Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: Impeach Bush and Cheney; Try To Save The Democratic Party? And reject polite wimps like Scott Ritter! This is our country and damn it is time that

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!

Monday, October 15, 2007

Impeach Bush and Cheney; Try To Save The Democratic Party? And reject polite wimps like Scott Ritter! This is our country and damn it is time that

Impeach Bush and Cheney; Try To Save The Democratic Party? And reject polite wimps like Scott Ritter! This is our country and damn it is time that we stop talking and pussy footing around and bring them down!


FRONTLINE Season Premiere

Tuesday, October 16, 20079 P.M. (check local listings)

For three decades, Vice President Dick Cheney has waged a secretive, and often bitter battle to expand the power of the presidency. Now in a direct confrontation with Congress, as the administration asserts executive privilege to head off investigations into domestic wiretapping and the firing of U.S. attorneys, FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk (The Dark Side, The Torture Question) meticulously traces the behind-closed-doors battle within the administration over the power of the presidency and the rule of law.

Visit the FRONTLINE preview site for more on Cheney's Law. "Cheney's Law" on FRONTLINE
Watch Cheney's Law online starting October 16.

NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD70th AnniversaryLaw for the People Convention 2007October 31 - November 4


Resolution on Impeachment of Bush and Cheney
By the NLG Impeachment Committee established by this resolution, by
interested local chapters, and by national officers.
Submitted by: James Marc Leas,

The resolution cosponsors are:
Audrey Bomse, Marjorie Cohn, Laura Safer Espinoza, John Wheat Gibson , Eileen Hansen, Larry Hildes, Jim Klimaski, Jordan Kushner, Jim Lafferty, James Marc Leas, Kerry McLean, Bill Monning, Dorinda Moreno, Michael Ratner, Susan Scott, Jennifer Van Bergen, Aaron Varhola, Karen Weill


Upon being chosen for the Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore wrote:

"We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level." began in 2000 at the convention that nominated Al Gore. We exposed the media's endless lies about Gore, as well as the truth about Bush - especially his still-unreported desertion from the Texas Air National Guard.

When Palm Beach voters sounded the alarm about the vote-altering "butterfly ballots," we led the fight to "count every vote" by organizing street protests across the country. When the Felonious Five on the Supreme Court threw out 175,000 never-counted votes to appoint Bush and Cheney, we helped write the famous Congressional Black Caucus challenge to Florida's electors. When not one Senator would stand with them, we helped organize the huge protests at Bush's inauguration. We never "got over" the Stolen Election of 2000 and we never will.

Many of you have already chosen your Democratic candidate for 2008, and we respect them all.

But if you'd like Al Gore to run, please sign our petition:


This week Joseph Nacchio, the former CEO of Qwest, revealed the Bush Administration started muscling telephone companies to wiretap American citizens without a warrant on Feb. 27, 2001. When Qwest refused, they were cut out of government contracts and Nacchio was prosecuted for insider trading.

So we now know Bush began violating FISA and the 4th Amendment just 1 month after stealing the White House. And since the 9/11 attack was 7 months later, Bush has lied about 9/11 being the justification for warrantless wiretapping for the past two years. Yet Democrats in Congress still don't get it.

Together we have sent 69,153 emails to Congress calling for impeachment, not immunity. But Democrats are still trying to expand Bush's wiretapping power, even though Bush has all the power he needs - or should ever get - under the FISA law.

There is nothing in the Protect Wiretappers Act that should be renewed when it expires in February. It's time for Democrats to Just Say No to Bush on warrantless wiretapping, and to impeach him for the illegal wiretapping he began on 2/27/01.

Email your Representatives to demand impeachment not immunity:

If you have time, call your Representative and Senators at 202-225-3121 and politely express your outrage and your demand for impeachment, not immunity, for Bush's illegal wiretapping.


That's not some peacenik - that's retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former top American commander in Iraq, who is finally speaking out.

Sanchez blamed the administration for a "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan" and denounced the current "surge" strategy as a "desperate" move that will not achieve long-term stability. He said civilian officials have been "derelict in their duties" and guilty of a "lust for power."

If America's top generals think the war is a "nightmare with no end in sight," why have only 88 Members of Congress signed the Peace Pledge to restrict any news funds to bringing our troops safely home?

A new poll by Rep. Barbara Lee found only 22% want to give Bush a $200 billion blank check, while 24% want Congress to cut all funds and 46% would give Bush $200 billion only for redeployment.

