INDEX THE CASE PETITION EVENTS NEWS FAQS CONTACTS LINKS ABOUT
OPINIONS/EDITORIALS

Note: the most recently submitted to this website is on top.
When the pile gets too high, we will create archives.
To submit an op/ed, click HERE

Please keep them short and to the point, which is impeachment!
For tips on writing for the web, visit this website

"Pelosi, Conyers, the People, and Impeachment"
BY DAVID SWANSON

Speech delivered in Portland, Maine, at rally organized by maineimpeach.org on April 28th, the national day of impeachment events organized by www.a28.org.

I want to thank MaineImpeach.org for putting this event together. This is a wonderful crowd! The paper on grounds for impeachment drafted by Maine Lawyers for Democracy is incredibly well done.

I spoke earlier today at a rally in Boston, Massachusetts, where one of the other speakers was Dan DeWalt, whose leadership and determination after many months led to the Vermont State Senate passing a resolution demanding the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. We spoke at Faneuil Hall, where men like Wendell Phillips led a movement to abolish slavery, something the wise and knowing of that day said could not be done. Those abolitionists made their movement a fight for freedom of the press. And make no mistake: our struggle is the same.

The corporations that control our communications system do not report the grounds for impeachment, do not poll the public's support for it, and at least until today have not reported on our movement. There have been exceptions, and the most significant has been the Boston Globe's Charlie Savage, who recently received a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on our President's habit of violating laws and announcing his intention to do so with so-called signing statements. There can be no better grounds for impeachment than those public advertisements of criminality.

And there is hope that today may mark a breakthrough in compelling the media to cover impeachment. In fact, I just did a television interview in the foyer. Events are being held in 43 states and several foreign countries today. Some are holding rallies. Others are spelling out the word IMPEACH with their bodies on beaches, with boats on lakes, with pizzas on boardwalks. I just got a text message that said "Everyone is taking off their clothes and spelling IMPEACH on the beach at Coney Island." I just got a phone call from Seattle where they've stretched hug IMPEACH banners over the highways. A fleet of seven airplanes is taking the impeachment message to the skies and photographing the displays below. And Bush is giving a speech in Miami where a huge crowd is gathered, but they're not there to welcome him.

Part of what has given this movement energy is the action that a Congressman from Cleveland, Ohio, took last Tuesday. Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced House Resolution 333, which contains 3 articles of impeachment against Richard B. Cheney. The Congress Members from Maine need to cosponsor this bill or defend the actions of Dick Cheney. Kucinich is a hero now to millions of Americans and to people around the world, but he merely did his duty, it was a long time coming, and it is his duty to impeach Bush as well.

At stake is not just an offensive use of signing statements. At stake is accountability for (and I am neither exaggerating nor using metaphor) – at stake is accountability for mass murder. A war based on lies and launched by an unelected president and vice president has cost the lives of approximately a million Iraqis, caused millions more to flee their country, and displaced many more within Iraq. In the process, over 3,000 US troops have died, tens of thousands have been wounded, and been driven into debt and divorce and been left to struggle with post traumatic stress disorder.

If one man on the streets of Portland, Maine, or some small American town, murdered one person, would prosecution be optional? Would the local sheriff wait for years before asking the man's friends to come in and answer a few questions? Would police and prosecutors stake their future careers on keeping the murderer at large? But this is the 2008 election strategy of Sheriff Pelosi and her followers. They want the war makers left free precisely because the public is outraged. They want the war to keep going so that they can benefit by "opposing" it. But November 2008 is too far off, and Pelosi will not be able to hold back the public pressure.

At the start of 2007, which is now one-third wasted, the new Democratic committee chairmen tried to appease the citizenry with talk of investigations and oversight. Four months later, the House and Senate intelligence committees have not investigated the lies that took us to war. The judiciary committees and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have looked into some related matters. But officials who have testified have experienced extraordinary lapses of memory. The unitary executive branch has refused to produce subpoenaed documents. And now Condoleezza Rice says she's "not inclined" to obey a subpoena requiring her to appear and answer questions about forged documents that were used to mislead our nation into war. She's not claiming executive privilege. What sense would that make these years after the crime was committed? She's claiming unitary executive privilege – the privilege to violate the law.

Congress can't compel Rice to appear, and neither can our courts. Law enforcement is handled by the executive branch. But executives who fail to faithfully execute the laws of this land can be removed from office. That power lies solely with Congress and is called impeachment!

Last night on PBS, Bill Moyers celebrated the Democrats' beginning to use subpoenas. For 6 years, he said, they had been suffering from subpoena envy. I'm afraid they now may be experiencing premature congratulation, and self-congratulation. If subpoenas are ignored, the options for Congress Members, including Chairman Henry Waxman, are: backing impeachment, or retiring. And I don't want Congressman Waxman to retire.

