The democrats "have a constitutional duty," as Nancy Pelosi has said, to investigate--- criminal wrongs, offenses to the constitution...
In the coming months, as the Democrat-led congress moves forward, dealing with the war, unemployment, health care, medicare drugs, immigration (ignoring flag burning, gay marriage, and other BS the republicans wasted whole sessions on) they will also be convening hearings. The Democrats will force the release of reports that the Republicans held back from the public. They will begin to shed line on the dark recesses that the Republicans hid.
The truth will see the light of day.
Once the dirty truth comes out-- that Bush was a criminal and constitutional violator in SO many ways, the 31% rating for Bush that we see today will look huge. The American public will demand that something be done. They will insist upon the rescue of the constitution.
I believe that there will be more network anchors who, emboldened by the tough talk of first and foremost, Keith Olbermann, but also Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs. These gutsy media spokesman will rally the American people to demand that the perpetrators face justice, that the abuses to the constitution and the bill of rights be righted (or, with the current climate, "lefted.")
The Republican party will be faced with a disastrous 2008 election and they will have little choice but to cut the damage-- the slowly, but strongly growing media storm of outrage over the crimes and abuses of Bush, Cheney and their worst appointees, particularly Gonzalez.
The Republicans will be forced to take a walk to the white House-- at least 15 or 16 of them-- and they will tell Bush and Cheney, that they have to resign, because the Republican party will be obliterated if they don't clean up their own mess. And Bush and Cheney are their mess.
It will be oh so delicious to see the day that Bush and Cheney resign because the Republicans told them to. Either that, or the Dems will take an additional 50 house seats and 15-20 MORE senate seats in 2008. At that point, the two party system could be replaced by new parties.
It is a certainty, the Republicans will not allow that to happen. The senators will go to Bush and Cheney and tell them they have to resign-- and fast.
This won't happen overnight, but it won't take too long. There are already a few Republicans who have expressed reservations. Expect the ones who will be facing elections in 2008 to be under more pressure to get on board, and the few remaining moderates remaining on the Republican side of the aisle.
Don't expect every Democrat to get on board. Joe, the red, Lieberman might hold out just to annoy the Dems, or to hold out for a deal of his own. Seriously though, that is VERY unlikely, with his constituent base.
Eventually though, Bush will get a visit. Almost certainly, it will be a real, actual visit, from a big enough group of Republicans to make it clear to George and Dick that they really do have a choice-- face impeachment or resign.
Of course, when Bush gets the visit from the Republicans, he will drag James Baker from wherever he is, to negotiate a deal. Cheney will pull out his shotgun and shoot at them, probably at a more moderate one, like Arlen Spector or Olympia Snowe who will surely be amongst the resignation demand team.
The Dems will be straining at the leash to take any offer. That will be a mistake. Bush and Cheney do NOT deserve to get off with just resigning. They must plead guilty to crimes. They must do at least some time-- so they lose their right to vote. They must, as part of their "deal" agree to never speak in public, to not give speeches, to give all claims to all monies in any bank accounts they did not have upon entering office. They should pay fines consisting of all their assets. They should be put in house arrest-- on Bush's remote ranch. Government security agents should be supplied to keep all visitors out except family, and to keep Bush and Cheney in. Okay-- Cheney can do house arrest in some ranch in Wyoming.
There are those who would imprison these criminals for life, and those who believe they deserve execution as mass murderers. The US should also allow the world court to try them, with Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Tommy Franks, and a number of the generals who allowed or even observed torture and other war crimes. The US owes the world access to the criminals who got out of control. We need to clear our Karma. Allowing justice to take its course-- true justice, not the perverted, despicable thing that Gonzalez, Yoo and company perpetrated upon this nation and this planet.
On the other side, James Baker and Bush's few remaining friends will negotiate on behalf of Bush. Some of my wish list of sentencing elements will fall. I hope not many. They are designed to prevent Bush or Cheney from contining to do damage or to benefit from their crimes.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
His weekend report excerpted: "According to Washington insiders, there are moves afoot to dump Vice President Dick Cheney and replace him with either John McCain or Rudolph Giuliani prior to the 2008 presidential election.
"Since the increasingly-besieged Cheney has signaled he has no intention of voluntarily stepping down, the strategy by the Bush camp may be to force him out by presenting evidence before Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald that it was Cheney who was responsible for the compromise of CIA non-proliferation covert officer Valerie Plame Wilson and her Brewster Jennings & Associates cover firm."
by
Russ Wellen (58 articles, 1029 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 335 comments)
on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 2:46:32 PM
Understand -- they ALL take orders from George H.W. Bush. Gates is nothing but a George H.W. retread. They ALL are. Make no mistake about it -- George H.W. Bush has, for all intents and purposes, been running the White House since the 80's or before -- straight on through the Clinton years -- right up to the present.
by
Lilith's Spirit (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments)
on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 11:25:42 PM
Head of the CIA for how many years? What do these people actually do, anyway? Everything I read about them, it's stirring up trouble somewhere. Yes, the more I've read about Bush Sr. and the CIA, the more plausible this seems. It has always seemed like he's been the pupeteer for little george. He certainly "dropped out of sight" rather quickly after the little one got in.
