impeach bush for peace peach
(Go to our Main

Add to Google

Daily Impeachment News:

June 11, 2008

24 House Republicans Vote for Impeachment Hearings with all Democrats

Filed under: Impeachment Progress News,Republicans for Impeachment — Mikael @ 2:51 pm
House Sends Impeachment to John Conyers
by Bob Fertik

By a bipartisan vote of 251-166, the full House of Representatives sent Dennis Kucinich’s 35 Articles of Impeachment to the Judiciary Committee.
That means Chairman John Conyers now has the power to decide whether to hold impeachment hearings – or not.
Incredibly, 24 Republicans voted with 227 Democrats; the 166 no votes came exclusively from Republicans.
So what will Conyers do? When the Downing Street Memo was published on May 1, 2005, worked closely with Conyers to hold the famous basement hearings featuring Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern, and John Bonifaz. In August 2006, Conyers published all of the evidence of Bush’s crimes in The Constitution in Crisis. Many of us believed he would begin impeachment proceedings if Democrats won the House, which they did that November.
But in the spring of 2006, Nancy Pelosi declared impeachment “off the table.” And when Democrats took control and Conyers was sworn in as Judiciary Chairman, he fell firmly into line behind the Speaker. (Conyers insists Pelosi did not threaten to deny him the Chairmanship.)
Since 2005, Conyers has received millions of impeachment petitions. Hundreds if not thousands of activists have spoken to him personally. But he remains adamantly opposed to hearings, for one simple reason: he fears it will hurt the Democratic candidate for President (now Barack Obama) in November.
Of course there isn’t one scintilla of evidence to support Conyers’ fear. It is based entirely on the 1998 election, when Newt Gingrich turned the Starr Report (published online on September 9) into a campaign issue but lost a small number of seats by overplaying the issue in TV ads. Despite those small losses, Republicans held the majority and voted to impeach Clinton 6 weeks after the election, on December 19. And two years later, despite a massively unpopular impeachment, Republican George Bush got close enough to Al Gore to steal the election. And one reason it was close was that Democrats believed impeachment made Clinton too “toxic” to campaign even in Arkansas, which would have put Gore over the top in the Electoral College even without Florida.
Of course there is no comparison between impeaching Clinton for consensual sex and impeaching Bush for 35 High Crimes, including a disastrous war of aggression based on lies. And the difference is reflected in polls – only 26% of Americans wanted to impeach Clinton in 1998, while 43% of Americans wanted to impeach Bush in our last poll on July 8, 2007. (Of course the Corporate Media refuses to ask about impeachment in their own polls. You can email all the pollsters here.)

(Original Source)

May 6, 2008

Republicans Fighting For Impeachment

Filed under: Impeachment Progress News,Republicans for Impeachment — Jodin Morey @ 9:15 pm

The time has come to rescue the Party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower from the extremists on the right who call themselves Republican by name only, when in fact they have only been using and abusing the Party toward their own nefarious ends. Many traditional Republicans are feeling betrayed and now realize that Bush & company do not stand for traditional Republican values such as fiscal responsibility, small government, national security, family values, rugged individualism, and non-intervention in international affairs. It has become abundantly clear that Bush and Cheney have not only failed to achieve any of these goals but have in fact worked against those ends to achieve the exact opposite.
If you are a Republican or a former Republican who would like to come back, or you know a Republican who sees how this Administration is ruining this country, our Constitution, the environment and our standing in the international community, go to and sign the guest book.
We will be leading a delegation of Republicans for Impeachment to Washington, DC to deliver our Petition for impeachment to the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee.
Remember: Impeachment will happen when (1) the people want it; and (2) it is non-partisan. The Republicans supporting impeachment is the key to restoring our nation. It is quite clear now that no other party can rescue the Constitution.

Susan C. Serpa

March 28, 2008

GOP Congressional Candidate Will Demand Cheney’s Impeachment

mikemoloney4congress_00112153305_std.jpg[IFP endorses no political candidates for federal public office]
Moloney sees a chance in congressional race
Perennial contender hopes to shift his party

Moloney sees a chance in congressional race: Perennial contender hopes to shift his party
By Will Oremus, San Mateo Daily News

This is the fifth in the Daily News’ five-part series profiling each of the candidates to replace the late Tom Lantos in Congress. The two Democrats, two Republicans and one Green will compete in an open primary on April 8.

Republican Mike Moloney believes it will be an embarrassment to his party if he wins election to Congress – and he’s proud of that.

“The Republican Party is bankrupt morally, spiritually and emotionally,” Moloney said. “It’s been hijacked by the nuts on the religious right.”

A perennial contender for the 12th District seat long held by the late Tom Lantos, the boisterous Moloney aims to be the Libertarian thorn in the Republican Party’s side. Though he calls himself “an Eisenhower Republican,” he admits he only switched to the party several years ago to get more visibility for his incendiary views.