I'm usually asked to speak about the evidence for impeachment, and frankly I'm a little tired of it. We've got enough smoking guns to fill an NRA convention. The evidence that Bush and Cheney intentionally lied to Congress (which is a felony) and to the public (which is an assault on democracy) about weapons of mass destruction and alleged Iraqi ties to al Qaeda and 9-11 is overwhelming. The Maine Lawyers have spelled it out, and it is collected at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org

Bush and Cheney are on video telling these lies. Cheney repeatedly visited the CIA headquarters to pressure them to get it wrong – a story we may hear about in George Tenet's forthcoming book. Cheney set up a phony intelligence operation in the Pentagon, distorted a National Intelligence Estimate, leaked misleading bits of classified information, and helped coordinate a marketing campaign to promote the war. Cheney led a campaign to punish Joe Wilson for exposing one of the lies – the same lie that Rice now refuses to talk about. The campaign involved exposing an undercover CIA agent, and act of TREASON. Cheney has directed contracts to Halliburton and profited there from, an act of BRIBERY. Cheney has allowed secret meetings of corporate executives to determine our national energy and military policies, a HIGH CRIME And MISDEMEANOR. A section of the US Constitution that was displayed last Thursday on a giant banner dropped in the courtyard of the Hart Senate Office Building (for which 14 people were arrested) says that officers of our government shall be removed from office upon impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. With Dick Cheney you get the whole package.

With George W. Bush it's worse. No investigation is needed to expose his war lies, or his spying in violation of the law. He's on video for years lying about warrantless spying and later brazenly confessing to it. He's on video being warned about Hurricane Katrina. He's on video claiming he wasn't warned. Both Bush and Cheney are on video threatening an aggressive attack on Iran. Such a threat – just the threat – violates the UN Charter and Article 6 of the US Constitution. As does the war on Iraq and all the war crimes that have been part of it. And Bush and Cheney are responsible for the actions of their subordinates, including Alberto Gonzales, especially those actions they do not investigate or hold anyone accountable for.

Bush has detained without charge, held people in secret prisons, and tortured. These facts are not in dispute. The crimes are simply so brazen, so radical, so far over the line of decency, such a retreat to the evils of monarchy that American revolutionaries thought they were leaving behind, that people are pretending not to see, and the media is not helping.

While no investigations are needed, hearings could help better inform the public. But the media only covers hearings with big-name witnesses, and they either forget everything they've done or refuse to appear. The problem, in any case, is not the public. It's Congress. How can we persuade Congress Members, other than Kucinich, maybe even a Congressman from Maine, to act?

The answer is not convincing them that impeachable offenses have been committed. They know it. Thirty-nine Congress Members in early 2006 signed onto House Resolution 635 to create an investigation into impeachment. At least one new freshman member was elected campaigning on impeachment, and many campaigning on accountability. They want impeachment. They know their duty. But Pelosi and the media are against it, with only the public for it. Who wins this struggle is a question of how active the public becomes and how smart we are.

We need to pressure Pelosi directly, but also indirectly. We need to raise hell until the media polls Americans on their support for impeaching Cheney and Bush. Or we need to raise funds to pay for state-level or national polls. We need to take those results to our Congress Members' offices and put them in their hands. There will be a majority for impeaching Bush and two-thirds for Cheney. I guarantee it.

We need to meet with editorial boards and persuade them to take a position for or against Dick Cheney. We need to demand that the media cover our events, or we need to hold our events in their lobbies and offices. Isn't there a newspaper near here? If they're not here with us, we should ALL go pay them a visit when we're done.

We need to lobby the progressive Democrats to join Kucinich, especially those on the House Judiciary Committee and especially Chairman John Conyers. And we need to talk to these politicians in terms they understand: election gains and losses. Impeachment, for many of us, is not about elections or parties or individuals. It is about restoring limitations to the offices of the presidency and the vice presidency. But that won't move Pelosi or persuade many Democrats to defy her. It is, however, what they should talk about when they do step forward. And they should ask Republicans to join them. At least one Republican, Ron Paul, has said he favors impeachment. Many rank and file Republicans cannot possibly want a Democrat to hold the powers Bush has assumed. I certainly don't.

What Democrats in Congress need to feel is immediate public pressure painting them as defenders of Dick Cheney. And what they need to be told is that impeachment is good for elections. It is. The Democrats held Nixon to account and won, and let Reagan off easy and lost. The Republicans went after Truman and won. They went after Clinton despite public opposition and still held onto power and began expanding it. If the Democrats do not act, the public will see Iraq as their war and Bush as their president long before November 2008, and when election day comes, voters will stay home.

Democrats in Congress also have to be told that impeachment is not a distraction from ending the war or anything else worthwhile, but rather the way to achieve those goals. Four months of avoiding impeachment has accomplished virtually nothing. Anything that is accomplished will be vetoed or signing statemented. In contrast, during Nixon's impeachment, Congress raised the minimum wage, created the Endangered Species Act, and ended a war. And it was the pressure of impeachment that made those things possible. And, as my friend and fellow agitator John Nichols points out, in 1973 the Speaker of the House Carl Albert said impeachment was off the table. The Speaker clearly does not get the final word, because the table belongs to us.

Of course, it's worse when the Speaker is taking her talking points from the White House. That's what Pelosi did a year ago when the Republican National Committee announced with no evidence the absurd fantasy that talk of impeachment would be good for Republicans in the 2006 elections. Pelosi immediately made the same announcement. This bit of recent history needs to be made known, because what popular support the Democrats have comes from their opposing, not obeying, Bush. In at least 16 states, the state Democratic Party has passed a resolution asking for impeachment. The California Democratic Party is expected to pass such a resolution tomorrow, and when Pelosi hosts the dinner tonight, delegates plan to dramatically put impeachment on the table. I got a phone call from San Diego, where they say they've spelled IMPEACH on the beach, and no one can get into the Democratic Convention without being greeted by impeachment advocates. The right-wing San Diego Union Tribune has even run a story about it, featuring a photo of impeachment advocates Marcy Winograd and Cindy Asner, the wife of impeachment advocate and actor Ed Asner.

Ultimately, all we want from Pelosi is neutrality. If she won't lead or follow, she should step out of the way. The minute she does, John Conyers will lead.

"I have a choice," Conyers said last year. "I can either stand by and lead my constituents to believe I do not care that the president apparently no longer believes he is bound by any law or code of decency. Or I can act."

We need to remind John Conyers of this choice every day until he does act. If he acts, he will be remembered as a hero. If he does not act, some future Emerson will write of him words like those Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote of Webster:

Why did all manly gifts in Webster fail?
He wrote on Nature's grandest brow For Sale.

John Conyers' legacy deserves better than that. For his own sake, we must pressure him to do what he knows is right. I'm convinced that he wants us to pressure him. I'm confident we will do so. And I'm certain that Bush and Cheney will be impeached and removed from office before the end of their terms.

But if someone asks you whether impeachment is likely of unlikely, guaranteed or impossible, tell them that you are not a spectator, you're a citizen, and impeachment will happen because you're going to make it happen. In two days it will be four years since Mission Accomplished was declared, and two years since the Downing Street Minutes were published. We have our own mission to accomplish. With no fear, no hesitation, and no sleep till impeachment.

David Swanson is the Washington Director of Democrats.com and co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and of the Backbone Campaign. He serves on a working group of United for Peace and Justice. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign. His website is www.davidswanson.org. In April 2007, Swanson began consulting part-time for Kucinich for President 2008.


Has Bush committed impeachable acts?
By BDN Staff (Phil Worden)
Monday, April 30, 2007 - Bangor Daily News

As an attorney I often get asked if I think President Bush has committed any impeachable "high crimes or misdemeanors." The Constitution gives the power to remove the President to the Congress, not the judiciary, so the question is more political than legal. The legalistic language about "high crimes and misdemeanors" and a "trial" in the Senate reminds Congress that ours is not a parliamentary system; Congress cannot remove a president with a mere "no confidence" vote. In terms of whether President Bush has committed any offenses that could justify impeachment, consider the following:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who served as the chief prosecutor of the major Nazi war criminals, called starting a war without cause the "supreme war crime" because all other war crimes flow from it. Under the United Nations Charter, which is a binding international treaty ratified by the United States, it is illegal to attack another nation except: 1) when authorized by the Security Council; or 2) when necessary for self-defense and then only for as long as necessary to get the matter to the Security Council.

The Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 that found Iraq in material breach of prior resolutions and warned of "severe consequences" if Iraq didn’t conform. But that resolution also explicitly stated that the Security Council remained seized of the issue and the United States assured the other members that Resolution 1441 did not authorize it to attack Iraq; the U.S. would have to return to the Security Council for another resolution before it could attack Iraq. In early 2003, the United States did return to the Security Council with a resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq. When it became clear that the proposed resolution could not muster a majority, the United States withdrew the resolution and attacked Iraq anyway. There is no crime more serious than illegally starting a war.

In garnering support for his invasion of Iraq, President Bush selectively cherry-picked the advice and intelligence that supported the end result he wanted to achieve. Many career officers at the CIA and the Pentagon quit when their reservations about the war were ignored. President Bush misled Congress when he pretended he had solid intelligence that Iraq had the ability and desire to attack America.

President Bush has shown a consistent hostility to civil rights. Tens of thousands were swept up in immigration raids after the Bush administration announced it intended to use immigration laws against suspect populations not for immigration purposes but as part of its "War on Terror." It claimed a right to seize U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and to hold them indefinitely without charges, a trial, an attorney or even the right to remain silent. It not only supported the USA PATRIOT Act but, according to the inspector general, systematically abused it after it became law.

In the late 1970s, Congress established a secret court to issue search warrants in foreign intelligence cases. Congress diluted the definition of "probable cause" in foreign intelligence cases to make these warrants easy to get. President Bush, however, authorized the National Security Agency to seize telephone records without getting warrants from the foreign intelligence court. The NSA had the technology to monitor all phones calls and did not want to identify the particular records to be seized as is done in search warrants. The idea was to seize all phone records and then "data mine" them to see if any of them contained foreign intelligence information. This invasion of privacy not only circumvented the statute establishing the foreign intelligence court but the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment as well. The Fourth Amendment was designed to prohibit the British type of "general warrant" that authorized a particular person to search or seize anything he wants.