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 58 quicklinks, 121 diaries, 690 comments)
on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 at 8:46:58 AM
When you say GHWBush 'dropped' out of sight, it was the public view, presenting his views to influence the public politic.
We did not see GHW then for the same reason that after 911, when 'Bush the Lesser' was asked if he had taken advice from his father, the former president with prior war experience in the Middle East, his answer was, " no, I turn to a more powerful Father".
The reason this answer was necessary was that his 'Daddy' was working full time as a weapons salesman for the Carlyle Group, and the conflict of interest would be blatantly obvious. -- If that seems odd to you, you will be interested to know that John Majors, Ex-British PM and James Baker III, Ex- US Sec/State were also employed selling weapons for Carlyle at the time.
Do not be mistaken by accepting the view of that the Bush men have been anything other than public front men. They have a history of being used willingly by the truly powerful that prefer the shadows.
our pres.
GW Bush
his crimes are current and many.
his scholastic records are sealed.
he demonstrates attributes of a moron.
Someone with enough power got him into office twice.
in 2000, Afghanistan had ZERO poppy cultivation.
today, Afghanistan is producing 130% of WORLD consumption.
his father was;
GHW Bush
married the grand-daughter of US pres. Franklin Pierce.
his crimes are historic and current.
his scholastic records were also sealed.
his function in the war, bay of pigs, Kennedy assassination, Franklin gay porn, Iran Contra, Gulf war I, on and on, was a bungling inept covering true facts.
Reagan hated him, and yet
Someone with the power got him on Reagan's ticket.
As VP he took total control of the US drug interdiction.
Cocaine imports to the US rose 2600% in his tenor.
his father was;
Prescott Sheldon Bush
married the daughter of Herbert Walker, partner of EH Harriman.
founding member American Eugenics Soc. (Hitler's Super-race start)
full partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, saviors of Barings Bank/opium traders.
convicted of trading with the enemy in WWII, held 1% of stock, covered Harriman's 99% stake from prosecution. ( Alex brown covered the 'PUT' options on 911.)
elected US Senator/Conn.
Someone used a lot of power to get a convicted traitor elected.
funded GHW Bush's' oil start in Texas.
his father was;
Samuel Bush
vice-pres. Remington Arms before WWI
2ND in charge of small arms procurement of US during WWI.
(Remington sold arms worldwide, 75% of all small arms expended in WWI were sold by Remington. 1/2 of all munitions fired at allied troops were provided by Remington.
This is a NASTY gene pool.
by
cliff567 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 161 comments)
on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 12:07:44 AM
It seems the former ruling party has found themselves in a bit of a pickle. Knowing that the President and Vice-president have lied, cheated and abused constitutional rights, removing them before 2008 might be best for the Republicans.
But whether through resignation or impeachment, doesn't the law provide that if the president resigns, the VP is in charge. Following the VP, it's the House Speaker.
Now perhaps the VP could resign first, but doesn't that still move Pelosi up the chain?
Quite the pickle...
by
Jim Prues (15 articles, 33 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 73 comments)
on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 3:20:28 PM
also, I believe that a replacement VP has to be authorized by the congress. Someone tell me if I'm wrong on that. If the Dems sandbag and delay, then a President Pelosi sitation would be possible. They would be insane to allow Giuliani or McCain to take it, since it would give them an incredible lead. of course, that's one way that Lieberman could screw the Dems and buy incredible power. The more I think about it the worse Lieberman looks. We need to turn another senator to the Dems so he loses his power.
by
Rob Kall (808 articles, 3923 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1703 comments)
on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 3:39:17 PM
Please point me to the link, please, because my ConLaw is quite rusty. I remember Agnew's resignation and the appointment of one of the Rockefellers (was it John D. or Nelson, I was only a pre-teen). I vaguely thought just the Senate had to approve the nomination.
Either way, Cheney out -- replacement stalled. Impeach Bush with no sitting V.P. and third in line (Speaker of the House) becomes President. If she's too bashfull (or they have good pictures of her with a mule) she could decline and then Majority Leader of the Senate (#4) could take the job.
CharlieL
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 676 comments)
on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 at 11:27:01 AM
The election of last week proved that the people of America are now wide awake!
Karl Rove's "complicated tricks" are now known even to the "lowliest peasant," so to speak. No more cooked up "Red Alerts" -- It just won't work.
Of course, I assuming that the Democrats play their cards strategically.