Tell your Representatives to sign the Peace Pledge:


Join a global movement rising up against war and global warming by participating in a massive intervention in Washington DC or your own community. We need to take immediate action to:

STOP the war in Iraq and future resource wars by ending our addiction to fossil fuels.

SHIFT government funding to rebuild New Orleans and all communities suffering from racism and corporate greed.

GO green and promote environmental justice with new jobs in a clean energy economy.


70% of Americans want to end the U.S. Occupation of Iraq, but Bush wants to keep us there for decades - no matter how much it costs in U.S. or Iraqi lives and treasure.

Regional events are planned in 11 locations around the country on October 27th. Now is the time to start planning your busses, trains, and car pools.


When it comes to choosing our Presidential candidates, why does Iowa take priority over the rest of the country?

The National Presidential Caucus was created to give citizens across the country - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents - a chance to gather in small groups (up to 50 people) to discuss the candidates and vote.

Of course this vote is informal and will not choose any delegates for the convention. But it will get a lot of media coverage and will be a lot more meaningful than the polls - particularly for longer-shot candidates whose lower poll rankings reflects the Corporate Media's bias against them.

The full Caucus will be held on Friday December 7, using Meetup-style tools to help citizens connect. There will also be a Preliminary Straw Poll & Caucus Warmup on Friday, November 9, 2007 is a co-sponsor of the National Presidential Caucus. For more details:

The Three Clowns of the (democrat) ApocalypsePacific Free Press - Victoria,BC,CanadaThe impeachment of Richard Nixon was bipartisan only after the Democrats led the way. Bruce Fein and others claim that quite a few Republicans (Fein says ...See all stories on this topic

Nitroglycerin in the White House: Impeachment, Cowardice and the ...Bay Area Indymedia - San Francisco,CA,USAThe subject-impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney. The request-that Cong. Olver join the impeachment drive in Congress. ...See all stories on this topic

Movement for Impeachment is Movement for Free SpeechCitizens protest prosecution of people for holding up an IMPEACH banner: Daily Herald. New charges and trial delay: Chicago Suburban News, - Impeach... -

Dodging ImpeachmentBy Punditman(Punditman) Nader theorizes that since many Democrats admit in private that Bush and Cheney are the most impeachable persons ever to inherit their respective offices, but still won't go for impeachment, then perhaps they believe that the Bush ...punditman -

WEEK 12 DAY 84 - IMPEACHMENT.By Joe Anybody The House Representative Impeachment rally is in its 12th week. Here in this video the conspiracy of silence is illustrated. A pledge to not vote or support those whom are ignoring these cries for Impeachment investigations ...portland indymedia - newswire -

Impeachment, Cowardice and the DemocratsBy RALPH NADER John Olver (D-MA) were twenty seasoned citizens from over a dozen municipalities in this First Congressional District which embraces the lovely Berkshire Hills. The subject-impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney. ...One Thousand Reasons -

Dodging ImpeachmentIn short, the Democrats may be viewing Bush and Cheney as being so defiantly, aggressively impeachable on so many counts as to be unimpeachable. That is, with the White House harboring so much political nitroglycerine, don't even try to ...World Prout Assembly -

Can the Democratic Party be SavedThe Baltimore Chronicle - Baltimore,MD,USAMike Gravel) has called for the impeachment of the current president, despite a list of constitutional high crimes and misdemeanors that would make Willie ...See all stories on this topic

Support for Impeachment is bigger than we thinkBy laverny6 While Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said repeatedly that "impeachment is off the table," a growing movement suggests that support for impeachment is bigger than we think. read more digg story.Top Politics -

Impeach Investigations? Here, They're Finished!By ralphlopez The rumblings are being heard: Americans want impeachment on the table. Congress has one of its lowest approval ratings in history. Zogby found 52% of Americans want Congress to consider impeaching Bush if he wiretapped American ...MyDD -

Pelosi shoved IMPEACHMENT under the Table, as she doesn't believe ...By CIndyCasella "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."Daily Kos -

Big Island attorney calls for Lingle impeachmentHILO -- The attorney representing 21 people from Kauai who jumped into the ocean in August to prevent the Hawaii Superferry from entering Nawiliwili Harbor wants the state Legislature to support the initiation of impeachment proceedings ...
Local/ from -

Mon, 10/15/2007 - 02:34 — dlindorff

Isn't it odd that in the air attack that the US military claims killed 19 high-ranking leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and 15 civilians, all the slain Al Qaeda members were men and all the men were Al Qaeda, while all the civilians were women (6) and children (9)?

