impeach bush for peace peach
Mikael's Accountability Blog

(Go to our Main Page:ImpeachForPeace.org)

Add to Google

Daily Impeachment News:

July 17, 2008

Kucinich: Unidentified Foreign Official Wants to Speak at Impeachment Talks

Filed under: Impeachment Progress News — Jodin Morey @ 2:17 am

By Molly K. Hooper, cqpolitics.com — An unidentified government official of a U.S. ally wants to participate if and when Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich makes his case to impeach President Bush before the House Judiciary Committee, according to the Ohio Democrat.

The House voted, 238-180, on Tuesday to send Kucinich’s latest impeachment effort (H Res 1345) to the Judiciary Committee.

Chairman John Conyers Jr. said he will hold a broad hearing on the general topic of abuses of power by the Bush administration.

“There’s never been one [hearing] that accumulated all the things that constitute an imperial presidency,” Conyers said, explaining that the anticipated hearing would review more than a year of committee inquiry into such matters as the firing of U.S. attorneys, the leak of the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame and the information provided to Congress in the run-up to the Iraq War.

Kucinich contends that President Bush ought to be impeached for allegedly lying to Congress in order to get approval to invade Iraq.

Conyers does not intend to specifically debate or hold a committee vote on Kucinich’s article of impeachment, though issues important to Kucinich would get a public airing.

A ‘New Angle’

No matter how the eventual hearing is framed, Kucinich said he would like to be joined at the witness table by a foreign official he would not name.

“I’ve been contacted by representatives of a U.S. ally who are seeking an opportunity to appear before the Judiciary Committee,” he said in an interview.

“Legislative leaders of a foreign capital” have a “new angle that I haven’t thought of before but is relevant,” he said. “This interest in whether we’ve been told the truth has extended to other countries.”

Kucinich would not provide further detail.

And in any event, the power to control the witness list of any congressional hearing rests with the committee chairman — in this case, Conyers.

The article of impeachment that was referred to committee on Tuesday was the fourth introduced by Kucinich.

He also introduced a broader version against Bush (H Res 1258) and two against Vice President Dick Cheney (H Res 333, H Res 799).

Original Article


5 Comments

  1. It doesn’t matter what they will do if it bring the peace to our world.

    Comment by phetrs — July 17, 2008 @ 9:32 am

  2. War is something damage both side it’s not only the loser but also winner.

    Comment by radon — July 17, 2008 @ 9:34 am

  3. I sense the removeing of Bush his executive privilage abuse
    FRIV’PRIV’ Almost like the Nixon abuse of executive Privilage
    which he lost and we impeached Nixon.When it’s nothing more than Bush
    attempting hiding illegal activities,corruption for the short of period to the duration of impeachment removing
    process,which is long overdue.From what I read in other articles related to Nixons
    impeachment it’s not totally absolute that Nixon can claim such privilage its only the abuse of the privilage in obstructing justice for which he claim executive privilage.Bush needs to be sworn to testify.He is
    so far worst than Nixon.I sense Bush about be surprize in how far we will really let his corruption,continue.
    Impeachforpeach,justice and May only the honest survive.

    Comment by DENNIS M MCCULLOUGH — July 17, 2008 @ 10:03 am

  4. Let’s do something usefull.
    Impeach the bastard.
    Put Ron Paul or Kucinich in power.

    Comment by Walter — July 18, 2008 @ 3:12 am

  5. If lying a nation into war, resulting in thousands of young men dead, tens of thousands maimed for life, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, and millions displaced is not war crime then nothing ever was. Not to impeach Bush for high crimes and misdeanaors would be a dark wound on this nation, that would live in infamy for ages. He should not only be impeached but if possible according to law incarcerated. It is the least that a nation alleging respect for the constitution, and for law generally should do. Not only would this be at least symbolic retribution against this miscreant, but it would help to prevent a later imperial presidential pretender from pushing his luck too far.

    Comment by William Springer — July 22, 2008 @ 9:57 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

"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)