http://impeachforpeace.org/index2.html



an old friend of mine, Mikael, is the cofounder of this organization; I don't know much about it yet but if nothing else, it's another voice for us.


Mike also just sent me the latest Keith Olbermann editorial:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/

Why should President Bush be impeached? In other words, what crimes has he committed. Please be specific.

http://theskyiscrape.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17201

I've seen this, and the assertion that "Bush manipulated intelligence to justify the war" does not hold up. Half a dozen intelligence agencies from other countries (including Russia and France, both against the war) that stated that Hussein had an active WMD program. So let's please stop with the "Bush lied" argument.

So my question still stands - on what grounds would the President face impeachment proceedings?

I really wasn't trying to answer your question due to the fact that I'm not near as knowledgeable about this stuff as other people here. I just wanted to point out that some people's thoughts were in there in case you hadn't seen it.

I'm relatively certain that would basically just be a partison sort of attempt to get him out of the white house. As much as I dislike Bush, I really hope that this country doesn't fall into the mindset that if you dislike the actions of a president, that he should be impeached.

That would be a very scary time for this country.

Bush:

idiot? Yep.
bad president? you bet!
liar? sure seems like it...
high crimes and misdemeanors? i wouldn't doubt it...
legitimatly impeachable? i doubt it...

How bout, cause he's a fucking moron. Is that in the constitution? "We the people...can impeach a president if we feel he is half retarded."

Well, I don't agree with your personal feelings toward President Bush, but you make a good point - it seems that people want to impeach the President based not on fact or evidence but on their personal contempt for him as a person. The pro-impeachment crowd harbors such hatred for the man that logic flies out the window.
Is Iraq going well? Not at all. Impeachable offense? Certainly not. And so on...

Let me add one thing...

The concept of "Impeach for Peace" is illogical. I don't mean to insult your friend's website, but the idea that if we just got rid of President Bush that there would be no more terrorist attacks or problems with nuclear proliferation is pie-in-the-sky thinking. We were attacked repeatedly before President Bush took office. Was President Clinton's presence in the White House instigating the attacks that occured when he was President?

http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

Do-It-Yourself Impeachment...Impeach bush yourself logo

Impeach for Peace, a Minnesota-based impeachment group, has researched a method for impeaching the president using a little known and rarely used part of the Rules of the House of Representatives ("Jefferson’s Manual"). This document actually empowers individual citizens to initiate the impeachment process themselves.

"Jefferson's Manual" is an interpretive guide to parliamentary procedure, and is included (along with the Constitution) in the bound volumes of the Rules of the House of Representatives. It is ratified by each congress (including the current one), and has been updated continuously through the history of our democracy. The section covering impeachment lists the acceptable vehicles for bringing impeachment motions to the floor of the House.

Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in the manual, however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial for impeachment.

After learning this information, Minnesotan and Impeach for Peace member (Jodin Morey) found precedent in an 1826 memorial by Luke Edward Lawless which had been successful in initiating the impeachment of Federal Judge James H. Peck. Impeach for Peace then used this as a template for their "Do-It-Yourself Impeachment." Now any citizen can download the DIY Impeachment Memorial and submit it, making it possible for Americans to do what our representatives have been unwilling to do. The idea is for so many people to submit the Memorial that it cannot be ignored.

Feel free to download it, print out TWO copies, fill in your relevant information in the blanks (name, State, notary is optional), and send in two letters today (One to the head of the Judiciary, and the other to John Conyers lead Democrat in the House Judiciary). There's also extra credit for sending a DIY Impeachment to your own representative.

Hold on to the other copy of the two letters until Jan. 3rd (after the new congress) when we're having everyone send them in.

That's right — to make a big impact, we're having everyone send it in on the same date (Over 220,000 downloads so far representing over 800,000 mailings). We hope to flood the Judiciary Committee and John Conyers office with sacks of mail and cause a newsworthy event to further pressure the Congress to act on the memorials. Although, it's important to keep in mind that in the 1826 precedent, impeachment resulted as a result of a single memorial. Yours might be the one.

A half dozen agencies with bad intelligence doesn't mean that the Bush admin didn't manipulate our own intelligence in an unethical manner.

I agree with LeninFlux. He shouldn't be impeached. We allowed the idiot into office and then actually re-elected him. We should be forced to live out our collective stupidity for the next 2 years and put our energy into fixing our fucked up poltical system instead.

So, should Iran also suffer for our error? And those who didn't vote for Bush?

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.

Evidence of Bush Impeachability:
http://www.impeachforpeace.org/evidence/

Has Bush said he was considering using a tactical nuclear weapon against Iran? I don't remember reading or hearing that quote. I won't deny that there is evidence which can be used against Bush for impeachment, I just don't believe impeaching him would bring about any immediate change in our countries policy. The majority of the administration would stay in place, wouldn't they? It would cost a lot of money and would be a lot to endure. If more people in this country made intelligent, informed votes or in many cases, simply voted, we wouldn't have been subjected to Bush's idiocy in the first place. Better to use our resources to get more people to get out and vote and elect people who will do the job they are elected to do.

President Bush has never said that he plans to use tactical nuclear weapons against any country. The closest you could get to such an implication is his saying that "all options are on the table." This amounts to saber-rattling, nothing more.
This is just another in a long list of Liberal Lies.

Liberal Lie? Lay off the Fox News, just for one day.

I don't remember hearing anything about it, from Bush or his critics, until the post in this thread.

Well, I was addressing CasualCrunch's post, not yours. I know you had not heard it. For the record, I think it started when you'd see military strategists on cable news talking about how far beneath the ground Iran has some of their nuclear facilities and what would be necessary to take them out. From there the usual Liberal Suspects took the ball and ran with "Bush is going to nuke Iran." I heard it more than once on Air America and saw it a few times on Liberal Blogs.

CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/ ... index.html

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- [...] Among the options U.S. military officials have been asked to examine is the use of nuclear weapons against underground facilities for Iran's controversial nuclear program.

Hersh talked with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Sunday about the article.
[...]

BLITZER: Here's the most explosive item in your new article in The New Yorker magazine. And I'll read it: "The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites," the nuclear sites in Iran, "little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. 'Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,' the former senior intelligence official said. 'Decisive' is the key word of the Air Force's planning. It's a tough decision, but we made it in Japan."

Now, this is an explosive charge, an explosive revelation, if true, that the United States is seriously considering using a tactical nuclear bomb or bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities.

HERSH: What you just read says this. If you're giving the White House a series of options, and the option is to get rid of an underground facility -- the facility I'm talking about is Natanz, 75 feet under hard rock -- if you want to tell the White House one sure way of getting it in a range of options is nuclear, what happened in this case is they gave that option, the JCS, the Joint Chiefs [of Staff].

And then, of course, nobody in their right mind would want to use a nuclear weapon in the Middle East, because it would be, my God, totally chaotic. When the JCS, the Joint Chiefs, and the planners wanted to walk back that option, what happened is about three or four weeks ago, the White House, people in the White House, in the Oval Office, the vice president's office, said, no, let's keep it in the plan.
[...]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------