“I’m a maverick,” he said. “Their job is to head me off at the pass.”

From his youth in an Irish neighborhood of Brooklyn, Moloney, 67, carries a thick accent and a belief that everyone deserves a fighting chance at success. But he’s no welfare-state liberal. To those who get knocked down, as he did when his local liquor store chain went bankrupt, Moloney says, “those are the breaks.”

Perhaps that’s why he never pulls punches.

In Moloney’s idiom, Democratic favorite Jackie Speier is “little Jackie, the princess.” Moderate conservative Greg Conlon is “a country club Republican.” The Bush administration’s foreign policy is “so absurd that when I actually articulate it, I can’t believe it.”

His well-placed jabs and self-deprecating jokes bring levity to the campaign trail, but Moloney is dead serious about his opposition to the war in Iraq. He sees recent U.S. policy in the Middle East as the product of a dastardly alliance between the oil-hungry Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, Israel-allied neoconservatives led by Paul Wolfowitz, and Christian extremists who want a holy war with Islam.

He’s convinced that if someone doesn’t stand up to the Bush administration soon, Iran will be next.

Who could that someone be?

Moloney quickly rules out the Democrats. “The Democrat leaders are all part of it. Bush and Cheney could never have accomplished the war without the Democrats.”

That leaves the man himself.

“If I win this special election, I go back to Washington to fill Lantos’ term,” Moloney said. “My first act, I demand (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi puts impeachment of Bush and Cheney back on the table, and I demand it loud and clear.”

While he relishes the role of underdog, Moloney resents the attention that’s been lavished on Speier’s campaign from its beginning, when a phalanx of big-time officials turned out to her press conference in Foster City. “Jesus Christ, I thought it was Mother Teresa up there,” he said.

Earlier this month, Moloney put out a sarcastic press release suggesting that his fellow candidates call off the April 8 special election and concede the seat to Speier, saving money for the taxpayers.

In less agitated moments, however, Moloney admits he’s having a great time. He’s taken to wearing a Serra High School baseball cap around town, not because he has any connection to the school, but because it starts conversations with fellow Padres fans.

And despite his lack of mainstream backing – he recently lost an election for local Republican Party chairman 20-2 – Moloney believes he’ll have a shot against Speier if he can get past Conlon in the primary.

“It’ll be Hearns vs. Hagler, Ali vs. Frazier,” he said, shadowboxing to demonstrate his point. “I don’t remember who won Hearns vs. Hagler, but it was a great fight.”

E-mail Will Oremus at


March 24, 2008

GOP market analyst calls for Bush impeachment for Bear Stearns bribe

Filed under: Impeachment Progress News,Republicans for Impeachment — Mikael @ 11:23 pm

giantstockticker.jpgMarket Ticker
Articles of Impeachment? Bear Stearns Buyout Illegal?
Karl Denninger

“On or about March 16th, 2008, George W. Bush, both personally and through his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, caused to be provided to JP Morgan/Chase a bribe(1) ultimately flowing from the United States Treasury in an amount not to exceed $30 billion dollars US, via The Federal Reserve, in order to induce JP Morgan/Chase to assume the liabilities and assets of Bear Stearns and Company at a price not determined in the free market or via public bidding, in violation of the limitations expressly set forth in The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, 12 USC Ch 6.”

(1) Bribery is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty.

I have spent a solid week both reading The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and thinking about the circumstances of this transaction trying to find a means under which “backstopping” Bear Stearns debt via The Federal Reserve is legally permissible.

Despite my best efforts I can’t find explicit or implicit authorization for “a put”, as differentiated from a loan, anywhere in The Federal Reserve Act. You can call something whatever you’d like but if in point of fact there is no recourse then it is not a “loan” at all; it is a “PUT” or a “conditional payment”, and under The Federal Reserve Act such an action appears to these eyes to be a direct violation of the law.

It is widely reported that both Hank Paulson and George Bush personally “signed off on” The Bear Stearns “bailout” last Sunday. As such their direct and indirect actions, in my view, constitute a “High Crime and Misdemeanor” within the meaning of the United States Constitution and therefore subject George W. Bush to impeachment proceedings as proposed in the above sample article for same.

By the way, I’m not the only one who thinks this is an illegal transaction. John Hussman, of The Hussman Funds, has this to say in a letter with a publication date of tomorrow, March 24th:
“In my view, the deal would be palatable if J.P. Morgan was to remain fully responsible for any losses on the ‘collateral’ provided to the Federal Reserve, assuming shareholders were to consent to the buyout. As it stands, Congress should quickly step in to bust the existing deal and demand an alternate resolution, by clearly insisting that the Fed’s action was not legal.