Think about this a minute.

This means that no women were Al Qaeda--and yet we know that women also fight, and also blow themselves up as suicide bombers. Yet these women were all civilians. The children, of course, were children.

Read more

Can the Democratic Party be Saved?
Fri, 10/12/2007 - 16:42 — dlindorff

This story appeared first on Oct. 12 in Buzzflash

Can the Democratic Party be saved?

That is a question that exasperated progressive Democrats across the country are increasingly asking themselves and each other.

Last November, when Democrats took control of both houses of Congress—fairly decisively in the House and by a whisker in the Senate—there was widespread relief in progressive circles. Anti-war activists thought there would finally be an end to President Bush’s criminal enterprise in Iraq. Civil libertarians thought that finally the Bush/Cheney administration’s Constitutional depredations would be undone, and that perhaps one or both men would be put in the dock of an impeachment panel in the House.

They couldn’t have been more wrong.

Read more

Thu, 10/11/2007 - 16:43 — dlindorff

Over the past year, Bush has pretty much lost his entire Coalition of the Unwilling, with the British, who have already pulled back from Basra into their fortified base, now intending to quit Iraq altogher early next year
But before the Brits close the door behind them, someone else wants to leave too: the United States Marines, America's answer to ancient Greece's Spartan warriors.

Read more

Tue, 10/09/2007 - 17:36 — dlindorff

The Democrats in Congress last Spring voted $120 billion to continue funding of the War in Iraq, saying that they had been sandbagged by the administration, with its so-called “surge” strategy. They promised that come September, though, they’d take a stand and end the war.
In August, the Democrats in Congress, who had been mouthing criticisms of the administration’s five-year crime spree of illegal wiretapping and internet monitoring by the National Security Agency, caved in under administration pressure and passed a “temporary” bill, authorizing that warrantless spying on Americans by the NSA. They promised, though, to “fix it” after they returned from summer recess.

Now they’re back, and they are voting to approve another $190 billion to keep the Iraq War going full bloody tilt right through next year and the end of Bush’s catastrophic second term of office, guaranteeing that the next president, Republican or Democrat, will have the war as his or her major preoccupation. And they are now talking about giving this criminal president—and the next one and the one after that—permanent authority to spy on Americans without a warrant, using the full technological powers of the NSA.

Leadership dooms Iraq strategy: ex-commander 13 Oct

Former U.S. commander in Iraq calls war 'a nightmare with no end in sight' 13 Oct 2007

Former Top General in Iraq Faults Bush Administration 12 Oct 2007

Lawmaker says Rice interfered with Iraq inquiry 12 Oct 2007

Lawmakers say State Department blocks Iraq corruption info 12 Oct 2007

For Your Information America! Books on Impeachment

1. Cowboy Republic. Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law by Marjorie Cohn. Documents the laws and the violations and reminds us why Jefferson warned against elected despotism.

2. United States v George W.Bush et al by Elizabeth de la Vega. An indictment, a presentation to a grand jury charging Bush and gang with fraud.

3. The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism by John Nichols. A masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the US, a history and portrait of the practice of impeachment.

4. Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush by The Center for Constitutional Rights, a short book that lists and explains 4 multipart articles of impeachment.

5. The Impeachment of George W. Bush. A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizenry by Elizabeth Holtzman (former Congresswoman) and member of the Nixon impeachment panel) and Cynthia L. Cooper. An excellent and readable book laying out 5 major grounds for impeachment of Bush plus an extra section on Dick Cheney.

6. The Case for Impeachment by Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky. An amazingly popular and extremely readable book that explains the context while also setting forth 6 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush plus and extra section on Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales.

7. Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney edited by Dennis Loo and Peter Phillips with an introduction by Howard Zinn. A wonderfully well written collection of essays organized around a list of 12 grounds for impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

8. George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-Ups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying by the U.S. House Judiciary Comittee Democratic Staff. A book that not only collects the evidence but also tell us what Congressman John Conyers the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee is thinking.

9. Verdict and Findings of Fact by the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration of the United States. A report that looks at 5 major international crimes and overlaps significantly with most lists of impeachable offenses.

