You are herecontent / Most Popular Idea at Last Weekend's Out of Iraq Events? Impeachment.

Most Popular Idea at Last Weekend's Out of Iraq Events? Impeachment.

By David Swanson

A long list of peace organizations put together over 150 town hall forums last Saturday on the topic of getting out of Iraq. Reports, and audio and video, from dozens of these events have been posted at What I gather from reviewing the reports, and from the two events I attended, is that the most popular topic was not the horrors of war or any legislation to end it, but the demand to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Given that opposition to this war has grown as exposure of the lies that launched it has advanced, going after the war-makers could turn out to be the fastest way to end the war. No doubt, it's the best way to end the war on terms that make the next war less likely to come soon. In any case, it's where the people's passion is, and at some point a democratic movement has to let that be its guide.

Of course, we've known the popularity of impeachment from polling.

But it's powerful to hear it in person in so many different voices. And it means more now that Congressman John Conyers has introduced a bill to create an investigation into grounds for impeachment, and the bill has begun to pick up cosponsors. Judging by Congress Members' remarks on Saturday, there should be some more cosponsors on the list soon.

We don't have reports from all of the events, but we know that overflow crowds were turned away in Sacramento, Chicago, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Progressive Democrats of America has summarized the day of events here:

The Lincoln Journal Star in Nebraska ran this headline: "Antiwar rally reflects changing attitudes," and wrote about people's opinions shifting against the war.

Last Thursday, Congressman Jim Moran hosted a town hall forum with Congressman John Murtha. A veteran of the current war asked them "Why not impeach Bush-Cheney?" That question resulted in by far the loudest and longest applause of the evening -- an extended period of foot-stomping, hooting, and hollering.

That was a pattern that would repeat itself around the country on Saturday. Some discussions ruled out that topic for debate, some speakers dismissed it, some embraced it, some collected signatures in support of Conyers' bills. But, across the country, the topic of impeachment generated intense passion.

At the forum in Washington, D.C., I received applause when I introduced speakers and mentioned that they'd done work to promote impeachment. At the forum in San Diego, Congressman Bob Filner, I'm told, received three standing ovations, the loudest and longest when he mentioned impeachment. In Sacramento, Cindy Sheehan stressed the need for impeachment and was a huge hit.

Our blogger, Suz Krueger, reported from Livonia, Mich.: "Though I arrived later because roads were icy and despite terrible road conditions, the room was to capacity and overflowing--close to 200 people here at Livonia Town Hall and people are still coming. When I walked in the door, [Congressman Conyers] was discussing the Nixon White House and how this administration is not only comparable to [that] White House, but he explained how laws were passed as a result of Nixon's abuse of power. He believes this will happen now to the new Nixon."

Congressman Major Owens told a crowd in Brooklyn that, of course, he supports impeachment!

Rita Weinstein reported from Seattle: "[Congressman Jim] McDermott believes that, as big and as serious an issue as the war is, an even bigger issue is that freedom and democracy are at risk. This excessively secretive administration wants to silence all dissent. "They want one party, one country, one voice-THEIRS." He feels we need two exit strategies-one for Iraq and one for getting rid of this administration. He believes that the only adequate response is to investigate the means of impeachment."

Jeff Richardson reported: "Our event in Tacoma, Washington, was totally awesome! We had over three hundred people in this beautiful church, First United Methodist on MLK Jr. Way, great sound system, lots of enthusiasm, folks were itching to ask questions of our Congressman. It was great. After the Q & A period, we showed the folks a little slice of the Progressive Roundtable, which is our area's way of connecting local activists. Then we had several workshops on everything from The Growing Economic Divide to The Citizenship Toolkit and The Stop the War Now! Panel, which received the most attendance of any of the workshops. Half of the questions we received were on the subject of impeachment. There is a hunger in this land for accountability, of some way we can take this criminal President down and restore our national credibility again."

Another Tacoma activist reported: "We came away with a few really great ideas for actions that could involve more people and could bring in to the impeach bush ideology, more common folk who are not currently involved."

The Santa Barbara News Press published an article on the event there, which said: "The event on the busy downtown street featured people who displayed signs with biting political barbs denouncing the Bush administration: "They lie to us. They spy on us. Impeach." Another said: "Rich man's war, poor man's blood."

