Impeach Bush and Cheney: THE IMPEACHMENT PRESS: SHEEHAN TO OPPOSE PELOSI REELECTION IN CALIFORNIA; OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ISSUE RESONATES!

THE IMPEACHMENT PRESS: SHEEHAN TO OPPOSE PELOSI REELECTION IN CALIFORNIA; OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ISSUE RESONATES; AND OTHER NEWS OF THE MORNING

It is a fact that while we Impeachment Advocates are vocal and motivated, we are not a large army in terms of size, but we can use this forum and motivation to a great benefit at times.

What is imperative at this moment, where the momentum is shifting, is that there must be more than just us (and I mean "us" in a broad manner), drumming out the message across the political jungle, and talking about impeachment.

We need this to be out in the public discourse - to have people that already want Bush, Cheney, Gonzales or whomever else out of office to talk openly about the need for impeachment.

We need to frame the national discourse; we need in some instances to be the subject of that discourse. We need to move the system pundits and mush mouth members of Congress to the sidelines. We need to establish ourselves as dangerous as a heart attack.

We don’t have to be disloyal to party of our preferred candidate in 2008, but we do need to withdraw from the process, in terms of time, money and everyday involvement and let it be known that will return but only after the Iraq Peace Issue and Impeachment are realized, and that when we return to mainstream of Presidential and Congressional politics; we will return in support of only those who have supported us: “We The People”.

How do I suggest we do this? It is simple. The republicans are very good at one thing (and I don't mean crime or corruption) - a clear and concise message.

For us to move "impeachment" into the public discourse (more than just freeway blogging and "the angry left"), we need a clear and concise reason that the public can understand. This whole matter is complex.

All one has to do is to read through a few proposed “Resolutions or Proposed Articles of Impeachment” and one will quickly come to the realization that there is much in the legal base upon which to base the indictment, impeachment and/or the imprisonment of Bush and Cheney as well as several other past and present administration figures.

The problem, however, is, (and this is no insult), that the average Joe and Jane can’t get a handle on all that detail and legal crap, as they see it, in the political tar pit. That’s the stuff for attorney’s legal scholars and advocates.

Joe and Jane have to go to work, tend to the kids, pay the bills and hope that somehow the uneasy feeling about events of this world and in this country will somehow not impact them personally.

They are sufficiently insecure and fearful, thanks to this administration, that they just want the Bush years over, and harbor the belief that a cold, once he/they are gone; we will all recover. Well, like an undetected Cancer the problem is more serious.

And like that condition we need to provide the public with one easily recognized symptom so that they are aware enough to realize something must be done. Let me suggest that there is one symptom, one issue that the general public can indeed wrap itself around: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, (Bless TV for this one).

Sure everyone knows they lied us into the war in Iraq, but they are acclimated to the administration and governments in general, lying.

We go ballistic over Habeas Corpus, but the general populous goes “Habeas…who, what?)

We know the administration has been guilty of every manner of spying, but to most people; governments spy, and for good or ill we’re at war, and “maybe” “a little spying” is OK. You can talk until you are blue in the face, simply this issue down to the “little bit pregnant” analogy and it doesn’t matter so long as this war thing is scratching at the back of their minds.

And cyber spying, Oh God, most folks don’t know how bug infested their own computers are and who or what is data harvesting their machines everyday; forget that one.

But the Libby Commutation was so simple for the average American to understand. They didn’t have to be coaxed, coerced, pushed, shoved, manipulated, maneuvered or spun into the conclusion that this was an OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

We aren’t so dumb and ignorant that we as a nation could not grasp the fact that Libby was a fall guy for the administration who had in dutiful silence fallen on his sword with knowledge of reward, for protecting the asses of several members of the administration.

By-in-large most people didn’t give a damn that Libby wasn’t the culprit in “The Plame Gate Affair”, (that’s another complicated matter that doesn’t resonate with most folks); Libby lied and OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE and the President got him off the hook and poor drunken Paris Hilton had to go to jail.

Well, Holy Shit; something is wrong with this picture! Yep, the issue has developed this simple framing. Everybody knows OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE is wrong, after all they have seen their TV heroes fight it or agonize over committing the crime to get some really deserving evil doer.

OK, the public understands that OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE is bad and illegal; now we have to help them understand it is IMPEACHABLE. You need only to impeach and convict successfully on one count, not the entire laundry list, and the public need only to be aroused and focus on one that they understand intuitively…so let’s do it!

With approval ratings hovering around 26%, Bush "leads the pack" (over Cheney and Gonzales, of course). People are talking about Impeachment, people who only somewhat follow what is going on. It is clear that people understand the Bush commutation of Libby's sentence amounted to obstruction of justice on Bush's part.

This is the issue to focus on currently. It is fresh; it is not confused.

Whenever referring to this "phase" of the Libby/Plame matter, or just “LIBBY”, it should be referred to as an act that was done in order TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE. LIBBY OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.

Bush Rendered His Punishment Moot In Order To Continue That OBSTRUCTION.

CHENEY OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE throughout the entire Plame outing process.

GONZALES OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE with respect to his lies under oath before Congress.

Carol Lam was fired so that the Bush administration could OBSTRUCT JUSTICE with respect to her prosecutions of other republican Congressmen.

It is easy; it is the truth and it all boils down to three simple words. If the republicans or those who would argue against impeachment want to defend the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, let them.

