| Wake
Up Cape Cod Convened as a Committee of Correspondence to Reawaken Americans to the Cause of Liberty. |
||
|
Background photo: Cape Cod Sunrise by Joan Ross
|
Commentary on Impeachment .......
Impeachment
Anyone?: The Case for Taking the Tape Off Our Mouths Thursday 05 October
2006 This
piece is based on seven new books on impeachment, all briefly discussed in
a final note. Never before has the
system of government established by the U.S. Constitution been as
seriously threatened; never before has the built-in remedy for the sort of
threat we face been as badly needed; never before have we had as good an
opportunity to use that remedy exactly as it was intended. Congress has never
impeached a President and removed him from office. Once, with Richard M.
Nixon, impeachment proceedings forced a resignation. Twice, with Andrew
Johnson and Bill Clinton, impeachment proceedings led to acquittals. On a
few other occasions, Congressional efforts to advance articles of
impeachment have had legal and political results. These have always
benefited the political party that advanced impeachment. This was even
true in the case of the Republicans' unpopular impeachment of Clinton,
during which the Republicans lost far fewer seats than the norm for a
majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they lost
seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their strength in
the House, with representatives who had led the impeachment charge winning
big. (This point - little noted but important indeed - was made to me
recently by John Nichols, author of the forthcoming book, The Genius of
Impeachment.) In every past case,
impeachment efforts were driven by members of Congress or other Washington
political players, sometimes with support from the media. The public got
behind Nixon's impeachment, but only after the proceedings had revealed
massive presidential crimes. The public never got behind Clinton's
impeachment, despite saturation news coverage and widespread support among
political power players. In the case of George W. Bush's impeachment, with
the media and both parties in Congress opposed to it, public support is
just about all there is - so far. In past cases,
impeachment has either focused on trivial offenses or on crimes that were
serious but not tied to the administration's major foreign policy
decisions or to policies in which Congress was complicit. Clinton was
impeached for lying under oath about his sex life - clearly a crime but
not bribery, treason, or a "high crime or misdemeanor" (an old
British phrase meaning an abuse of the political system by a high office
holder), and so not actually an impeachable offense. Nixon was nearly
impeached for obstruction of justice, warrantless spying, refusing to
produce information subpoenaed by Congress, lying to the public, and other
abuses of power, but not for his secret and illegal bombing of Cambodia. For all the reasons
Nixon was nearly impeached, George W. Bush could be impeached too. He has
openly engaged in illegal, unconstitutional, warrantless spying, and -
while Congress has not yet used subpoenas - Bush has obstructed its
investigations, refused to comply with Freedom of Information Act
requests, and broken a variety of laws in the course of exacting
retribution against whistleblowers, producing false reports, and
establishing a regime of secrecy of a sort that Nixon could only dream
about. Bush has lied to the
public about the warrantless spying program at the National Security
Agency (NSA), the war in Iraq, the kinds of warnings he was given before
hurricane Katrina arrived, and numerous other issues. While Nixon made
secret audio tapes in the White House which, when discovered, doubled as
evidence, this time there is video - of Bush being warned prior to Katrina
and claiming he was not warned, of Bush assuring us he was not engaged in
warrantless spying and brazenly asserting that he will continue to spy
without warrants, of Bush warning us about Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction as well as Saddam's supposed ties to the 9/11 attacks and of
Bush claiming he did no such thing, of Bush claiming the U.S. does not
condone torture and of the torture victims. Bush's administration
has even bribed journalists and manufactured phony news stories at home as
well as in Iraq in order to deceive the public. Congressman John Conyers
has introduced bills to censure both the President and Vice President
Cheney for their refusal to turn over information, while Senator Russ
Feingold has introduced a bill to censure Bush for his illegal spying
programs. But charging Bush with
such Nixonian offenses would only scrape the surface of the criminal
record that is motivating the popular movement for impeachment - and
impeachment was always meant to be a popular movement. The drafters of the
Constitution placed impeachment in the hands of the House of
Representatives because they considered that body - with its members
facing reelection every two years - closest to the people. In theory, a
democratic system with impeachment at its heart creates an obvious
conflict in the wake of any (honest and credible) presidential election.