WISCTV News in Madison, Wis., reported: "A group of Madison citizens wants to impeach President George W. Bush. More than 300 people packed the Labor Temple Saturday afternoon to discuss weapons of mass destruction, wiretapping and the war in Iraq. The rally wasn’t about changing the administration’s view, it was about impeachment."

Lana Kitchel reported from Red Bluff, Calif.: "Red Bluff Peace & Justice Coalition of California (zip code 96055)had a good turnout. We held signs and collected signatures for Rep. Conyers' petition." The petition is one in support of an investigation into grounds for impeachment.

B. Emily Sykes reported from San Anselmo: "No one wanted to leave and everyone wanted to come again to Social Justice Center in San Anselmo. Republicans were mentioned as potential next step targets even though someone said. 'If you can't convince your own party why do you think the Republicans will listen?' Turns out the only Democrat in the meeting was just getting info to present to the party to form an impeachment task force. The rest of us seem to be Green. People have called today who missed the mtg. and want to be on our 'list'."

From Northbrook, Ill.: - "In the true spirit of a town hall meeting, our entire program was based on responding to questions from the audience. We also set the ground rules that we would only discuss how to move forward in Iraq, not how we got into this mess. (As our esteemed moderator, Mr. Aaron Freeman said, 'We'll leave that for the impeachment committee...')"

Carol Wolman reports that Monday's East Bay impeachment meeting had "3x as many as at any previous meeting. Most of the people had been to at least one previous meeting. The discussion was lively, and the mood much more upbeat and optimistic than at earlier meetings. This was noted, and attributed to the revelation about Bush's warrantless wiretapping, which has everyone up in arms."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I've been stressing out all day today because of these Alito hearings. People from every angle are telling me Alito will get the job, because Republicans own Washington. And then I read how the majority of people favor Alito... And it got me thinking about how there is hardly any good news for sane people anymore. How America is still rolling uncontrollably backwards.

This is news I needed to hear, but I still fear that nothing will really come of it. That even if we impeach Bush, Cheney - who is even worse - will move up. And even if we impeach him, the line of criminals desecends faaaaar far down. We'd have to impeach most everyone to get things on the right track.

And if any of the criminals takes Bush's place, do you think they would pardon all those who are involved in the Abramoff scandal?

Oh how I worry.

amendment violations and prosecute Bush in Nevada if he spied on Americans there.

I know it's making people salivate to think they can repay the Clinton impeachment, but there are some major problems with that thinking. I'll hit on the highlights:

1 - FISA, the law involving spying - Actually has a provision that ALLOWS warrantless taps. Oops.

2 - Iraq War - There are no legal or constitutional violations for either intentionally or unintentionaly misleading Congress into passing a law authorizing military action in Iraq while not under oath.

3 - Bush never lied about wanting to go to war.

4 - While the amount of WMD's and WMD elements that have been found in Iraq are relatively small, Bush never stated the AMOUNT of them, just that they were there. And they were, even if in small amounts. Therefore Bush was legally truthful.

5 - No President can legally be impeached for being "technically truthful but misleading." He told the truth. Hell, even if only 5 grams of mustard gas were found, he still told the truth. WMD's were there.

6 - Probably the most forceful, as the defenders of Clinton claimed, LYING IS NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. Perjury under oath may have been, but Bush was never under oath.

1.-- Oops yourself:
sure it's there, but it does'nt authorize indiscriminant, unwarranted surveillance of individuals:"...communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers...from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power..."

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802:
a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used EXCLUSIVELY BETWEEN OR AMONG FOREIGN POWERS...
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power...

(§ 1805. Issuance of order
(a) Necessary findings
Upon an application made pursuant to section 1804 of this title, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested or as modified approving the electronic surveillance if he finds that—

(3) on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant there is probable cause to believe that—
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power: PROVIDED, THAT NO UNITED STATES PERSON MAY BE CONSIDERED A FOREIGN POWER OR AN AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States...

2. The Constitution: Article III sec.3:"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or giving... (their enemies)...Aid and Comfort"

Deliberately deceiving "them"(the United States) into initiating a war does not constitute "levying war against them"?