The Fed did not act to save a bank, but to enrich one. Congress has the power to appropriate resources for such a deal by the representative will of the people ““ the Fed does not, even under Depression era banking laws. The ‘loan’ falls outside of Section 13-3 of the Federal Reserve Act, because it is not in fact a loan to either Bear Stearns or J.P. Morgan. Bear Stearns is no longer a business entity under this agreement. And if the fiction that this is a ‘loan’ to J.P. Morgan was true, then the only point at which the ‘collateral’ would become an issue would be in the event that J.P. Morgan itself was to fail. No, this is not a loan. It is a put option granted by the Fed to J.P. Morgan on a basket of toxic securities. And it is not legal.”

Finally, it appears that even the SEC Chairman, Christopher Cox, isn’t sure that Bear was “done”; that is, this entire transaction might smell like dead fish:

“In what is likely to be a bit of a blockbuster, SEC chairman Christopher Cox sent a letter to Swiss regulators indicating the Bear Stearns (NYSE:BSC) did not have to go the way of all flesh. According to The New York Post “the fate of Bear Stearns was a lack of confidence, not a lack of capital,” Cox, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, wrote in a five-page letter sent to a Swiss regulator.””

So there you have it.

Now, the question is, do our Congressfolk have the necessary will to stop this raiding of the public treasury for the enrichment of a private firm – if necessary, by bringing the above article of impeachment?

If you think they should, then I have a solution for you.


to Congress for the purpose of raising debate on this exact issue and stop the mockery of our legal and regulatory systems.

PS: I’m a lifelong registered Republican, voted for George W. Bush twice, and have one of Gingrich’s “Speaker’s Gavels” on the credenza behind my desk, so before you go accusing me of being a “leftwing nutjob”, think again. Nonetheless, what’s right is right and I must stand for what’s just, and when the political party I am a member of does something wrong, they must admit to it and face the consequences. Sorry Mr. President; I like you a great deal, but what happened here was, in my opinion, blatantly unlawful. The $30 billion “backstop” must be rescinded until and unless Congress explicitly authorizes that act through legislation and you sign same.


March 18, 2008

Conservatives and Progressives: Unite Over Impeachment!

Filed under: Related to Impeachment,Republicans for Impeachment — Jodin Morey @ 12:54 pm

RalphLopez,ThisIsBy.Us — There comes a time in the struggle for freedom when Americans must unite. At times we unite with those whose priorities may not be ours, and those whom with we disagree on many things. I launch this call because I will do anything to save my Constitution. My call is to my countrymen in the Immigration Reform Movement, who believe that George Bush must be impeached for aiding and abetting a level of illegal immigration unseen at any time in our history, 13 million to 20 million illegal aliens present and an influx of a million more per year, which, differently from previous generations, now robs American workers of jobs that Americans will do, and results in unfair competition to businesses which play by the rules. In the long term this is beyond the assimilative powers of even our nation, and thus awakens the threat that Balkanization poses to national security.

The interest of a nation in a common culture and language is clear, even if that culture is an amalgam of many other cultures, something to be celebrated and treasured as uniquely American. Except for our citizens of Native American ancestry, we all came from someplace else.

I reject walls, which desecrate the startling beauty of the American Southwest, mass round-ups, and the militarization of the problem which the scoundrels in our government offer as placebos without ever touching the real cause. I am against placing the blame and punishment on poor, hardworking people who are only doing what any one of us would do in the same conditions. The problem of illegal immigration can be solved humanely in one stroke, by the identification and jailing of employers who turn a blind eye to worker status. Blaming illegal workers is like blaming minnows for swarming for food. It is asinine and immoral. Prosecute employers, and the problem evaporates with no further ado. Stop sprinkling the meal upon the pond, and the swarm ceases.

Whether in meat-packing plants, slaughterhouses, farms, ranches, or kitchens, the corporate benefactors of the politicians continue to enrich themselves as the charade of deportations goes on, resulting in hapless pawnship of some of the world’s least fortunate, cruelly tempted here by corporate greed.

I reject the vitriol of the small number in the Immigration Reform Movement who, in addressing a legitimate problem, lapse into near or outright racism and bigotry, invoking images of whiteness and cultural purity which offend me. The blood of an American is all the same color on the battlefield, whatever his or her origin. But while it may not affect those in some professional classes in our society, the economics of illegal immigration have changed. Employers hire large numbers of illegal aliens knowingly to avoid paying a decent wage.

The Impeachment of Dick Cheney Then George Bush Movement is at a crossroads. Through citizen action alone the Movement has accomplished what none of the Democratic Party scoundrels would accomplish, save for the courageous few like Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler. The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee at this time is deliberating House Resolution 333, to begin impeachment hearings on Vice President Dick Cheney immediately. Numerous towns, cities and states have passed impeachment resolutions directing their congressional representatives to support impeachment, and some towns, like Kennebunkport, Maine, are mulling resolutions which explore the legal possibilities of ordering the arrest of George W. Bush, for war crimes and crimes against the Constitution, the minute he sets foot into town.

Continue Reading

Next Page »

"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

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

Why Should Bush Have Been Impeached?Charges against Bush

Charges & Evidence


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)