The failure to respond to Congressional subpoenas is OBSTRUCTING an investigation and therefore is OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

If Congress, as Senator Leahy indicates, will pursue Contempt of Congress charges, and if Gonzales (in his capacity as Attorney General) won't cooperate with the prosecution of these charges, then he is OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

Bush already admitted that parts of the NSA spying program were illegal. Or, at least he admitted to doing something that was illegal but he had the right to do so. Congress wants information on this - if he won't provide information into a potentially criminal investigation, then he is OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

There are so many other examples of this - even since January. Even if the prior acts won't result in impeachment charges, covering up the prior acts will amount to OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

Let the "law and order party" defend OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. After all, when they talked about the illegal spying by saying "if you don't have anything to hide, then who cares" - this should apply now as well. "Missing" emails? "Lost" documents? All the same: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!

It is clear that the administration's tactic is to drag things out in the hopes that either the public will forget it or that they can run out the clock.

Current acts warrant impeachment. Past acts warrant impeachment.

The public needs to get behind us. They also write LTEs, OpEds in local papers, call into radio and TV shows.

WE ARE HERE TO LET THE PUBLIC KNOW WHY IMPEACHMENT RIGHT NOW IS WARRANTED.

The public understood OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE with Nixon. And here is an excellent tie in (as a special bonus) to Fred Thompson - as pointed out by several lately was a mole for the Nixon White House with respect to the Watergate investigation. Does this country want a President who helped to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE?

This is what the Bush administration does; they lie, they steal, they do whatever they want to. And then whenever it comes time for accountability, they OBSTRUCT JUSTICE.

We know this. We don't need the public to be confused with the ins and outs of why unless someone is interested in learning more.

But for purposes of convincing the public why we need to impeach now and just as importantly, that Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and other members of the administration are STILL committing impeachable acts now (as opposed to just what was done in the past) - it needs to come in a simple but powerful message.

THEY'RE OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

Those words should be a substantial part of our everyday vocabulary from here on out. The public can understand this. The public can get behind this.

The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/08/AR2007070800657.html

Sheehan Considers Challenge to Pelosi
By ANGELA K. BROWN
The Associated PressSunday, July 8, 2007; 8:57 PM

CRAWFORD, Texas -- Cindy Sheehan, the soldier's mother who galvanized the anti-war movement, said Sunday that she plans to seek House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.

Sheehan said she will run against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 as an independent if Pelosi does not seek by July 23 to impeach Bush. That's when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting next week from the group's war protest site near Bush's Crawford ranch.

"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "We hired them to bring an end to the war. I'm not too far from San Francisco, so it wouldn't be too big of a move for me. I would give her a run for her money."

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the congresswoman has said repeatedly that her focus is on ending the war in Iraq.

"She believes that the best way to support our troops in Iraq is to bring them home safely and soon," Daly said in an e-mail to the AP. "July will be a month of action in Congress to end the war, including a vote to redeploy our troops by next spring."

The White House declined to comment on Sheehan's plans.

She plans her official candidacy announcement Tuesday. Sunday wrapped up what is expected to be her final weekend at the 5-acre Crawford lot that she sold to California radio talk show host Bree Walker, who plans to keep it open to protesters.

"The land itself has historical value," Walker said. "It is the first people's movement of the 21st century, and it needs to be kept as the hallowed ground that it is."

Sheehan announced in late May that she was leaving the anti-war movement. She said that she felt her efforts had been in vain and that she had endured smear tactics and hatred from the left, as well as the right. She said she wanted to change course.

She first came to Crawford in August 2005 during a Bush vacation, demanding to talk to him about the war that killed her son Casey in 2004. She became the face of the anti-war movement during her 26-day roadside vigil, which was joined by thousands. But it also drew counter-protests by Bush supporters; many who said she was hurting troop morale.

Sheehan, who has never held political office, recently said that she was leaving the Democratic Party because it "caved" in to the president. Last week, she announced her caravan to Washington, an undertaking she calls the "people's accountability movement."

"I didn't expect to be back so soon, but the focus is different than it was before," Sheehan said Sunday. "Instead of talking and making accusations, we're going into communities and talking to the people who've been hurt by the Bush regime. We're finding out how we can help people."

Sheehan, who will turn 50 on Tuesday, said Bush should be impeached because she believes he misled the public about the reasons for going to war, violated the Geneva Convention by torturing detainees, and crossed the line by commuting the prison sentence of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. She said other grounds for impeachment are the domestic spying program and the "inadequate and tragic" response to Hurricane Katrina.

Libby was convicted of lying and obstructing justice in an investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's identity.

Sheehan said she hopes Pelosi files the articles of impeachment so Sheehan can move onto her next projects, including overseas trips for humanitarian work. But if not, Sheehan said she is ready to run for office.

"I'm doing it to encourage other people to run against Congress members who aren't doing their jobs, who are beholden to special interests," Sheehan said. "She (Pelosi) let the people down who worked hard to put Democrats back in power, who we thought were our hope for change."

Pelosi was elected to the House in 1987 and became the first female speaker in January.

Sheehan said she lives in a Sacramento suburb but declined to disclose which city, citing safety reasons. The area is outside Pelosi's district, but there are no residency requirements for congressional members, according to the California secretary of state's office.

Should We Thank Paris Hilton for Energizing the Impeachment Movement?

American Chronicle http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=31618
June Caldwell
July 8, 2007

Impeachment Center Opens in LA on Independence Day to a Flurry of Press. Story and Picture by Rodger and June Caldwell.

The goal of the brand spanking new Los Angeles Impeachment Center is to support the movement to Impeach Bush and Cheney. Can we thank Paris Hilton for the enhanced media attention it is getting?

