Missouri & Texas Introduce Impeachment Bills

TEXAS: Yellow Rose Peace Bus -- "Texas State Representative Lon Burnam introduced HCR. No. 154: Submitting charges to the United States House of Representatives constituting proof that the president of the United States has violated his oath of office." MISSOURI: Rep. Nasheed, Jamilah sponsored and Rep. Jeanette Mott Oxford cosponsored a bill calling for the impeachment of George Bush.

Contact these reps before they become dug-in on a position:

Missouri: SPEAKER-Rod Jetton 156-R (573) 751-5912 Rod.Jetton@house.mo.gov _________________________ Joe Aull (573) 751-2204 Jim Avery (573) 751-2150 Brian Baker (573) 751-2175 Judy Baker (573) 751-1169 Carl Bearden (573) 751-2949 Walt Bivins (573) 751-9766 Craig C. Bland (573) 751-2124 John L. Bowman (573) 751-4726 Ellen Brandom (573) 751-5471 Rachel L. Bringer (573) 751-9818 Jason Brown (573) 751-6593 Michael R. Brown (573) 751-7639 Mark J. Bruns (573) 751-0665 John P. Burnett (573) 751-3310 Ron Casey (573) 751-4787 Maria Chappelle-Nadal (573) 751-4265 Nathan Cooper (573) 751-1443 Robert Wayne Cooper (573) 751-1119 Shannon Cooper (573) 751-1484 Michael George Corcoran (573) 751-0855 Stanley Cox (573) 751-9774 Jane Cunningham (573) 751-1186 Mike Cunningham (573) 751-3819 Shalonn "KiKi" Curls (573) 751-3158 Bruce Darrough (573) 751-9760 Michael Daus (573) 751-6736 Cynthia Davis (573) 751-9768 David Day (573) 751-1446 Bill Deeken (573) 751-2412 Tom Dempsey (573) 751-1141 Charles Denison (573) 751-2210 Mike Dethrow (573) 751-1066 Bob Dixon (573) 751-9809 Margaret Donnelly (573) 751-0100 Curt Dougherty (573) 751-6535 Gary Dusenberg (573) 751-1487 Talibdin El-Amin (573) 751-2198 Edgar G. H. Emery (573) 751-2165 Doug Ervin (573) 751-2238 Sally Faith (573) 751-1452 Joe Fallert (573) 751-7735 Kathlyn Fares (573) 751-1285 Barney Joe Fisher (573) 751-5388 Timothy Flook (573) 751-1218 Michael Frame (573) 751-4822 Ward Franz (573) 751-1455 Doug Funderburk (573) 751-2176 Tony George (573) 751-2135 Jason Grill (573) 751-4066 Jeff Grisamore (573) 751-1456 Jim Guest (573) 751-0246 Belinda Harris (573) 751-2398 Jeff Harris (573) 751-9753 Esther Haywood (573) 751-4468 Steve Hobbs (573) 751-9458 Steve Hodges (573) 751-4085 Jason R. Holsman (573) 751-6607 Theodore Hoskins (573) 751-0169 Rodney R. Hubbard (573) 751-2383 Leonard Hughes (573) 751-1501 Steve Hunter (573) 751-5458 Allen Icet (573) 751-1247 Connie "LaJoyce" Johnson (573) 751-7605 Kenneth Jones (573) 751-2134 Timothy W. Jones (573) 751-0562 Van Kelly (573) 751-2205 Gayle Kingery (573) 751-4039 Sam Komo (573) 751-6625 Fred Kratky (573) 751-4220 Will Kraus (573) 751-1459 J. C. Kuessner (573) 751-2112 Sara Lampe (573) 751-1460 Jim Lembke (573) 751-2315 Paul LeVota (573) 751-9759 Albert Joseph Liese (573) 751-1832 Scott A. Lipke (573) 751-6662 Tom Loehner (573) 751-1344 Beth Low (573) 751-4485 Jenee' M. Lowe (573) 751-2437 B.J. Marsh (573) 751-0136 Bob May (573) 751-5713 Rebecca Payne McClanahan (573) 751-4042 Michael McGhee (573) 751-1462 Tim Meadows (573) 751-1311 Kate Meiners (573) 751-9469 Danielle Moore (573) 751-5226 Brian Munzlinger (573) 751-7985 Scott Muschany (573) 751-1544 Bob Nance (573) 751-1468 Jamilah Nasheed (573) 751-4415 Brian D. Nieves (573) 751-0549 Jerry Nolte (573) 751-1470 Charlie Norr (573) 751-4082 Robert F. Onder, Jr., M.D. (573) 751-3572 Jeanette Mott Oxford (573) 751-4567 Sam Page (573) 751-9762 Michael Parson (573) 751-1347 David Pearce (573) 751-2272 Darrell Pollock (573) 751-4451 Dr. Charles R. Portwood (573) 751-9765 Bryan Pratt (573) 751-8636 John Quinn (573) 751-2917 Paul Quinn (573) 751-4028 Ron Richard (573) 751-2173 Edward Robb (573) 751-1471 Brad Robinson (573) 751-2317 Jeff Roorda (573) 751-2504 Martin T. Rucker (573) 751-9460 Marilyn Ruestman (573) 751-9801 Don Ruzicka (573) 751-4077 Ray Salva (573) 751-5701 Therese Sander (573) 751-6566 David Sater (573) 751-1480 Luke Scavuzzo (573) 751-4072 Robert Schaaf (573) 751-2183 Rodney Schad (573) 751-2077 Dwight Scharnhorst (573) 751-4392 Ed Schieffer (573) 751-9459 Charles Schlottach (573) 751-6668 Vicki Schneider (573) 751-2433 Shane Schoeller (573) 751-2948 Sue Schoemehl (573) 751-9804 Tom Self (573) 751-3971 Tom Shively (573) 751-4065 Ryan Silvey Trent Skaggs (573) 751-2199 Jason Smith (573) 751-1688 Joe Smith (573) 751-2250 Michael Spreng (573) 751-9628 Neal C. St. Onge (573) 751-5568 Bryan P. Stevenson (573) 751-7082 Rachel Storch (573) 751-1400 Rick Stream (573) 751-4069 Mike Sutherland (573) 751-2689 Terry Swinger (573) 751-2264 Mike Talboy (573) 751-1309 Mike Thomson (573) 751-9465 Kevin Threlkeld (573) 751-0538 Steven Tilley (573) 751-1488 Tom Todd (573) 751-4095 Jim Viebrock (573) 751-2381 Thomas Villa (573) 751-0438 Michael Vogt (573) 751-9472 Maynard Wallace (573) 751-2042 Regina Walsh (573) 751-6845 Juanita Head Walton (573) 751-5538 Jay Wasson (573) 751-1503 Don Wells (573) 751-1490 Raymond 'Ray' Weter (573) 751-2565 James Whorton (573) 751-1649 Edward Wildberger (573) 751-9755 Kevin Wilson (573) 751-9781 Larry Wilson (573) 751-1167 Terry L Witte (573) 751-9614 Dennis Wood (573) 751-2492 Billy Pat Wright (573) 751-1494 Robin Wright-Jones (573) 751-6800 Patricia M. Yaeger (573) 751-0220 Brian Yates (573) 751-0907 Terry Young (573) 751-9851 Jake Zimmerman (573) 751-4163 Clint Zweifel (573) 751-5365

