"You're A Whole Different Person When You're Scared" ~~Warren Zevon, Hunter S. Thompson
My friend Bernie says since Democrats won the Congress, George Bush reminds him of a cartoon where this destructive Texas jackrabbit was careening headlong down a path, his eyes riveted on a rabbit hole in the distance. A tortoise, sunning himself at the side of the path, looked behind the rabbit where a baying pack of dogs, in hot pursuit, was gaining on him. The tortoise smiled. The poor bunny was in a race for his life. As he shot by, the tortoise called out lazily, "Think you'll make it?" The rabbit, looking neither to the right nor left, shot back desperately -- "I gotta make it..."
Bernie says Bush is running scared. So scared he's "pantin' like a lizard..."
Pantin' like a lizard? Hah. Having been raised in New Mexico with me, Bernie should know that Bush is panting because, well, that's what lizards do...Especially the venomous gila monsters, who are fun to chase, but only a fool would try to catch one. That's why the few Democrats out there who appear to be chasing Bush are, in reality, just trotting along in his wake. I suspect they fear the holocaust he is capable of inflicting if they catch him.
For six long years, Bush has "water-boarded" all who oppose him -- especially those in Congress -- with a steady stream of 9-11. Each speech is laced with visions of 9-11 -- 9-11 horror just over the horizon, 9-11 around each corner, 9-11 behind each tree.
"Fear Itself" is the only option on the Bush-Cheney table, and they have used it relentlessly, not only to wage genocidal war in order to gain control of the world's resources, but to seize dictatorial power and to control the quivering masses. Constant and repetitive warnings and false-flag alerts, evidence of plotters and planners skulking among us, hateful ideologies swirling above us like mushroom clouds -- is it any wonder our elected representatives, once inside the Kingdom of Fear, lose all sense of direction, the ability to reason?
In his new book, "The Assault on Reason," former vice president Al Gore shines the light of truth upon this Orwellian prison of fear in which we are held captive. In fact, Gore says more in his Introduction than most people can manage to get across in an entire book. He says there is a "connection between the withdrawal of reason from the public sphere and the resulting vacuum that is filled by fear, superstition, ideology, deception, intolerance, and obsessive secrecy as a means of tightening control over the information that a free society needs to govern itself according to reason-based democracy."
Bernie says that sounds good, but as far as he's concerned, they're all just a bunch of spineless hypocritical weasels. "Something ain't right here," Bernie said. "These Democrats are different from the ones we sent up there. We elected them to do the two things they promised to do -- stop the massacre in Iraq and impeach the shallow, warmongering fool who lied us into his greedy war. They've been there nearly 11 months and they refuse to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their treasonous lies or the massive destruction that gets worse every day. Blood keeps gushing from the sands of Iraq. Bodies keep piling up."
Bernie glared at me as he headed for the door. "Are they really scared, or are they just playing politics?" he asked. "Either way -- how do they sleep at night -- how in the hell do they sleep at night?"
If I knew the answer to that question, I'd know why my hero, Sen. Russ Feingold, gave a speech on the floor of the Senate in early October wherein he urged his peers to take a stand and insist the $150 billion war-funding bill include a timeline for beginning to withdraw troops because, he said, "There have been more than 3,600 killed in Iraq..."
I was aghast. Perhaps Feingold overslept that morning. Had he bothered to check, he would have discovered that, as he spoke, more than 3,800 of our soldiers and marines had been killed. He might even have mentioned the more than 37,000 injured and more than 21,000 suffering from disease and other medical problems. No matter how you stack them, that's a lot of bodies piling up...
I'd know why another of my heroes, Rep. John Conyers, who had been out there hugging the peerless David Swanson and the courageous Cindy Sheehan -- holding meetings in basements, whipping up articles of impeachment -- suddenly shut up, backed off, and dove under his desk when the polls closed. Freaked out -- after 21 terms in Congress!
