Forum Klix.ba

Vermont Votes to Impeach Bush/Cheney

John NicholsWed Mar 7, 7:36 AM ET

The Nation -- When Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican with reasonably close ties to President Bush, asked if there was any additional business to be considered at the town meeting he was running in Middlebury, Ellen McKay popped up and proposed the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The governor was not amused. As moderator of the annual meeting, he tried to suggest that the proposal to impeach -- along with another proposal to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq -- could not be voted on.

But McKay, a program coordinator at Middlebury College, pressed her case. And it soon became evident that the crowd at the annual meeting shared her desire to hold the president to account.

So Douglas backed down.

"It became clear that no one was going home until they had the chance to discuss the resolutions and vote on them," explained David Rosenberg, a political science professor at Middlebury College. "And being a good politician, he allowed the vote to happen."

By an overwhelming voice vote, Middlebury called for impeachment.

So it has gone this week at town meetings across Vermont, most of which were held Tuesday.

Late Tuesday night, there were confirmed reports that 36 towns had backed impeachment resolutions, and the number was expected to rise.

In one town, Putney, the vote for impeachment was unanimous.

In addition to Governor Douglas's Middlebury, the town of Hartland, which is home to Congressman Peter Welch (news, bio, voting record), backed impeachment. So, too, did Jericho, the home of Gaye Symington, the speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives.

Organizers of the grassroots drive to get town meetings to back impeachment resolutions hope that the overwhelming support the initiative has received will convince Welch to introduce articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney. That's something the Democratic congressman is resisting, even though his predecessor, Bernie Sanders, signed on last year to a proposal by Michigan Congressman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) to set up a House committee to look into impeachment.

Vermont activists also want their legislature to approve articles of impeachment and forward them to Congress. But Symington, also a Democrat, has discouraged the initiative, despite the fact that more than 20 representatives have cosponsored an impeachment resolution.

"It's going to be hard for Peter Welch and Gaye Symington to say there's no sentiment for impeachment, now that their own towns have voted for it," says Dan DeWalt, a Newfane, Vermont, town selectman who started the impeachment initiative last year in his town, and who now plans to launch a campaign to pressure Welch and Symington to respect and reflect the will of the people.

It is going to be even harder for Governor Douglas, who just this month spent two nights at the Bush White House, to face his president.

After all, Douglas now lives in a town that is on record in support of Bush's impeachment and trial for high crimes and misdemeanors.

For the record, Middlebury says:

We the people have the power -- and the responsibility -- to remove executives who transgress not just the law, but the rule of law.

The oaths that the President and Vice President take binds them to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The failure to do so forms a sound basis for articles of impeachment.

The President and Vice President have failed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" in the following ways:

1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.

2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.

3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.

4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.

When strong evidence exists of the most serious crimes, we must use impeachment -- or lose the ability of the legislative branch to compel the executive branch to obey the law.

George Bush has led our country to a constitutional crisis, and it is our responsibility to remove him from office.

Bush impeachment calls gather momentum
Sun, 04 Mar 2007 05:59:08

Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, has called for the impeachment of George W. Bush before the Washington State Senate Governmental Operations Committee.

"I am honored to address you today and am pleased that you, unlike so many members of Congress and most state legislatures, have recognized your solemn responsibility to examine whether proceedings should be commenced for the impeachment of the President of the United States," the Mayor said.

"Never before has there been such a compelling case for impeachment and removal from office of the president of the United States for heinous human rights violations, breaches of trust, abuses of power injurious to the nation, war crimes, misleading Congress and the American people about threats to our nation's security and the supposed case for war, and grave violations of treaties, the Constitution, and domestic statutory law," Anderson proclaimed.

The mayor has attended anti-war, anti-Bush rallies in Salt Lake City, one in August 2006, another in August 2005, addressing the demonstrators that Bush and Cheney should be probed into and possibly impeached by the Congress.