3. Claiming that every effort was being made to avert war until shortly before the invasion, AFTER committing to invasion does not constitute LYING about wanting to go to war? Earlier remarks about wanting to "get" Saddam notwithstanding? Even if he had'nt lied, we should acquiesce to an otherwise unjustifiable war on the basis of his wanting it and being honest about it alone?

4. No, he did'nt go into the AMOUNT, but the implication that they were of sufficient quantity to constitute an IMMINENT threat is inescapable. This makes any amount too small to be a threat irrelevent.

To reiterate, he did'nt just state that they were there, but implied unequivocally and unambiguosly that they constituted a THREAT.

Moreover, these circumstances are not amenable to his being extented such generous benefit of doubt; on the contrary, for a matter of such gravity, he should bear an exceptional burden of proof. His contention that he should, in effect, be free to wage war based on whatever flimsy suspicions or "hunches" he may unilaterally deem valid and correct is ludicrous and monstrously absurd.

5. Redundancy, but furthermore,this is not a situation in which he can be extented even commonplace benefit of doubt, the immaterial technicality that some small, ineffectual amount of WMD was found constitutes a defence that does not come up to the level of magnitude of the crime.The crime is of massive scale, this defense is infinitesimally trivial.

6. No, he was never under "oath" in the narrow sense of being formally questioned on the matter by any sort of legal tribunal, but he must at the very least be suspected of gross and treasonous malfeasance in the conduct of his duties as commander-in-chief of the armed forces;an essential element of that malfeasance being LYING about the nonexistant threat from Iraq.

This "defense" of the so-called "president"'s actions is typical of the gratuitous, self-serving assembly of hair-splitting, trivial technicalities that are presented by his desperate apologists; all the while hoping against hope that the observer will be lulled into losing all sense of proportion;IT MUST NOT BE PERMITTED TO WORK!

The current White House resident's behavior and statements can only be described as the lies and criminal acts of a power-crazed,amoral megalomaniac.

Aside from the question of past and current wrongs,as he casts a rapacious eye from Iraq to the immediate east, his continued tenure constitutes an ongoing and immediate threat to the survival and well-being of this nation. His removal from office is of the utmost urgency:

And by the way, we Libertarians could not care less about "the Clinton impeachment".

---The Bikemessenger
(AKA Impeachasaurus Rex)

Comment on my blog re. above by George Phillies:

George Phillies Says:
January 12th, 2006 at 10:00 am e
"However, there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq in the possession of the Iraqi government. None at all.

In particular, there were no nuclear weapons and no nerve gasses.

Lying to create a war, by creating the impression you are fighting a defensive war when you are fighting a war of aggression is a crime. The crimes involved are Crimes Against Humanity and Crimes Against Peace, they are covered by law and treaty, and they carry the death penalty.

Taking people hostage and we have done in Iraq by seizing people’s wives and daughters to compell their surrender, is a crime under American law.

Lying to a Faderal Officer when not under oath is explicitly a crime several ways from Sunday. For starters, it is a violation of the mail fraud statutes.

The FISA statute permits taps _if the court is notified within 72 hours_. It wasn’t.

Buch, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, et al, have apparently committed a wide variety of serious criminal acts meriting impeachment and trial.

Also, noncriminal gross improprieties are impeachable."

This is the real Libertarian perspective; rather than this embarrassing nonsense:

The Libertarian Party's "i.e.s." is nothing put a bogus effort to pander to left winger statists; it is blatantly socialistic.Real Libertarians DO NOT advocate "foreign aid".

---The Bikemessenger
(AKA Impeachasaurus Rex)

—>This is too cute to just let stand:

RE: George Phillies Says:
January 12th, 2006 at 10:00 am

However, there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq in the possession of the Iraqi government. None at all.

In particular, there were no nuclear weapons and no nerve gasses.

—>Mustard Gas, a centrifuge used in the enrichment of nuclear materials, ricin gas, it goes on and on and on (even the NY Times dropped saying categorically “no.

I'll make my response a tad less wordy.

1. Ok, so you agree it does allow warrantless wiretaps. Since you have no idea who actually was tapped, you cannot authoritatively say he broke the law. Not impeachable as "I think he broke the law."

2. No it doesn't constitute levying war. Closest would be "inducing into war." As far as possibility of impeachment, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, Polk, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson, Oh... I could go on and on... did more lying to go to war than Bush Jr. and no impeachment. One can always dream I suppose.

3. No, it doesn't. Bush Jr. made it clear from the beginning he wanted to invade Iraq. Everyone knew it. Everyone knew he hated having to get UN approval. You saying you really thought he was trying to avoid war?

4. Implication shmimplication. Still not impeachable. WMD's were found in Iraq. By their definition, any WMD is a threat. That's what they were made for, not as a cocktail party conversation topic.

5. Still no crime. "There are WMD's in Iraq" ... "Look we found a mustard gas shell with mustard gas inside" Imminent. Let's see, a case could be made that what with invading Iran and Kuwait, the slaughter of Kurds and Shiites, threatening to bomb Israel and Saudi Arabia that imminent is a possible conclusion. No impeachment.

6. LOL @ narrow sense. SO you agree with me. He never committed perjury. Lying is not a criminal act under our penal system unless you lie to an FBI agent during an investigation. Simple.

BTW, this is no "defense" of the President. Nice of you to try to assume my motives. This is merely a reality check about impeachment. Never voted for Bush, personally, so... keep on trucking yo...

Keep on thinking you're a libertarian, all the while preaching that anyone that disagrees with you is self-serving, desperate and a hair splitter (that's so insulting to bald people) and re-read the press releases from the Cato Institute over the past 4 years.

Man, some liberals hate Bush so much even gay guys are like "Dayyam"

1. It allows some under certain circumstances. But indications are that surveillance was conducted outside those limitations; of course I have "no idea who was tapped",so because we don't already know the specific details in advance that a through investigation would turn up, no investigation should be conducted? I appreciate the fact that what convinces me is insufficent bases for action and furthermore, what I write here and at my blog, is intended as an exchange of ideas with a sympathetic audience, not a formal indictment aimed at convincing a is an attempt to organize such a case, not the finished case in and of itself.Yes, I think he broke the law,I recognize that assertion on my part puts the burden of proof squarely on my shoulders.Please be patient, your order is being cooked to your specifications!

2.Ok, let's go rob a bank then. By your logic, we should'nt be persued, as bank robberys have been done before.I'm well aware of the history of wrongs in this area:

I'll concede you're right in the literal, narrow sense, but why are we using a literal, narrow interpretation?

3. Perhaps he made it clear to the few of us who were paying attention;but to say "everyone" knew is a pretty broad generalization, let's say everyone had access to the information.No, I never thought he was really trying to avoid war.I'm sorry if I did'nt make myself clear;I'm reminded of the times I was regarded as a crackpot for insisting that invasion was a certainty when the MSM was bearly paying attention to Iraq yet.What he clearly did do was take advantage of the fact that the vast majority was'nt paying sufficient attention to know he was lying about wanting to avoid war.

4.How are trace amounts, by definition, a threat??Is'nt a "threat" in this context, a real material capacity to use what was immediately on hand as weaponry? Remember, bush insisted that he was taking action to avert an IMMiNENT threat. It was common knowledge that he had had WMD's in the past,so finding traces at the very least, is to be expected.

Moreover, evidence is only recently coming to light that efforts were made to smuggle in and/or manufacture on site WMD's to be found later.

5. We don't have to prove a specific crime; this is not about trying a private citizen for a felony, wherein he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt to the extent of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.This not about his rights as a private individual, this is about his excercise of the power bestowed upon him,as vested in his office; this is a critical distinction, please account for it.

He has failed to act responsibily and competently to such an extreme and monstrously deadly degree, that he should clearly be impeached, EVEN IF IT COULD BE PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY THAT HE IS NOT GUILTY OF WILLFUL WRONG-DOING!Remember, impeachment is not punishment for crime, it is removal from office for failure to preform.

6. Not simple; rather, oversimplification. Again, this is not essentially a criminal prosecution. It is, essentially a review of job preformance.Additionally the circumstantial evidence that he lied is conclusive. That it's circumstantial nature would render it of little value in a criminal presecution is of no avail; again,this is not a criminal presecution, rather a job performance evaluation.

Moreover, with regards his lying, please see George Phillies' comments here:

or here:

"BTW, this is no "defense" of the President. Nice of you to try to assume my motives."

Let's be fair, I had to assume SOMETHING! In all frankness,I suspected you might be playing devil's advocate.

"This is merely a reality check about impeachment."

Thank you, your constructive criticisms are genuinely appreciated; without demanding taskmasters like you, humanity would get nowhere.

"Never voted for Bush, personally, so... keep on trucking yo.."

Never voted for a Republican or a Democrat in my life, So... I'll just stick to bicycling, if don't mind...well, even if you do, actually.

"Keep on thinking you're a libertarian..."

You are not the first to suggest I'm not Libertarian (THAT'S CAPITAL "L", PLEASE) because they take umbrage at my criticisms. The most bizarre, for advocating an end to government-operated "education"!None of us have a copyright on the term "libertarian"; If I encounter someone who (oh, say, like Bill Maher for example), who refers to themselves as a libertarian,I accept them at their word, until they espouse what I consider to be an un-libertarian opinion,then I agrue the point with with them, but I prefer not to food-fight over a term we are all free to use.

"...all the while preaching..."

I beg your pardon, atheists do not preach.

"...that anyone that disagrees with you is self-serving, desperate..."

No,not anyone who disagrees with me, anyone who agrues the position you agrue.By self-serving I suggest that in order to imbue your case with any plausibility, the situation forces you to skew the basic premises in your favor, i.e.,implicitly attempting to frame the issue as a criminal prosecution. That's no failure on your part, to the contrary, it's the best that can be made of a fundamentally flawed position.

The desperation is not in your reasoning or emotional state, but rather in the abject puacity of objective facts to support the position your take.Just pick up any issue of the National Review and read a pertinent article; the reasoning is clear, the logic rigorous, the agrument soffocates from lack of supporting facts.

"...and a hair splitter (that's so insulting to bald people)..."

Maybe after you've been bald for as many decades as I have, you won't be so thin-skinned(but you'll still be as shiney of scalp).

"...and re-read the press releases from the Cato Institute over the past 4 years."

Sounds pretty voluminous, but if you have specific references, I promise to give them a look. But frankly, I'm not too fond of the "inside the beltway" gang.I'm more comfortable over here:

or here:

and I'm maximo persona non grata here:

Probably because I'm one of the authors here:

Agree with this:

and disagree with this:

"Man, some liberals hate Bush so much even gay guys are like "Dayyam""

Of course, what do you expect? Hatred implies respect. They can hate him, because, even if they can't admit it to themselves, they admire him his lust for, and ambitious pursuit of power.It's only from outside the narrow contrived statist view that you can see him for what he really is, and truly dispise him.

---the Bikemessenger
(AKA Impeachasaurus Rex)

This should be even less wordy even if I'm just lying to myself:

1. The investigation should be done before even discussing impeachment. The article I responded to was about "I" for impeachment. Not "I" for investigation. You must be in the wrong classroom.

2. Wow. Did you really ask me to rob a bank? My response offered a two step point based on your response. (a) Bush's inducing to war isn't treasonous (giving aid and comfort doesn't include killing them). (b) As far as a successful impeachment prosecution history stands against it even being a successful option. Not at all the "everyone's doing it" characterization you placed on it. Whew, should have made that more succinct.

3. Still not an impeachable offense unless u want impeachment to be used like a recall election.

4. Do you really want to quibble about his being truthful yet misleading as being an impeachable offense? Unspoken is whether his staff were misleading to him instead of him being misleading to us (see response 3). If the memo don't fit, you must acquit.

5. The Constitution lays out impeachment as a crime... Treason, high "crimes" and misdemeanors... House "charges" the President with a crime (see Constitution). Senate conducts the "trial" with the oversight of a judge. (see response 3). Passes the smell test for a prosecution of a crime.

6. Loss of presidency is the first step since a President can't be criminally (except for impeachment - see 5) or civilly prosecuted due to immunity. Step 1 - Remove immunity. Step 2 - Bam! The Texas Two Step (see response 3).


You agree that you have no idea if President Bush actually broke any laws. It just seems like he did. And if he did he should be impeached. So we should call for his impeachment to find out if he committed an impeachable offense.

The logic of the ages... Middle Ages... We think she's a witch, so we will try to drown her to see if she is a witch. If she survives, she's a witch. If not, bless her heart.

Ayn Rand would spit in your soup.


Seriously wordy retorts to humorous prose intended to break up the monotony of a boring subject.

Sooo leave out the absolutely inane debate over CAPITAL I OR LOWERCASE I. Makes you sound like the College Republican Chapter President in Sophomore year at college just beginning to feel the first rush of political philosophizing. Or the Frosh Vegan Newbie that erupts in outrage at being called a Vegetarian.

Atheists do preach (, sometimes ad nauseum.

Not bald here yet, but I am too humorous to respond to a joke with a serious retort. Unlike bald people. Hmmm, was that a joke? Needs a two paragraph response either way.

Few people really care how many parties, movements, websites, infants, schoolmarms, third world dictators dislike you. Not many more view that as credentials. Your views as you express them, not who dislikes them.

Even my gay joke was taken seriously. I mean, really, dude...

The fact that "everyone knew he wanted to invade" does not absolve Bush of his responsibility under the Constitution to act militarily only in the case of an imminent threat to America, WHICH DID NOT EXIST.

He said that a chemical or biological attack could be launched within 45 minutes of Saddam's order. Complete bullshit, and everybody knows it. The reality that not everyone knew it when he originally made the claim does not make it any less of a lie.

He conjured up visions of mushroom clouds and claimed that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Funny thing, though - His own CIA was telling him the claim could not be substantiated, and indeed it turns out it was based on what were quickly proven to be forged documents. Now nobody is saying Bush is responsible for the forgeries or knows who is, but it is kind of curious that the administration subsequently retracted the claim from the State of the Union speech and admitted to the UN that they could not prove it.

Say whatever you want about the Downing Street Memos. They provide very strong evidence that the "bad" intelligence was indeed manufactured to fit the plan for invasion, so Bush could sell it to Congress and the American people. And the intel was "bad" because accurate intel would not have supported the invasion.

Are the DSMs proof, in and of themselves, that Bush lied? Perhaps not. But Bush's defiant refusal to respond to the very serious questions raised by this evidence, and the refusal of his subservient majority minions in Congress to commit to a full and fair investigation of the evidence doesn't exactly make him look innocent.

If you say "everyone knew he wanted to invade", even when right up to the eve of invasion he was saying that we would go in "only as a last resort", then you are actually conceding that he lied.

Lying to Congress (which Bush did with the "public" version of the intel that led to their authorization, as opposed to the full version, which did not support invasion) is a felony under the False Statement Accountability Act of 1996. Look it up.

Let's see, what else...

He threatened to veto the defense spending bill solely because it included McCain's anti-torture provision, then said "we don't torture".

He eventually "compromised" and signed legislation with the anti-torture provision included. But with that signature he included a signing statement that he thinks gives him the authority to ignore the law as he sees fit.

Show me where in the Constituiton it says that the president can individually interpret and indeed decide for himself whether or not he has to follow the law.

George W. Bush is easily the most impeachable president and his administration is easily the most corrupt in the history of our country.

And it's pretty amazing, actually, that so many people who identify themselves as conservatives still support him, because his tenure in the White House has been anything but conservative.

Your party would do better in the long run to support impeachment of the entire Bush regime, so you can begin to repair the massive amount of damage they've done. But given your unfailing support for him so far, I guess we shouldn't hold our breath waiting for you to get a clue.

John Perry
listen to shows individually or subscribe to the podcast

A. Constitution actually only states he's the Commander in Chief really. Leaves it up to him what he does with the forces - ex. building roads?. Does say only Congress can declare war (anyone really want to debate whether it has to actually say the word "war?"). Even the debatably unconstitutional War Powers Act let's him invade anywhere he wants. No imminent in the document that I know of.

B. As its been reported ad nauseum, Saddam had missiles. Saddam had verifiably mustard and ricin. Not even mentioning the decades long VA controversy over whether Saddam had used them in the first war. Please, please, please, no matter how authoritative you want to sound, wrong is wrong.

C. Bush quoted a CIA report, but these other CIA reports disagreed with the conclusions. Um, Ok. For every intel report that says one thing, there are others that say other things. Which do you believe? Which do you feel is credible? If you choose one you find most credible is that lying? 5 people in a room looking at the same documents. How many opinions will you get?

D. Fifth Amendment cannot compel someone to incriminate themselves. It would also be bad form to assume silence is guilt. Unless we want to be little Idi Amin's. Or anarchists, cuz anarchy doesn't require any order or rules of proper behavior. We could always repeal that law and torture him into submission.

E. Last resort in Bush speak was pretty clear. "Saddam agrees to U.S. demands." You really want to argue that point? So, since he wanted to invade to compel Saddam to agree to U.S. demands, where is the lie?

E. Congress has Intelligence Committees (don't laugh). They get the same access to top secret intel. Same people voted to go to war. Bush presented his position based on the intel reports he determined were most credible. Now, you're saying he lied by "not saying" something. Are we still going to debate whether omission is a sin (especially since this case includes security clearance issues)?

H. Show me in the Constitution where it says laws Congress passes that violate the Constitution have to be followed. Don't even try to tell me you believe every law currently in existence is constitutional. Another way of putting it: The Constitution doesn't say the President can't interpret or must blindly enforce every law.

I. Pssst. Never voted for Bush. Never campaigned for him. Never much liked his father's policies either. But thank you for thinking of me.

J. There is simply no evidence that Bush committed treason or high crimes and misdemeanors. Just suppositions, woman's intuitions, and rational disagreements over the proper course of action. Worst thing he has done has been obstinately uncaring about the positions of his loyal opposition. Boo hoo.

K. Impeachment should never be used as an election tool. I will continue to defend the concept of the Presidency and the Constitution even if that brings me into disagreement with the seemingly rabid hatred of a mortal man I never voted for.

Did I mention I wasn't a member of the Republican Party? I should have. There are issues at hand more important than any socialist party structures.

But, I get it. You disagree with the neo-cons about what the intel shows. You disagree with the neo-cons about whether we should have invaded Iraq. You disagree with the neo-cons over the meaning of torture or its use. You disagree. Yep. That's an impeachable offense if ever I saw one.

"There is simply no evidence that Bush committed treason or high crimes and misdemeanors. Just suppositions, woman's intuitions, and rational disagreements over the proper course of action. Worst thing he has done has been obstinately uncaring about the positions of his loyal opposition."

Please send a postcard from whatever planet you're on. If you truly think that there is no evidence (again, not necessarily proof, but evidence, that at the very least must be investigated thoroughly and subjected to trial) that Bush has committed treason and high crimes and misdemeanors, you are quite simply not paying attention.

I will also continue to defend the concept of the Presidency and the Constitution, even if it brings me into disagreement with the seemingly rabid cluelessness of mortal men who are so easily fooled by the tired rhetoric of a paper tiger president.

At least we agree that there are more important things than party affiliation. Perhaps there is hope for you after all.

John Perry
listen to shows individually or subscribe to the podcast


Thank you for peppering this intellectual conversation with personal insults. Makes the time go by soooo quickly.

Do you really intend to quibble, quarrel, gnash teeth about, proof versus evidence.

PROOF VERSUS EVIDENCE!! (the writer types incredulously)

Do you mean like evidence is "George Bush taped saying 'I am going to break the law and violate my oath of office.'" Wouldn't that also be proof? Darn, we don't have that.

Or do you mean evidence is like 100 classified documents each providing 100 different analyses of the situation and Bush chose maybe 5. Yeah, I can see where it would be hard from that evidence to prove anything other than reasonable executive decision.

As I said before, the article this comment thread started with was not about "I" for investigation.

The movement you are defending is not for an "I"nvestigation.

If the memo don't fit, you must acquit.

(writer trembling with fits of giggles says to himself - "I can't believe I have had a conversation about impeachment where I am being agreed with so much, insulted a bit too, and have been able to discuss objective versus subjective reality, the differences in capital versus lowercase letters, the differences between the word impeachment and investigation, strict constructionist versus breathing constitution, whether it's a sin to lie by omission rather than commission, how little a libertarian likes the Libertarian Party, how many people hate that libertarian's ideas, whether atheists can preach, whether I am a quadraplegic -immensely weird for a liberal to be so callous about handicapped people, and so many other absolutely unrelated issues.)

Article 2, Section 2, United states Constitution:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Last time I checked the NSA is not part of the Army, Navy or a militia.

John Perry
listen to shows individually or subscribe to the podcast

Now, you're just getting silly. Obviously the NSA was created by Congress (which gave the President operational command), and smarter minds will realize the ongoing debate over the constitutionality of Congress making laws that create agencies that create their own laws. Given that the Supreme Court already ruled it unconstitutional.

Oh, and how about them using the Commerce Clause to regulate the hiring policies of a one restaurant chain deep in the middle of one state? Because traffic on the interstate highway system may visit the restaurant and therefore it's covered under federal laws.

Please stop the silliness before you start defending Congress's unconstitutional encroachments on our daily lives just to keep up a useless movement to try to impeach a man because you hate him.

Spoken like someone so fearful that their creative mind is clamped shut to any new, legal, information. I wonder what defense contractor stock this person is invested in.

Ultimately, the argument must be carried to the skeptic; why pass on the opportuity?

---The Bikemessenger
(AKA Impeachasaurus Rex)

New legal information. Thank you Clarence Darrow. Yeah, let's warp the legal system whichever way suits us. Sounds like what you think the other guy is doing. Let's just get rid of that whole concept of innocent before being proven guilty. We can all wear LAPD uniforms then.

I wish I had enough money to buy defense contractor stock. Unfortunately, despite your attempts to paint me as some rich white republican, I am none of those.

Is it really that hard to check your facts before you speak? Apparently it is.

Guess he's just lucky he didn't get caught lying about having "sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky".
What exactly is covered in the oath of office that presidents make?

I don't let a day go by without using the "I" word to someone I had'nt before.

Maybe a t-shirt that says "THE "I" WORD" or "ASK ME ABOUT THE 'I' WORD!"

Just a thought.

---The Bikemessenger
(AKA Impeachasaurus Rex)

we'll promote it!

"Impeach Bushco" "Impeach PNAC Cabal" "Impeach the Cabal"

Tigana at Crawford Peace House messageboard is a phenomenal slogan designer for T-shirts (and everything)>>> maybe if we ask her?
Here's some samples of her work:


PNAC has pretty much gone to ground, but IMPEACH BUSHCO and IMPEACH THE CABAL - looks good, will make it so!
View my peace art at


Thank you. I'm not inclined towards t-shirt printing or distribution, but The Yank's friends are welcome to the idea!

---The Bikemessenger
(AKA Impeachasaurus)

P.S.---What happened to:

Don't tell me you've changed your mind!

On the other hand,

resistance id (sic) futile!!!

It seems like everyone talks of impeachment but no real action has been taken.When is someone in Washington going to step up and demand answers as to why we are in Iraq and why this admin.has not been held responsible for the deaths of over 2000 military.

America will not be quite so lacadazialy complacent when it is realized how this corrupt administration has played with the total number of dead soldiers from this illegal invasion, on lies and deceit to the American citizen.
The press is always showing the total of soldiers killed in action as about 2150 at last check, I believe. However when that number is added to the approximately 10.500 soldiers that were either wounded, or injured while in Iraq, flown out of Iraq to another country for medical treatments, and died enroute to their destination, or died shortly after arriving to their respective desinations' that number jumps signifigantly to approximately 12,680 Military personnel that have died in this very illegal war.

January 9, 2006

Greetings Senator Boxer:

The foundation for counterinsurgency against a free America is the insurrection of the NSA spy program aimed at Americans, authorized by George W. Bush.

During this time of insurrection in America, the people of the United States can not allow further abuses of power in the Executive Office without addressing and correcting those abuses, immediately.

The events of September 11, 2001 have not been resolved. The events of September 11, 2001 were an inside job designed as the vanguard for aggrandizement of powers of the Executive Office, as witnessed these last 5 years.
Nineteen box-cutters do not circumvent the entire civil air defense mechanisms from NORAD to the Pentagon, without inside help from an Administration that obfuscates all legitimate inquiry into abuse of power.

During the 14 months this Executive Branch stalled investigations into the events of that day it engineered lies and propaganda to sell this nation on illegal international aggression, spying on Americans all along. Americans want to more about this program and now.

As my opinion is aligned with millions and millions of Americans I would suggest you move quickly to impeach this President and his minions as fast as you can in the best interests of this nation. Furthermore, to move forward now with Presidential nominations for the Supreme Court is only adding fuel to a fire already smoldering.

Gary Witherspoon
California Congressional Fourth District

CC: Senator Feinstein
Senator Reid
US Senate

I have visited your site 025-times

I have visited your site 755-times

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.