"Impeachment Should Be on the Table": Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)

~ Ellison at his swearing in ceremony (reuters)


Exclusive for ImpeachforPeace.org by Mikael Rudolph


Four members of ImpeachforPeace.org met with the Honorable Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN 5th) in his Minneapolis offices Saturday morning, April 22nd to discuss the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Early in the meeting, Ellison made clear that his opinion hasn't changed since he introduced a Resolution for the impeachment of President Bush as a Minnesota State Legislator by saying: "Impeachment should be on the table".

In Washington D.C. attending sessions of Congress during the week, Ellison regularly travels home to be with his wife Kim and four children each weekend, taking some time to meet with his constituents as well.



~ from the Ellison Campaign Website

Running a bit late, Ellison explained that he had just gotten a haircut because he "wanted to look good for our meeting", turning his head side to side to show off his barber's work. One member of IFP quipped: "It was well worth the wait".

As everyone settled into their chairs and the laughter subsided, the mood quickly grew more serious as the topic of Ellison's vote for the Veterans’ Health & Iraq War Accountability Supplemental was discussed, which some in the local and national peace movement felt was a betrayal of Ellison's commitment to seeking an immediate end to the Iraq War. A sharply critical letter from an IFP member not present was read and a framed graphic called "The Impeachment Casualty Candle" was set up on the table as a reminder to everyone present of the ultimate price already paid by so many of our troops and the high stakes still facing many American families, not to mention Iraqi families:


~ Graphic courtesy Sgt. Daniel Fearn, "The Impeachment Grunt"

(IFP website reader's responses to his vote on the 'Supplemental' can be found in the comments following this article of March 27th, 2007: War Critic Rep. Ellison (D-MN) Explains 'Yes' Vote on War Funding Supplemental)

Ellison heard the criticism and handled it well, acknowledging and empathizing with the frustrations and anger of those who want the war over and our troops home immediately yet he made it clear that many in the Peace Movement had communicated to him that they understood and supported the strategy of confronting and isolating what even the President's own Intelligence Agencies have identified as failed Iraq policies by passing a bill with a plan to end the war at some point.

Ellison called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who had gathered just enough of a consensus among fellow House Democrats to pass the measure, "a remarkable leader" who is quickly proving herself to be a gifted "cat herder" of the various caucuses in the Democratic Party.

The topic quickly shifted to impeachment, with Rep. Ellison affirming that he is "with the impeachment movement", yet making clear that in order for him to consider supporting impeachment hearings, the charges spoken into the Congressional Record must be strongly grounded in verifiable facts and evidence as well as understood by and backed by the majority of the American people.

Not eager to be assailed by the radical right's bevy of partisan media shills as "the poster child for loonie leftists", Ellison said that the most important thing he and his fellow members of Congress need from constituents is that they "keep the drumbeat up" for impeachment.

Ellison named fellow Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) as "a good friend", saying "we talk every day" during the week in Washington. With Kucinich reputedly poised to introduce Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney this week, Ellison was measured in his commitment to join Kucinich. He made clear that he was supportive of the idea, but not if it only becomes a symbolic gesture. Ellison is only interested in seeing impeachment proceedings actually becoming a reality.

Stressing that he had not yet seen what specific charges Kucinich is intending to bring up against the Vice President, Ellison, formerly a criminal defense attorney, seemed as committed to guaranteeing the habeas corpus for Cheney that the Vice President regularly denies others.

Looking at his blackberry, Ellison said "maybe I'll give Dennis a call this weekend".

Noting that he has an activist's heart, when asked what efforts and strategies in support of impeachment might be most effective, Ellison suggested ... (Read More)

VIDEO-Pro-War Organization Celebrates Torture, Opposes Impeachment

Patriots for Corporate Rights (corporaterights.org) believe they are celebrating America by "standing up against moonbats who dare to dissent and protest torture and the war." They also obviously oppose impeachment.

VIDEO-Feel Like I'm Fixin' To Die Rag

ImpeachforPeace.org put together this mock celebration of war, whose real aim is to point out the autrocity of the war in Iraq. It's put to a version of the "Vietnam Song," which was redone by Chumbawamba under the title, "Feel Like I'm Fixin' To Die Rag." Chumbawamba was kind enough to give IfP permission to use their music in connection with this video. It ends with a call to action for everyone to send in a "Do-It-Yourself Impeachment." It only takes a few minutes, but may help stop this presidency, and this war.

Articles of Impeachment To Be Filed On Cheney

Washington Post -- Looks like he's reached his boiling point.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), the most liberal of the Democratic presidential candidates in the primary field, declared in a letter sent to his Democratic House colleagues this morning that he plans to file articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Kucinich has made ending the war in Iraq the central theme of his campaign. He has even taken aim at the leading Democratic presidential candidates in the field for their votes on authorizing the war.


Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach the president, vice president and "all civil Officers of the United States" for "treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (More)

Kucinich ALSO says he's pursuing impeachment of Bush! Well let's help him out. Sacks and sacks of mail are about to arrive in Dennis Kucinich'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).


Kucinich says he is building his case for impeachment, and is working to build the support of his peers in Congress. He says he intends to impeach. He said he needs us to keep building the groundswell of support for impeachment all over the country. He asks that we send him copies of all the resolutions passed in various States, local Legislative Districts, County Districts and of any petitions with signatures, so that he can present them to the floor of the House. He said he felt that our framing the issue of impeachment in terms of the Constitution is a principled choice, and ultimately more effective than just acting on anger. Here's video of Kucinich addressing the impeachment issue:


Let's answer Kucinich's call with a petition that has it's precedent in history, and it's legitimacy in the Rules of the House of Representatives.

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 Kucinich 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. We're not only having you send them to Dennis now, but also to Impeach for Peace. That way, we can collect them all in one place, and deliver them all simultaneously (with cameras rolling) in July. Be a part of history.

Help Kucinich Impeach Bush

Minneapolis April 28 Impeachment Event - With Canoes

Help us with ImpeachForPeace.org's Minneapolis A-28 event! We will spell out "IMPEACH" with canoes on Saturday morning, April 28th, and again with bedsheets that evening. Be a part of this effort to tell the world that the Twin Cities are serious about impeachment!



To participate in the first event, gather at 10:30 a.m. at the Lake Calhoun Pavilion at 3000 Calhoun Parkway East in Minneapolis. Allow time to find parking. Wear light colored/bright colors to stand out from the lake water. Be on time!

To pay for canoe rental, we’ll need your help. It costs $10 per hour to rent a canoe, and we hope to have two people per canoe. (It may take us as much as two hours, which means the cost may be as much as $10 per person.)

Also, if you know anyone who lives at Lake Place or Lake Calhoun Beach Club Apartments, please contact us! We need to use a lakefront, top floor apartment as a vantage point from which to take a photograph.



Then, that evening, show up at Riverside Park at 7:00 p.m. This is the West side of the Mississippi riverbank, beneath the Route 122 bridge near the UofM Campus.
Here's the Map

We'll need 65 twin bedsheets (preferably white) and as many flashlights as you can carry to form the word "IMPEACH" and underlight the sheets so that they're visible to the jets landing at the airport and the cameras capturing the image.

In order to do this, we’ll need 85 people in the morning and 150 in the evening to commit in advance to these nationally important events! Sign up here:
http://volunteerforchange.org/org/show/547

You won't regret helping to contribute to the restoration of law and the constitution!

Help Kucinich to Impeach Bush

Kucinich says he's pursuing impeachment? Well let's help him out. Sacks and sacks of mail are about to arrive in Dennis Kucinich'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).

Kucinich says he is building his case for impeachment, and is working to build the support of his peers in Congress. He says he intends to impeach. He said he needs us to keep building the groundswell of support for impeachment all over the country. He asks that we send him copies of all the resolutions passed in various States, local Legislative Districts, County Districts and of any petitions with signatures, so that he can present them to the floor of the House. He said he felt that our framing the issue of impeachment in terms of the Constitution is a principled choice, and ultimately more effective than just acting on anger. Here's video of Kucinich addressing the impeachment issue:


Let's answer Kucinich's call with a petition that has it's precedent in history, and it's legitimacy in the Rules of the House of Representatives.

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 Kucinich 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. We're not only having you send them to Dennis now, but also to Impeach for Peace. That way, we can collect them all in one place, and deliver them all simultaneously (with cameras rolling) in July. Be a part of history.

Help Kucinich Impeach Bush

Bush's Impeachable Offenses, Part 5 -- Signing Statements, Freedoms, etc.

The following is the final installment in a series enumerating the impeachable offenses of George W. Bush. That is, until another major impeachable offense becomes known.

ILLEGAL USE OF SIGNING STATEMENTS.

