Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: Impeachment, Impeach Bush and Cheney, The Picture Is Coming Into Clear Focus

Click for a full report.

Imbush Peach

An interview with Naomi Wolf about the 10 steps from democracy to dictatorship!

Stop The Spying Now

Stop the Spying!

Sunday, July 1, 2007

Impeachment, Impeach Bush and Cheney, The Picture Is Coming Into Clear Focus



Brattleboro Reformer - VT, United StatesBy HOWARD WEISS-TISMAN, Reformer Staff NEWFANE --
For the first time since the impeachment movement hatched on the floor of Newfane's town meeting, ...See all stories on this topic


What is ePluribus Media?We are chartered as a 501(c)(4) corporation.Our mission statement:ePluribus Media is a cooperative of citizen volunteers dedicated to researching issues of common concern and encouraging the highest standards of ethics and journalism.

What are the different ePluribus Media sites?There are four websites related to the ePluribus Media organization.

ePluribus Media ( hosts ePluribus Media published stories, much like a weekly news magazine. Stories posted there are the product of the ePluribus Media researchers, writers, fact checkers and other volunteers. Only these stories are considered ePluribus Media work.

ePluribus Media Community ( is scoop-powered site providing open forums for community discussion about propaganda, citizen journalism, ethics in journalism and other topics of concern. If you are reading this, you are on the Community site. What you post on this site is considered your own personal work, not ePluribus Media's. However, as a community, we strive to further responsible research, writing, and journalism standards and encourage all posters to adhere to these tenets. See the Toolbox and the Citizen Journalism sections for examples and more information.

ePluribus Media Investigates ( is a drupal-powered site, limited to vetted volunteer researchers, who do the investigative work that is the backbone of ePluribus Media reporting. If you would like to become part of the investigative community, email us at

ePluribus Media Timelines ( is dadabik based site for searchable timelines on various research topics -- incidents related to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in veterans/soldiers, hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Plamegate -- where only fact checked and sourced events are displayed within the timelines, ensuring the credibility and accuracy of the data. If you have data to add to the timelines, email it to

Pelosi on Impeachment: "Constitution Is Worth It If You Can Succeed"

by wanderindiana --- Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:27:04 AM EST
promoted-- cho

Bloggers Mike Stark and Dave Johnson recently grilled Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on the subject of impeachment. Stark has posted audio clips and partial transcript of relevant sections of a June 28th conference call with the Speaker at Brave New Films.

Here's the kicker. When Stark suggest impeachment proceedings against Alberto Gonzales, Pelosi launches into a song and dance about impeaching George W. Bush:

Speaker Pelosi: I made a decision a few years ago, or at least one year ago, that impeachment was something that we could not be successful with and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and their short-comings, and the President is... ya know what I say?

The President isn't worth it... he's not worth impeaching.

We've got important work to do... If he were at the beginning of his term, people may think of it differently, but he's at the end of his terms. The first two years of his term, if we came in as the majority, there might be time to do it all...

Stark puts her on the spot:

slight edit for front space (nod to rba), jump below the fold for the transcript of the exchange.

Commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!

Email thisDigg This! (1 Digg)Submit to RedditStumble It!Discuss on NewsvineSubmit To NetscapeSave to del.icio.usSphere: Related ContentTechnorati: 1 link to this item

Mike Stark: Respectfully, that's not the question. Respectfully, the question is whether or not the Constitution is worth it.

Speaker Pelosi: Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.

Pelosi's Falstaffian attempt to qualify when it is proper to defend the Constitution is pathetic.

Either she has a mortal fear of Bush and Cheney, or she's more concerned with her own political survival to defend the Constitution. What else would prompt her to tell people to lie back and enjoy the rape, it's almost over?

In this situation, Pelosi is the cop watching the crime be committed while at the same time she is staving off a crowd of concerned citizens hoping to intervene.

To the best of my knowledge, defense has nothing to do with looking away from your foe.

Listen to the words of General Stark, Speaker Pelosi: Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.

Pelosi on Impeachment: "Constitution Is Worth It If You Can Succeed" 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)

Wander -- provocative questions (5.00 / 4) (#1)
Play to win? Play to uphold principles? --

Lamont here in CT was definitely a "play to uphold principles" -- but interestingly, these are often the true "play to win" strategies.
by Cho on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:38:32 AM EST

Define "win". (5.00 / 2) (#3)
Is a win upholding principles, or are "winning" and "upholding principles" mutually exclusive? Are 200-year-old principles worth upholding? And are they principles or something more after that much time?

