Bush Accuses Russia of "disproportionate response"

Another reason that Bush should be impeached is that America has lost its moral authority. Consider the new war between Georgia and Russia.

The roots of this conflict go way back. But on Thursday August 7th Georgia attacked South Ossetia, a breakaway province in the north of Georgia, causing heavy civilian casualties. These were mostly Russian citizens with Russian passports. Russia then responded by invading Georgia with a major military force including tanks, artillery and bombers.

On Sunday Bush accused Russia of a "disproportionate response". It may have been. But American no longer has the moral authority to accuse anyone of a "disproportionate response".

We invaded Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Iraq never even attacked us. We accused them of having the ability to attack us sometime in the future. But that turned out to be a deliberate lie. There is no possible way to consider our invasion of Iraq a "proportionate response" because there was nothing to respond to.

I wish that we could shame other countries into behaving better. But we have violated international law so badly that we can only hope other countries do not follow our example.

Q&A on the Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Powers

Impeachment activists have been pushing John Conyers to move forward with impeachment in the Judiciary Committee. But it is not clear how much authority Conyers has. So I had a chat with someone in the House Office of the Parliamentarians. They are the ultimate authority on procedures in the House. I have tried to summarize their answers below. Any errors are my own.

Q1: What is the difference between a real impeachment hearing and the hearing on Friday 7/25?

A1: The difference is simply the question before the committee. The question Friday was "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations". It would have been insulting and off-topic (out of order) to suddenly accuse President Bush of a specific crime in that Friday hearing. So the testimony was very circumspect. But if the question before the committee was "Did Bush commit impeachable offense X" then witnesses could simply say "Bush did X".

Conyers currently has the authority to convene a hearing on a specific question of impeachment.


Q2: Why did Conyers refer to needing approval from the House in order to conduct a real impeachment inquiry.

A2: Approval from the House would give the Committee special powers that they do not normally have. These include the power to conduct field investigation and depose witnesses in the field under oath. These transcripts could be submitted as evidence. They would also have a letter from Congress that would make it easier to interview witnesses in foreign countries. These powers would all be handy when impeaching a President and one would expect the Committee to seek those powers if they wanted to impeach. But Conyers has the authority to proceed without those powers. They can currently conduct hearings on impeachment and place witnesses under oath.

[Blogger's opinion: I see an analogy with going fishing. You can go fishing without a pole and I have caught a fish with my bare hands. But if you are serious about catching a fish then you will probably want to use a pole. To impeach Bush for lying about Iraq, or on torture or Plame-gate then Conyers will probably want to do deep investigations and would want the powers that come from House approval. But Conyers does not need special powers to impeach Bush for refusing to comply with subpoenas. In this case the fish are jumping into the boat.]


Q3: Does Conyers need any other approval before drafting Articles of Impeachment and submitting them to the House?

A3: No. The "committee has that authority".


Q4: How can the House vote on individual Articles of Impeachment if they are submitted as a single Resolution.

A4: The House can "divide the question" and vote on it in parts.

you say we want a revolution

This is a letter I wrote to Dan Gainor at the "Business and Media Institute". They are an extremely well funded (mega$) think tank dedicated to countering "liberal bias" in the media.

Hello Dan,

I stumbled upon your article "Left-Wing Cry of 'Revolution' More than Same Old Song".

I know personally some of the people you mentioned in that article. I think you were partly correct in your analysis. But also partly wildly off the mark.

It is true that sometimes we "liberals" use the term "revolution". But we use it to mean a significant change in direction, not a violent act. Many liberals see America as heading down the road toward corporate sponsored dictatorship. We would like to reverse that direction and restore government by and for the people as created by our Founding Fathers.

You ended your article with "too many lefties really want a revolution to destroy pretty much everything America has always epitomized – freedom, individuality and traditional values". Nothing could be further than the truth. I don't know any liberal that feels that way. I think you are creating division where there is none.

I think both liberals and conservatives value freedom, security and other traditional values. We just disagree sometimes on how to achieve those goals. To say that we have different goals is unproductive and just makes conservatives hate liberals for no reason.

In many ways, liberals are seeking a "conservative" revolution. We want to preserve American freedoms as expressed in the Constitution. Some liberals want to return to the days when food was grown locally by small farmers and was uncontaminated by chemicals. We want to return to the days when the President was not above the law. These are traditional American values.

Let's put our heads together and figure out to reach these common goals together.

Cheney Begs to be Impeached

Cheney is doing everything he can to resist oversight by Congress. John Conyers recently invited Cheney's Chief of Staff to appear at a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Cheney's lawyers responded that the legislative power and inquiry powers are both limited. They said "For example, Congress lacks the constitutional power to regulate by a law what a Vice President communicates in the performance of the Vice President's official duties, or what a Vice President recommends that a President communicate in the President's performance of official duties, and therefore those matters are not within the Committee's power of inquiry."

But they are forgetting another power that Congress has: the power to impeach!

The only way that Conyers is going to get anything out of Cheney or his minions is if Conyers starts impeachment investigations. And if Cheney resists then he can be impeached for interposing "the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives." That charge was from the 3rd Article of Impeachment against Nixon.

You can read Cheney's letter here.

Letter in Support of NH HR24

The New Hampshire legislature is considering a resolution that urges Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney. More info here:

http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/state_nh.html

Here is a letter I wrote in support of this action:

Please support HR24, which urges Congress to impeach Bushy and Cheney.

The President and every elected American official takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.

When there is strong evidence that the President has failed in his oath of office then Congress has the power to impeach. With that power comes a responsibility to use that power when necessary.

When Congress fails to fulfill their oath of office by not impeaching then it is the responsibility of every elected official to defend the Constitution by petitioning Congress to impeach.

When almost every elected official seems to ignore their oath, with the exception of NH Representative Betty Hall and other patriots, then it is the responsibility of every American citizen to raise their voices and call for impeachment. That is why I am writing this letter.