We call out now to Paris to join the movement as the official Impeachment spokesperson!

At what we expected to be a quiet Los Angeles groundbreaking of the country’s first new official Impeachment office, we anticipated seeing the usual Impeachment crowd that has been working together since the 2000 Kucinich campaign.

Yes they were there, but joined by hundreds at the picnic. And imagine our surprise at seeing NBC, KNX radio, Fox, KTLA news and the now predominantly right-wing slanted LA Times covering every word of Congresswoman Maxine Waters' speech at the event.

The Impeachment office is the first of its kind in the country. Typically Impeachment related events, marches; speeches, etc are marginalized and all but ignored by mainstream media. What was different this time? We kept hearing the catch-phrase “Scooter Libby spent more time in jail than Paris Hilton!"

Of all the offenses this administration has committed, is it the fact that Scooter Libby spent more time in jail than Paris Hilton that finally lit the fire of the country's indignation?

As if pulverizing the Constitution, misleading a whole country into an endless genocide that benefit only oil corporations, legalizing torture, and murdering hordes of our own US citizens with lack of the responsiveness that any human decency would dictate in Katrina isn’t bad enough.

If blatantly undermining our intelligence system in a time of war by outing an agent isn’t, then what is enough to get these guys impeached? If letting Paris Hilton’s disproportionate time spent in an unflattering orange incarceration jumpsuit is that last straw, then so be it.

Bush’s rationale for commuting Scooter the Shooter’s prison time was laughable. A man who as governor sent more prisoners to their death than any other governor in the country at that time expects the common voter to believe he has compassion for Scooter & his family because “they have suffered so much”? Because 20 months in some white collar, low security, all-inclusive Club Fed with catered meals, tennis courts and free yoga classes “prison” was too excessive?

Paris, will this injustice get you on the bandwagon? Bring all your friends and neighbors. Join the Simple Life of the common voter who has chosen to stand up for Impeachment.

For more on the Impeachment Center, see: http://www.bcimpeach.com/

THE BOSTON HERALD (MAINSTREAM PRESS..OH, WOW!)
http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=1010134

Poll: Impeachment talk gains steam after Libby moveBy Herald wire servicesSunday, July 8, 2007 - Updated: 07:44 AM ESTA bad week for President Bush may foreshadow a dismal political season, as the president’s poll numbers plummet, Republicans abandon his Iraq policy and he faces a nascent censure and impeachment movement.

A new survey by the American Research Group found that only 31 percent of respondents approve of the president’s commutation of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence. The study by the private New Hampshire-based polling company canvassed 1,100 Republicans, Democrats and Independents from July 3-5, finding 64 percent disapproved of the commutation and 5 percent were undecided.

The president commuted the sentence Monday, saying the 2 years imposed last month on Libby, who was found guilty of perjury and obstructing justice in a case linked to the Iraq war, was “excessive.”

The commutation has sparked a firestorm on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), who has drafted a resolution to censure Bush, said the president’s “intervention is an unconscionable abuse of authority by George W. Bush, and Congress must step forward and express the disgust that Americans rightfully feel toward this contemptible decision.”

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has scheduled hearings Wednesday on the commutation. The hearings will include pardons made by Clinton, former President Bush and possibly other past presidents.

Those hearings may be the least of the White House’s problems.

The ARG poll found a remarkable 45 percent in favor of the U.S. House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush.

In Los Angeles, a storefront “impeachment headquarters” emblazoned with American flags opened July 4. Activists who gathered to open the center accuse the Bush administration of condoning torture, spying on Americans and misleading citizens about the war in Iraq. They also were angry at the president’s decision to commute Libby’s sentence.

“Isn’t it ironic that Paris Hilton will spend more days in jail than Libby?” said Byron De Lear, a Green Party activist.

The White House declined to comment on the impeachment poll, the latest bad news for a president who has seen his public opinion standings dragged to record lows by the unpopular war in Iraq. A Newsweek poll puts Bush’s approval rating at 26 percent.

In the past two weeks, three Republicans - Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana, George Voinovich of Ohio and Pete Domenici of New Mexico - have announced they can no longer support Bush’s Iraq war strategy and have called on the president to start reducing the military’s role there.

“I have carefully studied the Iraq situation and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward,” Domenici told reporters. Domenici has embraced a bill that would put U.S. troops on track to leave by the end of March 2008. [continue]

1 2 Next »

THE STUMP
http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/07/08/beating-the-impeachment-drum

THIS IS OUR OPPOSITION STILL PEDDELING FEAR!

Beating the Impeachment Drum
Posted Jul 8th 2007 1:45PM by ScottFiled under: President Bush, Dem Agenda

Since the beginning of President Bush's first term, the liberal left has been itching for impeachment. They still are smarting from the Starr investigation that resulted in the impeachment of their hero, Bill Clinton, and were looking for revenge in the most extreme way. Sadly for the libs, they had nothing to charge President Bush with and a GOP Congress would have stopped any attempt before it started.

Seven years later, the Congress and Senate are now in Democratic hands and they still have nothing to charge the president with. The old "lying us into war" canard should be rejected out of hand as Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and every other major Democrat used the exact same argument.

In fact, Bill Clinton should have been impeached for his Wag the Dog-type action of bombing the Afghan's and Sudanese to get the spotlight off his admitted infidelities with Monica Lewinsky. There are no other charges that would rise to the level of impeachment regardless of how much the left hopes and wishes. The U.S. attorneys' firing issue is one they will push, but the precedent is clear, those attorneys work at the pleasure of the president. He hires and fires at his whim.

The real issue with this however, is that if impeachment is brought and succeeds, the repercussions would be felt for decades. The U.S. was attacked on 9/11 by Islamic terrorists bent on the destruction of America. The president responded to that attack by doing what he believed was in the best interest of the nation, namely removing the leaders of the nation that harbored the terror planners and invading a nation that everyone believed had weapons of mass destruction and in fact had used them against their enemies at home and over their borders.

If the president were impeached for his actions, the next attack that requires a response will not be undertaken because the president at that time will fear impeachment. Put simply, an impeachment on grounds of going to war would make any future action unthinkable by the sitting commander-in-chief. Perhaps that is the entire point of the liberal drive to impeach.

What those who lust for impeachment fail to realize is that should they be successful, the world will be a much more dangerous place. Terror elements will know they can act without any threat of attack. The jihadi network will expand so fast as to be unstoppable within a decade. All things liberals hold dear: abortion rights, homosexual rights, women's rights and the right to free speech would be history under such a scenario.

To those who want impeachment at any cost, I would say to you, beware of the unintended consequences of your actions. The idea of drastically changing the way America projects our power simply to remove a president you abhor is an idea that requires careful consideration.

2008 Contenders: A RIGHT WING VIEW

· Joe Biden
· Sam Brownback
· Hillary Clinton
· Chris Dodd
· John Edwards
· Jim Gilmore
· Rudy Giuliani
· Al Gore
· Mike Huckabee
· Duncan Hunter
· Dennis Kucinich
· John McCain
· Barack Obama
· Ron Paul
· Bill Richardson
· Mitt Romney
· Fred Thompson
· Tom Tancredo
· Tommy Thompson


THINK PROGRESS
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/08/conyers-impeachment

Conyers Raises Specter Of Impeachment, Highlights Support For Removing Bush And Cheney

This morning on ABC’s This Week, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) highlighted the new American Research Group poll showing that nearly half of Americans want the House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush, and 54 percent favor impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney.

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Conyers today about new reports that the White House will refuse new congressional requests for documents about the U.S. Attorney firings.

Conyers decried the administration’s stonewalling, adding, “We’re hoping that as the cries for the removal of both Cheney and Bush now reach 46 percent and 58 percent [sic - 54 percent], respectively, for impeachment that we could begin to become a little bit more cooperative, if not amicable, in trying to get to the truth of these matters.” Watch it:

Transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: One of those individuals is the former White House deputy political director, Sara Taylor. Her lawyer wrote a letter yesterday saying that she wants to testify, but the White House won’t let her.

In that case, who would you hold in contempt, the individual or the White House? Her lawyers think she wants to testify.

CONYERS: Well, I certainly wouldn’t hold her in contempt. And we’re in negotiations with Mr. Fielding in the White House. We’re hoping that as the cries for the removal of both Cheney and Bush now reach 46 percent and 58 percent, respectively, for impeachment that we could begin to become a little bit more cooperative, if not amicable, in trying to get to the truth of these matters.

We have so much more work to do, George, as you know. And we keep getting stalled. They keep pressing us. We’re seeking cooperation. This is not partisan in any way whatsoever. I would have the same attitude if it were a Democratic president.


Peter Thottam 9/11 Truth & Impeachment Activist on Questioning War- Organizing Resistance
by Carol Brouillet Saturday Jul 7th, 2007 9:50 PM

Peter Thottam will be a guest on the weekly radio show- Questioning War- Organizing Resistance, Monday, July 9, 2007, 7-9 pm (PST). He recently organized the launch of the National impeachment Center in Los Angeles and helped pass resolutions for Impeachment and a new investigation of 9/11 at the US Social Forum.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/07/07/18433897.php

Listen 7:00- 9:00 pm (PST) to the WeThePeopleRadioNetwork.com and to our guest Peter Thottam

Peter Thottam is a 9/11 Truth activist in Los Angeles, a former US State Assembly Candidate for the 53rd District, Green Party member and Attorney residing in Venice, California. He is the moving force behind the new Los Angeles Impeachment Center which opened July 4th 2007, and drew much media coverage, including a lead article on impeachment in the Los Angeles Times.

Peter received his undergraduate degree with honors from Yale University where he majored in both (1) Economics and (2) Ethics, Government & Philosophy. He has a law degree from UC Berkeley's Boalt School of Law and an MBA from the UCLA Anderson School of Business.

A longtime activist, a former Democrat and an active member of the Green Party since 1998, Peter was so appalled at the deteriorating media coverage in the USA and so convinced that a tragic and mistaken war with Iraq was pending that he actually resigned from his job as a West LA Corporate Attorney in 2002 in order to focus exclusively on his antiwar work with various antiwar and progressive groups.

Peter spent a full year completely dedicated to organizing marches, teach-ins and political lobbying efforts in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York and working actively with ANSWERLA, 9/11TruthLA with the Green Party, Progressive Democrats and with Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace.

Born in Africa and coming from an Indian background, Mr. Thottam is also fluent in Spanish. He believes it is critical to internationalize his district's local economy and global sister city outreach efforts as well to encourage cultural cross-communications and understanding for existing residents. He has traveled extensively in Mexico and throughout Africa, South Asia and East Asia.

Peter and other activists were successful in passing two important resolutions at the recent U.S. Social Forum in Atlanta, one on impeachment, the other on demanding a real investigation of 9/11.

Here are the texts of the resolutions:

US Social Forum Resolution calling for the impeachment, conviction and removal from office of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney.