Charge:

George W. Bush has attached signing statements to more than 100 bills before signing them, within which he has made over 1,100 challenges to provisions of laws passed by Congress. This figure exceeds the total number of such challenges by all previous presidents combined, and Bush has used this practice to exempt himself, as President of the United States, from enforcing or from being held accountable to provisions of the said laws. By declining to veto bills, and instead attaching signing statements challenging laws passed by Congress, he has violated Article 1, Section 7 and Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. These articles of the Constitution dictate that the president has the option of signing or vetoing a bill, and upon signing the bill to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

March 20, 2001 - Jan. 12, 2007
Bush issues at least 126 signing statements challenging over 1,149 laws (Christopher Kelley, Ph.D). The exact number of signing statements is unknown as the administration refuses to release this information. Examples of signing statements include:
March 9, 2006: Bush signed the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, which contained requirements for congressional oversight of executive use of the act's powers. In a statement immediately following the signing ceremony, however, it was revealed that Bush "did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers." (Boston Globe, March 24, 2006) Subsequently, by the FBI's own admission they abused this power given to them. "As many as 600 of these violations could be 'cases of serious misconduct' involving the improper use of 'national security letters' to compel telephone companies, banks and credit institutions to produce records." (Washington Post, March 21, 2007)

Dec. 5, 2005 & Jan. 6, 2006: Two Detainee Treatment (Torture) Acts were signed into law accompanied by a signing statement. Part of the signing statement read, ''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief." When asked about the statement, a senior administration official said "the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security." David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said "The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me." (Boston Globe, Jan. 4, 2006)

Days after the disaster, Bush looks on.
Oct. 4, 2006: In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed a law setting minimum standards for the job of FEMA Director. This was in direct response to the botched job done by Michael Brown, Bush's choice to lead the agency, who had been a politically connected hire with no prior experience in emergency management. The law said the president must nominate someone who has "a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management" and "not less than five years of executive leadership." At the signing ceremony, Bush signed the bill without any hint of objection, but included a signing statement saying the law "purports to limit the qualifications of the pool of persons from whom the president may select the appointee in a manner that rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office. The executive branch shall construe section 503(c)(2) in a manner consistent with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. " (Boston Globe, Oct. 6, 2006)
Two senator's responded to Bush's signing statement in a letter, "We were dismayed ... by the `signing statement' in which you express your intention to disregard provisions in the law intended to protect against further mistakes such as those that plagued the 2005 hurricane response." (Boston Globe, Oct. 12, 2006)

READ MORE ...

Graduate Student to Walk from Chicago to D.C. Calling for Peace Through Impeachment of Bush & Cheney

Mikael Rudolph - ImpeachforPeace.org
April 2nd, 2007


Mario Penalver, a graduate student in the Humanities Program at the University of Chicago, is walking the seven hundred miles from Chicago, Illinois to Washington D.C. to demand an end to the Iraq War and in protest of the impending attack on Iran. Penalver calls for this to be done through the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney as the chief architects of these acts of aggression in violation of international treaties and for other crimes, misdemeanors and abuses of office.

In an e-mail to World Can't Wait and Impeach for Peace last week, Peñalver said:

"There must be some basic understanding amongst us, as organizers, as leaders of impeachment, as to why all our actions must face the doors of the White House. I could state that understanding in my own words. But I would rather begin with the words of one far greater than I, one whose method has proven itself in the history of civil rights. "I'm here," Martin Luther Kind said from a Birmingham jail, "because injustice is here."
 
Marching to DC is the pinnacle of our efforts because that is where our voices have stopped. Our efforts, in protest - in letter-writing campaigns, in our optimism at the polls - have stopped at the doors of the White House, in which stands one man with his ears covered and his mind set on defiance of the national conscience. How can we continue in our local processes, when those processes, in and of themselves, find no resolve where they matter most?"

Peñalver has committed to embark on his quest on Thursday, June 21st and arrive in our nation's capital by Friday, September 21st.

In accordance with an idea from impeachment activist Sgt. Daniel Fearn through ImpeachforPeace.org, Mr. Peñalver will be carrying with him a small rock, which he will place in a location to be determined near the White House - possibly in the Constitutional Gardens as a memorial to the Constitution of the United States. It is Peñalver's assertion that the Constitution - the citizen rights of which were suspended by Patriot Acts I & II and the Military Commissions Act - is dead. Anyone wishing to meet Mario Peñalver in Washington D.C. and lay a stone with his on September 21st is invited and encouraged to do so.

One stone is insignificant. Piles of stones, or cairns, historically indicate important locations established at critical times. If a hundred people join him, it will be a pile. If a hundred thousand add their rock, a monumental mound will be established.



Anyone wishing to host Mr. Peñalver along the way, providing him with lodging, food, water and other necessities or to arrange for a press conference or speaking engagement along the route can contact ImpeachforPeace.org at: minneapolis@ImpeachforPeace.org

Here is a rough travel route, subject to change as speaking engagements are arranged: March People Mario

Travel progress updates of Mario Peñalver's pilgrimage will be available online at March People Path.

Mario Peñalver's personal statement:

WHY WASHINGTON?

While faced with the threat of unparalleled destruction and the onslaught of a second war, our efforts against the Bush administration require more than failed attempts and variations of the same old thing. So far, four years later, our demands for the war’s end have gone unheeded. Four years have past, and still, our demands for the war’s end have gone unheeded.