10. Pretensions to Empire. Notes on the Criminal Folly of the Bush Administration by Lewis Lapham.

11. The Twilight of Democracy. The Bush Plan for America by Jennifer VanBergen. Find out what the Bush plan is and how it diverges from what the law and Constitution say.

12. Impeach Bush. A Funny L'il Graphical Novel About the Worstest President in the History of Forevar. A comic book account of Bush's impeachable offenses-the crimes really are self-evident, but pictures don't hurt.13. Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush, John Bonifaz, a constitutional attorney.

America's own unlawful combatants?
By Julian E. Barnes
Using private guards in Iraq could expose the U.S. to accusations of treaty violations, some experts think.


Last Wednesday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee condemned mass murder in the Middle East. Quite right, you may say -- except that this mass murder took place more than 90 years ago.The committee approved a resolution, which could go to the House floor this week, calling on the president "to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing and genocide . . . relating to the Armenian genocide."

Now, let's be clear about three things: First, what genocide means; second, whether or not the Armenians suffered one; third, whether or not it was smart for a U.S. congressional panel to say so.

The term "genocide" is a neologism dating back to 1944, coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe what the Nazis had done to the Jews of Europe. The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide sets out a clear definition: Genocide covers "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such":

* Killing members of the group;

* Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

* Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

* Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

* Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

On this basis, did the Armenians suffer a genocide?

For my latest book, "The War of the World," I reviewed the available evidence, including not just the reports of Western diplomats and missionaries but also, crucially, those of representatives of Turkey's ally, Austria-Hungary.

It's damning.

For example, according to Joseph Pomiankowski, the Austrian military plenipotentiary in Constantinople, the Turks had undertaken the "eradication of the Armenian nation in Asia Minor" (he used the terms Ausrottung and Vernichtung, which will be familiar to students of the Holocaust). There is also contemporary Turkish testimony that corroborates such reports. Armenian males of military age were rounded up and shot. Women and children were herded onto trains, driven into the desert and left to die.

The number of Armenians who were killed or died prematurely may have exceeded 1 million, a huge proportion of a prewar population that numbered, at the very most, 2.4 million, but was probably closer to 1.8 million. With good reason, the American consul in Izmir declared that the fate of the Armenians "surpasse[d] in deliberate . . . horror and in extent anything that has hitherto happened in the history of the world.

"It is absurd, then, that Turkish politicians and some academics (not all of them Turks) insist that the issue is somehow open to debate, though there is certainly room for more research to be done in the Turkish archives. And it is deplorable that writers in Turkey can still be prosecuted for describing the fate of the Armenians as genocide.Yet I remain far from convinced that anything has been gained by last week's resolution. Indeed, something may well have been lost.

Relations between the U.S. and Turkey were once good. The heirs of Kemal Ataturk were staunch allies during the Cold War. Today, Turkey allows essential supplies to Iraq -- around 70% of all the air cargo that goes to U.S. forces -- to pass through Turkish airspace. Moreover, the regime in Ankara currently offers the best available evidence that Islam and democracy can coexist.

Now consider this: For years, a campaign of terrorism has been waged against Turkey by separatists from the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK. The Turks are currently preparing to launch cross-border strikes on PKK bases in the Kurdish region in northern Iraq. To say the least, this will not be helpful at a time when Iraq teeters on the brink of bloody fragmentation.
Does gratuitously bringing up the Armenian genocide increase or decrease our leverage in Ankara? The angry responses of Turkey's president and prime minister provide the answer. On Thursday, President Abdullah Gul called the resolution an "attempt to sacrifice big issues for minor domestic political games" -- an allusion to the far-from-negligible Armenian American lobby, which has long pressed for a resolution like this.

The absurdity is that the genocide of 1915 was not perpetrated by today's Turkish Republic, established in 1923, but by the Ottoman Empire, which collapsed at the end of World War I. You might as well blame the United States for the deportation of Acadians from Nova Scotia during the French and Indian Wars.

"If we hope to stop future genocides, we need to admit to those horrific acts of the past," argued Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat and a sponsor of the resolution. Really? My sense is that all the resolutions in the world about past genocides will do precisely nothing to stop the next one.

And if -- let's just suppose -- the next genocide happens in Iraq, and the United States finds itself impotent to prevent it, the blame will lie as much with this posturing and irresponsible Congress as with anyone.