How could the people's representatives impeach, and ask the Senate to
consider removing from office, a president whom the people have just
elected? In practice at present, quite a different conflict takes center
stage: How can a Congress complicit in many of this President's criminal
acts be asked to impeach him? Perhaps by focusing on crimes Congress was
not complicit in, by allowing Congressional representatives to plead
ignorance or remorse, and by electing new representatives better tuned to
the present will of the people. And how do we get the
media to cover investigations of crimes the media too have been complicit
in? Same answer (minus, of course, the elections). Let's begin by
considering the case for impeaching and removing from office George W.
Bush and Dick Cheney. Quite a few organizations and individuals have, in
fact, already drafted articles of impeachment. Though no two lists are the
same, there is a great deal of overlap. There are some crimes that appear
on almost every list and that seem to be driving the public demand for
accountability. Many of the best lists are in recently published and
forthcoming books. (See note at end of article.) Impeachment for
What? Every list of
impeachable offenses includes tangential references to other impeachable
offenses. The list seems inexhaustible, but here's a quick run-down of the
main possible charges: The illegal war in
Iraq is at or near the top of everyone's list. Sometimes, the emphasis is
on the illegality of an aggressive war; sometimes, on the fraud used to
sell the war to Congress and the public; sometimes, on the absence of a
proper Congressional declaration of war. Lying to Congress is a
felony. Lying to the public is an impeachable offense - and one brought
against Nixon. Initiating an aggressive war is the highest crime under
treaties that are part of international and U.S. law. Launching a war
without proper Congressional approval is a violation of the War Powers Act
of 1973. Misusing government funds to launch a war is a separate crime,
committed by Bush when he ordered troops moved to Iraq and began bombing
raids prior to Congress's dubious authorization to use force. On some lists are the
various war crimes that have accompanied the war, including the targeting
of civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, the use of
antipersonnel weapons in densely settled urban areas, and the use of
illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new
version of napalm used in Mark 77 firebombs. High on most lists are
also unlawful detentions and torture. The arbitrary detention of
Americans, of legal residents, and of non-Americans without due process,
without charge, and without access to counsel is illegal under U.S. and
international law, and unconstitutional as well. In case anyone doubted
this fact, the Supreme Court recently ruled on it. The highest body in our
judicial branch of government has essentially declared Bush a criminal,
and yet Congress recently acted, through the Military Commissions Act of
2006, to provide the President with retroactive immunity for some of his
acts in these areas. Bush has authorized
the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in some cases in death,
and sought to evade responsibility by redefining acts commonly considered
torture out of the category of torture. He has agreed to let suspects be
kidnapped off the streets of cities in other countries, allowed prisoners
to be hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross, shipped
people under U.S. control to third nations or a network of secret U.S.
prisons to be tortured. The Constitution, international treaties that are
part of U.S. law, and other U.S. laws ban torture. When, in the McCain
Amendment to a Department of Defense bill last January, Congress
redundantly re-banned torture, the President signed the bill but added a
signing statement explaining that he would not obey it. On every impeachment
list as well is the illegal National Security Agency spying to which Bush
has publicly (and proudly) confessed, and which a federal court has ruled
criminal. Yet, to this day, it goes on unchecked. Bush lied to the public
and Congress about his illegal spying programs for years. Congress has
passed bills cutting off funding for the programs, but Bush countermanded
these with signing statements. The spying, done
without recourse to the secret FISA court set up in 1978 for exactly this
purpose, is also in blatant violation of the FISA Act of 1978, of the
Fourth Amendment, and - according to Congressman John Conyers' report,
George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution - of the Stored Communications
Act of 1986 and the Communications Act of 1934. Congressman Conyers also
cites Bush for violating the National Security Act and for failing to keep
all members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees "fully
and currently informed" of intelligence activities, such as the
warrantless surveillance programs. On nearly every list
of impeachable offenses is the President's failure to protect New Orleans
from Hurricane Katrina. Over a period of years, the administration
undermined the city's protection. In the days prior to the storm's
arrival, Bush was warned about just what might happen. Yet prior to the
storm - and for days after it hit - he did nothing; the unqualified
cronies he had put in charge of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
did nothing; and the National Guard members from Louisiana, Mississippi
and other states of the southeast whom he had dispatched to Iraq could not
be called upon to help. Thousands of Americans died preventable deaths and
a city was ruined, not so much by a storm as by the non-response to it.