Although the Bush administration uses the language of war, such as "War on Terrorism," it insisted that the prisoners captured in Afghanistan were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions because they did not wear uniforms. President Bush’s attorney called the Geneva Conventions "quaint." However, the same administration claimed a right to detain these prisoners indefinitely without any kind of hearing on the grounds that prisoners of war can be detained without hearing until the war ends. President Bush uses the international law of warfare selectively, saying it applies when it suits his purposes but does not apply when it does not suit his purposes.

Both international and U.S. law condemn torture. President Bush’s administration has redefined torture to only include serious physical injury that can lead to death and then used that narrowed definition to authorize "water boarding," sensory deprivation, sleep denial, and other aggressive interrogation techniques commonly understood to be torture. In response, Congress passed a statute outlawing inhumane treatment of prisoners. When he signed that statute into law, President Bush issued a separate "signing statement," saying that he reserved the right to use torture if he thought it was necessary for national security.

President Bush has authorized the use of depleted uranium shells in Iraq, which will create health hazards there for decades to come. He authorized the use of phosphorus bombs against Fallujah, a civilian target. While it’s true that phosphorus bombs burn people, their primary purpose is to suck oxygen out of the air so people hiding in buildings suffocate. "Daisy cutter" bombs create a concussion that makes the eye balls and ear drums of people hiding in bunkers explode.

My conclusion: It is the political will to impeach, not the legal grounds, that we lack.

Phil Worden lives in Tremont, Maine. E-mail, or write PO Box 1009, Northeast Harbor, ME 04662


Impeachment Fever Rises
 by JOHN NICHOLS
April 20, 2007 (May 7, 2007 issue)
The Nation Magazine online

When Nancy Pelosi announced last fall that impeachment was "off the table," official Washington accepted that the primary avenue for holding lawless Presidents to account had been closed off by the new Speaker of the House. But the Republic's citizenry has not been so inclined. And now, with the Administration's troubles mounting, they're preparing to tell Pelosi that America and the world cannot wait until January 20, 2009, to put an end to Bush's reign of error. When Pelosi arrives at the California Democratic Convention in San Diego on April 28--the same day that activists nationwide will rally for presidential accountability--she'll find on the agenda a resolution that declares that the actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney "warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office." Delegates are expected to endorse the measure.

Pelosi fears that impeachment would distract from the Democratic legislative agenda and provoke an electoral backlash. History suggests she is wrong: The Watergate Congress was highly efficient, and Democrats had one of their best years ever at the polls after pressuring Richard Nixon out of office. But aside from Dennis Kucinich, who is particularly fired up about Cheney's misdeeds, few in Congress have even hinted at bucking Pelosi's ban.

Outside Washington, however, an "impeachment from below" movement is gathering steam. The President's troop surge into Iraq and his refusal to consider exit strategies has caused many to react like GOP Senator Chuck Hagel, who has observed, "The President says...he's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him." Hagel's remarks go to the heart of the surge in interest in impeachment: It stems from Bush's ongoing disregard for the demands of the electorate, the Congress and the Constitution. Legitimate impeachment initiatives are organic responses to the realities of a moment rather than purely legal procedures. Talk of impeachment gains traction when it becomes clear that an Administration is unwilling to respect the system of checks and balances or the rule of law. This explains why the allegation that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, apparently with White House approval, pressured US Attorneys to politicize prosecutions has added so much fuel to the fire, with activists like Vermont's Dan DeWalt now saying, "I don't have any trouble getting people to agree that impeachment is necessary."

DeWalt engineered a campaign in March to get town meetings in his state to pass resolutions calling on Congress to impeach and remove Bush and Cheney. Three dozen towns did so, including Middlebury, where GOP Governor Jim Douglas found himself presiding over a meeting that voted overwhelmingly in favor of going after the two for misleading the nation about the threat posed by Iraq, condoning torture and approving illegal electronic surveillance. The goal of the town meeting movement was to get the state legislature to forward articles of impeachment to the US House. Citing Thomas Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, which makes reference to the authority of state legislatures to propose impeachment, legislators in at least ten states, including Vermont, have now done so. But the real success of the initiative was to illustrate the popular appeal of impeachment--an effort helped along by Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau, who devoted a week of strips to the town meeting votes--and to tell members of Congress like Vermont's Peter Welch that they might want to take their cues from constituents rather than Pelosi. Welch has responded by meeting with activists and asking them for more details of Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors.

DC Democrats still put forth anti-impeachment arguments--particularly the old saw that going after Bush would just give the presidency to Cheney. Activists have countered with an "Impeach Cheney First!" campaign and a reminder that the Constitution in no way prohibits holding more than one official to account at the same time. They've also picked up an argument made by Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, who says it was the threat of impeachment that got Richard Nixon to bend to pressure from Congress to wind down the Vietnam War. "If you want to move Bush on Iraq," says Ellsberg, "get serious about impeachment." Millions of Americans are doing just that.

A letter to President Bush

Dear Mr. Bush,

I dare say that few of us doubt your sincerity about the things you hold dear and the many things that overload your desk, but I wonder if you are asking too much from so many unknowns.

Praying for victory, the safety of our troops, the end of Shiite and Sunni hostilities, peace between Palestinians and Israelis, the end of Iranian and Korean nuclear and political games and unity on energy, the economy, trade, education, hunger and health, just may not be in the immediate future and certainly not on your timetable.

I think you are hoping against hope to change your apparent legacy at the expense of those who defend us, OUR troops.

I signed on for military service from which I am now retired. You signed on for service and from what I have seen, you were not ready to follow through with that commitment, but are now running the military like a John Wayne movie, with you as the star. You may be the headliner, but your performance is poor, while I refrain from a plethora of adjectives to tell you how I really feel.

I feel that to scuttle the major progress of the mission to combat terrorism, for the opportunity to avenge the assassination plot against your dad, was a severe mistake for two reasons. First, President Clinton already did that. If it was not to your satisfaction, I am truly sorry for the second reason is likely half the 3200 plus deceased Americans in my opinion, were needless.

I have signed on, as a life long Republican, to call for the impeachment of both you and Mr. Cheney. I also call on you and Mr. Cheney to resign to spare the nation further pain.

Larry W. Mayes
Lewiston, ME


The case for impeachment
 By Edgar Allen Beem
(published: March 22, 2007 in The Forecaster
http://www.theforecaster.net/story.php?storyid=9966 )

The impeachment of President Bush does not seem to be on the radar yet in the nation’s capitol, but it sure is on the Internet. When I Googled “impeachment” and “Bush” just now I got 6,700,000 hits. When I did an online newspaper and magazine index search for the same two words, I had to limit my search to the last three months before I stopped getting the “more than 3,000 entries” message.

If Bill Clinton could be impeached for lying about his sex life, George Bush certainly should be impeached for lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If that were Bush’s only transgression, it would be enough, but the bill of indictment against W and his hapless administration is long and stunning.

Here in Maine, the Maine Campaign to Impeach Web site (www.maineimpeach.org) lists “Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney.” The list begins with “using fraud to sell the war” and continues through “authorizing the torture of thousands of captives,” “detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process,” “targeting civilians,” “widespread wiretapping of the phones and e-mails of Americans without a warrant,” “using ‘signing statements’ to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress,” “obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006,” “exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative,” “subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power,” and “gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina.”

As of last week, 3,668 citizens had signed the Maine Impeach online petition seeking the impeachment of the president and vice president. Maine Impeach is seeking 10,000 signatures before it presents the petition to our congressional representatives.

At this point, it seems pretty clear that the indictment of the Bush administration is no longer a partisan issue. Reasonable Republicans now understand what a mistake they made voting for Bush and Cheney. And in a recent WGME-TV online poll, a whopping 70 percent of respondents favored impeachment. OK, so the poll results were probably skewed by those with impeachment fervor, but if everyone in this country who disapproves of Bush and Cheney did support impeachment, 70 percent sounds about right.

In light of revelations in recent weeks, Maine Impeach might want to add “failing to support our troops by providing substandard medical care to wounded veterans” to the list of reasons to get rid of Bush and Cheney. As much as anything that band of Bush incompetents has done, the fiasco at Walter Reed Army Medical Center makes my blood boil. Then we find out that Bush & Co. privatized maintenance of Walter Reed by awarding a $120 million contract to IAP Worldwide Services, an outfit run by two former Kellogg, Brown & Root (a Halliburton subsidiary) executives. The name of one of the IAP Worldwide principals – I kid you not – is Dave Swindle.

The stench of corruption and failure arising from the Bush administration is so strong these days that I can only imagine the illegalities that would turn up if Congress turned loose a few special investigators. Of course, the Bush Injustice Department would probably just dismiss them.

Personally, I don’t see articles of impeachment being filed against George W. Bush before he leaves office, but, Lord knows, it would be good for the American soul to call Bush and Cheney to account for their actions before they are allowed to simply walk into the corporate sunset and away from the unholy mess they have made of America. If the U.S. Congress does not have the political will to undertake impeachment proceedings, then I suggest that, at the very least, they consider turning the fighting of the war in Iraq over to Halliburton, along with everything else.


IMPEACHMENT, NOT APPEASEMENT!
by Jon Olsen    

The signal given by the failure to impeach in Congress is that all these lies, obfuscations, and war crimes will be forgiven, and the perpetrators allowed to excape unscathed. Is this the legacy we wish to leave future generations (if any)?  Or, do we want to leave a legacy of vigorous repudiation of the putrid stench that permeates Washington, DC? 

Imagine if, in 1938, sufficient numbers of German people had rallied and expelled the Hitler regime and precluded WW II? Imagine that!  We are at 1940 Germany right now! The war in Iraq parallels Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939!  The governing mentality is virtually identical--"we'll do it if we chose because we have the power to act and you don't. If you complain about the injustice, the cruelty, the total barbarism, and the horrible treatment for returning soldiers, we (the ruling class with willing puppet Buffoon George) will reward you with another smirk.

The quintessential appeaser etched in the history books was British officer Neville Chamberlain, who thought that the German invasion of Czechoslovakia was the end of his reach and could be tolerated. We have our own team of appeasers to combat--the Congressional Democrats, who may well be good on other issues, but have failed us miserably on the central issue of our time--unjust and criminal aggressive war vs peace.

But beyond that are the many citizens who give excuses like "It's too late--he'll be gone in 2 years" or the worst of all "Impeachment is a distraction." Say WHAT? Demanding accountability for the pursuit of war crimes (Yes, Nuremberg applies)  and the squandering of vast sums of borrowed tax revenue is a DISTRACTION? It clearly should be the central issue! Not only that, as Daniel Ellsberg has pointed out, if we succeed in starting impeachment, that very act will further constrain this regime from expanded military adventures, e.g. Iran.

So when I say impeachment, not appeasement, I speak not only of Congress, but of our fellow citizens who engage in appeasement with shallow excuses in the face of  rampant depravity. To those who have signed (the petition), you have made the honor roll. I salute your service to the nation's honor, what little there is left. 


We all need to educate ourselves about impeachment
 by Gary Higgenbottom, Maine Campaign to Impeach

The best impeachment speech I have heard yet was given at the New York City Impeachment Summit in February by Constitutional rights attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard. Click to hear this speech given on behalf of ImpeachBush.org. (audio only.)

The speech deals very effectively, clearly and simply with why the Democratic Party does NOT really have power or the option of deciding whether to put impeachment "on the table", because under our current circumstances Congressmen of both parties are likely violating their oaths of office if they do NOT start impeachment. Our two Maine Congressmen may be making this violation if they are aware of the full basis for impeachment and they don't act.

The Maine legal profession and a sufficient number of Mainers need to understand this message, convey it repeatedly to Congressmen Allen and Michaud, and to put this message to the Legislature, as they too have responsibility in this matter. Support from Maine's legal community is essential in this, and if the legal community does not mobilize on this issue, they are avoiding a responsibility to their profession.

This is not a question of whether impeachment is appropriate to the Democratic Party's 2008 aspirations, nor is it a question of how many voters want to see it happen. It appears to be a question of two Maine Congressmen's responsibilities to their oaths of office, given the reasons why impeachment was established in the US Constitution, and given what Bush and Cheney have done. Our Congressmen need to step up to that responsibility. Our Legislature needs to step up to that. The legal profession in Maine needs to step up to that. And we as responsible Maine citizens need to make all of those parties fulfill their responsibilities to preserve this democratic republic. If this fails, the structure set up by the "founders" might crumble, taking "domestic tranquility" down with it.

Right now, they're all saying "Not my job". Aware citizens of Maine need to change that.

Dateline: New London, CT
February 17, 2007
By Laura Natusch
URL: http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=45f5ce21-d085-4b01-9d5a-82cdc1067db4

Councilors, Vote To Impeach Bush

Councilors should consider that we are all witness to the historic and ongoing crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration. Are we to turn away? Is it somebody else's responsiblity to intercede?

On Tuesday, Ron Suresha and Rick Buell presented to the New London City Council a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Before the resolution comes up for a vote, councilors must ask themselves three questions: Have the president and vice president committed impeachable offenses? If so, is it appropriate for a city council to pass a resolution calling for their impeachment? And finally, would such a resolution be in the best interests of the residents of New London?

The answers to these questions are yes, yes and yes.

First, there is little doubt that Bush and Cheney have violated the Constitution and broken numerous laws. They have twisted, suppressed and fabricated intelligence in order to drum up support for the Iraq war. They have authorized torture. They have denied citizens the right of habeas corpus. The president has admitted to personally ordering the illegal electronic surveillance of American citizens.

Second, U.S. law and tradition makes clear that not only is it appropriate for municipalities to weigh in on national issues, it's routine. Clause 3, section 12, Section 819 of the Rules of the House of Representatives specifically allows local governments to present petitions and requests to Congress. The Congressional Record shows that municipalities make use of this clause daily. Since Bush has taken office, many city councils have voted on issues of national importance. More than 400 municipalities have passed resolutions opposing the Patriot Act. Two hundred and seventy five have passed resolutions calling for "immediate" or "rapid and orderly" withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. In March 2003, New London became one of more than 165 cities that passed resolutions opposing the war with Iraq before it began. Furthermore, this tradition predates the Bush/Cheney administration. During the Cold War, cities passed resolutions calling for a nuclear weapons freeze. Cities have even weighed in on international affairs, as when cities across the country voted to condemn South African apartheid.

Third, a resolution calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney would be in the city's best interests because this administration's illegal actions have harmed and continue to harm New London residents. Some harm is financial. According to www.costofwar.org, New London's financial share of the cost of the Iraq war through March 2007 is $42.4 million. Worse, the federal government pays for this war by cutting social programs such as home heating assistance and children's health insurance. Gov. M. Jodi Rell has said, "These cuts interfere with the fundamental responsibility of government: to safeguard the lives of its citizens. ... The cuts to these programs place extraordinary burdens on the states." Some harm is life-threatening - particularly for New London residents stationed in Iraq. Some harm is less tangible. Local peace activists and dissidents, for example, have no protection against illegal domestic spying.

Before voting, councilors should consider that we are all witnesses to the historic and ongoing crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration. Are we to turn away? Is it somebody else's responsibility to intercede? Or do we have an obligation to say, as forcefully and in as many ways as possible, that we will not tolerate illegal wars, we will not tolerate indefinite detentions, we will not tolerate the erosion of civil liberties and the unchecked power of the executive branch? Last Tuesday, one councilor said that although he believes this is the worst administration in history, if he were to vote for impeachment, some of his constituents would feel betrayed. But it cannot be a betrayal to defend the Constitution. The New London City Council will be acting appropriately, patriotically and in the best interests of both New London and the country by calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. I urge city councilors to pass this resolution - and I urge their constituents to support them.


Seeking to Restore the Balance of Power

Bangor Daily News Op-Ed
Jan. 6-7, 2007
By Nancy E. Galland, Stockton Springs, 567-4075

At former President Gerald Ford’s funeral, a National Public Radio commentator noted that it was under his Administration that Congress was so active that it angered some of his Cabinet members, notably Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. When, twenty-five years later, their party regained power, these same men went about systematically consolidating that power in the Executive Branch. There are lessons to be learned from this story.

Nothing we experience today is separate from the history that preceded it. In this case, we even have the same cast of characters pulling the strings. Conversely, nothing that happens in the future can be separated from current events.

These players have successfully consolidated more power in the Executive branch than the Founding Fathers ever intended when they designed this government to be a system of checks and balances between the executive, judicial, and legislative bodies. They have reduced our Constitution to “only a piece of paper”, as President Bush has called it.

Today, the Bush/Cheney legacy includes: lying to Congress and the UN, waging a war of aggression, breaking International Treaties, by-passing Constitutional protections, operating secret commissions, defying the Supreme Court, promoting torture, thwarting oversight, reducing Congress to a rubber stamp, emasculating legislation with “signing statements”, plunging this country into a spiral of financial bankruptcy, ignoring scientific evidence of global warming, and engendering international contempt for this country. Not to mention killing hundreds of thousand Iraqi’s and over 3,000 of our own children for corporate gains - after all, Iraq was never a threat to us.

That’s what future Administrations will inherit, that’s what the precedents are, that’s what we will deserve - unless we do something about it.

When ordinary citizens violate laws of the land, evidence is first gathered to prove culpability. If evidence shows the person(s) are responsible for breaking the law, a trial is held; if they are found guilty, they are sentenced to a punishment. Sentences are meant to deter future transgressions not only by the accused, but by others who follow. Law rests on precedent. We are told that this is a country based on the rule of law, but today’s political environment begs the question that this holds true.

Where are the voices for accountability in the new Congress? There are no Committee Chairs putting investigations on the table. Even if investigations were held, what would the consequences be without a framework to deter these people from continuing the abuses? The foundations of a just society are being taken away from us, and no one is doing anything about it, not even our newly elected Legislators.

Our Founding Fathers provided us with a tool to deter despotic leadership, to protect our Constitution from abuse, and to hold accountable those responsible for high crimes and misdemeanors. We have a legal vehicle to control runaway politicians, much like our court system: investigations, indictments, trial, sentence. It is called Impeachment. And because it is designed to be a tool to restore our democracy, to protect us from tyranny, and to deter future abuses of power, it is the one thing that we still have to stop a bad situation from getting worse.

In a recent letter from Senator Olympia Snowe, ( 11/28/06), she outlined the entire procedure for impeachment, from the Judiciary Committee, where a formal inquiry begins, to a resolution to impeach in the full House. “The Constitution requires that if any Article of Impeachment is approved by a simple majority of the House, the President will be ‘impeached’. Only at this juncture would an impeachment ‘trial’ be held in the Senate.”

Significantly, she adds: “Please be assured I strongly believe that Congress has a solemn obligation to ensure that our nation’s system of checks and balances - the system that is the foundation of our Republic - is consistently respected, upheld, and applied. I have said that Congress has a responsibility to exercise its oversight responsibility as a coequal branch of government. In my view, the Executive and Legislative branches can either engender confidence by ensuring that real checks exist - or breed a corrosive distrust. Checks and balances do not weaken our nation, they strengthen it.”

Opinion polls show widespread “corrosive distrust” of this administration. But this new Congress isn’t listening. Representative Mike Michaud does listen, however, and has indicated he will support impeachment if it comes to the House floor. But will it? Why wait, Mr. Michaud, why not bring it to the floor yourself? It only takes one Representative to initiate impeachment hearings. Our State’s motto is “Dirigo” - I lead. Let Maine lead to save our Constitution and restore the balance of power.

A coalition of over twenty Maine groups are sponsoring the first Speak-Out on “Should the U.S. withdraw troops from Iraq?” and “ Should Bush and Cheney be Impeached?” this Thursday, Jan. 11th, at 6:30 P.M. at the Hutchinson Center in Belfast. There will also be a workshop on Impeachment in Belfast at the Library on Jan. 17th at 7:00 P.M. A petition for impeachment hearings is being circulated to be presented to Representative Michaud and the entire State Legislature online: www.maineimpeach.org.

New England Towns Mobilize for Impeachment
by Dan DeWalt

The earth is shifting under Washington D.C. Our political leaders haven’t yet noticed; the cushy mattresses that they have allotted themselves will ensure that they will be the last to feel this seismic shift. The American people know why they voted in the Democrats: to get out of Iraq starting now, to change Congressional leadership as punishment for ethics violations and corruption at perhaps unparalleled levels, and to hold the executive branch accountable for illegal and unconstitutional acts. While the Democrats dither and back away from their interest in constitutional obligations, we the people are taking things into our own hands. As John Nichols points out in The Genius of Impeachment, the founding fathers were so concerned about kingly behavior by the executive branch, that they mention impeachment six times in the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson specifically laid out the mechanism by which towns and states can lay charges calling for impeachment at the feet of the Congress, and he also described the obligation of the Congress to respect and give due process to these charges de populi. Today, from every region of the nation, citizens are beginning to realize that we are going to have to lead the charge to end the war and hold the Bush administration accountable. Impeachment activists regionally and nationally are organizing their towns to meet with their Congressional representatives repeatedly, urging them to restore our constitutionally mandated balance of powers between the branches of government.

Today, in New England alone, over a dozen towns have officially voted overwhelmingly for resolutions calling for impeachment. Organizers are working in almost 50 Vermont, NH and Maine towns to get impeachment and “Bring the Troops Home Now” resolutions on the warnings (agendas) for Town Meetings in early March. A Jefferson-inspired impeachment bill will be brought to the Vermont legislature when the new session begins next month. Maine groups have already started to contact their congressional delegation. Impeachment is a recurring story on the front pages of newspapers in Vermont and Massachusetts. Impeachment has also featured prominently in the conversations and guest appearances on Vermont local AM talk radio stations covering large sections of the state. An informed populace is not easily cowed. As New Englanders learn the facts about impeachment, as they understand that it is not a constitutional crisis, but a proscribed and necessary remedy to a crisis, they endorse it readily. And now that the Republicans have lost control of Congress, the good citizens of our region are beginning to see that this may not have been such a Quixotic adventure as they thought it nine months ago.            

One year ago, there was not even an impeachment murmur running through the Green Mountains of Vermont. Today, impeachment is a flash flood pouring out of the mountains and raising the level of the waters of discontent roiling around those who profess to lead us.  What got us from there to here in twelve months? What was the prime mover that opened the floodgates? The separate acts of two random Vermonters, giving voice to their conscience in calling for impeachment, and asking their neighbors to add their voices in support. That was it. Two individual voices with word processors and a sense of constitutional duty. Their neighbors said thanks and what’s next?, and the Vermont impeachment call had taken on a life of its own.            

Of course New England is just one branch of this movement. Sparked by similar individual efforts in other cities and towns, demands for accountability and constitutional redress through impeachment resound from sectors all across the country. So many think that one person can’t make a difference on their own. Vermont’s experience has shown that this is not true. Timing is critical. If the impeachment effort of March 2006 had been attempted in ‘04 or even ’05, it would not have had the resonance that it did last March. Today more than ever, seeing how they have been lied to, and the unfathomable cost of lives, honor and treasure that those lies have engendered, Americans are ready to roll up their sleeves and do what they can to reverse the direction that the Bush administration has taken, and to restore the delicate balance of powers outlined by our founders. If there ever was a time ripe for individual acts of conscience and leadership, it is today. George W. Bush is confused, stumbling, and stubborn, but he is still the most powerful single man on earth.

Americans of all political stripes recognize the danger and disaster that the Bush administration has become. The most unlikely neighborhoods and towns are now ready to hear the call for impeachment. Don’t be intimidated by the conventional political wisdom about where you live. Once again, the times they are a-changing. The entire world is alarmed by Bush and Cheney’s rash, illegal and cavalier policies. But no country can invade the U.S. to “save us” from our President. No, the only ones who can restore this country are we: and the only means by which we can do it are constitutional.

We should not lament this duty. We must take heart that we have not yet lost our ability to exercise our rights to redress our government. Actively moving the Congress to impeach an errant executive is one of the finest actions that a citizen can take. Our founding fathers expected no less of us.

Dan is a selectman in Newfane, Vermont and the author of a resolution calling for the impeachment of Bush that passed in his town last March.