Those in power have been upholding their new "principles" for years, and look where it got them -- and us.

Apathy and hedging bets against the criminals in power right now just doesn't cut it for me.
by wanderindiana on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 01:25:04 PM EST[ Parent ]

Exactly... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
they don't need to be mutually exclusive. But people sometimes circumscribe themselves when they decide to "play to win" eliminating the principled options.

by Cho on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:22:13 PM EST[ Parent ]

They need to believe in carpe diem, (5.00 / 3) (#2)
and put it into practice immediately.

They must shape the reality, not permit the Republicans to maintain a control over it.

The Constitution is worth it, or the nation is lost -- there is no middle ground.

by GreyHawk on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:41:11 AM EST

The first step in a successful plan: (5.00 / 2) (#5)
>>> Trying <<< href="">Drinking Liberally in New Milfordby Connecticut Man1 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:23:12 PM EST
Read this diary... (none / 0) (#6) thereisnospoon; here is an excerpt:

If we want impeachment to work, we have to throw the book at these people in a way that is not currently being done at the highest levels.

If we want the public to understand that impeachment is a necessary duty to hold Bush and his allies accountable for deeply criminal actions rather than a cheap political ploy, our legislators must not be afraid to accuse them of deeply criminal action.

We must make it clear to the American people that we are not defending some idealistic notion of the defense of Constitutional Principles, but rather opposing an Administration responsible for villainy and criminality unprecedented in modern American History.

The Articles of Impeachment themselves must look less like Fitzgerald's case against Scooter Libby, and more like Thomas Jefferson's case against King George III.

Bingo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .by
wanderindiana on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:27:12 AM EST

Dave Lindorff, via Buzzflash (none / 0) (#7)
More good reading:

... Congress has a choice: risk permanently destroying the carefully balanced system of tri-partite government established by the Founding Fathers over two centuries ago by playing the president's and vice-president's game of chicken over subpoenas, or change the game and begin impeachment proceedings immediately.

by wanderindiana on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 01:04:10 AM EST

Pelosi on Impeachment: "Constitution Is Worth It If You Can Succeed" 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)

Letters: Impeachment, Iraq, Hmong, etc.

Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, June 30, 2007Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B6

Print E-Mail Comments (5) Digg it

Dick Cheney: Public Enemy No. 1

While it's evident that Dick Cheney is the most powerful vice president in history, it's also abundantly clear that he took this office (after recruiting himself) to reshape our country according to his own views of how a government should be run. And the inexperienced and delegating Bush let him do just that.

As a result we have: a senseless war and shameless blood on our hands; torture and loss of constitutional safeguards for any and all enemies so deemed; industry titans writing the laws on how public resources are to be exploited; secrecy and refusal to uphold democratic values; and the entire tilting of our government's economic and environmental policies to benefit the wealthy and private sector.

The man is an absolute menace, who has damaged the foundations of our country as much as any individual in history.

Bob Madgic, Anderson

Take a tip from Hillary

Re "House Democrats take aim at vice president's budget," June 27: I do wish the Democrats in Congress would stop playing their silly political games and start doing something constructive. All they have done since coming into power is to throw sand into the president's face by introducing nonbinding resolutions, votes of no confidence and now a bill to strip funding of the vice president's office.

They have been after the vice president since 2001. A special prosecutor was appointed to find who leaked the name of Valerie Plame to the press. Soon after Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed, he, by his own admission, learned the names of the persons who first leaked her name -- ex-State Department official Richard Armitage and White House political adviser Karl Rove.

Once he learned this, he should have stopped his investigation, but he did not and continued for three years, costing the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. Lewis Libby was then convicted of perjury and obstructing his investigation. He should have followed the lead of Hillary Clinton, who in 1996 and 1998 told a federal grand jury she couldn't remember more than 70 times.

Ken Ely, Orangevale

Impeach Cheney now

Re "Leaving no tracks on environmental shift," June 27: Legislative branch or executive branch? To which one does Dick Cheney belong? In this article about irrigation and environmental issues in Oregon, Cheney used his executive branch position to influence the flow of water.

Yet, according to an article on June 22 ("Cheney defies order on classified records"), Cheney maintained he did not have to turn over any e-mails from the vice president's office because he was part of the legislative branch, being the president of the Senate.