October 8, 2007. A World to Win News Service. The American elite killer force known as Blackwater—a kind of private SS unit—trained their heavy weapons on a traffic roundabout in Baghdad September 16 and murdered at least 11 Iraqis. Another 24 were shot and wounded
An article in the Washington Post (October 4) traces the events of that day through the fate of five people shot down by Blackwater gunmen. “The victims were as young as 11 and as old as 55, according to hospital records. They were middle class and poor. They included college students, day labourers and professionals vital to rebuilding Iraq. There was a mother and her daughter. The daughter lived. There was a taxi driver, only 25, who was the sole provider for his parents and seven siblings. He died.”

The mercenaries wanted to clear the square of traffic so that another convoy carrying American diplomats could pass through. “As the Blackwater armoured vehicles entered the square, a heavily guarded area near Baghdad’s affluent Mansour neighbourhood, Iraqi police officers moved to stop traffic. Mehasin Muhsin Kadhum, and her son Haitham, who were in the flow of cars the officers were trying to stop, didn’t react quickly enough. A Blackwater guard fired, striking Haitham as he sat in the driver’s seat, three witnesses said.

“‘The bullet went through the windshield and split his head open,’ recalled traffic police officer Sarhan Thiab. ‘His mother was holding him, screaming for help.’ The car, which had an automatic transmission, kept rolling. Another officer, Ali Khalaf, tried to stop the vehicle as another spray of bullets killed Kadhum.

Scott Ritter Is A Mental Midget

This Is “Don’t Say The “I” Word in A Different Cloak, And It’s A Joke
All of those good folks running around like chickens with their heads cut off, arguing to simplify charges and talk nice, simply don’t know what the hell they are talking about.

Did you ever hear the expression: “Throw The Book At Him”? What do think a law professor would say to you if you suggested that your approach to the law after graduation, as a prosecutor, was only file a select few charges out a bushel basket full. You would be pumping gas or micro waving McDonald’s hamburgers.

This President and Vice President are guilty of so damned much, and the list just get longer almost daily. Not all of what would be considered “The Basic” charges against the demented duo would find favor with as many Congressmen as one might suppose. Lying is a pretty much accepted- tolerated norm here in DC.; no big deal.

So let’s all be big boys and girls and tell it like it is. The president and Vice President are criminals. Check Out this!

Let’s stop pretending that we need some long winded investigation. The evidence is on the table; now put Impeachment on the table!


Radio hosts slam top Democrats for reluctance to consider impeachment
10/15/2007 @ 8:49 am
Filed by Jason Rhyne

Reid: Impeachment is a 'foolish idea;' Pelosi doesn't see justification

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) -- the top Democratic leaders from each of their respective chambers of Congress -- are drawing fire for a pair of recent radio appearances in which they reiterated their opposition to pursuing the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

In an interview Oct. 9 with nationally syndicated liberal radio host Ed Schultz, Pelosi defended previous statements in which she had promised that "impeachment was off the table."

"I don't see a connection between this and impeachment," Pelosi said, asked about a newly released secret memo on US interrogation tactics. A moment later, she side-stepped a repeat of the same question by elaborating on her goal to "bring the country behind a return to an America that honors the vision of our founders."

"I don't see that impeachment is in furtherance of bringing the people together in that way," she said.

"If somebody else out there has reason to think that they have evidence that the president has committed an impeachable offense that can pass the Congress, please let me know that," she continued, "but at the present time, I don't think that the justification is there for that."

Late Friday, Schultz told RAW STORY that the speaker's unwillingness to realistically discuss the impeachment option -- or even to entertain a theoretical scenario in which it might merit real consideration -- was tantamount to giving President Bush a "license to do whatever he wants to do."

"I think the Democratic leadership has signaled to the American people that there is no set of facts, no turn of events that would rise to the level of impeachment," Schultz said, adding that he thought the party's leaders had "pretty much given up."

"Our callers are extremely passionate about the truth," he continued. "They're extremely passionate about the Constitution, and poor Democrats feel like the leadership is letting them down."

Reid, too, dismisses impeachment.

For those Democratic voters who believed a majority in Congress might have greased the wheels for possible action on impeachment, another recent interview with top Senate Majority Lead Harry Reid did little to kindle hope.

In a recent Q&A with left-leaning host Christiane Brown of Reno's KJFK radio, Reid dismissed the notion as a "waste of time" that would succeed only in handing the White House to Vice President Dick Cheney.

"The clincher of it all," added Reid, "is that we'd end up with Cheney as president. Does anybody want that?"

