IMPEACHMENT SLOWLY MOVES INTO MAINSTREAM THINKING

[Guest guest]

A

Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:21:52 -0500

IMPEACHMENT SLOWLY MOVES INTO MAINSTREAM THINKING

 

 

 

 

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

 

 

Mainstream arguments for impeachment

By Clarence Lusane

 

Sunday, February 19, 2006

 

 

 

As the crimes of the Bush administration mount, it becomes

increasingly difficult to avoid talk of impeachment.

 

As a result of his continuing abuse of power, the impeachment option

is making its way from the margin to the mainstream. Legal scholars on

the left and the right argue that Bush may have committed " high crimes

and misdemeanors, " as stated in Article II, Section 4, of the

Constitution.

 

The National Security Agency eavesdropping scandal has led Bruce Fein,

who served as associate deputy attorney general under President

Reagan, to conclude that this is " an impeachable offense, " noting

" It's more dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath. "

 

Like the flouting of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the

bill of particulars against President Bush includes other violations

of law.

 

Bush violated the U.N. Charter when he invaded Iraq.

 

Bush violated the Geneva Conventions and Convention Against Torture by

permitting the abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody, by " rendering "

detainees to other countries, where they were tortured, and by running

secret prisons around the world.

 

These conventions are " the supreme law of the land, " according to

Article VI of the Constitution.

 

Bush also violated U.S. statues against torture and war crimes.

 

Bush's behavior has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands,

reduced the status of the United States globally and made the world

and nation more dangerous. He long ago abdicated any legitimacy to

holding the office.

 

Even when the law was available to operate in his favor, such as the

case in the eavesdropping scandal, Bush chose the authoritarian route.

 

Fortunately, a nascent impeachment movement is under way. Unlike the

unpopular, unjustified and mean-spirited impeachment of President

Clinton in 1999, which backfired on Republicans in Congress, calls for

Bush's ouster are emerging from a number of sources.

 

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has introduced legislation, co-sponsored

by seven other House members, to " make recommendations regarding

grounds for possible impeachment. "

 

Even Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, the Senate Judiciary Committee

chairman, has been forced to acknowledge that the political remedy for

a president overstepping his powers would be impeachment, though he

claims we are nowhere near there yet with Bush.

 

Perhaps thanks to the Republicans, the American public is not

squeamish about impeachment. Two Zogby polls, one conducted in

November 2005 and another in January 2006, demonstrate that a majority

of Americans would support or consider impeachment if it is proven

that Bush lied about reasons for going to war with Iraq (53 percent to

42 percent), or illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens (52 percent to 43

percent).

 

Bush and his administration will continue to defy national and

international laws until stopped. The remedy is impeachment and, if he

is convicted, removal from office.

 

Unfortunately, congressional Republicans and many Democrats lack the

courage and ethical compass to challenge the White House.

 

For the rest of us, it is a worthy -- and necessary -- campaign.

 

 

 

 

Images and text copyright © 2004 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co.

Reproduction or reuse prohibited without written consent from

PittsburghLIVE.

 

Mainstream arguments for impeachment

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Sat, 18 Feb 2006 9:23 PM PST

As the crimes of the Bush administration mount, it becomes

increasingly difficult to avoid talk of impeachment.

[Guest guest]

It's amusing to hear Bruce Fein speak of Bush's various crimes as " more

dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath. " Clinton's lying under oath, was

about a handful of sex games with an intern, and nothing else. What conceivable

danger could attach to Clinton's lies related to sex, especially once they've

been made public?

 

This remark of Fein's, like so many made by Republicans from all political

areas, are intended to equalize the guilt, the blameworthiness concerning the

actions of recent presidents. Bush's crimes are so great, they even surpass

those of Clinton's, and the reader is expected to make the judgment that these

two presidents committed offenses that are in the same cast, though those of

Bush's are " more serious. " But politicians, and others in presitigious places

and professions, routinely lie, under oath, about sex. The courts understand

and accept this as a fact of life.

 

The comparison insults the reader. Clinton's " lie " is barely so, and much was

made of it, when attention about it was forced on the public by a maniacally

persistent and biased prosecutor. Hardly anyone cared.. In Bush's case, the

opposite is true. Hardly anyone is governement dares speak of impeachment, let

alone institute actions against Bush, precisely because his crimes are so grave

that his entire administration has been engaged in a perjury of sorts against

the American people, everytime it speaks. No one will dare ask him to tell the

truth about his actions, so that he might commit perjury, though the lying he'd

engage in would pale to utter insignificance compared to the crimes against

humanity committed by this moral and intellectual dimwit.

 

jp

-

califpacific

Sunday, February 19, 2006 10:58 PM

IMPEACHMENT SLOWLY MOVES INTO MAINSTREAM

THINKING

 

 

A

Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:21:52 -0500

IMPEACHMENT SLOWLY MOVES INTO MAINSTREAM THINKING

 

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

 

Mainstream arguments for impeachment

By Clarence Lusane

 

Sunday, February 19, 2006

 

As the crimes of the Bush administration mount, it becomes

increasingly difficult to avoid talk of impeachment.

 

As a result of his continuing abuse of power, the impeachment option

is making its way from the margin to the mainstream. Legal scholars on

the left and the right argue that Bush may have committed " high crimes

and misdemeanors, " as stated in Article II, Section 4, of the

Constitution.

 

The National Security Agency eavesdropping scandal has led Bruce Fein,

who served as associate deputy attorney general under President

Reagan, to conclude that this is " an impeachable offense, " noting

" It's more dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath. "