Cheney seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth, to influence decisions to go the way he wants them. He cannot have it both ways! My position on this issue is not a "party line" position but one as an American who believes in the separation of powers and the synergy of the three branches of government, which make the United States the greatest in the world.

Cheney "came along for the ride" when Bush came into office, not separately elected. Legislators are each elected by their constituencies. I am tired of Cheney yielding his king-like power to influence so many issues and to appear to be above the law.

Impeachment would be in order -- stop him now!

Alice Schnaidt, Sacramento

Just because

I'm a bit confused by all the letters and talk of impeachment.

Just because he lied and committed perjury in regard to his arrest and conviction record. Just because he lied and cheated in his military service. Just because he was appointed to his position as leader of the country. Just because he abrogated long-standing international treaties. Just because he lied about who attacked the country and used this lie as a pretext for invasion of a country that was not involved in that attack.

Just because he established a secret police organization to spy on the citizens, repealed (or ignored) habeas corpus and used extraordinary rendition to take persons to secret prisons for confinement, questioning and torture. Just because he declined to follow the advice of his generals and fired any who disagreed with him. Just because he thumbed his nose at the law, the lawmakers and the people of the country.

Just because he did all these things, did anyone try to impeach Adolf Hitler? Oops, that's right, Germany did not have a process for impeachment. Sorry. Never mind.
- Larry LaCroix, Lincoln

The big lie in Iraq

Re "Lugar's call for pullout reverberates," June 27: Sen. Richard Lugar's declaration expresses his anguish concerning the ongoing, insufferable sacrifices in the Iraqi stalemate and demands prompt action to withdraw from this no-win pacification effort filled with pathos.
Lugar is in the same exalted class as those steadfast senators JFK wrote about in "Profiles in Courage."

Words can be weapons of man's destruction. The Bush administration's most frightening mantra -- "al-Qaida, al-Qaida, al-Qaida" -- is used to instill fear, hatred and vengeance.

Al-Qaida has become the battle order of the day. In this PR casting, the Iraqi insurgents are dismissed as mere adjuncts of "al-Qaida."

Meanwhile, the Iraqi factions combat each other and the true-grit grunts "surge" above and beyond the call of duty. Come, September. What year?

- George Pasilis, Roseville

Kudos to Hmong protesters

I am a retired law enforcement officer and in my career have worked several protests. Recently I had business at the Sacramento Federal Courthouse during the Hmong demonstrations in support of the defendants who allegedly sought to purchase weapons to overthrow the government in Laos.

The Hmong community presented one of the most organized and disciplined demonstrations I have ever witnessed. They provided security to monitor their own people. They provided transportation and even water to their people.

Most importantly, they were respectful of the court security officers and other law enforcement. They complied with all instructions from the court officers and encouraged others to do the same. They even dealt with one disruptive person and escorted him from the building.

When the demonstrations were over, the Hmong collected their trash and even washed down some of the sidewalks.

I wish the demonstrators I dealt with in the past have been so considerate.

David Campbell, West Sacramento

The Sacromento Bee

Blacked Out by Corporate Media, Impeachment AdvancesOpEdNews - Newtown,PA,USA

by Dave Lindorff Page 1 of 2 page(s) The corporate media are disgracing themselves even further, if that is possible, on the impeachment story. ...See all stories on this topic

Subject(s): Bush Reasons to Dump Impeach; Congress 110th; Congress Majority Leadership; Democrats DNC; Impeachment; Media; Media Distortion; Media Hypocrisy; Media New York Times; Media Washington Post; Politicos Cheney Dick; Politicos Pelosi Nancy
Local Area(s): United States of America; Washington D.C.Add to My Group

June 30, 2007 at 13:57:19
Blacked Out by Corporate Media, Impeachment Advances
by Dave Lindorff Page 1 of 2 page(s)

The corporate media are disgracing themselves even further, if that is possible, on the impeachment story.

On Thursday, three more members of Congress signed on to Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney (H Res 333), bringing the total number of co-sponsors of the bill to 10. That in itself would be national news, but there is more to it than simple numbers.

The new sponsors include two freshman, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, who ran for office calling for impeachment, and Hank Johnson, who took over the seat of pro-impeachment Rep. Cynthia McKinney (McKinney filed her own bill of impeachment against President Bush in the waning days of the last Congress), but the group also includes Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA).