His written testimony, which was read before the committee, indicted Bush for "mislead(ing) the congress and the American people" by implicating the nation in an unwanted war in Iraq, violating basic human rights by kidnapping, torturing and detaining people on suspicion of terror without bringing any charges in a legal way, and reneging on all his duties as a president to observe the constitution and laws passed by congress."

He also accused Bush administration of subjecting U.S. citizens to illegal surveillance methods through spying and wire-trapping."

"Impeachment and removal from office is the only appropriate remedy for a president who asserts such abusive, totalitarian power, in contravention of fundamental rights and liberties embodied in the U.S. Constitution," Anderson told the hearing committee.



Hundreds of anti-war activists in Olympia (Wash. State) had urged state lawmakers on Thursday to support a resolution asking that Congress investigate the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war and possibly consider impeachment of the president and vice president.

"This memorial is not directly about the war. In fact, it's not even directly about impeachment. It's about getting answers," said state Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, who sponsored the resolution.

"It's a petition to Congress asking them to do a legitimate, real, serious investigation," he added.

Sen. Oemig's resolution is just an example of several other impeachment resolutions against Bush prepared by the state legislatures across the U.S. including California, Illinois, Minnesota and New Mexico.


MRJ/AVA

According to a new report in Esquire magazine, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has suggested that Congress may consider the impeachment of President Bush before his term ends:

“The president says, ‘I don’t care.’ He’s not accountable anymore,” Hagel says, measuring his words by the syllable and his syllables almost by the letter. “He’s not accountable anymore, which isn’t totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don’t know. It depends how this goes.”

Kucinich: 'Impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran'
03/15/2007 @ 3:00 pm
Filed by Ron Brynaert

During a speech on the House floor on Thursday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) declared that "impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran." The 2004 presidential candidate, who is running again in 2008, told RAW STORY that his House floor statement "speaks for itself."
Advertisement

"This House cannot avoid its constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power," Kucinich said on the floor today. "The Administration has been preparing for an aggressive war against Iran. There is no solid, direct evidence that Iran has the intention of attacking the United States or its allies."

Kucinich noted that since the US "is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, a constituent treaty among the nations of the world," and Article II states that "all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state," then "even the threat of a war of aggression is illegal."

"Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes such treaties the Supreme Law of the Land," Kucinich continued. "This Administration, has openly threatened aggression against Iran in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter."

Kucinich added, "This week the House Appropriations Committee removed language from the Iraq war funding bill requiring the Administration, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, to seek permission before it launched an attack against Iran."

According to the Associated Press, "Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy."

"The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week," David Espo reported for the AP. "Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state."

"It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," Berkley told the AP, while Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) added, "I didn't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way."

The AP article continued, "Several officials said there was widespread opposition to the proposal at a closed-door meeting last week of conservative and moderate Democrats, who said they feared tying the hands of the administration when dealing with an unpredictable and potentially hostile regime in Tehran. "

With the language on Iran removed from the Iraq funding bill, Kucinich now believes that impeaching Bush may be the "only remedy" left to prevent him from mounting an aggressive military campaign against Iran.

"Since war with Iran is an option of this Administration and since such war is patently illegal, then impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran," Kucinich said today.

A press release sent to RAW STORY by Kucinich's office notes that the Congressman "has consistently spoken out on the House floor and been an advocate for bringing to light the war this Administration is appearing to prepare against Iran," but this is the first time that he's raised the specter of "impeachment" there. Many Democrats insisted before and after last year's midterm elections that impeachment was "off the table."

In January, RAW STORY first reported that while making an unannounced appearance at a media reform conference, Kucinich was pressed by bloggers in attendance about impeachment.

"Telling the crowd that while he didn't think immediate action was wise, due to fears that Bush might 'accelerate the war even more,' the congressman warned that 'if Bush attacks Iran, all bets are off,'" Miriam Raftery reported. "'The President is clearly trying to provoke Iran,'" he said, adding that the Bush administration is 'treading on the thinnest ice it has ever been on.'"