Showing posts with label Impeach Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Impeach Bush. Show all posts

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Pelosi states that Judiciary Committee will not vote on impeachment.



Pelosi appears to be falling over herself to make sure that George Bush is not impeached. The latest is that the House Judiciary Committee will hear arguments about impeachment but it won't vote on whether or not to impeach.

When history records the attack on the democratic process that this administration embarked on, it really should reserve a good few chapters for discussion of how the Democratic party wilfully assisted in the process.

Pelosi has made her mind up before even hearing the evidence of Bush's crimes.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Biden's warning to Bush: Bomb Iran and face impeachment

Biden says what many people think, Bush should be impeached if he bombs Iran. Listen to Scarborough attack Biden for daring to say what he has said.

Personally, I doubt this group of Democrats would impeach Bush no matter what he did, but the lies Scarborough repeats here - Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" etc, - are simply stupefying.



Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Kucinich moves to impeach Dick Cheney…

The fact that Kucinich's actions will probably lead nowhere says more about the spinelessness of the US Congress than it does about the validity of Kuchinich's charges.



Sunday, October 07, 2007

On Torture and American Values

The New York Times's editorial today deserves to simply be reprinted in full with no need for anything to be added to it. It sums up perfectly the shame that Bush has brought upon a great nation.

Once upon a time, it was the United States that urged all nations to obey the letter and the spirit of international treaties and protect human rights and liberties. American leaders denounced secret prisons where people were held without charges, tortured and killed. And the people in much of the world, if not their governments, respected the United States for its values.

The Bush administration has dishonored that history and squandered that respect. As an article on this newspaper’s front page last week laid out in disturbing detail, President Bush and his aides have not only condoned torture and abuse at secret prisons, but they have conducted a systematic campaign to mislead Congress, the American people and the world about those policies.

After the attacks of 9/11, Mr. Bush authorized the creation of extralegal detention camps where Central Intelligence Agency operatives were told to extract information from prisoners who were captured and held in secret. Some of their methods — simulated drownings, extreme ranges of heat and cold, prolonged stress positions and isolation — had been classified as torture for decades by civilized nations. The administration clearly knew this; the C.I.A. modeled its techniques on the dungeons of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union.

The White House could never acknowledge that. So its lawyers concocted documents that redefined “torture” to neatly exclude the things American jailers were doing and hid the papers from Congress and the American people. Under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Mr. Bush’s loyal enabler, the Justice Department even declared that those acts did not violate the lower standard of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”

That allowed the White House to claim that it did not condone torture, and to stampede Congress into passing laws that shielded the interrogators who abused prisoners, and the men who ordered them to do it, from any kind of legal accountability.

Mr. Bush and his aides were still clinging to their rationalizations at the end of last week. The president declared that Americans do not torture prisoners and that Congress had been fully briefed on his detention policies.

Neither statement was true — at least in what the White House once scorned as the “reality-based community” — and Senator John Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, was right to be furious. He demanded all of the “opinions of the Justice Department analyzing the legality” of detention and interrogation policies. Lawmakers, who for too long have been bullied and intimidated by the White House, should rewrite the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act to conform with actual American laws and values.

For the rest of the nation, there is an immediate question: Is this really who we are?

Is this the country whose president declared, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” and then managed the collapse of Communism with minimum bloodshed and maximum dignity in the twilight of the 20th century? Or is this a nation that tortures human beings and then concocts legal sophistries to confuse the world and avoid accountability before American voters?

Truly banning the use of torture would not jeopardize American lives; experts in these matters generally agree that torture produces false confessions. Restoring the rule of law to Guantánamo Bay would not set terrorists free; the truly guilty could be tried for their crimes in a way that does not mock American values.

Clinging to the administration’s policies will only cause further harm to America’s global image and to our legal system. It also will add immeasurably to the risk facing any man or woman captured while wearing America’s uniform or serving in its intelligence forces.

This is an easy choice.

Click title for source.

Monday, October 01, 2007

Buy an Impeach Bush and Cheney Bracelet

This is fantastic. Order your Impeach Bush and Cheney wristbands through AfterDowningStreet.Org. by clicking on the title. The perfect Christmas present for any Democratic candidate.

Sadly they can only be sent to US zip codes.

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

Bush is attempting to decriminalise his criminality.

I have been arguing on here that, as Bush already has updated FISA through the Patriot Act, that his recent calls to update FISA again are not about any need to provide the government with tools to tackle terrorism - after all, according to his own words, he now has such power as long as he gains court approval - but rather, as he has been refusing to ask the courts for approval, what he now seeks is to decriminalise his own criminality by removing the need for court approval from the procedure.

After all, Gonzales has repeatedly stated that there is no need to update FISA:

And as for the administration's recently unveiled claims that FISA must be amended and liberalized ASAP otherwise we will be unsafe from the Terrorists, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have been asking the White House for almost two years what revisions to FISA are needed, and it was the White House that continuously insisted that no such changes were needed. From Gonzales' letter:


The only reason FISA has not been amended since December, 2005 -- when it was revealed that the President was violating it -- is because the White House has blocked all legislation designed to revise it
So, if the White House have constantly been claiming that FISA does not need amending, why would they possibly be suggesting that it is so urgent that it now be amended?

And the answer at last:

The national intelligence director, in a letter Wednesday to the House intelligence committee, stressed the need to be able to collect intelligence about foreign terrorists overseas. Mike McConnell said intelligence agencies should be able to do that without requirements imposed by an "out of date" law.

"Simply put, in a significant number of cases, we are in the unfortunate position of having to obtain court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets located overseas," he wrote the committee chairman, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas.

So Bush is trying to decriminalise his criminality. In the words of Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union:
"The administration claims the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act must be 'modernized.' Actually, it needs to be followed," she said. "The reality is, their proposal would gut FISA."

The ACLU said the legislation backed by the administration would give immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability for the telecommunication companies that participate in the NSA program. The ACLU urged lawmakers to find out the full extent of current intelligence gathering under FISA before making changes.


"The only thing more outrageous than the administration's call for even more unfettered power is a Congress that would consider giving it to them," Frederickson said.

So Bush is actually planning on gutting FISA of it's need for court approval whilst lying - why am I remotely bloody surprised? - about needing to update it to meet the need to tackle modern terrorist's methods.

Once again, Bush plays the card of attempting to save the nation from the scourge of terrorism, when in actual fact he is actually trying to make the illegal acts he has participated in legal.

Sunday, July 29, 2007

Impeach the Fat F#ck.

There is ample reason to impeach Cheney.

Dick Cheney continues to publicly state things which the DIA and CIA say are not true. He talks of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda which have been proven to be false and yet he keeps repeating them. What else should one do with such a person?"

"It is such a blatant misleading of the United States, its people, to prepare them, to position them, to, in fact, make them enthusiastic or feel that it's justified to go to war with Iraq," said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the committee's vice chairman. "That kind of public manipulation I don't know has any precedent in American history.""



And all of it has actually been discussed on the floor of the Senate.



Hat Tip to Blogger Round Table.

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Bush's "executive privilege"

I missed this a few months ago when it first went out. But, as Bush continues to claim executive privilege, it is interesting to hear Bruce Feith's thoughts on Bush's claims. Feith's main point, that no-one he has ever worked with in government has claimed to hold back from giving the President advice on the grounds that their discussion may one day become public, really does undermine Bush's argument.

Part 1.



Part 2.



Friday, July 27, 2007

Feingold: Dems Must Do More Than Criticize Bush

I'm with Feingold, it's simply a ludicrous position that Pelsosi, Clinton and others are maintaining. They are saying that Bush's illegal and unprecendented claims of power shouldn't be challenged with impeachment proceedings. I've even heard arguments that impeaching Bush would only result in a Cheney presidency. Leaving aside the fact that 54% of Americans want Cheney impeached as well, surely whoever replaces Bush is a secondary issue to the principle that the President is not above the law?



Thursday, July 26, 2007

A Reagan Republican calls for Bush's Impeachment.

Bruce Fein, a conservative Republican and former Reagan Deputy Attorney General, argues that Bush should now be impeached.



Fein also took part in Bill Moyers recent programme on the subject of the impeachment of Bush, in which it was revealed that 45% of Americans favour impeaching the President and 54% of impeaching the Vice President.



Part 2.



Part 3.



Part 4.



Part 5.



Sunday, July 08, 2007

The Slide Continues...

Bush's abysmal record of sliding down the polls is continuing and his recent decision to "commute" the sentence of "Scooter" Libby certainly has not helped matters. What I find most amusing is that Independents seem to be reacting more harshly towards this decision than even registered Democrats.

69% of voters disapprove of his decision to commute Libby's sentence with 76% of Democrats disapproving and a whopping 80% of Independents finding what Bush did to be simply beyond the pale.

On a complete pardon, which Bush has refused to rule out, only 9% of voters would approve of such a step with 84% of all voters firmly against such a step. 82% of Democrats feel this way against a whopping 97% of Independents.

A slight plurality of voters now favour the impeachment of Bush (46% for and 44% against) although more people appear to favour the impeachment of the worst man in the world, Dick Cheney, where - amongst all adults - 54% favour impeachment with 40% against such a move.

The figures are as nasty an indictment of Bush's failure in his job as one could hope to see. 67% of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling his role as President.

And what's astonishing about the figures is that there appears to be a split over whether or not the Iraq war can be one with Dems saying no and Repugs saying that victory is still possible.

85% of likely Democratic primary voters voting for Hillary Clinton, 71% of those voting for John Edwards, and 64% of those voting for Barack Obama say they do not believe the United States can win the war in Iraq.

86% of likely Republican primary voters voting for John McCain, 62% of those voting for Rudy Giuliani, and 68% of those voting for Mitt Romney say they believe the United States can win the war in Iraq.

I genuinely find it simply astonishing that there are still people out there who believe Iraq can be redeemed. That goes beyond optimism and puts one firmly in the camp of the delusional as far as I am concerned.

Likewise Bush's ridiculous claim that the United States "are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" appears to have been rejected by Democratic voters as the nonsense that it is, although Republicans appear to buy into this bullshit.

67% of likely Democratic primary voters voting for Hillary Clinton, 84% of those voting for John Edwards, and 71% of those voting for Barack Obama say they do not believe that the terrorists fighting in Iraq would travel to the United States to fight if the US withdrew all troops from Iraq.

71% of likely Republican primary voters voting for John McCain, 45% of those voting for Rudy Giuliani, and 53% of those voting for Mitt Romney say they believe that the terrorists fighting in Iraq would travel to the United States to fight if the US withdrew all troops from Iraq.

So it's an interesting poll, not only because it shows how Bush's recent decision to commute Libby's sentence has gone down like a cup of cold sick with the general public, but it also shows that Republicans in general believe things that are simply fantastical; that the war in Iraq can still be won and, if lost, that Iraqis are going to cross the Atlantic and wage war in the United States.

The man who convinced them of this staggers on - with a mere 27% of the public approving the job that he is doing.

I don't expect to see a worst President in my lifetime.

Click title for full poll.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Majority in poll want Bush impeached.

There's fascinating vote taking place over at MSNBC asking whether or not President Bush should be impeached. So far there have been 446,358 responses and the overwhelming majority - 88% - favour impeachment.

Go over and cast your vote by clicking here.

I find it fascinating that, whenever the public are asked this question, they have a clarity of purpose that the Democrats seem to lack.

Here's how the figures stood for Clinton at the height of the Monika Lewinsky affair. That adds a bit of perspective doesn't it?

Click title to impeach.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Turley on NSA Spying: “I don’t know of a more potential charge of impeachment”

I'm so glad that George Washington University Constitutional law professor, Jonathan Turley, has the same reading of this as I do. He says that this would be a "clear impeachable offense." Bush was told that what he was doing was illegal and yet he did it anyway.

There can no longer be any question over whether or not this President has committed impeachable offenses, the question now is whether or not Congress has the balls to pull him on it.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Comey Testifies that the President Broke the Law

Comey testified as follows:

(i) that he, OLC and the AG concluded that the NSA program was not legally defensible, i.e., that it violated FISA and that the Article II argument OLC had previously approved was not an adequate justification (a conclusion prompted by the New AAG, Jack Goldsmith, having undertaken a systematic review of OLC's previous legal opinions regarding the Commander in Chief's powers);

(ii) that the White House nevertheless continued with the program anyway, despite DOJ's judgment that it was unlawful;


(iii) that Comey, Ashcroft, the head of the FBI (Robert Mueller) and several other DOJ officials
therefore threatened to resign;

(iv) that the White House accordingly -- one day later -- asked DOJ to figure out a way the program could be changed to bring it into compliance with the law (presumably on the AUMF authorizaton theory); and


(v) that OLC thereafter did develop proposed amendments to the program over the subsequent two or three weeks, which were eventually implemented.


The program continued in the interim,
even after DOJ concluded that it was unlawful.



UPDATE:

This is simply mind boggling stuff and proof that Bush acted outside of the law even after he had been told that the programme he was engaged in was illegal.

Read Glenn Greenwald's take on this:
Yet even once Ashcroft and Comey made clear that the program had no legal basis (i.e., was against the law), the President ordered it to continue anyway. As Comey said: "The program was reauthorized without us and without a signature from the Department of Justice attesting as to its legality."

Amazingly, the President's own political appointees -- the two top Justice Department officials, including one (Ashcroft) who was known for his "aggressive" use of law enforcement powers in the name of fighting terrorism and at the expense of civil liberties -- were so convinced of its illegality that they refused to certify it and were preparing, along with numerous other top DOJ officials, to resign en masse once they learned that the program would continue notwithstanding the President's knowledge that it was illegal.

The overarching point here, as always, is that it is simply crystal clear that the President consciously and deliberately violated the law and committed multiple felonies by eavesdropping on Americans in violation of the law.
There is now a very clear case for impeachment. Even the Washington Post - as pro-Bush a newspaper as one could find - recognises that this is "an account of Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source."

Tags: , , ,

Sunday, April 01, 2007

Impeachment proceedings have begun.


Perhaps the Democrats aren't as spineless as I have taken them to be... Barefoot Bum are reporting:

The first article of impeachment against President George W. Bush was passed by the House Judiciary Committee in an emergency special session late Saturday. The article appears to have been prompted by new evidence that the FBI had abused its power under the direction of the president, who had blocked further investigations into the matter. Each of the thirty nine members of the committee seemingly voted along party lines on the measure, which passed by a vote of 22-17.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) has issued a statement on the allegations being brought forth; though a full disclosure on the charges of "high crimes and misdemeanours" against the president will be made available to the public during a Monday press conference scheduled at 11AM EST.
We'll have to wait until Monday to find out exactly what the grounds for impeachment are, but the implication is that Bush will be impeached on the charge that he obstructed justice when he blocked a Congressional investigation into illegal spying on US citizens.

The charges have come about because it has been found that the FBI has regularly abused its power in efforts to gather information on US citizens.

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine is said to have found 48 incidences where the FBI violated the law to acquire telephone, e-mail and financial records of Americans and foreigners without a judge's approval.

By obstructing a Justice Department investigation into this, Bush was clearly preventing the department from pursuing what many of us regarded at the time as clear acts of illegality.

There is a certain irony that Bush should be brought down over something like this as opposed to Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib or, indeed, the illegality of the entire Iraq war; but I suppose it's like Blair coming under the axe for Cash for Honours or Capone being done for tax evasion.

They have entered into so many acts of illegality that you have to take them out with whatever charges will stick.
A quote attributed to Committee Chairman Conyers in the press statement reads, "For 32 years the OPR had conducted highly sensitive investigations involving Executive Branch programs, and had not once been denied access to information classified at the highest levels of government." Chairman Conyers continued, "Recent testimony from FBI officials have led this committee to believe that illegal acts were in fact taking place for over two years as President Bush abused his power to obstruct an investigation into those very acts."
Here's hoping that the Democrats have the courage to see this through. Of course, there will be the usual cat calls from the usual circles that Bush is somehow being nailed on a technicality, but coming from the people who impeached Clinton for a blow job I don't think they'll find themselves on the strongest moral ground.

The simple fact is that he blocked investigations into criminal acts, and he probably blocked the investigations based on the fact that, despite what he was saying publicly at the time, that he knew exactly how illegal those actions were.

Nor do Democrats think the buck should stop at Bush:

Criticizing the administration's use of executive privilege and describing the failure to uphold accountability as an abuse of power, Democrats speaking on condition of anonymity predict that an additional article may be put forth by the committee to warrant that Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice be removed from office. Following articles will be voted on by the House Judiciary Committee before they are debated on the House floor. The first article is expected to win a majority vote in the House, which would bring the charges against the president to the Senate.
One thought occurs to me. Bad news for Libby's prospects of a pardon, eh? God, it's a win win..

Click title for full article.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Sean Penn: An Open Letter to the President...Four and a Half Years Later


Four and a half years ago, I addressed the issue of war in an open letter to our President. Today I would like to again speak to him and his, directly. Mr. President, Mr. Cheney, Ms. Rice et al: Indeed America has a rich history of greatness -indeed, America is still today a devastating military superpower.


And because, in the absence of a competent or brave Congress, of a mobilized citizenry, that level of power lies in your hands, it is you who have misused it to become our country's and our constitution's most devastating enemy. You have broken our country and our hearts. The needless blood on your hands, and therefore, on our own, is drowning the freedom, the security, and the dream that America might have been, once healed of and awakened by, the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

But now, we are encouraged to self-censor any words that might be perceived as inflammatory - if our belief is that this war should stop today. We cower as you point fingers telling us to "support our troops." Well, you and the smarmy pundits in your pocket, those who bathe in the moisture of your soiled and bloodstained underwear, can take that noise and shove it. We will be snowed no more. Let's make this crystal clear. We do support our troops in our stand, while you exploit them and their families. The verdict is in. You lied, connived, and exploited your own countrymen and most of all, our troops.