Texas: House Committee on State Affairs (Where the resolution currently is sitting) Chair: Rep. David Swinford (512) 463-0470 EMAIL Vice Chair: Rep. Ken Paxton (512) 463-0356 EMAIL Budget & Oversight Chair: Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale (512) 463-0661 EMAIL Rep. Wayne Christian (512) 463-0556 EMAIL Rep. Byron Cook (512) 463-0730 EMAIL Rep. Jessica Farrar (512) 463-0620 EMAIL Rep. Dan Flynn (512) 463-0880 EMAIL Rep. Tan Parker (512) 463-0688 EMAIL Rep. Marc Veasey (512) 463-0716 EMAIL

Nationwide Impeachment Actions on April 28!

There will be protests in towns and cities all over the country. And everywhere people will be using signs, their bodies, chalk, or anything else they can think of to spell out IMPEACH! We invite everybody to start thinking about the most creative, spectacular, beautiful, and clever ways they can come up with to spell it out. This is a spin-off of the BeachImpeach project on the shores of San Francisco where over 1,100 people spelled out "Impeach!" Find out what is going on in your town, or start your own project. You can do it with as little as 7 people, or as many as you can gather. Be a part of history and this media grabbing call to defend our constitution through impeachment.

7 people can paint 7 boxes white with a black letter on each one to spell "IMPEACH!" Attach some sticks so you can lift them overhead. 7 people then carry the letters around. You can then add that to a march, or just wander through your downtown area drawing attention, and getting out the message in a creative way.

Find the pre-existing events here:
http://volunteerforchange.org/org/show/547

Start your own action:
http://a28.org/participate.htm

Find out more:
http://a28.org/

Impeach Bush

Do-It-Yourself Impeachments: Send Tuesday

Our next wave of Do-It-Yourself Impeachments are due. This time we're sending them to Republican Representative and Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. He's spoken in favor of impeachment. Here's a clip of his most recent comments about impeachment. While he shies away from calling for it directly, he does speak in favor of impeachment investigations.
If you're unfamiliar with the DIY Impeachment method, IfP has researched a method for impeaching the president using a little known and rarely used part of the Rules of the House of Representatives ("Jefferson’s Manual"). This document actually empowers individual citizens to initiate the impeachment process themselves.

"Jefferson's Manual" is an interpretive guide to parliamentary procedure, and is included (along with the Constitution) in the bound volumes of the Rules of the House of Representatives. It is ratified by each congress (including the current one), and has been updated continuously through the history of our democracy. The section covering impeachment lists the acceptable vehicles for bringing impeachment motions to the floor of the House.

Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in the manual, however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial for impeachment.

After learning this information, Minnesotan and Impeach for Peace member (Jodin Morey) found precedent in an 1826 memorial by Luke Edward Lawless which had been successful in initiating the impeachment of Federal Judge James H. Peck. Impeach for Peace then used this as a template for their "Do-It-Yourself Impeachment." Now any citizen can download the DIY Impeachment Memorial and submit it, making it possible for Americans to do what our representatives have been unwilling to do. The idea is for so many people to submit the Memorial that it cannot be ignored.