Even now, people who lost their homes in the Katrina debacle are being
told there are no funds available to help them. The Constitution
requires that the President "take care that the laws be faithfully
executed." Former Congresswoman and Judiciary Committee Member
Elizabeth Holtzman in her new book, The Impeachment of George W. Bush,
argues that Bush's neglect of New Orleans (and other presidential duties)
violated this responsibility and so constitute high crimes and
misdemeanors. Holtzman puts into this category as well the
administration's failure to provide U.S. troops in Iraq with proper body
armor, and the failure of the President and his top officials to plan for
the occupation of Iraq. In their book, The
Case for Impeachment, Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky make a similar
argument about Bush's failure to attempt to prevent the attacks of
September 11, 2001 and his obstruction of investigations into those crimes
(as do Dennis Loo and Peter Phillips in their book Impeach the President). The same two books,
along with the Bush Crimes Commission in its "verdict," also
suggest that, by denying the existence of, enacting policies that
increase, and failing to work to decrease global warming, Bush has
committed perhaps the most serious offense possible - in the words of Loo
and Phillips, "placing oil-industry profits over the long-term
survival of the human race and the viability of the planet." The Bush Crimes
Commission finds the President's imposition of abstinence-only policies on
countries being ravaged by AIDS to be a serious crime against humanity.
Loo and Phillips charge Bush with "violating the constitutional
principle of separation of church and state through the interlinking of
theocratic ideologies in the decision-making process of the U.S.
government." Three of the recent
books on impeachment include as an impeachable offense Bush's use of
signing statements to announce his refusal to obey hundreds of laws passed
by Congress. The American Bar Association has found the practice
unconstitutional. It is, in fact, an open threat to the rule of law. An official censure by
Congress would do nothing to compel the President to obey laws he chooses
not to obey. Impeachment would do nothing. Only impeachment followed by
removal from office will cure this cancer on the American political
system. The current situation is exactly what the authors of the
Constitution had in mind when they made impeachment and removal from
office the means of protection against tyranny. Holtzman includes in
her roster of impeachable offenses the selective and misleading leaking of
classified information, especially on supposed Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction (which Bush himself was directly involved in) to advance a
dishonest case for war. Lindorff and Olshansky also include the leaking of
CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity. Conyers cites
violations of the following related laws: 1) Federal requirements
concerning the leaking and misuse of intelligence, including failing to
enforce an executive order that requires the disciplining of those who
leak classified information, whether intentionally or not; 2) Federal laws
forbidding retaliation against whistle-blowers of various sorts, an
example being the demotion of Bunnatine Greenhouse, the chief contracting
officer at the Army Corps of Engineers, who exposed secret, no-bid
contracts awarded to Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of
Halliburton; 3) Federal regulations and ethical requirements governing
conflicts of interest, including the briefing of then-Attorney General
John Ashcroft on an FBI investigation of possible misconduct by Karl Rove,
even though Mr. Rove had previously received nearly $750,000 in fees for
political work on Mr. Ashcroft's campaigns. Loo and Phillips -
rightly I think - bring up a number of offenses not found on most lists,
including: ·
"Usurping the American
people's right to know the truth about governmental actions through the
systematic use of propaganda and disinformation"; ·
"Overthrowing Haiti's
democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and installing a
highly repressive regime" in his place; ·
Hiding government decisions
from public and congressional view "by a willful subversion of the
Freedom of Information Act." I would add one item
not yet found on anybody's list: the passage by Congress of the Military
Commissions Act of 2006 that retroactively and unconstitutionally
legalizes various Bush administration acts involving torture and illegal
detention, and the passage of other bills doing the same on a number of
the crimes listed above. Impeachment is not a criminal process. Legalizing
impeachable offenses does not make them less impeachable. But proposing
and lobbying to legalize illegal impeachable offenses are themselves
additional impeachable offenses. What Would It Take
for Impeachment to Happen? Believe it or not, the
impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney is perfectly possible,
although a number of factors will have to come together for it to happen.
