Reply
Wed 7 Mar, 2007 09:40 am
Vermont Votes to Impeach Bush/Cheney
by John Nichols
3/7/07
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.
Heheheheh, gotta love those feisty Vermonters.
Impeachment is a good start. Then we can progress to trials for crimes against humanity. Then imprisonment for most of the guilty parties. Then...well, for fear of being locked up by Homeland Security.
Well, it seems kind of quaint at the beginning, but movements do gather momentum....
Everything starts somewhere.
Vermont is pretty as all get out.
Whats wrong with all you people? Don't you know you cant impeach a president for starting a war by lying to the population of the country. You can only impeach for having sex in the whitehouse.
The world awaits with bated breath, if only!
rabel22 wrote:Whats wrong with all you people? Don't you know you cant impeach a president for starting a war by lying to the population of the country. You can only impeach for having sex in the whitehouse.
There is a t-shirt available which has a photograph of George Bush and underneath the text says, "Will someone please give this man a blowjob!"
Are you volunteering Blatham?
rabel22 wrote:Whats wrong with all you people? Don't you know you cant impeach a president for starting a war by lying to the population of the country. You can only impeach for having sex in the whitehouse.
Lying doesn't quite fit the description of "high crimes and misdemeanors," however, you actually might succeed in impeacing a president for lying about an important matter, if you could prove that he had lied. Since president Bush didn't lie, though, you can't prove it. Being wrong about something isn't lying, and, in this case, millions believed that Iraq might well still have WMD and WMD programs before Mr. Bush became president.
Most of the wars of the past were started for far less valid reasons than fears that an evil madman would acquire doomsday weapons.
Brandon9000 wrote: Lying doesn't quite fit the description of "high crimes and misdemeanors," however, you actually might succeed in impeacing a president for lying about an important matter, if you could prove that he had lied. Since president Bush didn't lie, though, you can't prove it. Being wrong about something isn't lying, and, in this case, millions believed that Iraq might well still have WMD and WMD programs before Mr. Bush became president.
Most of the wars of the past were started for far less valid reasons than fears that an evil madman would acquire doomsday weapons.
I'm sure Bush could be impeached for ignoring the UN and unilaterally deciding to invade a sovereign state, for using weapons the UN had declared a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" namely Depleted Uranium, an insidious weapon that goes on killing for generation and not only civilians but members of the military who come into contact with the DU material.
More importantly, I sure he could be impeached for reintroducing the barbaric practice of torture, imprisonment without trial and for generally bringing the once good name of the United States into disrepute; the latter is coming starkly into focus as Bush tours South America, he has made the US the most hated country on the planet.
Sorry anton, we don't answer to the U.N., and never will. Nor do we answer to Vermont. What a bunch of looney pricks. They just lost any tourist dollar I might spend there.
And you need to be corrected again. The media and their support of OBL worldwide has made the USA hated, which isn't anything new. Just keep on "baaahhhhing" like a sheep - it turns OBL on.
anton wrote:Brandon9000 wrote: Lying doesn't quite fit the description of "high crimes and misdemeanors," however, you actually might succeed in impeacing a president for lying about an important matter, if you could prove that he had lied. Since president Bush didn't lie, though, you can't prove it. Being wrong about something isn't lying, and, in this case, millions believed that Iraq might well still have WMD and WMD programs before Mr. Bush became president.
Most of the wars of the past were started for far less valid reasons than fears that an evil madman would acquire doomsday weapons.
I'm sure Bush could be impeached for ignoring the UN and unilaterally deciding to invade a sovereign state, for using weapons the UN had declared a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" namely Depleted Uranium, an insidious weapon that goes on killing for generation and not only civilians but members of the military who come into contact with the DU material.
More importantly, I sure he could be impeached for reintroducing the barbaric practice of torture, imprisonment without trial and for generally bringing the once good name of the United States into disrepute; the latter is coming starkly into focus as Bush tours South America, he has made the US the most hated country on the planet.
Yes, I'm sure that "generally bringing the once good name of the United States into disrepute" except in the minds of the millions who approve of him qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors."
cjhsa wrote:Sorry anton, we don't answer to the U.N., and never will.
The US admin was instrumental in the creation of the United Nations Charter. The veto right still remains. Unfortunately for some.
cjhsa wrote:Nor do we answer to Vermont.
So should we start calling you the Disunited States of America?
cjhsa wrote:What a bunch of looney pricks.
That's how most foreigners view your current admin.
cjhsa wrote:They just lost any tourist dollar I might spend there.
I'm sure they'll be shattered to hear that.
cjhsa wrote:And you need to be corrected again. The media and their support of OBL worldwide has made the USA hated, which isn't anything new.
The US of A created the Al Quaeda. The Mujaheddin are a product of good ol' US foreign intelligence.
cjhsa wrote: Just keep on "baaahhhhing" like a sheep - it turns OBL on.
If you have something positive to add to the debate, just wink twice
Sure, builder, go find someplace else to post garbage. Is that positive enough?
cjhsa wrote:Sure, builder, go find someplace else to post garbage. Is that positive enough?
Try debating, my friend. Isn't that what we are here for?
No thanks, I don't negotiate with terrorists or their sympathizers.
cjhsa wrote:No thanks, I don't negotiate with terrorists or their sympathizers.
Pathetic, really. Considering who sponsors the bulk of "terrorism" at this point in our millenia.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/Anatomy.asp
Wise up, hippy. :wink:
Brandon9000 wrote:Lying doesn't quite fit the description of "high crimes and misdemeanors," however, you actually might succeed in impeacing a president for lying about an important matter, if you could prove that he had lied. Since president Bush didn't lie, though, you can't prove it. Being wrong about something isn't lying, and, in this case, millions believed that Iraq might well still have WMD and WMD programs before Mr. Bush became president.
Most of the wars of the past were started for far less valid reasons than fears that an evil madman would acquire doomsday weapons.
For some reason, I agree with Brandon. Let's not accuse George W. Bush of lying. That would be too difficult to prove, wouldn't it. Not that he hasn't been lying. I mean, not that anybody could prove that he hasn't been lying. He might have known, for sure, that Iraq didn't have any WMD or WMD programmes, and simply been lying about it. But if you can't prove it, you can't impeach him for doing so.
Let's instead support the people of Vermont when they are saying:
Quote: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.
old europe wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Lying doesn't quite fit the description of "high crimes and misdemeanors," however, you actually might succeed in impeacing a president for lying about an important matter, if you could prove that he had lied. Since president Bush didn't lie, though, you can't prove it. Being wrong about something isn't lying, and, in this case, millions believed that Iraq might well still have WMD and WMD programs before Mr. Bush became president.
Most of the wars of the past were started for far less valid reasons than fears that an evil madman would acquire doomsday weapons.
For some reason, I agree with Brandon. Let's not accuse George W. Bush of lying. That would be too difficult to prove, wouldn't it. Not that he hasn't been lying. I mean, not that anybody could prove that he hasn't been lying. He might have known, for sure, that Iraq didn't have any WMD or WMD programmes, and simply been lying about it. But if you can't prove it, you can't impeach him for doing so.
Let's instead support the people of Vermont when they are saying:
Quote: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.
You'd like him to have been lying, but the fact is that he simply believed something different from you. You disagree with me? Give one example of a lie President Bush told about the war in Iraq. Just one. You don't have to prove it's a lie, just make an argument that it's likely to have been a lie. I submit that he told the truth as he understood it. Indeed the opinions that he expressed to justify the invasion were held by millions and millions of people.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace