to get into a champagne unit, and Tsurumi was shocked. Most people wouldn't do that, especially back then.
Tsurumi has an even lower opinion of George Bush than Bush's commander in the Texas Air National Guard, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, did:
He showed pathological lying habits and was in denial when challenged on his prejudices and biases. He would even deny saying something he just said 30 seconds ago. He was famous for that. . . .
Students who challenged and embarrassed Bush in class would then become the subject of a whispering campaign by him, Tsurumi said. "In class, he couldn't challenge them. But after class, he sometimes came up to me in the hallway and started bad-mouthing those students who had challenged him. He would complain that someone was drinking too much. It was innuendo and lies. So that's how I knew, behind his smile and his smirk, that he was a very insecure, cunning and vengeful guy.
This past week when George W. Bush stood on the lawn of his ranch in Crawford, he declared that he supported Cindy Sheehan's constitutional right to her strong opinion against the war in Iraq. This...

Quote has been trimmed

He showed pathological lying habits and was in denial when challenged on his prejudices and biases. He would even deny saying something he just said 30 seconds ago. He was famous for that. . . .

Students who challenged and embarrassed Bush in class would then become the subject of a whispering campaign by him, Tsurumi said. "In class, he couldn't challenge them. But after class, he sometimes came up to me in the hallway and started bad-mouthing those students who had challenged him. He would complain that someone was drinking too much. It was innuendo and lies. So that's how I knew, behind his smile and his smirk, that he was a very insecure, cunning and vengeful guy.

Love Your Country? Demand Impeachment
Ken Sanders, --



August 24, 2005

It was Theodore Roosevelt, twenty-sixth President of the United States and a Republican, who famously said in 1918, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Put differently, and in modern context, blind, unquestioning faith in President Bush is not only foolish and obsequious, but it is also contrary to the fundamental principles of this country, as set forth in the Constitution. Indeed, those who would merely sit by, without protest or question, while our President sends our armed forces off to kill and die in a nation which did not and could not do us any harm, are more than simply slavish sycophants. Those who refuse to acknowledge, much less criticize, the wrongs committed by this President in the name of the United States, while simultaneously denigrating those who do dare protest, betray this country and the promise it stands for.

In short, they are positively un-American. They are traitors.

Those who, in the name of nationalism disguised as patriotism, would remain silent when faced with the Bush administration's common plan to wage war and torture captives in violation of customary and treaty-based international law; those who would waive their rights while they wave their flags; those who would turn a blind eye to evidence that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify its preconceived war; they would do well to consider the oath of office taken by all members of the civil service or uniformed services. The oath is not to the President or any other person. Rather, those who take the oath swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

I have taken this oath. All members of Congress have taken the same oath, as has every member of the armed services. Every naturalized citizen is likewise sworn to support and defend the Constitution. All of us, regardless of any particular political affiliation, are sworn to support and defend the Constitution. None are sworn to support and defend this or any other President. While the military concerns itself with challenging foreign enemies of the Constitution, it is up to the rest of us to defend the Constitution and the principles it embodies against its domestic enemies. Right now, there is no greater domestic enemy of the Constitution than President George W. Bush.

This is not a charge idly made. It is not a charge rooted in political ideology or partisanship. This charge is not made because I am a liberal (which I suppose I am) and President Bush is a conservative (of which I have some doubt). I make this charge, a charge supported by evidence which continues to mount, because of one very simple reason: I love this country. I love the Constitution on which this country is founded. I love the principles and the promise embodied in the Constitution. And I have sworn to protect the Constitution against all enemies, regardless of office or title, including the President of the United States.

It is an oath I do not take lightly.

Sadly, Congress, the only body with the legal authority to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies in President's clothing, has abdicated its sworn duties and responsibilities in the name of party loyalty. It is all too clear that members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, must be reminded that their loyalty is not to their respective parties. They must be reminded that party affiliation should come in no better than second place. It is up to those of us who truly care about this country, who are pained by those who would corrupt its Constitutional values for personal or pecuniary gain, to remind the members of Congress of their oath and to what, not to whom, their sworn loyalties lie.