The public will is already there, and this is quite remarkable given the
lack of action in Congress or mention in the mainstream media. The polling
that has been done on impeachment is dramatic. The Washington Post finds
that a third of the country wants Bush not just impeached but also removed
from office. Zogby finds that, by a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want
Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq. When
Americans were asked, "What 2 or 3 specific changes would have to
take place in order to improve your trust in government today?" the
winner by far was "personnel changes/impeachment proceedings."
When Pennsylvanians were asked whether they would be likely to vote for a
congressional candidate who "supports having impeachment proceedings
against President Bush," 84.9% of Democrats said yes, while 7.0% said
no. Among Independents, 49.3% said yes, while 40.6% said no. The Republican
National Committee got spooked this past summer and felt obliged to
announce that impeachment would be good for Republicans in the coming
elections. This claim is made without a shred of evidence, either in
history or in present polling. Nothing excites non-Republicans today like
impeachment, and "Vote for us or we'll go to jail" is a lousy
slogan. The Democratic base is aching for Democrats in Congress to get
some spine and stand up to the criminals who are throwing away one of the
most brilliant creations of the eighteenth century: our Constitution.
Instead, Leader Nancy Pelosi has ordered Democrats in Congress to stay
away from impeachment - though she did say that they would hold hearings
and see where they went… if the Democrats win a majority in the House of
Representatives. To voters who are
paying attention, the "let's hold investigations and see where they
go" approach looks disingenuous, given how many impeachable offenses
are already public knowledge. I've heard reports from dozens of
Congressional representatives, in both parties, who refused to sign onto
Conyers' bill for an investigation, and not once has anyone argued that
there is too little evidence. The argument always focuses on the
"extreme" nature of impeachment or the political agenda behind
impeachment. As a result, the Democrats are, for the most part, steering
clear even of talk of future investigations. Quietly, however,
Democrats do acknowledge that impeachment is coming. Following the
triumphal 1972 election of Richard Nixon, had you raised the topic of
impeachment, Democrats in Washington would have dismissed it as
impossible. Today, on the other hand, they dismiss it as unacceptable - at
least pre-election. When former director of the NSA, Lt. Gen. William
Odom, suggested impeaching Bush last week at a forum on Iraq organized by
progressive Democratic Congress members, the ensuing silence and shuffling
in seats suggested a strong desire by our representatives to dive under
the table. They resisted that urge and changed the subject. They did not,
however, argue against impeachment. A lot of activists
imagine that there is a conflict between working on impeachment and
working on the upcoming elections. They fail to see raising impeachment as
one way to win those elections. I would argue that holding a large rally
for impeachment, as we did in Charlotte, North Carolina last Saturday,
does more to help defeat Republicans than does funding the campaigns of
any number of milquetoast Democrats who will use the money to run
uninspiring ads that excite nobody. If Democrats could stop worrying for a
minute about energizing the Republican base and converting Republicans,
they might be able to look at the potential impeachment has to excite and
turn out their own base. This is an off-year election. It will be won by
turnout - and by fighting suppression, fraud, and theft. To the extent
that the elections are about something as significant as impeachment,
candidates and citizens will be more likely to fight for stolen votes. If the Democratic
incumbents all stood for impeachment now, the Democrats would win a
majority in a landslide. In fact, they might even persuade the necessary
fifteen Republicans to join them and impeach Bush and Cheney pre-election.
Rep. Ron Paul has spoken up for impeachment. Only fourteen more are
needed, and there is no law that says Republicans can't put their country
ahead of George W. Bush. That fact will become increasingly important if
the Democrats do not win a majority or do not fight when their elections
are stolen. For now, impeachment advocates find themselves in the
situation of trying to push the Democrats to talk about impeachment for
their own good. After the election,
come what may, citizen activists will find themselves with time on their
hands for at least a few months until the next election cycle begins.
During this window, leading into the next Congress, the American public
will either force impeachment on Washington or allow the slide toward
fascism to continue. This moment in our history presents an opportunity
for the first time for a popular presidential impeachment, an impeachment
imposed on the government by the people. Impeachment and
removal, followed later by indictment and conviction, will be a long
struggle. (It will, sadly, slow Congress down for a while in its work of
destroying the world.) But it is needed to restore the U.S. Constitution
as well as international law, and to establish a standard of
accountability for the launching of aggressive wars. So, while the process
may need to begin with crimes that Congress has been less complicit in,
such as the use of signing statements, it must end with the offenses our
world cannot well survive if they are repeated. The first subpoena
sent to the White House will be refused, of course, and the conflict will
develop from that point. Democrats and any Republicans of conscience
should be prepared for that and have a plan that will see us through to
George Bush's removal from office for the highest of high crimes and
misdemeanors. Note on Bush and
Books: The New Impeachment Literature The fact that a
sizeable collection of books exists on the subject of impeaching George W.