The Republicans have lost the Hispanic vote forever, and for that matter any immigrant vote -- The effects of the racist demonizing of immigrants (illegal and by extension legal) may not be seen immediately, but will definitely be a factor in the near future ...if not already.
Appointing Mel Martinez as RNC chairman -- an act of "Tokenism" will not pacify the many millions of "scared" immigrants in this country -- Citizens or Citizens to be.
The Democrats need to push comprehensive immigration reform and take full advantage of this constituency -- Immigrants, for we saw last week that it takes just a couple thousand votes to turn things upside down.
by
JOpiko (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 5:08:24 PM
I dont agree. if the democrats pass what most people veiw as amnesty they will do it at the pleasure of George Bush. And the angry swing voters of 2006 will go back to voting republican in 2008.
by
Gary Denson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 219 comments)
on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 5:29:06 PM
Revenge of the Democrats vs a Bush/Cheney Resignation
For several years I have dreamt of the day we would have the opportunity to impeach the President and Vice President. I truly do believe they both need to be held accountable for the damage they have done to this country and to Iraq.
Last Tuesday I avoided turning on the TV because I wanted so badly to see a Republican loss and feared it would not be so. I finally did give in and could not stop grinning until I fell asleep.
I wish, oh, how I wish, the wisest step right now would be to impeach them, but I don't think it is. Impeachment would seem an act of revenge that could further exacerbate the current American political/cultural rift. I thought about the International Court and a country like Germany stepping in and doing the job for us. That might work.
Rob, your article caught me off-guard. I had never considered the possibility of either of these two arrogant men resigning - willingly or otherwise. You've definitely given me something to think about.
In the meantime, I do agree with the need to investigate everything that is investigatable. It is absolutely imperative, from my point of view, that we, the American people, thoroughly understand how we allowed ourselves to be so easily manipulated and why we turned on each other so easily.
by
Diane Cadonau (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 5:19:00 PM
The precedent of inducing the VP to resign 1st, selecting & seating a harmless nonentity as the new VP, then inducing the Prez to resign & moving the new VP to the office a failed Prez vacates was established in the 1970's. It will be interesting to see if & how the designated wingnut/Prez can be induced not to pull a Jerry Ford & pardon W & go on to add RBC to the pardon list.
There is much to be said for trying W, RBC, et al for treason since treason may be punished by death in the USA. That would allow the defendents's lawyers to plea bargain. Life in solitary, in a super-max prison on a diet of bread, water & ExLax would be a more humane alternative to execution. There is no way the nation will tolerate the slap's on the wrists Mr Kall mentions. This bunch must do hard time, very hard time for life. To sentence W & co to time in a minimum security prison is unacceptable. The other prisoners would make life intolerable for W & co by constantly abusing W & co with violent attempts to murder them. The fate of W & co in the general population of a prison which houses violent offenders would be to be murdered by skilled & hardened inmates.
The house arrest deal wouldn't fly. Martha Stewart did time in a Federal Pen in W VA, then house arrest. Mr Skilling is set to serve hard time & Mr Fastow is doing time for a shorter period contingent upon Andy singing on others. All they did was bankrupt a firm, its investors & employees.
W & co has(have) bankrupted the USA, killed 100's of troops & Iriqi civilians, subverted the Constitution. Mere investigations & impeachments won't do. This isn't a matter of oral sex between consenting adults. W & co have tortured people & repeatedly committed grand theft on a monumental scale. The culprits merit solitary, hard time for life. No house arrests are to be given to these criminals & traitors. Senator Specter isn't the only former prosecutor in either body of the U S Congress. There are a number of ambitious former prosecutors who want to preserve & add to their reputations for demanding that culprits feel the wrath of the law, the full wrath demanded by the law in Washington DC.
by
larry278 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments)
on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 5:44:08 PM
Restore Impeachment to Its Rightful Place on the Table
== Please Restore Impeachment to Its Rightful Place on the Table ==
An Open Letter By Larry W. Bryant
TO: Mr. John Conyers, Jr.
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
FROM: Larry W. Bryant
DATE: November 13, 2006
On August 25, 2006, you sent me a letter thanking me for my $60 contribution to your reelection campaign. I had chosen that specific amount because your campaign literature said that any contributor sending you at least $60 would receive an autographed copy of your book-length pre-impeachment report.
I'm still awaiting receipt of that copy. Meanwhile, I have another, more urgent reason for writing to you at this time. Word has come to me that you recently have echoed Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's announcement that "impeachment is off the table." This action on your part, coming as it does from a professed champion of seeking an impeachment resolution against Pres. Bush and Vice Pres. Cheney, betrays and insults such contributors as myself. You readily must have perceived that your original, proactive stance on impeachment would appeal to those U. S. citizens directly victimized by the Bush-Cheney record of deception/dishonesty/retaliation -- and that some of these citizens (and their supporters) were quite willing to send you campaign money in furtherance of your stance.