Members of Congress (Republicans particularly, since they currently control both houses) need to be reminded of their predecessors, such as Robert McClory, Tom Railsback, Hamilton Fish, Lawrence Hogan, M. Caldwell Butler, William Cohen, and Harold Froehlich. All were Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee who approved articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon on July 27, 1974. All put their loyalty to the Constitution above their loyalty to their party. Members of Congress must be reminded of their predecessors' courage and they must be called upon to bring articles of impeachment against President Bush, a dire domestic enemy of the Constitution.

Nationalism is not synonymous with patriotism. Nationalism demands obsequious obedience. Patriotism demands truth and honesty. A patriot places the country, as embodied by the Constitution, above any individual, the President included. Thus, a patriot is willing to make the hard decision to demand the President's impeachment for the sake of the country and in defense of the Constitution.

Are you willing to make that demand? Are you willing to demand that Congress honor its oath and defend the Constitution against its domestic enemies? Are you willing to be a patriot?

The Longer Bush Stays in the White House,
The More That the National Security of the United States is Endangered


September 5, 2005

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

The irony of the 2004 election is that it was the last-minute release of an alleged Osama bin Laden tape that John Kerry believes lost him the election. Whatever the merits of Kerry's judgment, the irony is that bin Laden ended up with the candidate he undoubtedly preferred: George W. Bush.

Beginning with 9/11 -- and Bush's failure to protect America against hijackings that he and Condoleezza were warned about in advance, but took no security actions to stop, resulting in the September 11th hijackings -- George W. Bush has weakened national security and the U.S. government's ability to protect its citizens at almost every level. This is just a fact.

Bush, under the tutelage of Rove, gets high ratings for PR stunts, intimidation of the media, and the appearance of being the "paternal protector." But the reality is just the opposite.

In fact if Osama bin Laden wanted to invent a leader to bring America to its knees, it would be hard to imagine a more effective role model than George W. Bush.

There are many ways to wreak havoc on a nation, and we'll start with one of the less discussed destructive deeds of Bush: nearly bankrupting America.

Even the most brain-hardened GOP supporters will take little comfort in Bush's futile pursuit of Osama and tragically wasteful war in Iraq if America reaches the precipice of an economic collapse. And yet, we are not that far away from such a horrendous moment due to Bush's unrestrained spending spree on war (profiteering) and tax cuts for the wealthy. Bush will accomplish with a reckless fiscal policy what Osama or other terrorists won't need to accomplish with actual attacks: America can now be brought down at any time if foreign creditors call in their loans and withdraw their investments.

Furthermore, we are indebted to such a degree that the children of the middle class and poor will be burdened with a record-breaking -- and burgeoning -- national debt for decades to come. This, in some ways, is a form of financial terrorism inflicted on us not by Osama bin Laden, but by George W. Bush.

On the terrorism front itself, Bush has been a disaster. His ill-fated war in Iraq has profited Halliburton and other Republican crony capitalist campaign contributors, but, in the process, killed thousands upon thousands of people. More significantly, it daily creates a new generation of terrorists to threaten the security of every American. Bush is a "net-gain" terrorist generator. The simplistic idea that there are a finite number of terrorists in the world, who, once killed off, will no longer threaten us is the stuff that four-year-olds come up with.

Terrorists are not born; they are molded into action by a variety of circumstances -- and Bush is creating more of them, in his boneheaded ignorance, arrogance and avarice with every passing day. Fighting terrorism requires a multi-faceted, intelligent strategy, not just an iron fist and a lot of warmed-over cliched rhetoric such as "bring 'em on," because that's exactly what Bush has done, much to the detriment of the safety of every American.

And now in the wake of the horrendous White House malfeasance in not immediately rescuing its citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we see another example of Bush's utter incompetence in protecting us from terrorism or rescuing us once it occurs. True, Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster, but it could have been a terrorist attack. And Bush's ineffective, loyalist lackeys would have done no better if it were a terrorist attack. The administration's performance is worthy of imprisonment, but all we will get is the perennial Bush use of Rove to blame and smear someone else, in this case local Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama officials.

Bold lies, limitless slander, the corrupt one-party control of government, and carefully choreographed PR events are the sole reasons the Bush presidency has not yet crashed into a wall of impeachment.

Bush claimed in 2000, he was going to usher in an era of responsibility. The tragic irony for the national security of America is that he immediately inaugurated a regime that never accepts responsibility, despite failures that pile up like an interstate collision on a California Freeway in the fog.

The man in the White House is a combination pathological liar, narcissist, spiteful person and ignoramus. He could have made a living charming old ladies out of their fortunes by riding the circuit on cruise ships. But that would have been the only success in business that he ever achieved on his own.

The appearance of being strong on national security is belied by how much more vulnerable America has become over the five years of Bushevik rule. We have deteriorated to the point that we couldn't even get food and water to people in a major American city for five days, even though journalists and others found the resources to visit with and document the citizens condemned to misery by a man who likes to play the guitar and golf while others suffer unspeakable fates.

With failing to put into effect measures to prevent hijacking prior to 9/11 (even though he was warned in August of 2001 about imminent Al Qaeda hijackings in the U.S.); with a disastrous and unnecessary war in Iraq that has exhausted the U.S. Treasury, killed and maimed thousands upon thousands, and created a new generation of terrorists; and with an unfathomable slow response to a national tragedy that third-world countries could have accomplished on a more timely basis -- with these and more dire betrayals of our national security, Bush is at least 0 for 3.

In the major leagues that would have been a strike out. But in America, we must still endure the deterioration of our national security infrastructure, watch more Americans die, and see our nation continue to hurdle itself toward bankruptcy.

As we said, Osama knew what he was doing when he released that tape just before the 2004 election. He wanted a man elected -- and he got his goal accomplished. Osama couldn't have a president who would more effectively achieve bin Laden's terrorist goals than to have Bush in the White House.

America is being undermined at every turn, from within.

Those who continue to support Bush for reasons of phantom religious "values," selfishness, greed, racism, and misled notions that the Master of Disaster is some sore of strong religious "leader" may find, like the citizens of New Orleans, their lives in peril the next time Bush has a chance to fail so completely -- and send Rove out to blame and slander everybody else.

This is a man who has a staff who can create a great banner for television that says "mission accomplished"; but, in reality, never accomplishes the mission of protecting Americans.

As long as Bush is in office, he is a threat to the national security of the United States and a personal threat to the individual security of every American.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

America’s Nero
Bush’s impeachable failure
BY STEPHEN MINDICH AND PETER KADZIS



Sunday, September 4, 2005

Disbelief. Horror. Outrage. Shame. Those are words, marks on paper. They are insufficient to capture the emotion and intellectual revulsion that arise from the national government’s incompetence and President Bush’s utter failure to take charge and lead in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, the worst national disaster to savage the nation, devastating the Gulf coast and threatening to turn New Orleans, a historic and soulful city, into a 21st century Pompeii. Nero at least fiddled while Rome burned. As Katrina roared, Bush vacationed.

Few Presidents are tested once as sorely as Bush, let alone twice. When terrorists simultaneously attacked the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, Bush went into hiding. When the news first reached him of the New York attacks, he froze like a deer in on-coming headlights and continued reading to children in a Florida classroom. Commentators may praise his bravado days later when he appeared at Ground Zero and, bullhorn in hand, successfully rescued his compromised reputation. A nation in need of leadership and reassurance was forgiving and, in Hollywood fashion, rallied round. Today, the situation is different. No longer believing the lies and subsequent miscalculations that have mired us in the mind-numbing desolation called Iraq, Bush has no political capital with which to trade. Bush’s failure is America’s failure. We stand humbled before world opinion.

In the days after Katrina wore herself out, while television broadcast continual scenes of death, devastation, and third-world deprivation, Bush’s smug and clueless disaster lieutenants, Homeland Insecurity czar Michael Chertoff and Emergency Mismanagement chief Michael Brown, denied there were problems -- let alone a crisis of unimaginable and frightening proportions. The Republicans are fond of railing against Washington’s pointy-headed bureaucrats, but this time the offenders were Bush men. And like their President, they proved to be cold, callous, and out of touch. A leader would have fired them. But Bush, who has no capacity for reappraising his own failures, let them stand. As long as they hold public positions, Chertoff and Brown will be the twin embodiments of a failure that can only be called inhumane.

In a bid for national unity, Bush spoke from the White House flanked by former Presidents Clinton and Bush, hoping that a one-time enemy and his somber dad would give his bankrupt régime a patina of legitimacy. His advice to a nation worried about a new energy crisis triggered by the destruction of oil refineries and drills: Drive less. The traditional Republican paean to self-reliance never sounded so hollow, so stupid. His promise that gritty, culturally rich New Orleans would be rebuilt made an insipid sop seem positively surreal.