Go to the document at our website, fill in your relevant information in the blanks (Name/State), print it out, sign it, and send in your memorial on Tuesday the 20th. There's also extra credit for sending a DIY Impeachment to your own representative.

That's right — to make a big impact, we're having everyone send it in on the same date (Over 500,000 downloads so far representing over 1.6 million mailings). We hope to flood the congress with sacks of mail and cause a newsworthy event to further pressure them to act on the memorials. Although, it's important to keep in mind that in the 1830 precedent, impeachment resulted as a result of a single memorial. Yours might be the one.
Here's where to find the DIY Impeachment (Also en español.)

Our next wave, which we currently plan on delivering in July is going to be a little different. We're asking everyone to mail them to IfP. We'll then video tape one of our members hand delivering them to Washington. Stay tuned...

Bush's Impeachable Offenses, Part 4 - War Crimes

The following is a chronological account of the actions taken by the U.S. Military under the leadership of George W. Bush as Commander-in-Chief that lead to multiple violations of the Geneva convention and U.S. Military Code. Charge George W. Bush has conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the U.N. Torture convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land;" George W. Bush has conspired to deny due process to prisoners of war, indiscriminantly bomb cities, transfer prisoners of war from an occupied territory, and planned, prepared, initiated and waged of a war of aggression in violation of U.S. Military Code section 2441, Geneva convention (I Art 3, II Art 18, Art 19, III Art 13, Art 17, Art 33, Art 34, Art 49, IV Art 3), and the 1945 Nuremberg Principles articles 6(a) and (b); General Geneva Violations: The U.S. Military Code specifies that it is a crime to violate the Geneva convention: "Whoever, ... commits a war crime, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, ... and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. ... Definition: As used in this section the term 'war crime' means ... a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949 [or acts] prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907 ... " (Section 2441: U.S. Military Code on War Crimes) 1945 Nuremberg Principles: After WWII, the U.S. led the formation of the ‘Nuremberg Principles,’ which form the United Nations Charter. Every country in the world is bound by that Charter. Defines as a crime: "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;"(Nuremberg Principles, 1950) January 25, 2002 White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales writes a memo urging President George Bush to declare the war in Afghanistan exempt from the Geneva convention. In the memo, the White House lawyer references a 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that law banned any Americans from committing war crimes - defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva convention. The memo warns that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty." [PDF of Gonzales memo] (Newsweek, May 17, 2004) Subsequent to January 25, 2002 Secretary Powell writes a memo arguing that Alberto Gonzales’ attempt to declare the war in Afghanistan exempt from the Geneva convention undermines more than a century of U.S. policy and practice. "It will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict and in general. ... It may provoke some individual foreign prosecutors to investigate and prosecute our officials and troops. ... We will be challenged in international fora (UN Commission on Human Rights; World Court; etc.)." (Powell memo) March 19, 2003 Bush declares pre-emptive war in Iraq which constitutes a "grave breach" of the Geneva convention as Iraq posed no "imminent threat" to the U.S. "Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life." (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, Fall 1990) TORTURE Geneva Convention: "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission ... causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." "Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties, including attendance at the service of their faith, on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by the military authorities." "The following acts are and shall remain prohibited ... cruel treatment and torture; ... Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; " "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory ... are prohibited, regardless of their motive." (Geneva Convention, 1949) October 11 , 2002 Department of Defense writes a memo which authorizes interrogation tactics for use at Guantanamo including using dogs to induce stress, stripping and shaving prisoners, and stress positions. Also included is a memo with an analysis of how the interrogators at Guantanamo (GTMO) became more willing to conduct extreme interrogation techniques. "The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has not adopted specific guidelines regarding interrogation techniques for detainee operations at GTMO." "Compounding this problem is the fact that there is no established clear policy for interrogation limits and operations at GTMO, and many interrogators have felt in the past that they could not do anything that could be considered 'controversial.'" Diane Beaver, LTC, USA, Staff Judge Advocate Department of Defense approved: "The use of stress positions ... Use of the isolation facility for up to 30 days ... Extensions beyond the initial 30 days must be approved ... Depravation of light and auditory stimuli ... The detainee may also have a hood placed over his head during transportation and questioning. ... The use of 20 hour interrogations. ... Removal of all comfort items (including religious items) ... Removal of clothing. ... Forced grooming (shaving of facial hair etc.) ... Using detainees individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress. ... The use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences are imminent for him and/or his family. ... Exposure to cold weather or water. ... Use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation." (Torture memos) October 25, 2002 Memo written by a U.S. Army General in response to the torture memo put out by the Department of Defense. "I am particularly troubled by the use of implied expressed threats of death of the detainee or his family." James T. Hill, General, U.S. Army Commander (Torture memos) (Click here to read the rest...)

Bush Leaked on our CIA Agents...

Bush illegally leaked 'cherry picked' information from a classified National Intelligence Estimate. Bush subsequently feigned ignorance of his involvement, keeping the public and the investigators from seeking accountability.

George W. Bush authorized the leaking of classified national secrets in violation of executive order 13292 to further a political agenda, exposing an unknown number of covert U.S. intelligence agents to potential harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to investigate the matter;

March 25, 2003
President Bush signs an executive order amending (among other things) the legal method for declassifying information. After the administration released classified information, they claimed the release was legal because it had already been disclosed by the media. Ironically, the following quote from the president's own executive order eliminates this defense:
"Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information."

The following quotes from the executive order reveal that the process for declassifying information requires a procedure. Contrary to some people's speculation, a president can not simply declassify information via announcement to the media. One requirement is that they inform the head of the related agency (in this case, the CIA) of the planned disclosure:
"the following [declassification instructions] shall appear on the face of each classified document ... the date or event for declassification, ... the date that is 10 years from the date of original classification, ... [or] the date that is up to 25 years from the date of original classification ..."

"Prior to public release, all declassified records shall be appropriately marked to reflect their declassification"

"In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information ... When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure." (F.A.S.)

Prior to July 6, 2003
President George W. Bush authorizes Lewis Libby (a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney) to leak information from a classified intelligence report to a New York Times reporter, as revealed in Libby's sworn testimony to a federal grand jury in a 39-page Fitzgerald filing on April 5, 2006.
"Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE." (Fitzgerald filing)

( READ MORE )

Got Fascism?

Impeach Bush

Bush's Impeachable Offenses, Part 2

The President ordered the NSA to spy on citizens without a warrant

BY IFP's Jodin Morey

ILLEGAL SPYING

George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805.


(More)

Video: Do-It-Yourself Impeachment

Video: Do-It-Yourself Impeachment

Pro-war, Pro-Torture Rally....

Concerned about dissenters who want to hand this nation over to the terrorists by stopping the war?

Worried that Democrats and disaffected Republicans will impeach the President and end torture as we know it?

Patriots for Corporate Rights invites you to join up with other concerned citizens on Friday, February 9th, between 4:00 and 7:00 p.m. We will gather in Minneapolis at Lagoon & Hennepin, Uptown (in front of the library), to celebrate our nation’s willingness to go to war and to torture people in order to preserve freedom here and abroad.

Bring a sign or a friend. Be a part of the movement opposing dissent in our nation!

---

The following rally is a tactic. The idea is to get people to wake up and see the ridiculousness of supporting war and torture, which is what they are inadvertently doing by being complacent. It becomes harder to put the fact that our nation is actually torturing people out of your mind when there are people standing up in defense of the right to do it. And if the population isn't outraged when they see us, media reports on the lack of that outrage can be an effective way of getting our message across as well.

We’re betting that signs like “Dissent is unpatriotic,” "3,000 Soldiers is worth it" and “War is good for business” will show the true colors of Bush and his supporters. This kind of dissent is in the tradition of groups like The Yes Men (http://www.theyesmen.org/). This could motivate progressive thinkers who might otherwise have stayed at home to take action, make people sitting on the fence think about the issue and realize how ridiculous pro-Bush people are being, and give us more media attention, as the media is fairly accustomed to anti-war protests.


Reactions to news of our rally?
"i agree. i mean, they behead us on tv and declare their unwavering hate and lust for killing americans. if it saves innocent american lives, i'm not opposed to torturing some bad guys."
Here's a link to the comment on Reddit.com

Bush's Impeachable Offenses: Part 1

ILLEGAL WAR The following is a chronological account of the actions of President George W. Bush leading U.S. illegally to war with Iraq. Fall, 1999 Before his presidency, Bush reveals his interest in invading Iraq. Author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz recounts Bush's comment that: "One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief... My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it... If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it." Herskowitz states that "Bush expressed frustration in a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow," (Russ Barker, GNN.tv, October 28, 2004). Early 2001 CIA informes the Bush administration that the "aluminum tubes," later to be used as evidence of a nuclear WMD program, were probably not intended for that purpose. In the article, CIA officials and a senior administration official tell us that Rice's staff had been told in 2001 that Energy Department experts believed the tubes were most likely intended for small artillery rockets, and not a nuclear program. (New York Times, Octbober 3, 2004) March, 2002 Despite his later claims that he had not yet decided to attack Iraq, Bush indicates his intention to do so. Bush states to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and three U.S. Senators: "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out," (Time Magazine, March 24, 2003). March, 2002 Prior to Congress' October 11th authorization of the Iraq invasion, Bush initiates war in Iraq's No Fly Zone. Bush ordered the tonnage of bombs being dropped on Iraq from 0 in March 2002 and 0.3 in April 2002 to between 7 and 14 tons per month in May-August, reaching a pre-war peak of 54.6 tons in September (New Statesman, May 30, 2005). The UN established No Fly Zones in 1991 (in UN resolution 688) and 1992. Accordingly, it is illegal for the allied pilots (U.K. & U.S.) to bomb within the NFZs except to prevent humanitarian crises between the Sunis and the Shias or in self-defense. To constitute self-defense, "there must be more than 'a threat'. There has to be an armed attack, actual or imminent. The development of posession of nuclear weapons does not in itself amount to an armed attack; what would be needed would be clear evidence of an imminent attack" (Declassified British Foreign Office legal advice: March 2002). July 23, 2002 During a meeting of top U.S. and U.K. officials regarding a possible attack on Iraq, foreign policy aide Matthew Rycroft makes the following observations about Bush's comments (Declassified U.K. Downing Street Documents: March 8 - July 23, 2002). "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided." "There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." “Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. In reference to illegal bombings begun in May: "The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime." “There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.” “The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record.” “No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.” August 10, 2002 Bush claims publicly that he has no imminent war plan or timetable for war with Iraq, despite clear indications to the contrary in the Downing Street memo and despite having previously initiated bombing in the NFZs (Transcript, Ridgewood Country Club in Waco, TX). September 19, 2002 President Bush sends the Iraq Resolution to Congress requesting authorization to use military force against Iraq (White House Video & Transcript). October 16, 2002 Congress grants authorization to go to war with Iraq in order to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq," or to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." Subsequently, Bush failed to meet either of these conditions for war.(Congress' Authorization to go to War) February 2002 - January 28, 2003 Numerous sources advising the Bush Administration debunk allegations that Niger sold "yellow-cake" uranium, used in the construction of WMDs, to Iraq. However, in Bush's subsequent State of the Union Address to Congress, he claims that the sale did occur. Misleading Congress is a crime.(CNN, March 14th, 2003) February 2002 Cheney requests that the uranium sales story be investigated, and Ambassador Wilson is sent to Niger to do so. (New York Times, July 6, 2003) February 2002 Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick informs Wilson that she had already informed Washington that the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq were false. (New York Times, July 6, 2003) March 9th, 2002 Wilson's report is given to the White House. The report concludes there was no evidence that the uranium sale had occurred, and that it would be extremely unlikely for it to have taken place. (Time, Jul. 21, 2003) Early October, 2002 CIA Director George Tenet argues “to White House officials, including Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley,” that the Nigerian uranium claim should not be included in Bush's October 7th speech because the allegation is based on only one source. (WashingtonPost & Truthout.org, July 23, 2003) Fall, 2002 The former head of CIA covert operations in Europe and a 26-year veteran of the agency, Tyler Drumheller, states that the allegations did not hold together. According to Drumheller, the CIA informed the White House that "the Africa story is overblown" and "the evidence is weak.'" Drumheller also reports that the Bush Administration had intelligence from Saddam Hussein's inner circle indicating that Iraq "had no active weapons of mass destruction program." Bush's speech writers took the uranium reference out of the October 7th speech (CBS, April 23, 2006), though they would add it back in to subsequent speeches. December, 2002 Director General of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei sends a letter to the White House and the National Security Council warning senior officials that he believes the documents were forgeries and should not be cited by the administration as evidence that Iraq was actively trying to obtain WMDs. ElBaradei receives no written response to his letter, despite repeated follow-up calls he makes to the White House, the NSC and the State Department (Couterbias, January 27, 2006). January 12, 2003 The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research expresses "concerns to the CIA that the documents pertaining to the Iraq-Niger deal were forgeries" and notes that it may already have informed intelligence agencies of this (Declassified State Department Memo to the Undersecretary). January 17, 2003 The State Department tells the CIA that the intelligence reports upon which the uranium claims were based were forgeries (Declassified State Department Memo to the Undersecretary). January 28, 2003 Despite having been informed numerous times to the contrary, Bush claims in his State of the Union Address to Congress that "the British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" (White House Video & Transcript). January 28, 2003 Bush misleads congress about chemicle WMDs Bush claims in his State of the Union address to Congress that Iraq is pursuing and has vast stockpiles of checmical weapons. In this speech, he leaves out key words used by his intelligence agency which modify the assertions he puts forth. These modifications would have cast doubt on his assertions, and the removal of these modifyers amounts to misleading congress. An analysis of these changes to the intelligence reports was made by John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, and a former counsel to the President. (FindLaw, July 18, 2003) January 31, 2003 The New York Times and The Guardian reports that a secret memo reveals that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair agreed to invade Iraq even without U.N. backing (NYTimes, March 27, 2006; The Guardian, Feb. 3rd, 2006): "Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme." "The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning", Bush told Blair. The memo is also said to reveal that President Bush suggested "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours," in order to provoke Saddam to shoot on them, therefore putting Iraq in breach of United Nations resolutions. March 6, 2003 Bush indicates he hasn't decided to take military action, and is open to a peaceful resolution. "I've not made up our mind about military action. [sic] Hopefully, this can be done peacefully...” (George W. Bush, White House Press Conference White House Video & Transcript) March 7, 2003 United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector (Hans Blix) report on WMDs. Shows Iraq was cooperating with weapons inspectors, and presence of WMDs could not be confirmed. Inspector indicated more time was needed as Iraq was becoming increasingly forthcoming, and much progress was being made. A prediction of months (not weeks or years) was needed. Bush is to later pull these inspectors from Iraq and claim Saddam "wouldn't let them in." (CNN, March 7, 2003) March 8, 2003 Bush indicates he is attempting to avoid war with Iraq: “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.” (George W. Bush Radio Address, White House Video & Transcript) March 17, 2003 Bush advises U.N. weapons inspectors to leave Iraq Immediately. (Address to Nation, White House Video & Transcript) March 17, 2003 Bush indicating publically, a willingness to work with the United Nations and respect it's mission: "America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations." (George W. Bush, in Address to the Nation, White House Video & Transcript) March 18, 2003 Bush Letter to Congress prior to revealing the ongoing war: "[A]cting pursuant to the Constitution and [the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002] is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." (White House, March, 2003) March 19, 2003 Bush reveals ongoing war with Iraq and increases intensity. War announced despite Iraq not having been shown to be a threat to the U.S., and without a resolution from the U.N. Security Council. These conditions were required by Congress' authorization to go to war. (White House Video & Transcript) July 14, 2003 Bush lying to public about his confidence about WMDs and the status of weapons inspectors prior to the war: "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region..." (George W. Bush, Photo Op in the Oval Office, White House Video & Transcript) September 17, 2003 This shows that Bush knew about the lack of connection between Iraq and 9/11, a connection he implied existed in his letter to Congress. "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11." (White House Transcript and Video) July 29, 2004 (Declassified CIA-commissioned report on pre-war intelligence) "Some in the Intelligence Community and elsewhere hold the view that intense policymaker demands in the run-up to the war constituted inappropriate pressure on intelligence analysts." "Despite the pressure, however, the Intelligence Community remained firm in its assessment that no operational or collaborative relationship existed [between Iraq and al-Qa'ida]. In the case of Iraq's possession of WMD, on the other hand, analytic judgments and policy views were in accord, so that the impact of pressure, if any, was more nuanced and may have been considered reinforcing."

Keith Ellison Demands Impeachment [Audio]

Here is Audio of Keith Ellison (who is currently serving as the first Muslim member of the U.S. House of Representatives) calling for Bush's Impeachment in no uncertain terms at an Impeach for Peace event.

Keith Ellison Demands Impeachment [AUDIO]

More deatils about the Impeach for Peace event.

Bush starts war against Iran...

NYT: 'Newly revealed orders' issued by Bush show US opened front against Iran in Iraq

Monday's New York Times reports that "newly revealed orders issued by President Bush" show that, along with fighting insurgents and "tamping down sectarian warfare" in Iraq, "a third front has opened - against Iran."
(more)

Impeach For Peace helps NM start the impeachment process!!

On Jan. 7th, the office of New Mexico State Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino contacted IFP in order to consult us on some of the deeper aspects of the process of impeachment in an effort to start the resolution process in their State. We sent them information regarding historical precedent, the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, and a copy of another State's draft resolution, and let them know we would offer any additional support they need. Then, on Jan. 12th the news broke that Senator Ortiz was pursuing the legislation. We certainly hope the information IFP provided helped in encouraging the Senator, and will continue to supply any addtional support we can. We also encourage any other State representative to contact IFP regarding any possible future impeachment resolutions. Congratulations New Mexico!

More:
http://www.democracyfornewmexico.com/democracy_for_new_mexico/2007/01/draft_of_impeac.html

The Nation Demands Impeachment Monday (Jan 15), Help us...

It only takes a moment to help convince Nancy Pelosi to Impeach Bush/Cheney..

Pelosi most likely said impeachment was "off the table" to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment.

What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she is forced to join the impeachment movement in the future.

Sacks and sacks of mail are about to arrive in Nancy Pelosi's office initiating impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules this Monday January 15th. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635).

There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.That's where we come in. In addition to a House Resolution (635), or the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

You can initiate the impeachment process and simultaneously help to convince Pelosi to follow through with the process. Do-It-Yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. Be a part of history.

http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

Impeachment Good for Republicans and Democrats

Impeachment Good for Republicans and Democrats

A debate is raging as to whether the U.S. should impeach George W. Bush, but it’s not a partisan debate. Democrats and Republicans fall on both sides of the issue. Members of both parties opposing impeachment seem to be worried that pursuing impeachment will hurt their chances in the 2008 presidential elections and beyond. Given that the argument seems to be turning on whether impeachment is good for winning elections, it seems odd that so many members of both parties are in agreement about opposing it. Obviously, one of the parties will get a political bump.

While few reasonable people can doubt that Bush has done more than enough to warrant impeachment from a constitutional perspective, it looks like some Democrats and Republicans won’t be motivated to impeach until they can see why it’s good for their political futures. Therefore I'm going to put aside the fact that holding Bush accountable for his numerous crimes is the ethical thing to do. I’m also going to put aside the way impeachment massively increases the chance of Congress undoing his rubberstamped legislative damage, and that impeachment is the only way to deter future presidents from continuing from where Bush leaves off. That’s right — even ignoring all this, impeachment is still a good idea, and for both parties.

Democrats, up until now, you've had a Republican majority in the Congress. When people criticized the government, you could claim with some credibility that there was nothing you could do about it. But now you have both houses of Congress. The people voted to put you in office in good measure not because your party expressed a coherent and positive vision for America’s future, but because they were concerned about the overwhelming amount of government corruption that’s been going on under Republican control. If you fail to hold this president accountable now, you're out of excuses. People will look back and say that both parties were complicit, corrupt, and opportunistic — and they'll be right. You only maintain the moral high ground if you defend the Constitution in contrast to the Republican controlled Congress. Members of Congress, it might be good to remember that this was the oath you swore to when you took office. If you fail in this, the public will see you as no different from those you replaced, and you will lose your precious elections. Ten years from now, when your child asks you what you did to stop Bush's systematic destruction of the foundations of our democracy, you'll have to say, "Well, nothing, honey. We had an election to win." Actually, you may want to make sure you tell them in person, to avoid the wiretap surveillance.

And Republicans, you're like the football coach who pridefully refuses to pull a player off the field after everyone else can plainly see the need. The sooner you pull the man, the more highly respected you'll be. The longer you wait, the more you tie your party's future to the corruption and incompetence that has already been attributed to this administration.

If we look to history, we find that elections subsequent to presidential impeachment have consistently favored parties that have pursued impeachment. So whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, it’s time to join together on impeachment. All who do will reap the spoils. Those who do not will be subject to the judgment of history.

Jodin Morey
D. Larkin Corvin
ImpeachForPeace.org

Kucinich wants to know: Impeach Bush/Cheney?

 Presidential hopeful, Kucinich is asking for your guidance...

A friend of Impeach For Peace and a major Activist in portland sent us the following...

"My NW Kucinich contact tells me Dennis {Kucinich} is going to throw his hat into the ring tomorrow for the presidency.  I told him to tell Dennis he'd be wiser to hold off for a month or two and on Jan. 3 hopper the same bill Cynthia McKinney did Friday and he'd have at least 1,000,000 folks behind him. The K-man said: 'OK. Get the word out to your impeachment people to tell their subscribers to write Dennis a message saying just that.'
Kucinich's email: dkucinich@aol.com
Let's go, Gang!!!"

Holiday Impeachment Cards...

This holiday season, you can help your friends and family deck the halls of congress with colorful impeachment petitions! Impeach for Peace has created holiday impeachment cards that allow your friends and family to initiate the impeachment process. We created the image, and researched a company that will allow you to send jumbo sized postcards along with a personalized message using your web browser. To learn more about this method of inititiating impeachment, go to: http://ImpeachForPeace.org/HolidayImpeachNow.html



Soon, Santa will be delivering sacks and sacks of mail to Nancy Pelosi initiating impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635). What better gift to give this holiday season than the restoration of our democracy? Truly the gift that keeps on giving. Over this past year, Bush has become an even greater threat to our Constitution. Lucky for us, the rules of the US House of Representatives allow for individual citizens like you and I to initiate the impeachment process directly! This process was successfully used to impeach in the past.

Be a part of history and have a merry impeachment this season!

Cartoon: Bush Tortures another Dissident...

(POST ELECTION UPDATE) Arguments Against Bush Impeachment...

• If we impeach Bush, we’ll get President Cheney!
Initiating the impeachment process will lead to an investigation that will implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.

In addition, no matter who we get to replace Bush, we’ll be showing those in power that anyone who breaks the law will be held accountable.

• Promoting impeachment will seem too “extreme.”
Demanding that crimes be investigated is NOT extreme. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered extreme because they were pursued for actions that didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the impeachment tool is meant to be used for. Nixon's impeachment, however, was bipartisan.

• We should wait to impeach...
Wait to impeach? We've waited 3 or more years too long already. We had enough evidence to impeach years ago. Remember, an impeachment only means you have enough evidence to warrant a trial, just like an indictment. Our congress people didn't take an oath to bipartisanship. They took an oath to the Constitution. Besides which, our troops, Iraqi civilians, and our own civil liberties are all waiting for this.

• Before we impeach, we should get some legislation passed...
And with unconstitutional Presidential Signing Statements, veto power, and the power of "Commander in Chief" at his disposal, how do you think Congress is going to get ANYTHING accomplished without first impeaching Bush?

If your tire blows while you're driving, do you stop to fix it? Or do you continue driving on your rim because to stop would take too much time?

• It hurts the democracy to go through a presidential impeachment. And Bush is a lame duck anyway.
Holding government officials accountable for their actions strengthens our democracy. Letting lawlessness stand weakens it.

Sometimes reprimanding a child (president) doesn't make the family (Washington) a happy place. But you still have to do it so the child and his siblings (future presidents) learn about accountability. Impeachment is horribly UNDERUSED, which is part of why there's so much corruption at the top. Politicians must learn to fear it. People think things are better because we improved the make-up of our law-making body, Congress. But Bush is BREAKING LAWS. So, it doesn't matter how many laws Congress passes if they don't serve their OVERSIGHT duties as well by impeaching. They swore to defend the Constitution. What are laws without enforcement?

Besides, Bush can still do a lot of damage. Our troops, Iran, and our Supreme Court are all endangered so long as he remains in office. Waiting until Bush is out of office will leave us complicit in any further crimes he commits. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that the death toll from a "tactical" nuclear weapon of the kind Bush is contemplating using in Iran would be at minimum 3 million men, women, and children. The path of death would stretch across country boundaries into India.

Perhaps worst of all, we set a terrible precedent by allowing Bush to stay in office after he's broken so many laws. Impeachment will stop future presidents from using Bush's actions as justification for even more lawbreaking and erosion of civil liberties.

• I'm a Democrat/Republican. If we support impeachment it will lower the chances of my party winning in 2008.
So, your party would rather win elections than do what's right for the country? I hope you're wrong. I also hope the public is willing to throw additional support to any party that holds our elected officials accountable for their actions.

• Impeachment will never happen. The Republicans will block it.
Well, all we need is a majority of support in the House. And 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove Bush from office will happen once the evidence gets aired on CSPAN. The political pressure will become too great.

Today's impossibility is tomorrow's reality. Republican Congress members will realize that tying their political future to Bush reduces their chances of getting elected. Remember, one way or another, Bush is gone by 2009— but members of Congress may retain their offices beyond that date. Bush's poll numbers are extremely low, and most Americans support impeachment. This is a bipartisan movement. This means that if we make the pressure unbearable for Members of Congress, they'll turn on him to keep their own seats (like they did with Nixon). It's already starting to happen. While many Members of Congress have behaved unethically in the last few years, it's important to understand that this is related to their warped view of what's in their self-interest. Let's wake them up to their true self-interest (impeaching the president), by showing them our support for impeachment.

And even if we only impeach, and the Senate fails to do their duty and remove him from office, it will only implicate the Senators who fail to do their sworn Constitutional duty.

• But Speaker of the House Pelosi said that Impeachment was "off the table."
Pelosi most likely said this to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment. What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she joins the impeachment movement in the future.

• But the public doesn't support impeachment.
Newsalert: Newsweek's recent poll shows 51% support for Impeachment. Not to mention that support for Bush's impeachment is more than it was before Nixon's investigation.

• You're just angry at what happened to Clinton
Impeachment is a nonpartisan issue. It's not about Clinton, Lincoln, or any other president. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered a waste of time because they were pursued for things that didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the Impeachment tool was intended for. The argument that we can't impeach Bush because there are previous presidents who also did bad things is the same as the argument you might hear from your child that you shouldn't punish him because the neighbor's kid did the same thing and didn't get punished. We don't want a presidential rush to the lowest common denominator. We have a duty to hold THIS president to the Constitution.

• If we don't support our president, we aid the terrorists.
We support terrorism when we fail to deal with its root causes (poverty, lack of education, support of dictatorships, etc.). We also support it by enabling a president who creates breeding grounds for terrorists — like Iraq has now become, thanks to our invasion and occupation.

Middle Eastern countries are upset with the oppressive international policies of the past and current administration. We might develop more healthy relationships with these countries if we appeared to learn from our mistakes by impeaching a president who has been so instrumental in that oppression.

• Impeachment is the wrong approach. Our government is tyrannical, and needs to be violently overthrown through a popular revolution.
What makes you think that if our government fell today, the U.S. population would replace it with something better? Violent revolutions are bloody business, and there’s absolutely no guarantee that even with the best of intentions the resulting new government would be an improvement over the current one. Indeed, it could be much worse. This is because revolution only makes sense once the people understand the problem. Thanks to a complicit media, most people don't have the information they need to fully understand what’s currently happening in the U.S., so before we can create positive change, we must help them to understand the situation we're in. We don't do that by pushing them away with what appears to be extremism. We must use skillful means to reveal the tyranny of this administration (and government in general). We can do this by making reasonable demands (for instance, that suspicious activities become subject to investigation). Each time we're denied, more and more people will see the injustice (especially when we take to the streets each time!). Slowly we’ll get enough people on board to create the changes we need, whether our goal is gradual repair of the system or revolution. But either way, the path is the same: First, we try to change the system. When the system shows itself to be tyrannical and unwilling to change, the people will move closer to revolution. If instead, the system allows the demanded changes, then we’ve won a victory — and maybe the theory that the system is hopelessly tyrannical is flawed. The real point is that political change is a process, and we need to have the resolve to see it through. Demanding immediate perfection is unrealistic and counterproductive, and too easily turns into a cop-out for failing to do the hard work of creating meaningful change.

Side note:
Some Democratic Members of Congress have indicated that they're not currently pursuing Bush's impeachment. While this is upsetting, they percieve it to be in their (and the Democratic Party's) political best interest, at least until the political pressure builds. There are other reasons they're waiting as well, and one of those things is us. They (as well as Republican members) need us to legitimize their support for the process. Having millions of ImpeachForPeace.org's "Do-It-Yourself Impeachment" arrive at their door is one powerful tool toward making that happen.

Take a moment, and help convince Nancy Pelosi to Impeach..

It only takes a moment to help convince Nancy Pelosi to Impeach Bush/Cheney..

Pelosi most likely said impeachment was "off the table" to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment.

What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she joins the impeachment movement in the future.

Sacks and sacks of mail are about to arrive in Nancy Pelosi's office initiating impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635). There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.That's where we come in. In addition to a House Resolution (635), or the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

You can initiate the impeachment process and simultaneously help to convince Pelosi to follow through with the process. Do-It-Yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. Be a part of history.

http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html