impeach bush for peace peach
(Go to our Main Page:ImpeachForPeace.org)

Add to Google

Daily Impeachment News:

July 23, 2007

‘Impeachment’ top YouTube debate question, Edwards to discuss it after debate

Filed under: Impeachment Progress News,South Carolina — Mikael @ 12:11 pm

pic_cnndebatejuly_demsplug_300x96.pngby Mikael Rudolph with Jacob Park
www.ImpeachforPeace.org

A YouTube member who goes by “lonelygirl115″ asked “Impeachment of GW Bush;Necessary to thwart future abuses?” and it has received the highest number of votes of any question so will be addressed (or danced around) by every Democratic Presidential/Unitary Executive candidate during tonight’s debate to be broadcast on CNN as shot live in Charleston, South Carolina.

Despite adding his video question very recently, another impeachment question asked by IFP’s own “ineptsegue” has the second most votes of all impeachment-related questions.

You can still vote at: www.communitycounts.us although the cutoff for deciding which questions will be answered ends sometime today.

Presidential candidate John Edwards has announced that immediately following tonight’s CNN-YouTube debate he will conduct a 30-minute live webcast on five web sites, where he will answer questions submitted to the campaign prior to and during the debate.

Edwards’ post-debate webcast will air live on the following websites:

www.johnedwards.com
myspace.com/johnedwards
CommunityCounts.us
Ustream.tv
Care2.com

Other candidates may match Edwards’ move by hosting live post-debate webcasts of their own.

ImpeachforPeace.org does not support nor endorse any political candidates but strongly encourages all political figures to give their total and unqualified support of impeachment as the only viable position to take on the issue.


July 11, 2007

Neo-Con Shill Propagandist Gets ‘Smackdown’ He Deserves

Filed under: Impeachment Related News,South Carolina — Mikael @ 1:06 am

michael_gram-cropped.jpgby Mikael Rudolph
www.ImpeachforPeace.org

Okay. This is a free country. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how asinine. I support, without hesitation, the First Amendment rights of every citizen as much as I support the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney for their comprehensive assault upon our Constitution, but while scanning through the impeachment-related posts early this morning I came across a uniquely vapid piece of writing in the Charleston City Paper, entitled: Behind The Anti-Bush Exaggerations by a thinly veiled Bushie Toadie by the name of Michael Graham.

I’m not going to waste too much of the reader’s time in trying to explain the sort of excrement this marginally sentient barnyard animal scratched into literary existence (click on the above link if you must), but here is what I just posted as the first comment in reaction to his blather:

~~~

“Pithy and cute? Yes. Factual and relevant. Hardly.

I don’t have time to bother with responding to too much of this lockstep Neo-Con boot-licking drivel, but I will say this alone:

If you were an actual journalist and not a yellow propagandist, you would have noticed that the Libby trial testimony and evidence (did you bother to read a word of it, or just trust Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter to interpret it for you?) revealed conclusively that Valerie Plame was an active Non-Official cover CIA Intelligence officer when her identity was treasonously revealed (during wartime!) by not just Richard Armitage, but by four individuals simultaneously: Armitage, Scooter Libby, Ari Fleischer and Karl Rove – all likely to have done so at the behest of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush (how will we ever know unless the subpoenas are honored?).

Stop play-acting the role of journalist and just come out and admit: “I Michael Graham, am a Republican/Neo-Con/corporate shill, with no ability to decipher, nor interest in discovering actual facts from within the miasma of distortion issued daily from the White House. I simply regurgitate the pablum I mainline addictively”.

I hope you are at least getting ‘Armstrong Williams’ money, because then you would have at least sold your soul for something of passing, monetary value.”

~~~

We can no longer afford to stand by and let these types of drooling, diseased loyalists poison the minds of the American public. Each and every time one more mindless Neo-Con, corporate drone chants out the Bushie mantra, we must respond quickly and decisively. There is no more room for allowing this kind of damaging pseudo-intellectual, non-factual vomit to go unchecked. We must know the facts and demand that those who fancy themselves ‘journalists’ and newsmen and newswomen give heed to those facts.

When they don’t, as Mr. Graham so cavalierly failed to do so, then we must wield the sword of truth and utilize its blade to bring these hollow men and their lies to their knees.


"I just want you to know that,
when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
-Bush, June 18, 2002

"War is Peace"
-Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984

Do-It-Yourself
Impeachment
Blog Categories
Our Whole Site

As heard on
the radio...
Bush hears the voices logo
KFAI radio interview
"I Hear The Voices"
Oct 5th Ad
• Oct 5th Interview
Mike Malloy
Peter Werbe
Get Impeach For Peace Stuff!
(pins, bumper stickers, hats, etc.)
Impeach Bush for Peace Stuff logo
protest picture
Calendar

Picts/Vid
Why Should Bush Have Been Impeached?Charges against Bush

Charges & Evidence


Videos

Bush's Defense
Arguments Against Bush Impeachment...

• If we impeach Bush, we’ll get President Cheney!
The first impeachment resolution introduced by McKinney included Bush, Cheney, and Rice. Although, even if we only initially pursue Bush, initiating the impeachment process will lead to an investigation that will implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.

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

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

  • We should wait to impeach...
Wait to impeach? We've waited 3 or more years too long already. We had enough evidence to impeach years ago. Remember, an impeachment only means you have enough evidence to warrant a trial, just like an indictment. Our congress people didn't take an oath to bipartisanship. They took an oath to the Constitution. Besides which, our troops, Iraqi civilians, and our own civil liberties are all waiting for this.
 
• Before we impeach, we should get some legislation passed...
And with unconstitutional Presidential Signing Statements, veto power, and the power of "Commander in Chief" at his disposal, how do you think Congress is going to get anything accomplished without first impeaching Bush?

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm a Democrat/
Republican. If we support impeachment it will lower the chances of my party winning in 2008.

So, your party would rather win elections than do what's right for the country? I hope you're wrong. I also hope the public is willing to throw additional support to any party that holds our elected officials accountable for their actions. This has been historically true with every single impeachment effort launched. And this impeachment effort would begin with majority support (unlike most past impeachments including Nixon).

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

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

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

• But Speaker of the House Pelosi said that Impeachment was "off the table."

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

(Read More)