For whatever reason, Mr. Conyers, you and Rep. Pelosi have let us down at a critical moment in the history of what's left of our republic. Instead of boldly and unequivocally helping us make a difference in the politics of fear-and-loathing, you've opted for maintaining the status quo. That option reflects, of course, just how broken our system of governance has become. Contempt for the will of the people in this matter should not be an option in the halls of Congress.
Accordingly, I ask that you immediately return to your principled view that impeachment remain on the table so long as Bush and Cheney remain in office. Otherwise, I -- along with thousands of other pro-impeachment activists -- will have little difficulty in concluding that your "off the table" decision will stand as a monument to Congress's capitulation to corruption and deceit within the Executive Branch.
LARRY W. BRYANT
P. S.: Since I consider your abandonment of the impeachment movement to be a bait-and-switch ploy for garnering monetary favors from the masses, I hereby request that you immediately refund to me my $60 contribution to your reelection campaign. I intend to apply that money toward such grassroots activism as exemplified by the volunteers at the web site of http://www.bushbusiness.com/impeachment%20news.htm .
Copy furnished to: Chairman, U. S. Federal Election Commission
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Thanks for posting the letter, Larry. I add my support, and hope others will as well -- both here, and to Mr. Conyers directly. He needs to get a good dose of the outrage over his 180. Unless he intends to join the ranks of the former Congressman/consultant in 2008, he better do another 180 and get back on track. If he thinks he's going to run and hide on this one, he's sadly mistaken.
by
Lilith's Spirit (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments)
on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 11:37:28 PM
Hmmm, I thought I said that? Bush would do a Tricky.
Everyone said no..........hmmmmmm.
OK...everyone...don't get your dandruff in your coffee...because of a constitutional flaw that prevents impeachment, and more than likely those boys will wait it out. My email to Dave Lindorff
dlindorff@yahoo.com
Dave I have read your reasons for seeking impeachment of GW Bush and Dick Cheney, and think the real issue is this. The issue is about Iran, and the so called the tail wagging the dog syndrome.
Democrats start the supporting process for impeachment, Bush declares war. Now what? The impeachment hearings are thrown out, and the war is dragged on until Bush has finished his term.
We have a fundamental flaw with the governing branches, in which impeachment is always fought off by waging war. Is this not obvious to why Nancy Pelosi has taken it off the table? We might as well vote for impeachment is also voting yes for the bombing of Iran.
The only way it could work is if Democrats get countries like Russia, and China, to say they will support Iran if attacked by Israel or the United States. This means Russia would be waging war against the United States. Such a stance might stop Bush dead in his tracks, and impeachment would be solidified to go forward.
Or to have Congress override the Presidents powers against his veto in starting the impeachment process, and stripping his powers by preventing him from launching a war against Iran. In so doing the impeachment is about his power to wage war illegally, and thereby preventing him to exercise more.
I think if such an override would be legislated it would be the end to this President, and the impeachment a foregone conclusion.
This is a major flaw of governance in the United States. If we do nothing about this, the same cycle of repetion will occur. Congress needs to have the right to take the executive powers away, in lieu of stopping false wars, and criminal presidents.
This is the fight! Not so much the impeachment proceedings; but the actions that will occur once it is tabled.
We should not be trying to sell the impeachment process, but telling it like it is, to the people, about getting impeachment on the table verses the President declaring War on Iran. Democrats have to get support from the people to strip him from those war powers he has been illegally exercising. We can go on and on about the reasons to impeach, but if we do nothing to solidify the backlash from waging another illegal War on another target country....Iran, we might as well shoot ourselves in the head.
Impeachment on the table tells Bush to attack Iran, meaning we have another or a 3rd so called war on; for the War on terror. In fact he will consider impeachment a terrorist plot, and attack Iran to make the Democrats impotent imbeciles.
I wish your book would address these facts and the political maneuvering that it will take to defang this monster in the Whitehouse.
What can I do? I am in China...trying to prevent another war here.
Good Luck...
Also a point you failed to mention in reasons to impeach is the stealing of the 2000 election, the denial of recounts, and sending the issue to the Supreme Court. That was not an election..it was a selection process, and you might as well say; that is the day they enacted Marshall Law on the Untied States, by preventing all Americans their due right to vote for President of The United States.
I don't know about this whole premise, but it sure sounds good to me. The important thing is to get rid of them together. Who the hell wants Dick Cheney as an alternative to George W. Bush? The fact is that Cheney and Bush's old man have probably been running the country the entire time anyway. Junior's got no brains, so he's perfectly believable as a figure head. But still, I'd love this to happen. And soon!
by
Deb Della Piana (24 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments)
on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 6:27:48 PM