You Misters Bush and Cheney; you Ms. Rice are villainously and criminally obscene people, obscene human beings, incompetent even to fulfill your own self-serving agenda, while tragically neglectful and destructive of ours and our country's. And I got a question for your daughters Mr. Bush. They're not children anymore. Do they support your policy in Iraq? If they do, how dare they not be in uniform, while the children of the poor; black, white, Asian, Hispanic, and all the other American working men and women are slaughtered, maimed and flown back into this country under cover of darkness.

Now, because I've been on the streets of Baghdad during this occupational war, outside the Green Zone, without security, and you haven't; I've met children there. In that country of 25 million, these children have now suffered minimally, a rainstorm of civilian death around and among them totaling the equivalent of two hundred September 11ths in just four years of war. Two hundred 9/11s. Two hundred 9/11s.

You want to rattle sabers toward Iran now? Let me tell you something about Iran, because I've been there and you haven't. Iran is a great country. A great country. Does it have its haters? You bet. Just like the United States has its haters. Does it have a corrupt regime? You bet. Just like the United States has a corrupt regime. Does it want a nuclear weapon? Maybe. Do we have one? You bet. But the people of Iran are great people. And if we give that corrupt leadership, (by attacking Iran militarily) the opportunity to unify that great country in hatred against us, we'll have been giving up one of our most promising future allies in decades. If you really know anything about Iran, you know exactly what I'm referring to. Of course your administration belittles diplomatic potential there, as those options rely on a credibility and geopolitical influence that you have aggressively squandered worldwide.

Speaking of squandering, how about the billion and a half dollars a day our Iraq-focused military is spending, where three weeks of that kind of spending, would pay the tab on a visionary levy-building project in New Orleans and relieve the entire continent of Africa from starvation and the spread of disease. Not to mention the continued funds now necessary, to not only rebuild our education and healthcare systems, but also, to give care and aid to the veterans of this war, both American and our Iraqi allies and friends who have lost everything.

You say we've kept the war on terror off our shores by responding to a criminal act of terror through state sponsored unilateral aggression in a country that took no part in that initial crime. That this war would be fought in Iraq or fought here. They are not our toilet. They are a country of human beings whose lives, while once oppressed by Saddam, are now lived in Dante's inferno.

My 15-year-old daughter was working on a comparative essay this week (you can ask Condi what a comparative essay is, as academic exercises fit the limits of her political expertise.) My daughter's essay, which understood substance over theory, discusses the strengths of the Nuremberg trial justice beside the alternate strategy of truth and reconciliation in South Africa, and I quote: "When we observe distinctions between one power and another, one justice and another, we consider the divide between retribution and reconciliation, of closure and disclosure." I can't do her essay justice in this forum, but at its core, it asks how, when, and why we compromise toward peace, punish for war, or balance both for something more.

This may focus another soft spot in the rhetoric of both sides. We're told not to engage in the "politics of attack." To "keep away from the negative"...Well, Mr. Bush, when speaking of your administration, that would leave us silent, and impotent indeed.

So, in conclusion, I address my remaining remarks to the choir: We all played nice recently at the sad passing of former President Ford. Pundits and players on all sides re-visited his pardoning of Richard Nixon with praise, stating that a divided nation found unity. But what of that precedent on deterrence now? Where is justice now? Let's unite, not only in stopping this war, but holding this administration accountable as well. Without impeachment, justice cannot prevail. In our time, or our children's. And let's make it clear to democrats and republicans alike that we are not willing to wait on '08 to hear them say again: "If I'd known then, what I know now."

Even in a so-called victory, what we saw yesterday was a House of Representatives that couldn't bring itself to represent either conscience or constituents. It's a tragedy that the Democratic Party's leadership in Congress refuses to allow the House to vote on Barbara Lee's amendment for a fully funded, orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. Elites circled the war wagons against this proposal, and postponed the day of reckoning that must come as soon as possible - a complete pullout of U.S. military forces from Iraq.

There are presidential candidates who understand this. We do have candidates of conscience. As things stand today, I will be voting for Dennis Kucinich, who has fought this war from the beginning. You might say Kucinich can't win. Well, we have an opportunity to re-establish the credibility of democracy as viewed by the world at large.

We can fire our current president. We can choose the next president. You and me, the farmer in Wisconsin, the boys at Google, and Bill Gates.

It's up to us to choose. Why don't we choose?!
Click title for source.