"What people want to know is why do we want to wait for more deaths over the next year because we say our hands are tied," said Brown of the war in Iraq, adding that Cheney could be impeached as well.

"Well, I respectfully suggest to anyone that suggests impeachment," the senator replied, "that it's a very foolish idea."

Brown, however, who shot back on-air that "respectfully, I disagree and I know there are a lot of people that do," told RAW STORY that she couldn't grasp Reid's "strange thinking."

"It just seems to me that they've already made their mind up that impeachment isn't an option," she said of Reid and other Democrats, like Pelosi, that brush off even the notion of impeachment.

"We just hear a lot of excuses all the time," Brown said, citing Reid's insistence on her program that the trappings of an impeachment would be an unneeded distraction that served little effective purpose in the waning days of Bush's final term.

"None of these arguments stand up," she continued. "You have to do what's right...I think Americans want to see some accountability, and we're now being told that we're foolish to even consider it. It seems like [Congress] is looking for every reason not to get rid of this president."

'It's all about '08'

The logic, Brown says, doesn't play out. She theorizes that "maybe they think that having Bush in power is going to help them with their numbers in 2008."

According to impeachment activist David Swanson, that's precisely the reason. Co-founder of , and the Washington director of and, Swanson believes that reluctance among Democratic leaders has nothing to do with the a lack of justification for drafting impeachment articles and everything to do with politics.

"The Bush Administration is throwing out impeachable offense after impeachable offense," Swanson said. He counts Bush's "refusal to honor subpoenas," frequent signing statements and controversial intelligence gathering techniques as part of a roster of administration actions that warrant impeachment.

But Congress, in his opinion, isn't making a push for the president's removal because "Nancy Pelosi actually believes the best way to win elections is to keep Bush in office."

In Swanson's view, top Democrats have quietly committed to an electoral strategy that seeks to hang the albatross of an unpopular but still-serving President Bush around the necks of 2008 GOP contenders -- both the eventual Republican presidential nominee as well as the party's House and Senate candidates down ticket.

"And there's a view of history that says that isn't only morally disgusting, it's also wrong politically," he continued, adding that not only did Democrats have a responsibility to prosecute what he considers impeachable offenses, but also that impeachment itself wasn't inherently detrimental politically.

"Never has a party suffered for bringing impeachment," Swanson said, going on to mention that impeachment measures led by Democrats against former President Richard Nixon actually preceded a landslide victory for congressional Democrats in the 1974 mid-term elections.

Even after impeachment against President Bill Clinton, a very unpopular impeachment Swanson points out, Republicans lost fewer seats in the 2000 election than historical norms for a six-term congressional majority.

"They held onto both houses and the White House," he said. "Democrats should be thankful to suffer that kind of fate."

Schultz enthusiastically agrees. He believes that looming election concerns are powering much of the reluctance among House and Senate leadership.

"It's all about '08," he said. "They want the White House. They can't turn the country around unless they have the White House. They're serious about change, they're concerned about the country, but they think it would divide the country's future if impeachment were brought. And they're not willing to roll those dice."

Most viewed on
More news from your region

October 11, 2007


President Bush's harshest critics are calling for his impeachment, saying he misrepresented the reasons for invading Iraq. The process would begin in the House of Representatives, with a trial in the Senate. Impeachment as a tool given to the country by the framers of the Constitution, will be the topic of a teach-in scheduled for this Saturday night in Binghamton. Organizers say the process is important even if the President is not ultimately removed from office.

George Haessler says, "I think the thing about impeachment is it doesn't have to be successful to succeed. In fact the failure to even make the attempt is very important because that means we are sanctioning the transfer of power from the legislative branch to the executive which has certainly occurred to a great degree during this administration." The impeachment teach-in is scheduled for 7 PM Saturday night at the Forum Theater in downtown Binghamton.

Doors will open one hour earlier, at 6 o'clock.


On October 13, 2007, in response to a request made by Peter Thottam, Executive Director of the Los Angeles National Impeachment Center (LANIC) during a Town Hall Q&A session, Congresswoman Diane E. Watson (33rd District, CA) agreed to immediately endorse the impeachment of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney and stated that she will sign on as an official co-sponsor for H. Res. 333.

Victor Oquendo, Lyn Jensen and numerous other LANIC impeachment activists and volunteers living in Watson's district gathered more than 10,200 handwritten signatures--demonstrating overwhelming support for H. Res.333.