There must be some basic understanding amongst us, as organizers, as leaders of impeachment, as to why all our actions must face the doors of the White House. We could state that understanding in our own words, but we would rather begin with the words of one far greater than us. "I'm here," Martin Luther King wrote from a Birmingham jail, "because injustice is here."

Marching to DC is the pinnacle of our efforts because that is where our voices have stopped. Our efforts—in protest, in letter-writing campaigns, in our optimism at the polls—have stopped at the doors of the White House, in which stands the only man between us, and troop withdrawal. How can we continue in our local processes when those processes, in and of them selves, find no resolve where they matter most?

Part of the answer is in the question. We must understand as organizations, from those dealing with domestic violence to those fighting drug use in our urban slums, from those defending public schools to those fighting global warming, that all of these fights are fights against a common foe. A ramshackle school, is a vote against Bush. A victim of domestic violence or drug abuse, is a vote against Bush. A melted glacier and a flooded city, are a vote against Bush. Another dead soldier, another country fallen, another occupied city, are votes against Bush.

More importantly (and to answer the other half of the question), when we realize that it is a common foe in the way of our separate ends, we cannot also continue in our actions if these actions show little positive effect on the problem. We have a tumor in our Body. It’s lied, it’s stolen, it’s avoided the subject, it’s ducked our demands, it is hidden from accountability… It’s fighting and fighting and killing and killing, and it won’t stop, until surgeons come—with precision and diligence—to open the body, and remove it.

Tumors don’t respond when you ask them to. They don’t stop when you demand it. They don’t respond kindly to words. You can hope, pray, write a letter, make a statement, list your demands, sign a petition, wave a flag, spell your name in the sand. But these are not the jobs of surgeons.

We are surgeons, the same surgeons who stood in the streets of Birmingham when its black churches were on fire. The same surgeons who stood in a phalanx before the British army and demanded “India for the Indians.” The same surgeons who stood in the ancient Temple of Jerusalem and refused to obey the self-righteous demands of the Pharisees. We are surgeons whose only faculty is to face the root of injustice that plagues our every corner of the nation. It cannot be fought and dealt with when we remain in the periphery of symptom. We are destined to face the source of symptom, and so our every effort, our every occupation, must face that source until it is uprooted and removed.

That is why we must leave behind our fractured interests for the sake of a common foe. That is why we must go to Washington. Not a single act of ours outside that end will ever lead to victory so long as it remains outside.

We, organizers of the national “March of the People,” believe our president is still in office because he knows some how that his opponents will not succeed in the task of unity. Some how, we think he’d wager money on the fact that liberal (or so-called “liberal”) America will remain as it always has been since the early days of the Iraq War: inconsistent, disconnected, and indecisive. While its surgeons remain fractured in their means and ends, busy fighting weeds and rarely pulling roots, our tumor grows, until one day when there is nothing left to take.

Some believe the issue of the president is different from other issues. We’ve been told that we need to look towards other interests besides the removal of our president. As the argument goes, we are faced with one of many problems in the fight of injustice, so why choose this one, over, say, financial disparities, homophobia, or a fight against cancer. We, students have degrees to finish: What about those?

But avoiding our common effort to redirect the billions spent in waging Bush’s war, we avoid the common fact that if billions were NOT spent on that war, we could afford support for the poor, a fight against hate-crimes, better research for cancer. And as for our degrees, we could finally afford them. In 2003 the military budget for this country was over $355 billion dollars. Today that budget will reach 482. Now forgive us when we say that the Bush policy of “more money, more guns” is a policy that also tells us something else: what Bush thinks of domestic violence victims, cancer research, or our fights for urban renewal.

You know what we think Bush is saying when he spends nearly half a trillion dollars on the military? We think he’s telling us exactly where we can put that degree of ours.

It is impossible for us to see any injustice in our country and not see the face of incompetence and deceit in the highest seat of office. This is the connection that is made when we walk to the Capital. By walking there, we pass through the ruins of infection left by the man who disregards his people. It is high time we banded together, to remind our president that no person, even the president, is beyond the Voice of the People.

As organizers of the longest march in American history, we recognize that there are those who will be unable to join a march of such time and distance, whether for financial reasons, or due to physical limitations of any kind. To those who must stay at home, we ask for their participation in a national strike, a means by which they can join in camaraderie with their fellow protesters and force upon our leaders the Voice of the People, a voice long forgotten since the beginning of the Iraq War. It is also an effective means by which we can put a non-violent pressure on the man standing between us and peace.

We are here, above all else, to end the bloodshed and the disillusionment of the political system. When it so happens that standing between us and that goal is one man, we as organizers feel obligated to do everything in our power to remove that one man. All else, we say, is just detail.

~ Mario Peñalver

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)