What makes McDermott significant is that he is a senior member of the Washington state delegation to Congress, a 9th-term legislator with considerable clout in Congress who sits on the House Ways and Means and Judiciary Committees, who chairs the subcommittee on income security and family support, and who has, in the past, said he was opposed to impeachment.

While most of the other nine co-sponsors of H Res 333 were also among the group of 39 representatives who last year had signed on to Rep. John Conyers’ bill in the last Congress calling for creation of a special committee to investigate possible impeachable crimes by the administration, McDermott was never a backer.

In a related development, Kucinich’s bill, which was filed back on April 24, amid an almost complete news blackout, and which has languished for over two months, with the House Judiciary Committee, headed by Conyers (D-MI) taking no action on it, suddenly was referred this week to a Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, chaired by US Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)—a sign that it will be taken up by the full Judiciary Committee.

Despite all these breaking developments in the impeachment story, Friday’s and Saturday’s news reports around the nation had little or nothing on impeachment.

The New York Times, whose front pages and national pages influence the news decisions of editors across the country, has ignored the story completely, as has the Washington Post, which is supposed to be covering Washington—both astonishing examples of corporate media censorship.

Even in Washington, Minnesota and Georgia, the main local papers only ran short briefs on the actions of their local Congress members.

But despite this journalistic lockdown, it is clear that the national grassroots impeachment is gaining power and momentum by the day.

Washington impeachment activists had long been pressing McDermott to join the impeachment campaign, but had been unsuccessful until this week.

His switch on the issue seems to have been the result of that pressure from his constituents, as well as from the latest actions of and revelations about the vice president.

A powerful series of news articles that ran in late June in the Washington Post has disclosed that the vice president was the driving force behind President Bush’s decision to violate the Geneva Conventions and to illegally deny international protections to captives in what he has called the War on Terror, including captives from Afghanistan and Iraq, and to establish a program of torture of captives.

Cheney also made the ludicrous assertion this week that he did not have to respond to Congressional subpoenas and requests for information about the activities of his office because as vice president, he is president of the Senate, and thus is not a part of the executive branch, (It is a claim that is contradicted by his own earlier assertions of “executive authority” in refusing to respond to Congressional requests for information.)

The Post's silence about McDermott and about impeachment developments is particularly peculiar, given that the latest developments are in part due to the paper's articles on Cheney's actions. Normally, newspapers are quick to point to or even grab credit for the results of their scoops and investigative reports.While other representatives who have signed on the H Res 333 have done so relatively quietly, or in Rep. Maxine Waters’ case, in a press conference, McDermott made his move with a public speech in the House.

In that Thursday evening address, he said the vice president should “resign or face impeachment,” saying, “The vice president holds himself above the law, and it is time for the Congress to enforce the law,”In addition to citing Cheney’s role in deceiving Americans and Congress into supporting an invasion of Iraq, and threatening war with Iran, which are the charges in Kucinich’s impeachment bill, McDermott cited Cheney’s claim to be exempt from Congressional investigation and his refusal to comply with rules for the handling of classified information as grounds for his impeachment.

It is not clear whether he intends to file his own impeachment bill on those issues, or to have them added to Kucinich’s bill.Johnson also cited the vice president’s refusal to submit materials in his office to control by the Information Oversight Security Office as a reason for his decision to back impeachment.

So far, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has not changed her position that “impeachment is off the table.” Rep. Conyers, for his part, has not spoken in favor of the Kucinich bill either.But with seven members of Congress signing on to the Cheney impeachment bill over the past month, and more likely to do so in coming days and weeks, and with polls showing that the public both wants impeachment and is losing patience with the timidity and inaction of the Democratic Congress, it seems increasingly likely that their hands will be forced.

An interesting question will be when the corporate media will finally begin to honestly report on the impeachment story, and how news organizations will explain its seemingly magical appearance as a full-blown campaign in Congress.
1 2

Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at
Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author
International Herald Tribune

Obama says despite shortcomings of Bush administration, impeachment is not acceptable
The Associated Press
Published: June 28, 2007

WASHINGTON: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.

"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."

The term for Bush and Cheney ends on Jan. 20, 2009. Bush cannot constitutionally run for a third term, and Cheney has said he will not run to succeed Bush.

Obama, a Harvard law school graduate and former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said impeachment should not be used as a standard political tool.

Today in Americas

U.S. Supreme Court reverses course on Guantánamo detainees

News Analysis: Even in own party, Bush risks losing control

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said. SO OBAMA; WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK HAS BEEN GOING ON? tHIS IS GOING TO PROVE COSTLY FOR YOU!

"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, nonstop circus."

Obama, son of a Kenyan father and American mother, spoke at a weekly constituent breakfast he sponsors with Illinois' other senator, Dick Durbin. He was asked about impeachment.

June 30, 2007 at 18:09:01
Impeachment? Why?
by Timothy V. Gatto Page 1 of 1 page(s)

The Progressive Left has been calling for Cheney and Bush to be impeached. Let’s look at it from the standpoint of somebody that in all actuality (even though some might not think so) is in the center. Some things I sway to the left with (like this phony war on terrorism and out Constitution being trashed by right wing sycophants) and I lean to the right on occasion (immigration, and a strong military).

Does somebody like me think impeachment would actually solve anything, do I think that any good would come out of doing all of the investigations and opening all of the wounds that are festering with something as vile as impeachment when Bush and Cheney only have a year and a half left on their terms?

You bet your sweet ass I do! Not impeaching these two criminals would be a crime! I mean that with all the sincerity in my body. Bush and Cheney have done more despicable things in six years that any two Presidents thrown together.

I thought that Nixon was just about the worst President that could ever walk the face of this Earth. Bush has him beaten hands down!

The only thing that the Bush administration can take credit for, is making Nixon look like a statesman in comparison to the two we have in Washington.

I firmly believe that the only reason that Bush is still in office, is because Cheney would take his place. The best way to rectify that would be to impeach them both.

Some people might think that people who want Bush and Cheney impeached are “overreacting”.

I don’t believe that is the case. Let us look at the facts here. Bush purposefully lied to the Congress and to the American people in the case for war against Iraq. He lied about Saddam possessing a nuclear capability or even an active chemical capability.

From reports we are getting now from people that used to be in his “inner circle” such as George Tenent and others, Bush knew all along what capabilities Saddam did or didn’t have!

So let me ask anyone that is reading this, is that not grounds for impeachment?

Is the fact that he told outright lies to further his personal belief that we should be at war with Iraq not grounds for impeachment?

Is this the kind of man that you want making decisions again regarding Iran or some other nations for the next 19 months?

The war and the lies leading up to it, while being more than enough to warrant impeachment, aren’t the only reasons Cheney and Bush need to go. In the time that they have been in power they have actively and maliciously subverted the Constitution of The United States of America. Some of it was done with the blessing of Congress, and some of it was done unilaterally by the President.

Since this man has been in power, he has continued to write signing statements that excludes him from obeying laws he doesn’t want to obey by using what he calls the “Unitary Power of the Executive Branch”.

Since Bush has been President he has put his name to more signing statements than all prior Presidents combined!

Let’s face it, this man has demonstrated that he feels that because he is the President of the United States, that he is above the law! AND YOU KNOW WHERE THIS BLOG STANDS ON THAT POINT!

I believe that he is not and I also submit to you that these actions alone warrant impeachment and removal from office.

I am not going to end my case for the Impeachment of the President there. There is a more, much more. This President, when advised that wiretaps and other surveillance on American Citizen’s was illegal unless he went through the auspices of the FISA Courts set up for the very purpose of monitoring phone calls and e-mails to suspected agents overseas, he sent his legal Counsel, Alberto Gonzales to have The Attorney General at the time, John Ashcroft, sign the permissions needed to waive the FISA court jurisdiction.

Attorney General Ashcroft, who was in the Post operative Intensive Care Unit, recovering from gall bladder surgery, refused to sign the statement saying that he did not believe that the executive branch had the authority to do that. The executive branch did it anyway! I believe that this act alone warrants impeachment! Since when can the President willfully break the law? Are there two different sets of laws, one for the President and one for everyone else?
Nonsense! I’m not done yet either.

The President has illegally detained foreign suspects in Guantanamo without authority to do so. He has also been actively involved with the cover-up of people that were tortured in Guantanamo and also Abu-Graib. From what is coming out, the cover-up went deeper than the Army, and the torture was far more severe than originally thought. Is this what you want the rest of the world to see.

Is this the kind of country you would be proud to call yourself a citizen of? Don’t dare tell me that if I don’t like it then I should leave; I wore my nation’s uniform for 21 years. If anyone should leave it’s the people that support this would be dictator that has just about ruined our county’s reputation in the eyes of the entire world!

Take these charges and add to them the strengthening of the Insurrection Act where he has taken the law enforcement powers of the National Guard away from the Governors of the States, even though they protested in writing! The Military Commissions Act of 2006 when he gave the military the right to inflict punishment up to but not further than organ failure!

This is the same law that takes away the writ of Habeas Corpus, the backbone of Western Democracy that goes all the way back to the Magna Charta away from anyone “suspected” of being a terrorist! Is this what you signed up for? Is this what you want? Is this the “Compassionate Conservative” that you voted for, or is this an evil man?

Turn your head away and tell me that this man isn’t evil. Do this at the risk of losing your soul. There is only so much that we should take. Party politics be damned. If these aren’t grounds for impeachment than what the hell is?

This isn’t only my country, it’s yours too. I can’t do the right thing by myself.

I am ashamed of what has happened in my name, aren’t you?

If you are, then talk to your friends and relatives.

E-mail this article to them.

Get off of your butt and start making some noise!

If we all do it together we can change history.

If we don’t change it, I’m afraid that we are at the point where the German People were in 1933, they should have acted then, but they didn’t see the need.

If we don’t change history we may have to repeat it.

Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. A regular contributor to OpEdNews, he is the author of Kimchee Kronicles and is currently at work on a new novel.
Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

Implementing a minimalist impeachment agendaBy Major Danby
I call it the minimalist impeachment agenda: impeachment, for now, solely on the procedural ground of obstruction of justice (equivalent to Count III approved against Richard Nixon.) This does not preclude impeachment on substantive ...

Daily Kos -

Blacked Out by Corporate Media, Impeachment AdvancesBy Dave Lindorff
Keith Ellison, who ran for office calling for impeachment, and Hank Johnson, who took over the seat of pro-impeachment Rep. Cynthia McKinney (McKinney filed her own bill of impeachment against President Bush in the waning days of the ...

Three new co-sponsors for Cheney impeachment bill (MParent blog). EXCERPT: "The vice president holds himself above the law, and it is time for the Congress to enforce the law," McDermott said in a floor speech. ...
Hope2012 -

Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable
WASHINGTON (AP) âEURO" Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick ...

Michael Moore - This Just In -

How Would Impeachment Affect the 2008 Race?By Big Tent Democrat
Do anyone think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will support impeachment proceedings? How about Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Steny Hoyer and Carl Levin? Jim Webb and Joe Sestak? Jim Moran and Joe Biden? In fact, who in the Congress of ...

MyDD -

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said."I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "

We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, nonstop circus."

This is despicable. Bush has certainly committed very grave offenses: lying into an illegal war, torture, throwing out habea corpus, ignoring laws with signing statements -- the list goes on and on.

If Obama doesn't realize this he is a complete idiot.

But if he does he is a lying fascist with no respect for law or the people.

I don't think he's an idiot.

He is just echoing Pelosi, who in turn is a mouthpice for the fascists.

Just what the hell does Obama think the people's business is if not first and formost the Constitution, adherance to law and democratic process?

The man is obviously a tyrant at heart.

Another damned gangster.

A "circus"? Does he think the Constitutional Convention when the founder set up the basic rights and structures of this nation a circus too?

It would seem so.

He also refused to rule out preventative military action against Iran.

This guy would be a disaster as president.

He has a good patter and sales appeal, but no sense of judgement or common sense, or respect for American fundamental principles.

The man is dishonest.


by bluepilgrim (0 articles, 574 comments) on Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 5:08:31 PM
Proof of the media blackout

But first to answer your comments:

1. "I am adding my name to H.Res.333, calling for the impeachment. For the good of the Nation, the Vice President should leave office immediately. 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. " McDermott's web site

2. As you can read, this statement is on McDermott's official web site, also dated June 28. The clerk's office has been known to lag a day or two.

It certainly is newsworthy especially since Congress has obviously been hearing from thousands of constituents in order to move these legislators! Local and state governments (including 79 US cities and 11 state legislatures) have been passing impeachment resolutions right and left. The national association of mayors passed a resolution supporting impeachment within the last few days.

Polling companies refuse to do a poll on impeachment. Normally, political parties or other groups and private companies can commission national polls, but the polling companies will not touch impeachment (or in the case of Harris will not publish the result).

This is a media blackout has been attempting to purchase a poll to see what Americans now want regarding impeachment from major polling companies Harris, American Research Group and Ipsos but cannot get anyone to do one.

No comments: