|
President Bush says he's "moved on" and that the "case is closed"
with regards to those "sixteen words" in his SOTU. Fine. What
about these 71 from the same speech?
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX
nerve agent. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had
upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.
We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a
growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be
used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad
areas."
To date, not a single
UAV has been found, or drop of CBWs, or any munitions capable of
delivering said weapons. Is the CIA responsible for those words as
well? What about these
26, also from the same speech?
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and
statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein
aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."
To date, not a shred of
evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known
terrorist organizations (besides certain Palestinian groups who
represent no direct threat to the US) have been revealed.
And then there are these 20:
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted
to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear
weapons production."
The IAEA as well as
dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for
nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.
The CIA has assumed tepid responsibility for not insisting Bush
remove the sixteen words about British evidence of Hussein's
alleged attempts to purchase uranium from Africa. (Since when does
the US go to war on the basis of British intel anyway?)
Fine. Bush, however,
must take responsibility for the rest his words, all 117 of which
were lies. Lies that have resulted in the deaths of over two
hundred American GIs, the wounding of at least 1,046, and the
senseless killing of more than six thousand innocent Iraqi
civilians. If this doesn't qualify as impeachable (and even
indictable) high crimes and misdemeanors, then nothing does.
Perri Green
Los Angeles, CA
A New Beginning: A Practical Course in Miracles
1
INTRODUCTION
2
HISTORY OF COMMERCE
3 RESPONSIBILITY
4
REDEMPTION
5
POWER OF ACCEPTANCE
6
BEING A DIPLOMAT
7
BEING A SOVEREIGN
8
PRIVATE BANKING
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT
George W. Bush committed high crimes, which disqualify him from serving as the
President of the United States of America. Bush violated the law trading Harken stock
as an insider and then lied under oath to cover up this crime. Bush also
lied under oath to cover up crimes in the Texas "Funeralgate" scandal.
Bush thereby committed perjury and obstructed justice. Bush improperly
interfered with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to benefit
his patron, Kenneth Lay of Enron. This illegal quid pro quo is graft.
Bush directed his representatives to deceive the UN Security Council and
the Congress in violation of US and international law. Bush's pattern of
criminal deception shattered US credibility and requires impeachment. Bush
lost the 2000 election. Bush lost the popular vote and the media
consortium determined that Al Gore received the most legal votes in
Florida.
The US Civil Rights Commission determined that Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris
and other Republican operatives violated the US Voting Rights Act. Under
Florida law and the US Constitution, Gore won the election.
The US Supreme Court decision halting the full, fair vote count amounts to
a coup against America led by Bush. These illegal actions subverted the
rule of law. Impeachment and removal from office is the appropriate remedy
for individuals implicated in these crimes. Bush is leading the most
aggressive assaults against the Constitution in American History. Bush
ordered limits on freedom imposing "First Amendment zones," herding
protesters into pens.
Bush's Orwellian "Patriot Act" guts the Bill of Rights and the
Constitution, arrogating power to the White House. "Patriot" criminalized
dissent by broadening the definition of terrorism to merely questioning
Bush.
Now, Bush and the top Republicans are preparing "Patriot II." These
attacks against the American republic require impeachment and removal from
office of Bush, Cheney, the Republican leadership in Congress, and the
five Supreme Court appointees and all others who aided the Bush Coup.
WHY IMPEACHMENT?
1. What are your reasons for impeachment?
You can read the summary on the homepage, but it boils down to a few key
concepts: perjury, fraud, and abuse of the U.S. Constitution. There are
many other possible grounds for impeachment, including war crimes and
theories regarding 911, but this site doesn't discuss them. We have sought
to concentrate on the most easily provable high-crimes and misdemeanors.
If you supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton, you have no choice but
to support the impeachment of GW Bush. Or you must admit you are a
hypocrite. If you opposed the impeachment of Clinton, we seek to prove
that the pattern of deception employed by Bush and his administration, and
the culture of lies emanating from these deceptions, do constitute high
crimes, and are wreaking havoc on our nation's standing in the world.
2. What is impeachment exactly?
Impeachment is the process of calling something into question, as in
"impeaching the testimony of a witness." (2) The constitutional process
whereby the House of Representatives may "impeach" (accuse of misconduct)
high officers of the federal government for trial in the Senate for the
commission of "high crimes or misdemeanors."
3. What exactly is a high crime or misdemeanor?
This is a subject open to interpretation. There are two schools of
thought. Under both Bush is impeachable.
The first is that a High Crime was a term describing crime committed by a
person in high office, not a "serious crime" which is how it is being
taken today. And a misdemeanor could be literally any crime at all.
The second view holds that the founders reserved impeachment only for the
most serious abuses of the office, allowing other abuses to be addressed
at election time or through the standard court system.
We believe a pattern of serial perjuries in matters both domestic and war
related are a serious abuse of the office of the presidency.
4. Why wasn't Bush brought to justice for the Harken perjuries before
he was elected president?
The sad fact of the matter is that these crimes occurred under the watch
of his father, Bush 41, and his father's political appointees failed to
prosecute these cases properly.
5. What do people mean exactly when they talk about 'the rule of law?'
Why should the president be hampered by laws?
Under the rule of law, the people make laws that applies equally to
everyone--the government included. The rule then governs the people.
In order for the Rule to govern, the administration must have less power
than the people and no single part of the administration can have the
power to effect change by itself. This is also called the balance of
powers, or checks and balances.
Legislative changes after 911 have upset the constitutional balance of
powers, and centralized great power within the office of the president,
who has the ability to effect change by himself. The rule no longer
governs us. A person governs us. This rule-of-a-person is called
despotism.
6. What has Bush done to the constitution of the united states? How has
his administration changed the rules set forth in the constitution?
The Patriot Act and it's looming successor, deny American citizens their
civil rights to due process in the name of protecting us from terror.
Patriot creates a broadly defined new crime of domestic terrorism. We
oppose this definition of terrorism because it is unnecessary and could be
used to prosecute dissidents.
Under federal law there are already three definitions of terrorism -
international terrorism, terrorism transcending national borders and
federal terrorism. The September 11th attacks violated all three of these
laws.
Under Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act, a person commits the crime of
domestic terrorism if within the U.S. they engage in activity that
involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United
States or any State and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce
a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government
by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.
The Administration has not adequately explained why this new crime should
be created or why the definitions in existing anti-terrorism laws are
insufficient. This over-broad terrorism definition would sweep in people
who engage in acts of political protest if those acts were dangerous to
human life. People associated with organizations such as Operation Rescue
and the Environmental Liberation Front, and the World Trade Organization
protesters, have engaged in activities that could subject them to
prosecution as terrorists.
Under the USA PATRIOT Act, once the government decides that conduct is
"domestic terrorism," law enforcement agents have the authority to charge
anyone who provides assistance to that person, even if the assistance is
an act as minor as providing lodging. They would have the authority to
wiretap the home of anyone who is providing assistance. Also, the
government could prosecute the person who provided their home under a new
crime of "harboring" a terrorist (Section 803) or for "providing material
support" to "terrorists."
We do not oppose the criminal prosecution of people who commit acts of
civil disobedience if those acts result in property damage or place people
in danger. That type of behavior is already illegal and perpetrators of
these crimes can be prosecuted and subjected to serious penalties.
However, such crimes often are not "terrorism." The legislative response
to terrorism should not turn ordinary citizens into terrorists.
Support the petition for an independent
investigation of the Lies of the Bush Administration.
In his State of the Union Address, George W. Bush told us of an imminent
threat. It was only a huge lie, not the first and probably not the
last. This is not about "just 16 words." Going to war with
another nation is obviously a life and death issue. Telling not only one
lie, but many lies, George W. Bush and his associates caused the death of
thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, Iraqi soldiers, and hundreds of
American soldiers, caused the destruction of the infrastructure of a
sovereign people, violated Generva Conventions and Nuremburg principles,
committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, and violated
international law, especially the Charter of the United Nations. Since the
US is a signatory to most international laws, their ratification by the
Senate has also made these laws, the law of the land. Therefore, George W
Bush has violated numerous Federal laws. By fabricating or misrepresenting
intelligence data on terrorism, such as WMD in Iraq, Top level officials
of the Bush Administration, including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice,
Powell, Perle, Wolfowitz and other have committed FELONY CLASS violations
of the U.S.A. Patriot Act and should be punished under their own creation.
H. R. 3162 - U.S.A. Patriot Act ... conveys or causes to be conveyed false
information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or
alleged attempt being made or to be made, to do any act which would be a
crime prohibited by this subsection
GOP's Double Standard On Presidential Lies
AMERICAN SOLDIERS continue to die in Iraq, and the Republicans do not want
us to know why. In a 51-45 vote, the Republican-led Senate this week
rejected a proposal for an independent, bipartisan commission to
investigate the claims Bush used to justify his invasion of Iraq. The
senator who made the proposal, Democrat Jon Corzine of New Jersey, said,
''Each day, we have failed to have an accounting ... of what really
happened.''
Five years ago the
Republicans found President Clinton's lying about sex to be so dreadfully
wrong that they voted to impeach him in the House. Clinton survived, but
not before the Republicans hurled all kinds of pejoratives at Clinton's
perjuries
Former Iraqi Official Unveils U.S.-Iraq Secret Ties:
Former Iraqi diplomat revealed that the U.S. had given the toppled
Iraqi president Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated espionage equipment.
The Bush Family Fortunes:
In case you mussed it! The BBC and Greg Palast, Investigate
the Bush scandals
Massive Security Breach: America's top spy catcher
quit in the midst of a secret investigation into how Saddam and Osama bin
Laden obtained state-of-the-art U.S. spy software--Daddy Bush Gave It Away
The software is claimed to enable the two most wanted men in the world to
avoid capture because it can pin-point their every move.
|
The Unauthorized Biography of George H.W. Bush
by Tarpley and Chaitkin
April
14, 2004
Bush reveals
his Zionist treachery
as he changes course,
endorses Sharon's plan
Best buddies with the butcher of Zion. Bush backs 55
years of violation of International Law and false promises by Zionist
Israel. See
commentary by Xymphora
Undercutting the 9/11 Inquiry
It's hard to believe that everything related to the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks will not get the most thorough public scrutiny possible. But the
federal investigative committee so reluctantly supported by the White
House now seems in danger of being undermined. As the first hearings
open in Manhattan today, committee members are chagrined to be going hat
in hand to Congress for adequate financing. White House assurances led
them to believe needed funds would be included in the supplemental war
budget sent to the Capitol last week. But the commission's $11 million
request was not there. Why do you suppose they are unwilling to
fund the investigation of the "Attack on America?"
Reasonable people might wonder if the White House, having failed in its
initial attempt to have Henry Kissinger steer the investigation, may be
resorting to budgetary starvation as a tactic to hobble any politically
fearless inquiry. The committee's mandate includes scrutiny of
intelligence failures and eight other government areas. What does the
Bush administration have to hide?
The White House vows that in coming budget initiatives there will be no
short-changing of the nation's duty to face the facts of the tragedy. As
things now stand, $3 million budgeted as start-up funding could run out
this summer. An estimated $14 million is needed for the task of finding
out precisely how the attackers were able to pull off their complex,
coordinated plot in which nearly 3,000 people died. This seems a bargain
given the importance of the mission. By comparison, the inquiry into the
shuttle disaster's loss of seven lives may cost an estimated $40
million, and the inquiry into the Whitewater controversy ate up more
than $30 million. The nation demands an unflinching 9/11 search.
A forthright Congress could easily shake the money loose from the
Capitol leadership. Everyone claims to have homeland security as a top
priority, but anything less than a robust inquiry will amount to a fresh
assault on domestic safety. Tim Roemer, a former congressman and a
commission member now buttonholing old colleagues for the missing money,
makes the case best: "Facing the facts won't kill us. Not getting them
might."
[What is it about Osama bin Laden that he could get the US Air Force to
stand down when four jumbo jets were hijacked within minutes of each
other? How could our ally, Pakistan, allow its chief of
intelligence and security forces to send $100,000 to the post-humously
designated leader of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, without our
knowledge? or response? How could the "hijackers" obtain training at
military bases in the US without raising suspicions? Why was the
President allowed to enter a vulnerable publicly-announced photo-op so
near a large airport when the Secret Service already knew that four
planes had been hijacked and one had already hit the World Trade Center?
Wasn't he a logical target, too? Responsible voters of the Republic
would like to know.]
John Leonard
What Can You Do?
Contact your Congress people and Senators
Please contact your representatives (both of your state's senators and
your district's congressperson) and let them know you support the
impeachment of GW Bush. If you agree with our reasons for impeachment, you
can print them out, sign them, and mail them to your representative.
We do not suggest using email. Email form letters generated by databases
are highly suspect pieces of content (think about the spam in your
mailbox.) a printed letter--even a form letter, with a handwritten
signature and address has much much more impact. it must be opened by a
person, it has physical weight. It will cost you fifty to sixty cents to
put this note together. Like this movement, it is real.
If you have never done this before, please do it now. And in your letter,
add a paragraph about that, that this is the first thing that you have
felt strongly enough about to act on.
And remind your representative that you are a registered voter in their
district.
You can find your
congressperson's contact info by clicking here.
You can find your senators contact info by clicking here.
Write Letters to the Editor
Also a no-brainer. Summarize the arguments on this site or use your own
words. We'll put up a boilerplate letter here over the next few days to
help you out.
Talk to your Conservative and Republican
Friends about the Impeachment movement
Ok, so you may not have any Republican friends--but I know you have
friends who don't vote, friends who think there is no difference between
the parties, friends who are apathetic and 'apolitical.'
You need to let them know that something extraordinary has happened. GW
Bush is not really a Republican. He is the mouthpiece of a smaller cadre,
a cell with a cell, of the GOP. Long time, traditional GOP members, who
are simply voting for the party their fathers voted for, are deluding
themselves if they think the man in the white house cares for anything
they truly hold dear.
Budget deficits from the tax-cuts, war, and reconstruction of Iraq
virtually guarantee that this administration will have no choice but to
inflate the currency to dig themselves out of the current fiscal mess.
This isn't a conservative idea. This is piracy.
Why did the US and UK commit blood and treasure in
Iraq? Israel seeks pipeline for Iraqi oil -- US discusses plan to pump
fuel to its regional ally and solve energy headache at a stroke
Sunday April 20, 2003
Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to
Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential
future government figures in Baghdad.
The plan envisages the reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since
the end of the British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from
Iraq's northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria.
Now, its resurrection would transform economic power in the region,
bringing revenue to the new US-dominated Iraq, cutting out Syria and
solving Israel's energy crisis at a stroke.
Impeach Bush
Editorials and Information on how to Impeach Bush
WHITE HOUSE RELEASES NEW IRAQ NUCLEAR INTELLIGENCE
Reuters, July 18
On Friday, the White House released declassified intelligence documents
that were intended to show that there was evidence that Iraq was seeking
to build nuclear weapons. But that effort backfired when a footnote in the
document from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research
pointed out that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa
are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious." (Reuters, July 18; link below)
THE NEXT DEBATE: AL QAEDA LINK
July 20
The Bush administration's claim that there's a link between Saddam and al
Qaeda is now falling apart too (though there wasn't much of a public case
to start with). In an editorial yesterday, two senior intelligence
officials wrote: "As members of the National Security Council staff from
1994 to 1999, we closely examined nearly a decade's worth of intelligence
and we became convinced, like many of our colleagues in the intelligence
community, that the religious radicals of Al Qaeda and the secularists of
Baathist Iraq simply did not trust one another or share sufficiently
compelling interests to work together. But Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld promised that the Bush administration had "bulletproof evidence"
of a Qaeda-Iraq link, and Secretary of State Colin Powell made a similar
case to the United Nations. Such claims now look as questionable as the
allegation that Iraq was buying uranium in Niger." (New York Times, July
20)
WHITE HOUSE DIDN'T GAIN CIA NOD FOR CLAIM ON IRAQI STRIKES
Washington Post, July 20. President Bush twice made the claim that
Iraq was ready to deploy WMDs in 45 minutes or less. That claim has now
been discredited by the British government, and the White House now claims
that it did not seek CIA approval before using the data. As the Washington
Post reported on the 19th, "an adviser to the Bush administration on arms
issues said last week that such weapons were not ready to be used on short
notice." (Washington Post, July 20)
PRESIDENT REAFFIRMS STRONG POSITION ON LIBERIA
July 14
In an amazing departure from reality, President Bush explained in a press
conference on the 14th that "we gave [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow
the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a
reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power . . . " Inspectors
were, of course, on the ground in Iraq for over three months, until they
were pulled out because the U.S. was going to war. (White House, July 14)
To our Conservative Friends: You can stop trying to defend the
indefensible.
The puppet masters
have. It's a pointless exercise that can only be a further embarrassment.
The "Mad Dogs" of the Bush Administration will be collared or put down,
but they will have done their work for the Powers in the Shadow. Iraq will
have been carved up and put on the auction block at bargain prices. The
ultra-rich will be richer....and more powerful. It will be time to bring
forward "more reasonable" public officials to more quietly carry on the
Illuminatist agenda with all the Mad Dog booty stashed in their
international portfolios. There is precedence for this very successful
pattern of problem followed by a ready made solution--just like the voting
problems in Florida in 2000 followed by a Bush Push for voting
machines secretly programmed to deliver elections on demand.
Notice the
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have
already asked for Cheney's resignation in this affair. If you remember
the patterns of history, Spiro Agnew was asked to resign because of
corruption while governor of Maryland. He was replaced by a compliant
Gerald Ford who had overseen the Warren Commission's whitewash of the JFK
assassination. Then when Nixon was impeached and forced to resign, Gerald
Ford as president appointed Nelson Rockefeller to the Vice Presidency. All
of this was possible because the Rockefellers had sought and won the
passage and ratification of the 25th Amendment 1967 following
the assassination of JFK. Ford barely survived three assassination
attempts even though he was a high ranking member of Illuminati
organization. Nelson Rockefeller was a member of a powerful Illumatist
family.
Today it's Cheney,
perhaps tomorrow, in the interest of "healing the wounds of the country
and in the interest of bipartisanship" Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV)
would be appointed to the vice-presidency. You see the picture?
Nixon was
unseated because of the revelations of "Deep Throat" who was probably in
the government, perhaps the intelligence services. Today Deep Throat
is being replaced by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity who are
the retired spokesmen for those in the intelligence services who are not
allowed to speak out publicly. Therefore, if the patterns of the past are
an indication, Bush will either be impeached and forced to resign, or be
eliminated as was attempted with Ford.
There are other related scenarios
but this one seems very plausible. Then the Rockefellers will finally have
their own in the Presidency. Or they could take a ready and willing
surrogate such as
Skull and Bonesman,
Senator John Kerry (D-MA), if they don't feel
confident that John D. Rockefeller IV would be acceptable. Kerry would
oversee the establishment of the
New World Order. He was one of the
original advocates of Homeland Security. Kerry could also appoint Senator
Rockefeller as Vice President...
That's when the UN
would come in handy, since the UN is a creation of the Rockefeller family.
The NY Times, Washington Post (who did Bernstein and Woodward work for?),
and most other news media are owned or controlled by them and their
associates and will be fully supportive of the change. Bush will have
discredited the conservatives leaving the way open for the Rockefellers to
establish the fascist/socialist New World Order.
Do you know the term,
"Good Cop, Bad Cop?" Many Americans will think it's such a relief after
the Bush family escapades that most people will welcome the New World
Order even as it seeks to round them up and cull the herd. It's been
their plan for a very long time, long before the Club of Rome, Limits
to Growth and Zero Population Growth. Bush and Cheney are no
less dispensable than Nixon and Agnew.
Don't put too much
energy into Bush and Cheney holding power or into venomous partisan
attacks on the Democrats. Partisanship is the windmill you tilt with
to your exhaustion and dismay.. Anthony Sutton said it well, "Sooner or
later people will wake up. First we have to dump the trap of right and
left, this is a Hegelian trap to divide and control. The battle is not
between right and left; it is between us (individuals) and them (the
state).
|
Queen
Victoria