WHEREAS, in accordance with the 2007 U.S. Social Forum's Charter of Principles we are united in our opposition to "...any form of imperialism, and are committed to building a planetary society..." and are united in the common purpose of social, economic and political justice; and

WHEREAS, President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney have repeatedly and intentionally violated the Constitution of the United States causing the People to question the integrity of both the President and Vice President and to suspect that high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed. These violations include but are not limited to:

* Violating the People's Constitutional right to privacy in their persons and papers by engaging in a persistent, secret and unregulated pattern of domestic surveillance that bypasses the institution (FISA) established for that purpose.

* Conspiring to deprive United States citizens of Constitutional legal protections and access to Justice when charged with or suspected of crimes.

* Exceeding Constitutional Authority to wage war by invading a sovereign nation in direct defiance of the United Nations Security Council.

* Acting upon an interpretation of the Constitution (the "unitary executive") that ignores standard Separation of Powers and regards the Presidency as unlimited in ability to wage war, bypass civil liberties and remain above the law.

WHEREAS, President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney repeatedly and intentionally misled the Congress, the International Community and the American People as to the risks posed by Iraq, as well as other groups or nations.

These misrepresentations, and the actions they triggered, resulted in substantial loss of life to the People of the United States, loss of national treasure and the diminution of our nation's standing in the world. Such misrepresentations include:

* Influencing, manipulating and distorting intelligence prepared by national agencies such as the CIA, NSA and FBI, so as to present a biased view of events that would support specific strategies favored by the Administration.

* Knowingly and publicly presenting untrue statements regarding Saddam Hussein's acquiring uranium resources from Africa as part of a reconstituted Nuclear Program, as well as additional untrue statements that Iraq had fully active Chemical and Biological Programs as well.

* Presenting doctored photographs and satellite images to the domestic and international community to support such lies and manipulations.

WHEREAS, President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney have engaged in a pattern of behavior considered to be War Crimes per the Geneva Accords, United Nations Charter and other international treaties to which the United States is a signatory.

This behavior includes use of torture, rendering persons to a third party where they will undergo torture and confinement without access to courts of law.

WHEREAS, President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney have abused their powers under the Constitution plus engaged in a pattern of lying and deceit to cover up such abuses. These abuses include:

* Excessive and obstructive use of Presidential Signing Statements as a strategy to bypass the execution of duly passed legislation as required under the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine.

* Prohibiting, delaying and limiting cabinet members and staff members of the Administration from providing information to Congress in support of Congress' standard oversight role.
.
* Revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent (Valerie Plame) engaged in Middle East intelligence work, presumably as a response to policy criticism by her spouse (Ambassador Wilson).

* Undermining the integrity, readiness and efficacy of governmental agencies such that the People are not reliably served and have reason to doubt the fair and equitable use of national resources. Examples include the Department of Justice, Veterans Administration, FE MA, and National Guard, no-bid/no-oversight of government contracting and deployment of our nation's Armed Forces without providing for sufficient equipment, training and mission planning.

BE IT RESOLVED, that the 2007 United States Social Forum, the first United States Social Forum, supports the impeachment of George W. Bush, President of the United States and Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors and if found guilty be removed from office.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to every Member of Congress.

WAR, MILITARISM & THE PRISON-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

U.S. SOCIAL FORUM SUPPORTS CINDY SHEEHAN'S CALL FOR A NEW INDEPENDENT AND INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION OF THE CAUSES AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

WHEREAS, in accordance with the 2007 U.S. Social Forum's Charter of Principles we are united in our opposition to "...any form of imperialism, and are committed to building a planetary society..." and are united in the common purpose of social, economic and political justice; and

WHEREAS, the attacks of September 11, 2001 have been consistently used by the U.S. government as the basis for preemptive illegal wars and empire building, commonly known as the "Bush Doctrine"; and

WHEREAS, the so-called "war on terrorism" has become an excuse for the unprecedented destruction of civil liberties, the erosion of constitutional rights, of domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens, and illegal detention of immigrants; and

WHEREAS, the vast economic, intellectual and psychological resources of the American people has been redirected away from needy communities and towards the pursuit of endless war and global hegemony in a marriage of corporatism and policy; and

WHEREAS, the 9/11 Commission and their resulting report were clearly compromised by conflicts of interest and ignored, distorted and omitted numerous crucial facts surrounding the attacks of September 11 2001 to fit the officially sanctioned story; and

WHEREAS, members of at least 80 countries died on September 11, 2001; and

WHEREAS, according to numerous national polls, as much as 84% of Americans state they have significant unanswered questions about the events of September 11, 2001;

WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE 2007 UNITED STATES SOCIAL FORUM, HEREBY RESOLVE:

To support and pursue the growing calls for a new, international and fully independent investigation into the causes and events surrounding the attacks on September 11, 2001.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to every Member of Congress.

WE WILL BE DISCUSSING OUR LOCAL IMPEACHMENT EFFORTS, MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE IMPEACHMENT ISSUES, MOBILIZING GREATER SUPPORT FOR IMPEACHMENT.

The weekly radio show- Questioning War- Organizing Resistance is hosted by Carol Brouillet, a longtime activist who organized three conferences on Strategies to Transform the Global Economy and (the first) marches on her Senators and Congresswoman in January 2002 to Demand a Congressional Investigation of 9-11.

She publishes the Deception Dollars, and Co-Founded the 9-11 Truth Alliance, and the Northern California 9-11 Truth Alliance .

