You are hereImpeachment
Outrageous, out of the question? Of course. Then again, here's what happened in the summer of 1998 when the president was named Clinton. Dozens of editorial pages clamored for him to quit (see this a list). "He should resign," the Philadelphia Inquirer declared, "because his repeated, reckless deceits have dishonored his presidency beyond repair."
By James McWilliams, Register Guard (Oregon)
In his Dec. 22 column, Jonah Goldberg baited the Democrats to try to impeach President Bush for his unwarranted surveillance of American citizens. Was Goldberg trying to forestall such an option, or was he focusing on surveillance to draw attention away from the more egregious and clearly impeachable offense: the grand deception leading to war?
By David Wallechinsky, HuffingtonPost
President George W. Bush began the new year by telling the American people that his NSA domestic surveillance program was only used to monitor communications between members of al-Qaeda and people in the United States. He did not address the issue of why he deemed it necessary to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that had, for 24 years, been reviewing and approving such surveillance programs.
ImpeachPAC today announced the formation of a Citizens Impeachment Commission to make 2006 the "Year of Impeachment."
"We are honored by the broad support for impeachment from this distinguished group of true American patriots," said Bob Fertik, President of ImpeachPAC. "Impeachment is not a 'fringe' position, as the Bush Administration would like Americans to believe. With a recent Zogby poll showing Americans support impeachment hearings by a solid majority of 53%-42%, there is far more support for impeachment than there is for the War in Iraq," Fertik said.
By Matthew Cardinale, Atlanta Progressive News
A total of eight US House members have co-sponsored Resolution 635 to create a select committee to investigate the grounds for impeaching President Bush, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.
By David Swanson
This is a new one: a column arguing that we should not impeach Bush because he's so dangerous, his crimes so serious, and the lies he's told so widespread. With friends like these...
By HAZEL TRICE EDNEY, The Wilmington Journal
WASHINGTON (NNPA) – President Bush’s authorization of a secret domestic spying program – and his fierce defense of his action – is leading to talk of possible impeachment.
Molly Ivins: "Either the president of the United States is going to have to understand and admit he has done something very wrong, or he will have to be impeached."
AUSTIN, Texas -- The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Thirty-five years ago, Richard Milhous Nixon, who was crazy as a bullbat, and J. Edgar Hoover, who wore women's underwear, decided some Americans had unacceptable political opinions. So they set our government to spying on its own citizens, basically those who were deemed insufficiently like Crazy Richard Milhous.
By David Swanson
Talk of censure and impeachment has begun swirling around President Bush. Can Vice President Cheney come to the rescue? He will do so if enough of Bush's opponents adopt the position of this Philadelphia Daily News op-ed writer -- the position that impeaching Bush would be a mistake, since Cheney is worse than Bush.
By John W. Dean, FindLaw.com
Both claimed that a president may violate Congress's laws to protect national security
On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
By ROSA BROOKS, Los Angeles Times
Is Clinton's history in Bush's future?
You know, the Clinton impeachment thing. Remember that? It had something to do with an intern, secretly taped conversations and a cigar. But it happened in the late 1990s, and it's getting harder and harder to remember the details of that long-vanished era.
A Cap Times editorial, December 29, 2005, http://www.madison.com
The dwindling circle of right-wing defenders of the Bush-Cheney presidency would have Americans believe that only the most reckless partisans would even consider the prospect of censuring or perhaps even impeaching the president and vice president. But the prospect of officially sanctioning Bush and Cheney, as has now been proposed by U.S. Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is gaining ground in unexpected quarters.
By David Swanson
Listen to audio of Congressman John Conyers talking about the Bush Administration's crimes, and his efforts to censure Bush and Cheney and to create an investigation that would develop articles of impeachment. I recorded this conversation with the Congressman on December 29th. The bills and the report referred to in the conversation can be found here. The upcoming events discussed can be found here.
This mp3 is 24 minutes and 21 MB: LISTEN.
Here's a Podcast version.
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for December 27
Guest: John Dean, Bob Bernstein
KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?
And worse and worse it gets. Did the Bush administration bypass the special wiretap court because the court was refusing to sanction those wiretaps? Did the NSA spying include eavesdropping at the U.N.? And is, as our guest John Dean suggests, the president already guilty of at least one impeachable offense?
By David Swanson
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has admitted that he "ghosted" a detainee, meaning that he made the decision to hold a prisoner without keeping any records of the fact.
By Hazel Trice Edney, San Francisco Bay View
President Bush’s authorization of a secret domestic spying program – and his fierce defense of his action – is leading to talk of possible impeachment.
Geov Parrish - WorkingForChange.com
"Congress, if it is (in the words the Bush White House once reserved for the U.N.) 'to remain relevant,' must impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney."
12.28.05 - In the waning days of 2005, a number of Beltway developments have pointed to 2006 as a pivotal year in the future -- if there is to be any -- of American democracy.
By Martin Garbus, HuffingtonPost
An hour after the New York Times described Bush’s illegal surveillance program, I wrote on the Huffington Post that Bush had committed a crime, a “High Crime,
By Jack Lessenberry, http://www.metrotimes.com
John Conyers Jr., that cranky old left-wing dude, introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives calling on Congress to impeach the president. I can just see you shaking your head.
By Doug Giebel, http://www.scoop.co.nz
Impeaching President Bush: A Game Of Ambiguity
By Doug Giebel
“im-peach . . . 2. to call in question
The American Enterprise Institute ("The People Who Brought You Eternal War!") have thunk this up: "we should have a serious debate about abolishing FISA and restoring the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." READ MORE
And read this from AEI: Impeach the President? Bring It On!
By David Swanson
A new report looks into instances in which the Bush Administration leaked classified information to support its case that Iraq was a threat to the United States.
While that case was, of course, ridiculous and the information falsified, the leaking of it was illegal. And the leaks appear to have been part of a coordinated effort. Immediately following important leaks, top administration officials appeared on talk shows to discuss information that they could not have legally discussed had it not appeared in a newspaper that morning.
By Jonathan Schell, The Nation
When the New York Times revealed that George W. Bush had ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap the foreign calls of American citizens without seeking court permission, as is indisputably required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, he faced a decision. Would he deny the practice, or would he admit it? He admitted it. But instead of expressing regret, he took full ownership of the deed, stating that his order had been entirely justified, that he had in fact renewed it thirty times, that he would continue to renew it and-going even more boldly on the offensive-that those who had made his law-breaking known had committed a "shameful act." As justification, he offered two arguments, one derisory, the other deeply alarming. The derisory one was that Congress, by authorizing him to use force after September 11, had authorized him to suspend FISA, although that law is unmentioned in the resolution. Thus has Bush informed the members of a supposedly co-equal ranch of government of what, unbeknownst to themselves, they were thinking when they cast their vote. The alarming argument is that as Commander in Chief he possesses "inherent" authority to suspend laws in wartime. But if he can suspend FISA at his whim and in secret, then what law can he not suspend? What need is there, for example, to pass or not pass the Patriot Act if any or all of its provisions can be secretly exceeded by the President?
By Ruth Conniff, http://progressive.org
What sense does it make that some of the same Washington media and political leaders who countenanced the Clinton impeachment over a semen-stained dress, somberly intoning about the "rule of law," consider impeaching Bush beyond the pale?
From the Impeach Bush Coalition:
Tom Delay (R-TX):
"This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.
by Kagro X, www.dailykos.com
Have you heard the news? Daniel Schorr says "nobody's talking about impeachment." Charles Krauthammer says impeachment talk is "nonsense." And Jonah Goldberg says impeachment will actually help W's poll numbers.
By Marty Luster, Ithaca Journal (New York)
As if the lies that took us to Iraq were not enough. As if the knowing use of bad intelligence wasn't enough. As if the ever- shifting justifications for this war were not enough. As if the use of torture by and at the behest of the United States was not enough. As if the disclosure of classified information to retaliate against a critic of the war policy was not enough. As if the shroud of secrecy that binds this administration was not enough. As if the squandering of hundreds of billions of dollars in support of this war at a time when we can't find the money to rebuild one of our great cities, when millions of us go without health care and when the federal government has reneged on its commitment to public education was not enough.
By Katrina vanden Heuvel, Huffington Post
In the late 1990s, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, currently under indictment on corruption charges, proclaimed: "This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law.... The other road is the path of least resistance" in which "we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us...[and] close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking...and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system." That arbiter of moral politics, Tom DeLay, was incensed about the danger of letting Bill Clinton escape unpunished for his "crimes"--lying about sex.