This is politics as usual recast as criminal contempt. Contempt for the intelligence of a nation that has finally recognized that Bush lied to get us embroiled in Iraq; contempt for the lives of those killed, displaced, stranded and suffering as a result of Katrina. If this doesn’t meet the Constitutional standard for high crimes and misdemeanors needed to impeach a President, what does? The only thought that is more repugnant than Bush continuing in office is the prospect that his even more loathsome Vice President, the aptly named Dick Cheney, would succeed him. So those of us who dream of a Bush-free America have nothing more with which to console ourselves than two more years of continuing disgrace.

Even conservatives can’t stomach the spectacle. The Manchester Union Leader, the Washington Times, Public Television’s John McLaughlin, the paleo-conservative Pat Buchanan, and Louisiana’s own Republican Senator have been critical in terms that range from disappointing to scathing.

Time will undoubtedly demonstrate that the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana have a lot for which to answer. Precautions and preparation were clearly inadequate. Mexico, for example, keeps ten days of food, water, and coffee available at its convention centers and sports stadiums in the event that those public facilities have to be turned into safe havens in the event of earthquakes or hurricanes.

Only the national government has the resources and muscle to respond to disaster - natural or terrorist induced. As many of the military experts employed by various networks have explained repeatedly, the failure to engage federal troops immediately is inexplicable. America has the means; Bush lacks the imagination and leadership.

By all accounts, the devastation inland is equally appalling as that in New Orleans. And Bush’s failure there is just as painful and shameful. But New Orleans is a special case, not only because of its concentrated population or its cultural and economic significance. It has been rated as the third most likely object of a terrorist attack. If what we’ve seen - or failed to see - happen there is any indication, than the entire nation is woefully unprepared for an ambitious terrorist assault. When the Director of the Army Corps of Engineers three years ago testified on Capital Hill that Bush mandated budget cuts would hamper the corps’s ability to maintain that portion of the nation's infrastructure in its charge, he was given 30 minutes to resign or be fired.

But Bush’s failure is far graver than this example historic ineptitude. His feel-good vision of America - which at least half the voters have more or less accepted if you abide by questionable legitimacy of both elections - is a fraud. It’s no mistake that those most seriously affected were poor, working-class, minority, or old. The Republican Party has abandoned those in the nation who aren’t affluent. Its policies have long done so in spirit, and the gap between the have's and the have not's has grown accordingly. Now Bush has hammered the reality home in fact. Although race, per se, played no role in the Bushies decision making process, it's clear that the only thing worse than being poor is to be poor and Black.

The bill of indictments against Bush is exhaustive. But it is worth noting that at a time when we sorely need, help the Bush administration has done nothing to accept the offers of foreign help that have resulted - even from such unlikely places as France, Russia, China, and Cuba. Rather than demonstrate America’s self-confidence by accepting help from those who oppose our misguided Iraq adventure or even from Cuba, a poverty stricken nation we still inexplicably consider a threat, Bush demonstrates his narrow and ignorant vision by doing nothing.

Bush has, in effect, impeached his own credibility and legitimacy. His legacy is a dismal one. We can only hope that his opponents in Washington will capitalize on his now naked position by stopping him from doing any more damage.

The stunning human tragedy of Katrina makes the impeachment of President Bush more urgent. His priority is not poor people, but militarism to exploit the poor at home and abroad.
President Bush sent National Guard units to Iraq from Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi in a criminal war of aggression and military occupation. They were thus unavailable to provide emergency services in their own states, or protect their own families. He refused to return them from Iraq to save and serve their own people, instead only authorizing the return of some Air National Guard personnel to protect and repair equipment at an Air Force Base. These forces and the resources that they command should be used to meet people's needs, not for violence.
His tax cuts for the rich, huge increases in military spending and deliberate slashes in social programs, including those funds specifically requested for flood control and to strengthen dikes in New Orleans and the surrounding areas, and his complete failure to even consider emergency transportation for the known poor in the path of a level-5 hurricane, followed by days of failure to send federal emergency relief personnel to seek and save the many thousands whose lives were known to be threatened, who were pleading for help on television and who faced death, was criminal negligence at best, and a failure to faithfully perform his duties as President.
George W. Bush will never recognize the rights or...

Quote has been trimmed