Bush is a phenomenon worthy of comment in itself. Some of the offenses
committed by Bush and Cheney have been reported first - and sometimes only
- in books as was the case with James Risen's State of War: The Secret
History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration and Philippe Sands'
Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules. The
books that follow, all exploring where U.S. citizens must take that
evidence, constitute a field of reporting that has yet to make an
appearance in a major American newspaper or on a major American television
network. Books (and the internet) are now the first draft of history as
well as the last, since the other news media have abandoned the field. Yet
the analysis in these books is not only largely in agreement but readily
comprehensible by anyone with an elementary school education, no less a
reporter, and there is no reason to imagine that the views expressed could
not be effectively expressed on television or in a newspaper. If you know nothing
about the impeachment movement, pick up at least one of the following.
They tend to be brief, easy to read, and enormously important: ·
The Impeachment of George W.
Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens, by Elizabeth Holtzman,
former Congresswoman and member of the Nixon impeachment panel, and
Cynthia L. Cooper (Nation Books, 268 pages, $14.95), an excellent and
readable book, lays out five major grounds for the President's
impeachment, and offers a bonus section on Dick Cheney. ·
Impeach the President: The
Case Against Bush and Cheney, edited by Dennis Loo and Peter Phillips,
with an introduction by Howard Zinn (Seven Stories Press, 208 pages,
$17.95), is a wonderfully well written collection of essays organized
around a list of 12 grounds for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. ·
The Case for Impeachment, the
Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office by Dave
Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky (Thomas Dunne Books, 275 pages, $23.95), an
amazingly popular and extremely readable book, explains the context for
impeachment proceedings, while also setting forth six articles of
impeachment against Bush, plus an extra section on Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld,
Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales. ·
Articles of Impeachment
Against George W. Bush by the Center for Constitutional Rights (Melville
House, 144 pages, $9.95) is a short book that simply lists and explains
four (multi-part) articles of impeachment ·
George W. Bush versus the
U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation,
Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic
Spying by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff (Academy
Chicago Publishers, 260 pages, $16.95) not only collects the evidence but
also tells us what Congressman John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the
Judiciary Committee, is thinking. The full text, minus a new introduction
by Joseph Wilson, is available here and the book can be purchased here. ·
Verdict and Findings of Fact
by the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity
Committed by the Bush Administration of the United States ($10), a report
that looks at five major international crimes and overlaps significantly
with most lists of impeachable offenses. The full text is available by
clicking here. ·
Impeach Bush: A Funny Li'l
Graphical Novel About the Worstest Pres'dent in the History of Forevar
(Blatant Comics, $12.95) is a comic-book account of Bush's impeachable
offenses - the crimes really are self-evident, but pictures don't hurt. It
can be purchased by clicking here. David Swanson is
creator of MeetWithCindy.org, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org
coalition, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of
Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America,
and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper
Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a
communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis
Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the
International Labor Communications Association, and three years as
Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in
philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997. His website is www.davidswanson.org.
The
Remedy Is Impeachment At
a public forum attended by about two hundred people at Cape Cod
Community College on May 12, we discussed the question: “Should
Bush/Cheney be impeached NOW?” A
few people felt that Bush/Cheney haven’t done anything that warrants
impeachment. Some other
people felt that Bush/Cheney have committed impeachable crimes, but it
would be harmful to the Democratic Party to try to impeach them now -
that’s also the official position of Representative Delahunt and most
Democrats in Congress. Most
of those present supported the third position, that Articles of
Impeachment of Bush/Cheney and other members of their Administration
should be introduced immediately because there is overwhelming evidence
that they are guilty of impeachable crimes!
We need to stop them from committing more crimes such as lying to
spread the War for Oil in the Middle East, torture and illegal
detentions at Guantanamo Bay and around the world, use of depleted
uranium and other chemical weapons in Iraq, illegal wire tapping,
unreasonable searches through our telephone records, conspiracy with oil
companies, and corruption by Halliburton.