I don't know if House droid Nancy Pelosi experiences fear; if she sleeps, or even blinks, but her strident insistence that she alone is the Decider on impeachment is a power grab indicating either her ignorance of, or contempt for, the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 4 leaves no wiggle room, but is a mandate -- "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Pelosi's mantra that "impeachment is off the table" mirrors Bush's 9-11 broadside, and is clear evidence that she is far more concerned with politics than with the faceless, invisible bodies that keep piling up because of her inaction. In a recent interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Pelosi said she is determined that Bush will not escape his legacy. "This war is Bush's war and it's Cheney's war. And now," she said, smacking her lips in delight -- "this war is the Republican's war..."
So there you have it. When Pelosi and other members of Congress were sworn in after the 2006 election, 2,761 American uniformed military had been slain. In the ensuing 11 months, while Democrats were caving in, kissing ass, and giving Bush everything he demanded to expand his war, an additional 1,072 of our young men and women have perished. With 13 months remaining for this administration, one must wonder how many more innocent Iraqi citizens and American military must die in order for Pelosi to write Bush's legacy with their blood...
If Democrats in Congress actually read that document which they swore to "support and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic," they would know that any member of the House can start impeachment proceedings by (are you listening, Rep. Dennis Kucinich?) merely tossing a resolution in the hopper for referral to the appropriate committee.
Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites.
One can only hope. But if hope is all we have ... well, it's no match against the massive amount of weapons and the pathological sociopath people that have them.
I see only one hope and I don't know why it hasn't been tried. It would seem to me that if all the so-called progressive sites co-ordinated a massive General Strike in the fashion of following Gandhi's efforts against the imperialism of England "we the people" might then be heard.
I've emailed near all the sites and asked why they don't do this and all I get in response is requests for money.
The powers ignore our protests, phone calls, letters and emails. But if we could get just 10% of the populace to stay home from work, school and not buy anything for just one day you better believe the effect this would have would get their attention. If it grew to 50% we'd get our country back tomorrow.
May I suggest you, with more clout than I have, ask your contacts to get a General Strike started? This I would donate to even tough I've been unemployed since Katrina. (You might say I'm on my on one man personal General Strike)
by Com_n_Sense (0 articles, 320 comments) on Monday, October 15, 2007 at 2:18:59 PM
Unfortunately, I had to tell him I have no clout and organizing strikes and boycotts is next to impossible.
I don't know what's up with Finegold or why Kucinich and Conyers don't just throw those articles of impeachment in the hopper.
It's possible they think the Pubs will run with it and swiftboat them into river of anti-patriotism, or someone has the goods on all of them and is black mailing the hell out of them to keep their mouths shut.
Let's say they're being black mailed. How terrifically heroic it would be to put the sting on the black mailer, show the evidence of the black mail and blab all.
In a way it would be almost the same as heroically giving up your life in the service of your country in Iraq, because the person being black mailed would give up his good name and reputation for the cause...but in the end would be a far better person for it.
I only put that out as a possible reason for the Dems current lack of backbone, because it's been rumored so much, and I consider it a real possibility.
One thinks there has to be a cabal of some kind at work, because holding back on impeachment and continuing to give Bush everything he wants seems to be insane.
Maybe they are insane. They keep doing the same things over and over expecting Bush is going to do something different.
by
Sandy Sand (143 articles, 0 quicklinks, 195 diaries, 1377 comments)
on Monday, October 15, 2007 at 11:38:45 PM
On October 13, 2007, in response to a request that LANIC's Executive Director Peter Thottam made during a Town Hall Q&A session -- building on over 10,200 handwritten signatures gathered by Victor Oquendo, Lyn Jensen and numerous other LANIC impeachment activists and volunteers living in Congresswoman Diane Watson's district -- Congresswoman Diane E. Watson (33rd District, CA) agreed to immediately endorse the impeachment of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney and stated that she will sign on as an official co-sponsor for H Res 333. The endorsement was repeated three times, recorded and verified after by Congresswoman Diane Watson's Chief District Representative, Charles Stewart.
With today's announcement, Congresswoman Diane E. Watson is the 22nd member of Congress to endorse H Res 333. The endorsement is effective immediately and will be formalized this coming week by her staff. House Resolution 333 is a resolution submitted to the House of Representatives by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) during the 110th United States Congress that, if passed, would impeach Vice President Dick Cheney on three charges. The resolution was introduced on April 24, 2007.
by
Sheila Samples (51 articles, 3841 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 401 comments)
on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 12:15:28 AM
Be warned that this is a long comment – almost an article - but this is a complex issue.
The process of impeachment is extremely serious and for that reason the Constitution deliberately limited its application to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". As a result of this seriousness, impeachment should NOT be used as a "routine" response when one set of people disagree with a president – especially if the two are politically opposed.
Impeachment should have no place in the purely political and should reside solely in the Constitutional.
The Republican impeachment of President Bill Clinton for largely personal matters (reprehensible and wrong though they may have been) was admittedly a purely political act. In fact, it was in hindsight an act of political stupidity for both parties. Given its forgone conclusion of non-conviction, the Clinton impeachment process only diminished the seriousness of impeachment and emboldened the Executive as an institution and not personality to pursue activities it otherwise would have at least paused to consider.
And yet the Clinton impeachment is water over the dam, although its ripples are still being felt even today.
So, with regard to President George Bush and his actions, what are the grounds for impeachment?
While the article intentionally bolds "shall" in the quote below, it neglects to also bold "on Impeachment for, and Conviction of" – two, important qualifiers that reflect the American jurisprudence of innocent until proven guilty.
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
As the U.S. House of Representatives states with respect to impeachment, "Delicate issues of basic constitutional law are involved. Those issues cannot be defined in detail in advance of full investigation of the facts... [T]he House does not engage in abstract, advisory or hypothetical debates about the precise nature of conduct that calls for the exercise of its constitutional powers; rather, it must await full development of the facts and understanding of the events to which those facts relate," - http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/SPECIALREPORTS/impeachment.html .
Using two sources that advocate the reasons for impeachment ( click here and http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle01172003.html ), the debate seems to be confined to "high Crimes and Misdemeanors"; however, I'm certain some will want Treason in listing based upon a breaking of the people's trust. But I honestly think the Treason charge would not hold water in a Congressional adjudication given that a number of other presidents (i.e., past precedence) also committed the country on a course of war for what were justifiable reasons at the time.
Additionally, in Public Law 107-243 - http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf , President Bush had Congressional authorization to, "... to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to - (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." To claim Treason in impeachment would also (by default) also charge the Congress with the same crime, which is a logical nightmare in that the people trying to determine whether to convict the president should also be charged with the identical crime.
If Treason is off the table, then what are the high Crimes and Misdemeanors? My understanding of the arguments I've read online center around President Bush's violations of the U.N. Charter for what constitutes a "jus" war - and allegations of human rights abuse of detained enemies (unlawful combatant or otherwise).
Again, you have to frame the impeachment debate in terms of what was known at the time. While more people may disagree now with the invasion of Iraq, such was not the case in late 2002 and early 2003. And to think that the Administration did not wrestle with the legality of their actions and ensure that it passed some level of legal scrutiny is silly. If you recall, the Administration's argument to not only Congress but also the world focused on the ineffectiveness of past U.N. Security Council resolutions, some of which DID threaten the use of military action if Iraq failed to comply.
Not that you have to agree with it, but a summary of why America could invade Iraq is detailed here - http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/em831.cfm . The argument details that the U.S. had the international right, if not responsibility as a country that possessed the means, to respond (even with military action) to Iraq's continued non-compliance with U.N. resolutions. Kofi Annan thought otherwise by referencing the U.N Charter and its violations as making the Iraq invasion illegal but by this standard, the Kosovo intervention by NATO was also illegal. Regardless, the matter of impeachment for an American president is not resolved by the U.N.; instead, the American House and Senate are the key players in this process.
Congress, though, in the previously-mentioned Public Law DID agree that we had the authority to invade Iraq. If this is true, then it's almost a forgone conclusion (similar to President Clinton's impeachment) that any articles of impeachment brought before the House and against President Bush will likely fail – and not because of political positions but more so because of Constitutional issues.
As to the allegations of human rights violation, by declaring terrorists and insurgents as unlawful combatants, the Administration was able to suspend certain POW rights of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. Some may question the applicability of whether or not America followed the process precisely (i.e., the letter vs. the spirit), but there does exist the ability in international agreements to address unlawful combatants (even though they are not termed as such) who have no claimed state or lawful POW status - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#2001_Presidential_military_order .
Also, Congress authorized the President in Public Law 107-40 to, "...to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons," - http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html . The same legal outcome as above with Public Law 107-243 is the most likely result with regard to impeachment.
And thus, we see some of the reasoning as to why statements such as "impeachment is off the table" make a little more sense – legally not emotionally.
The 2008 election and need to heal or prepare a country for election are true but only confuse the more accurate reasoning as to why articles of impeachment would not result in a conviction. Some may argue that President Bush and others deserve to at least be charged, but again, such actions (which admittedly are only spiteful in origin) only diminished the seriousness of impeachment and emboldened the Executive as an institution and not personality to pursue activities it otherwise would have at least paused to consider.
War is a serious matter, one of death or life. But emotion does not win a legal argument, although it may sway a jury. I believe the overwhelming majority of the reasoning as to why President Bush and others be impeached is grounded in emotion – frustration primarily – and not the needed legal arguments. This doesn't invalidate people's feelings but it should temper their response to those feelings in a more constructive manner.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1719 comments)
on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 9:23:51 AM
Tom, are you an attorney? Your bio says: Just a person that knows he matters and placing more on acceptance than expectation...
Attorney or not, in a million years I wouldn't argue legalese with you or anyone; I will trust that to those who can bring articles of impeachment to do that.
In another million years I wouldn't bet on cases being won on the merits of the law and not on emotions.
I'd bet the other way, that more cases are decided on emotion than they are on legalities.
If cases were decided on their merit and the law alone, there would be no need for very costly jury consultants. If it's a judge deciding alone; he's human first and comes to the job with emotions.
Now, is there a lawyer in the house who can settle this?
by
Sandy Sand (143 articles, 0 quicklinks, 195 diaries, 1377 comments)
on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 12:59:19 PM
The problem with the argument for restraint is an assumption being made that unless conviction is certain no attempt at impeachment should be made. But this reasoning is completely perverse. Trials are held so that determinations can be made. The trial either provides a conviction or an exoneration. This is what a trial is all about; it is not a field in which to demonstrate a certainty. The very word: trial, has its root in 'to try'.
by
Irvthom (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 83 comments)
on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 2:16:39 AM
I'm not an attorney, but I have slept at a Holiday Inn Express...
An impeachment is not a trial, per se, like a civil or criminal process. In the end, the impeached individual is not charged with a "crime", although that can happen later in the court system. Instead and in the end, the individual is removed from office. The only modifier to this outcome is that the Senate then votes on a simple majority after conviction to determine if the individual should hold a public office ever again in the future.
Conviction on impeachment requires a 2/3 majority vote in favor by the Senate, and the Senate is responsible for adopting rules and procedures under which the "trial" will be conducted. Given that impeachment is not a legal trial but driven by an individual's performance as it relates to their office (i.e., Constitutional) and you need a 2/3 majority to convict (which doesn't exist on the Senate - right now), what would introducing articles of impeachment serve at present? It'd be a purely political "stunt" - http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/impeachment.htm .
If it's just "to be on the record", then take a look at the polls and political commentary across the Nation. I think we know where differing people's positions are situated. And to go through the process of impeachment for purely political reasons is in a word - silly, cheapens the meaning behind impeachment, and establishes a dangerous precedent for removing high-ranking and elected official because you disagree with their actions; today's polarity among the political parties could easily result in a "tit for tat" approach to legislating. And for these reasons, the process of impeachment mandates restraint.
Another serious consequence if convictions are obtained on President Bush and Vice President Cheney is that the Speaker of the House becomes President, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, and President pro tempore of the Senate, the Honorable Robert Byrd. I think you'd need to ask these two people if they want the positions pf President and Vice President of the United States, which are (contrary to what many people may think) thankless jobs - http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/a_succession.htm .
An old adage comes to mind with the impeachment issue being tossed around these days – "Be careful what you wish for cause it might come true".
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1719 comments)
on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 8:30:41 AM
6 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