She organized premieres of films, educational events, marches, rallies for 9-11 Truth, the San Francisco International Inquiry into 9-11, and produced the film Behind Every Terrorist- There is a Bush.

She is also a mother of three boys and has held a weekly Listening Project in downtown Palo Alto since October 2001, and monthly impeachment rallies since February 2007. She ran for Congress in 2006 on the Green Party ticket on a 9-11 Truth, Peace, Impeachment platform.

http://questioningwar-organizingresistance.blogspot.com/


http://questioningwar-organizingresistance.blogspot.com/


NEWS BUSTERS.ORG
http://newsbusters.org/node/13952

Olbermann Continues Impeachment Talk
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on July 7, 2007 - 23:09.
From the Friday July 6 Countdown:

KEITH OLBERMANN, in opening teaser: The Odom plan: The director of the National Security Agency, the NSA, under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom, says the best way to support the troops in Iraq is to get them home from Iraq, and that the administration is so out of control, that the only way to make that happen is to threaten the President with impeachment if he does not agree.

OLBERMANN: Good evening from New York. It has been thus on every sinking ship from Titanic to the SS Minnow of Gilligan's Island. A few far-thinking visionaries try to get off first to get others to leave with them, then others begin to file off one by one, and after them, the deluge. And so it is for the Bush administration's policy in Iraq.

Our fifth story on the Countdown, conservative Republican Senator Pete Domenici yesterday, conservative Republican Congressman John Doolittle today. Hope you can swim, boys. This while the top National Security officer from the Reagan administration insisting that the only way to protect the troops in Iraq is to get the Bush administration to bring them home, and the only way to do that may be to threaten the President directly with impeachment.

The Commander-in-Chief having now supported the troops to a death toll of 3,592 with no end in sight. Conservative Congressman Doolittle of California, one-time Mormon missionary, today joining the others in his party in questioning whether the conflict is worth the loss of any more American lives.

His remarks, though, making the Congressman sound less like a great humanitarian or patriot, and rather more like a huge xenophobe. "I am increasingly convinced," said Mr. Doolittle, "that we are never going to succeed in actually ending people dying in Iraq. I think it's going to be a constant conflict ... and if that is going to happen ... it needs to be the Iraqis dying and not the Americans."

OLBERMANN: The White House saying today it views any sort of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq as dangerous, the Pentagon that leaving early would leave that country a mess, but Lieutenant General William Odom, the director of National Security for President Reagan, the Bush administration says that, he says that the Bush administration, rather, should no longer be allowed to determine the vocabulary for the debate.

General Odom's contention that supporting the troops actually means bringing them home, and now. Mr. Odom pointing out that Congress clearly and indisputably has two powers over the executive: the power of the purse and power to impeach. Should the first option fail, Mr. Odom saying lawmakers should not be afraid to threaten the second, having ample justification to do so. "An attempt to extort Congress into providing funds by keeping U.S. forces in peril ... surely would constitute the 'high crime' of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his," the President's, "own personal interest."

OLBERMANN, beginning an interview with Retired General Wesley Clark: That plan that has been put forth by General Odom, would the main obstacle to that plan seem to be lawmakers in Congress having the guts to execute it?

Impeachment: Political calculation based on pollingBy

feedback@qando.net

(McQ) This morning on ABC's This Week, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) highlighted the new American Research Group poll showing that nearly half of Americans want the House of Representatives to begin impeachment ...

QandO - http://www.qando.net/

Conyers brings up the Impeachment pollsBy John Amato We're hoping that as the cries for the removal of both Cheney and Bush now reach 46 % and 58 %, respectively, for impeachment that we could begin to become a little bit more cooperative, if not amicable, in trying to get to the truth of ...Crooks and Liars - http://www.crooksandliars.com

Impeachment TalkBy Ezra Klein Given the surprisingly high numbers supporting the activation of impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush (and the actual plurality in favor of impeaching Cheney), it's fair to say that impeachment isn’t marginal position anymore ...Ezra Klein - http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/

Videos of Impeachment Forum Held in Philadelphia on July 5, 2007By davidswanson Play Videos: John Nichols Dave Lindorff Debra Sweet.Democrats.com - The Aggressive... - http://www.democrats.com

The impeachment drive gains steamBy Michelle Malkin Read this post >>michellemalkin.com - http://michellemalkin.com

Survey of 1,000 AdultsJuly 5-6, 2007

39% Favor Impeaching Bush
Saturday, July 07, 2007

Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans now believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 49% disagree while 12% are not sure.

This marks a nine point shift in favor of impeachment since December 2005, when the last Rasmussen impeachment poll question was asked.

I’VE MENTIONED BEFORE THAT RASMUSSEN APPROVAL RATINGS TEND TO BE BIASED A FEW POINTS IN FAVOR OF BUSH, AND THIS IS LIKELY SEEN IN THESE IMPEACHMENT RESULTS AS WELL. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS NO COMPARABLE QUESTION ON IMPEACHMENT OF CHENEY FROM RASMUSSEN.

Those figures reflect a slight increase in support for impeachment over the past year-and-a-half. In December 2005, 32% believed that President George W. Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Fifty-eight percent (58%) took the opposite view at that time.

A majority of Democrats (56%) now believe the President should be impeached. That’s up from 49% in the earlier survey. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of Democrats remain opposed to impeachment.

Republicans, by an 80% to 16% margin, say that the President should not be impeached. Despite the fact that the President recently alienated his political base over the immigration issue. Republican support for impeachment shows is little changed from the earlier survey.

Among those not affiliated with either major party, 40% now favor impeachment while 45% are opposed. A year-and-a-half ago, 34% of unaffiliated favored impeachment while 55% were opposed.

In another sign that the President has alienated young adults from the Republican Party, Americans under 30 are far more supportive of impeachment than their elders. Among those youngest adults, 56% believe the President should be impeached and removed from office. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree. Other surveys show similar trends.

Just 27% of Americans say that the President has done a good or excellent job handling the situation in Iraq; only 21% agree with his decision to commute the prison sentence of Scooter Libby; and, just 15% gave him good or excellent marks on immigration.

During the month of June, the President’s Job Approval fell to the lowest level yet measured by Rasmussen Reports. For the full month, only 35% of Americans said they even Somewhat Approve of the President’s performance. That figure was down from 36% in May and 39% in April. Just 69% of Republicans voice their support. Overall, only 14% of Americans Strongly Approve of his performance. Rasmussen Reports updates the President’s Job Approval on a daily basis.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

Send to a friend Download PDF of this article

RELATED ARTICLES

21% Support Bush Decision to Commute Libby’s SentenceWill Public Dominate Senate Debate On Iraq?53% Want Dem Congress to Push Bush Harder on IraqSupport for Senate Immigration Bill Falls, 49% Prefer No Bill At AllHurricane Season: 33% Think U.S. Better Prepared than Last Year

TOP STORIES
Bush Job Approval at 38% National Poll: Clinton 39% Obama 26% Edwards 13% Thompson 27% Giuliani 24% in Race for GOP Nomination Rasmussen Investor Index Drops Four Points to 127.6
The recent American Research Group (ARG) poll shows Americans split on Bush, but in favor of impeaching Cheney:


Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?

7/5/07
Favor
Oppose
Undecided

All Adults
45%
46%
9%
Voters
46%
44%
10%

Democrats (38%)
69%
22%
9%
Republicans (29%)
13%
86%
1%
Independents (33%)
50%
30%
20%


Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?

7/5/07
Favor
Oppose
Undecided

All Adults
54%
40%
6%
Voters
50%
44%
6%

Democrats (38%)
76%
24%
-
Republicans (29%)
17%
83%
-
Independents (33%)
51%
29%
20%


Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.

It is remarkable enough that half of all Americans want Bush impeached, but the impeachment movement may gain inertia with new hearings called by Rep. John Conyers to investigate “the use and misuse of presidential clemency power.”

Cheney has even bigger problems. He has come under severe criticism for his secrecy and his failure to comply with a presidential directive, his probable role in orchestrating the smear campaign against Joe Wilson that outed Valerie Wilson, his overly aggressive statements against Iran, and his roles in approving torture and an NSA wiretapping program.

Essentially, Cheney is now seen by most Americans as being the core from which the most destructive abuses (and law-breaking) of the Bush administration have emanated.

The Cheney impeachment buzz is further fostered by a recent four-part series of articles on Cheney in the Washington Post, and this new Robert Greenwald video (from ImpeachCheney.org):

The video, Impeach Cheney highlights three instances of impeachable crimes by the Vice President including: fabricated threat of Iraq WMD; fabricated ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and threatening Iran. These crimes are outlined in House Resolution 333 which is supported by the following members of Congress: Yvette Clarke, William Lacy, Clay Keith Ellison, Bob Filner, Jesse Jackson Jr., Hank Johnson, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Jim McDermott, Jim Moran, Jan Schakowsky, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey and Albert Wynn.

H.R. 333 was introduced by Denis Kucinich in late April (see his video statement here) and has attracted modest support since. (The full text of the three articles of impeachment introduced in H.R. 333 can be seen here.)

Seattle’s Rep. Jim McDermott has recently announced his support for the resolution.

“For months I have believed that impeachment was a dire course of action,” McDermott said. “Over these same months, I have seen the vice president repeatedly drive our nation into increasingly dire situations, in Iraq, in Iran, and within our own country as he tramples over the Constitution like it is a doormat.”

McDermott said he is now convinced that impeachment is necessary because, he said, Cheney has repeatedly held himself above the law.

“Since the president permits this flagrant disregard for the Constitution, it is up to the Congress to act and defend the American people,” he said.

McDermott had advice for Cheney, too, if the vice president wants to resign:

“Call it a medical condition. Call it a political condition. Call it what it is — the departure of a person who forgot that he works for the American people.”

Ultimately, getting rid of Cheney through impeachment or forced resignation will depend on turning Republicans against the Bush administration. Cheney would make an ideal fall-guy. I mean, imagine the collective sigh of relief on all sides of the political spectrum that would occur if Cheney resigned.

A dismal outlook for Republicans in the 2008 elections may be just the catalyst to make it happen.

Forget a Senate Trial; Impeachment is its own Punishment
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/7/11193/12189

by dlindorff
Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:19:03 AM PDT
The argument that we can't have impeachment because we can't win a trial in the Senate is a fraud and a dodge.

dlindorff's diary

By Dave Lindorff

I’m getting sick and tired of hearing Democrats afraid of impeachment claim that it can’t be done because the Senate, where Democrats hold a precarious one-seat edge, would never vote to convict and remove, which would require 67 votes.

Let’s get something straight:

Impeachment is not about conviction and removal in the Senate. Impeachment is a stand-alone action of the House of Representatives, and requires a simple majority.

Under the Constitution, there is no obligation for the Senate to even hold a trial after someone is impeached. It is an option, which is up to the will of the Senate.

When the Founding Fathers drew up the impeachment clause, they envisioned it as its own punishment. Trial and removal were seen as a wholly separate process, in addition to impeachment.

Under the Constitution, after investigating the high crimes and misdemeanors of a president or other federal officer in an impeachment panel composed of the members of the House Judiciary Committee, which would then approve articles of impeachment, the House would vote on whether to impeach the executive.

If they concluded that Bush or Cheney, in this case, had abused their power, or had damaged the nation, or committed treason or bribery, they could then vote to impeach.

At that point the president and/or vice president would stand impeached.

For all time, they would be known as defilers of the Constitution--or perhaps as traitors, depending upon the nature of the articles approved by a House majority.

Their nefarious actions—the lying to Congress and American people, the violation of international laws, the violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments, the subversion of elections, the obstruction of justice, the criminal negligence, the war crimes, the usurping of the power of the Congress and the Courts—would all stand publicly condemned by the People’s Body.

Whether they resigned, went on to a Senate trial, or just ran out their remaining terms of office, Bush and Cheney would leave Washington with a big red "I" emblazoned on their chests to the day they died. Nixon wore that scarlet letter even though he never even had his case go as far as a House vote. His rotting corpse still wears that bright letter of shame.

So forget that red herring about a Senate trial being a non-starter.

Who cares about a Senate trial! For myself, I think that once we got those impeachment hearings going, and once the crimes of this administration started being aired on live television for all to see, and without the mediation of reporters and spin doctors, a Senate trial and conviction would be extremely likely, but whether I’m right or not really doesn’t matter.

What we need is impeachment hearings and impeachment by the House!

Enough excuses!

We have a criminal cabal in the White House that is doing incalculable damage to our nation and to our Constitution, and so far we see in Congress is a dithering, cowardly bunch of people afraid to even stand up for the honor of their own institution.

DAVE LINDORFF is co-author, with Barbara Olshansky, of "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office" (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now out in a paperback edition). An award-winning investigative reporter and columnist, his work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

I propose to you that the point isn't to make Bush less popular with those who don't like him, the object is to give the Republicans an ass kicking to make all ass kickings look like patty cakes.

The way to do that is to pass good progressive legislation that is meaningful and important to American voters, have it Vetoed, and Sustained by the Republican faithful. Repeatedly. Drive home the message that the Republicans have an agenda and it isn't the common man.

Make it so clear, so media friendly and obvious that even Faux News can't hide it. Leave the OReilys and Limbaughs scrambling to demonize the politicians that people can see doing their business.

Take the gloves off, drop the pretense of bipartisanship, and ram every progressive wish listed Bill through so they can kill it.


Submitted by dlindorff on July 7, 2007 - 10:35am.

ImpeachForChange

The latest poll by American Research Group

(http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/), showing that 54 percent of Americans favor impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney, and that 46 percent favor impeaching President Bush, is encouraging news for impeachment advocates. Despite a corporate media blackout on impeachment that means almost nobody in the country knows that there is already a Cheney impeachment bill in the House with 14 co-sponsors (HRes 333), over half the country nonetheless wants Cheney to get the boot.

And despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s insistence that “impeachment is off the table,” almost half the people in the country say they want the president impeached.

But other information in this scientific poll, which was conducted by random telephone calls to 1100 Americans during July 2-3, should have Democrats like Pelosi and other party leaders rethinking their obstructive position on impeachment.

The Democratic leadership has been opposed to impeachment based on the absurd that while it is clearly popular among Democrats, an impeachment effort in Congress could “turn off” independent voters.

In fact the opposite appears to be true.

The American Research Group poll also reports that 50 percent of independents favored the impeachment of Bush while 51 percent of them favored impeaching Cheney. Hard to see how taking that position could be hurting Democrats with independents. Moreover, the poll found that 13 percent of Republicans wanted to see Bush impeached, while 17 percent wanted Cheney impeached. That is, roughly one in six Republicans would look favorably on a House impeachment effort, whichever member of the administration was the target!

And Pelosi is against the idea for fear of alienating voters on the right.

Interestingly, too, opposition to Bush’s commutation of I. “Scooter” Libby’s sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice was actually greater among independents (80 percent) than among Democrats (76 percent). So was opposition to a full pardon for Libby, with an astonishing 97 percent of independents opposed, compared to just 82 percent of Democrats.

What does this tell us?

What this suggests is that the prevailing wisdom among Democratic strategists, that independents are some mythical “middle of the road” group, is wildly off the mark. In fact, many independents appear to be to the left of the Democratic Party, particularly when it comes to how to handle the behavior of the criminal Bush administration. Or maybe left isn’t the right word. They are more concerned about preserving democracy than the Democratic Party is.

These results help to explain why the public support for the Democratic Congress, which has failed to act on ending the Iraq War and which has failed to been studiously avoiding any talk of impeachment, has fallen from a heady 68 percent right after Democrats won the 2006 elections, to 23 percent today, several points below the president’s 27-percent approval rating.

If Democrats don’t wake up and start impeachment proceedings, they are likely to lose control of Congress again in 2008, when these disgruntled independents and Constitution-loving Republicans, many of whom no doubt gave their votes to Democrats last November, stay home or vote for somebody else next time around.

Meanwhile, the grassroots impeachment movement continues to build.

Events that used to draw a few dozen people are now drawing hundreds or even thousands. Dennis Kucinich’s Cheney impeachment bill, which languished for a month without any co-sponsors, now has 13 co-sponsors, with more joining all the time.

It’s all starting to come together.

IF IT DOESN’T, THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY IN CONGRESS IS LIKELY TO COME APART AND 2008 WILL BE A DISASTER.