Hundreds of thousands of people, and tens of thousands of our
troops, have been killed and maimed by the Bush/Cheney Regime.
How do we stop all these crimes from continuing? The
remedy is impeachment. Our
founding fathers put Article II, Section 4 in the Constitution to give
We the People a remedy for removing the president, vice president, and
other civil officers from office if they were guilty of treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Bush/Cheney are guilty, and if we don’t use that remedy, then
those war criminals will do much more harm! Every
day our troops and innocent people are dying because Bush/Cheney lied to
invade Iraq in a War for Oil, and now they are pushing us towards war
with Iran, Venezuela, and other countries that have vast reserves of
oil. If there were no oil
in Iraq, then there would be no U.S. troops in Iraq.
We must withdraw our troops immediately, and rescue our troops
from dying for the oil companies and being forced to kill or be killed
for a lie. To do that, we
must first impeach the commanders-in-chief, Bush/Cheney. A
public forum called “The Constitution in Crisis” was held in April
in Falmouth by Representative Delahunt and former congressman Bob Barr
and ACLU They admitted to us that Bush/Cheney are guilty of authorizing
the use of torture and illegal wire tapping, clear violations of the
laws, treaties, and U.S. Constitution.
The reason that the Constitution is in crisis is because Delahunt
and the Democrats are not even attempting to impeach Bush/Cheney, and
without that remedy, there is no way to stop this corrupt “War
President” and his Administration. Representative
Conyers and thirty-six other members of Congress have introduced House
Resolution 635 for an Impeachment Inquiry.
Why don’t they just introduce Articles of Impeachment if there
is so much evidence of impeachable crimes?
Why aren’t more Democrats in Congress helping them?
They are more concerned with their own elections that in
following their oaths of office to uphold the laws and Constitution to
the best of their abilities. Senator
Russ Feingold calls them “run and hide Democrats.”
Of the two hundred and fifty Democrats in Congress, only about
forty have done anything to stand up to Bush/Cheney, less than twenty
percent. That’s
disgraceful, and a grave disservice to the citizens of the United
States. Doing nothing will hurt the Democrats in November, as it did in
2000, 2002 and 2004. Representative
Delahunt is a former District Attorney who should be prosecuting those
criminals, not letting them continue to commit crimes day in and day
out. He and the Democrats
in Congress are watching our troops and innocent people die because of
lies and corruption, and they are letting Bush/Cheney get away with it,
instead of coming out of their foxholes and fighting for what’s right.
They
and their friends in the oil industry are power hungry enough, and sick
enough, to do it. Seymour
Hirsh, a very respected writer for the New Yorker magazine, has reported
that the attack on Iran is already in the operational stage, which means
that it will happen sooner or later.
We must derail that operation! We
must impeach Bush/Cheney NOW, before that happens, because there will be
no going back if it does, and there will be no stopping the War for OIL
from growing. If Articles
of Impeachment are introduced by Representative Delahunt, there will be
thirty or forty cosponsors right away, and the movement to impeach
Bush/Cheney will spread to every Congressional District in the United
States. Many members of
Congress who oppose impeachment will be voted out in November, and that
will give the Democrats the majority they need to remove those war
criminals from office. There
are now efforts in Vermont, Illinois, California, and other states to
pass impeachment resolutions through their Legislatures, which would go
to Congress under the Jefferson Rules.
So far, we haven’t found one Democrat in Massachusetts with the
courage to introduce an impeachment resolution here.
Representative Matt Patrick said no, Senators O’Leary and
Murray said no, Representative Cleon Turner laughed it off, and
Representative Atsalis said no, and that we should have nuked Iran
instead of invading Iraq! The
most Democratic state in our Nation has no elected leaders who will work
to impeach Bush/Cheney. The
voters need to take action right away to pressure all of our
politicians. We must impeach Bush/Cheney NOW to cure our Nation of the worst Administration in U.S. history. We must change the course of history, and spare our children and grandchildren from endless war. We must bring our troops home NOW, this year, but first we must remove their Commander in Chief! We can impeach Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the other criminals in their Administration, if we try. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “It is always the right time to do the right thing,” and it is certainly the right time to work for impeachment. Thank you.
|
|