The endorsement was repeated three times, recorded and verified by Watson's Chief District Representative, Charles Stewart, following the meeting. With this announcement, Congresswoman Watson becomes the 22nd member of Congress to endorse H. Res. 333.

The endorsement is effective immediately and will be formalized this coming week by her staff. H. Res. 333, if passed, would impeach Vice President Dick Cheney on three charges.

The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, was introduced on April 24, 2007.
(Representative Edolphus Towns became the 21st co-signer of H. Res. 333 on September 27, 2007.) Join PDA's Impeachment Action Group; contact

Email your member of Congress and ask them to uphold their sworn duty to protect the Constitution by co-sponsoring H. Res. 333.

From: John Kennedy [] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:54 PMTo: COTAM; Matthew Gerbasi; Michael Jay; HUTCH; Bill MoyerCc: roses4joanne; Peter L. Thottam; Tim Carpenter; Susan Serpa; Debra Sweet; Diane Shamis; Diane Lawrence; David Swanson; Cheryl Biren-Wright;; Jacob Park; Dan Dewalt; dan monte; Sharon Lynch; John Kennedy; Dennis D. Loo; Phil BurkSubject: Re: (Final Agenda) Impeach Conference Call Oct 15

We the people are way past the time for polite negotiation with any Congressman from any party over ending the funding to stop the war or Impeaching. Nearly all Democratic leaders who control Congress have rejected just ending the funding and Impeachment. And Republicans will do nothing until the leading Dems act.So what do we do? More blogs, letters to editors, more tame protests with"we love our congressman but we want Impeachment" on the signs (we do this).

More tippy toe nudges to Impeach. More arrogance and rejection by Congress?

Baloney! It is time to get tough with US Representatives from either party who will not honor their Oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

Please don't waste any more time and energy over thinking, over discussing and over planning.

Our allegiance to our Constitution requires that we act.

The Impeachment opportunity is slipping away and our service men and women and Iraqis are dying and being maimed and BushCo is squandering the future for our children and Americas reputation.

We are way past the time for polite discussion with politicians who have already told us they will not even Debate Impeachment. It is way past time for any of us to be just suggesting that we will feebly try to find primary challengers to obstructionist Representatives.

The politicians are smarter than that. If we act wimpy they will call our bluff and ignore us. And We Will Fail.

I cannot live with failure.

We realize that some of you have chosen to work for change from within the Democratic Party ( PDA,, etc), very noble.

As the Democratic Party over the last 50 years has gradually moved far away from New Deal ideals the "work from within" approach has been tried and found wanting.

It is time for stronger medicine.

I am a 42 year Democrat who believes that we must in some way threaten the political existence, the political careers, the election or re-election of any and all politicians who refuse to become a co-sponsor of H Res 333 (or a substitute bill) and work to move the bill to the House floor for debate.

By doing this we will not cost the Democrats the presidency in 2008.

A chimp could beat the GOP now.

99 % of Democratic Representatives will be re-elected. We just need to scare them all so effectively that they will not dare to be among the 1% of re-election bids that we can cause to not be successful.

We believe that if we effectively threaten their re-election now we will quickly have Impeachment out of committee and in debate by the full house and having won that much we can all then go back to supporting all Democrats for re-election. But first we have to make the threat effectively and the Congress' perception of the threat as believe able, and get in front of the Congressmen at all public events and at their offices and be blunt.

Defend the Constitution or we will cause the voters in your District to not vote and not to send you money. Threaten to dry up the campaign money and you will have their full attention very quickly.I am willing to accept the results of a vote of the entire House on Impeachment, but I will never forgive them if Impeachment Bills die in Committee.

We all need to put our allegiance to our Country's foundation document the US Constitution ahead of our allegiance to our party.

We get our freedom and rights from the Constitution not from any political party.

Demonstrate to the Congress that we are resolute, that we put allegiance to the Constitution first and we will have their full attention on Impeachment, ending the war quickly and on a host of other Progressive issues such as health care and stem cell research.

To get the full attention of Congress we need to disrupt the flow of support and money from their District. Nothing else will likely work.For more info on our point of view you might see my Impeachment blog for today Treat the disease not the symptoms at Please feel free to contact me directly if you wish to discuss this.John H KennedyDenver COOrganizer-Colorado Impeach CoalitionHome: 303-220-0446

(leave messages here)Email: protestinthestreet@yahoo.comCOTAM <>

No comments: