Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Breaking: Articles of Impeachment filed

Posted by Jan Frel at 3:46 PM on December 8, 2006.


Jan Frel: Rep. Cynthia McKinney charges that President Bush is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

I just got this newsflash from journalist Matt Pascarella:

On Monday, gathering in a conference room in Washington D.C., Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and her advisors worked on a draft copy of the articles of impeachment against President Bush.

At the heart of the charges contained in McKinney's articles of impeachment, is the allegation that President Bush has not upheld the oath of presidential office and is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I states that President Bush has failed to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. Specifically cited in this article is the charge that Bush has manipulated intelligence and lied to justify war: "George Walker Bush ... in preparing the invasion of Iraq, did withhold intelligence from the Congress, by refusing to provide Congress with the full intelligence picture that he was being given, by redacting information ... and actively manipulating the intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons programs by pressuring the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies."

This manipulation of intelligence was done, the charge continues, "with the intent to misinform the people and their representatives in Congress in order to gain their support for invading Iraq, denying both the people and their representatives in Congress the right to make an informed choice."

Article II, "Abuse of office and of executive privilege," states that President Bush has disregarded his oath of office by "obstructing and hindering the work of Congressional investigative bodies and by seeking to expand the scope of the powers of his office." The President has "failed to take responsibility for, investigate or discipline those responsible for an ongoing pattern of negligence, incompetence and malfeasance to the detriment of the American people."

This article continues by indicting Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in their actions to manipulate or "fix" intelligence and mislead the public about Iraq's weapons programs. Ultimately, this article calls not only for Bush's impeachment and removal from office but also asks the same actions to be taken against Cheney and Rice.

Article III states that President Bush has failed to "ensure the laws are faithfully executed" and that he has "violated the letter and spirit of laws and rules of criminal procedure used by civilian and military courts, and has violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that carry out the law."

Specifically, McKinney cites illegal domestic spying as a result of failing to obtain warrants thereby subverting congress and the judiciary in the process: "... by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act courts established by Congress, whose express purpose is to check such abuses of executive power, provoking the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to file a complaint and another judge to resign in protest, the said program having been subsequently ruled illegal; he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of spying on American citizens from the people and all but a few of their representatives in Congress, even resorting to outright public deceit."

The article continues by citing public statements Bush has made that were blatantly contradictory to his policy and actions regarding domestic spying.

While the staff was editing the document, one advisor told me, "As we sat down and worked on this, a pattern became very clear ... a pattern to specifically undermine the constitution and establish a unitary presidency."

The charges addressed in McKinney's resolution are nothing revelatory or new. Rather, they are issues which have been in the public eye for quite some time and have increasingly been covered in the media over the last year.

Despite winning the congressional majority, the Democrats have yet to put forth a plan to investigate what have become somewhat ubiquitous allegations.

Speaker-elect, Representative Pelosi, dismissed any possibility of impeachment, saying it is "off the table" and that it is "a waste of time ... making them lameducks is good enough for me." Although, in the November election, 60% of the voters in her own district cast ballots in favor of Proposition J, a measure calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

In 2005 Representative John Conyers sponsored a resolution, HR 365, to create a special committee to investigate allegations against the Bush Administration - a move that would likely lead to the discovery of impeachable offenses. This resolution was passed to the House Committee on Rules and was never brought up for a vote.

At that time it was widely believed that if the Democrats took control of congress, Conyers would reintroduce the resolution as would have subpoena power if selected as leader of the House Judiciary Committee.

A few days after the Democrats won control Conyers echoed Pelosi's statement saying, "I am in total agreement with her on this issue ... impeachment is off the table." Last week a spokesperson from Conyers office said that the resolution would not be reintroduced and that the Representative had no intention to pursue the matter.

Will other members of congress support the action Congresswoman McKinney has brought forth?

At the table in what could be considered her impeachment "war room" the question is brought up a number of times.

Mike, an advisor to McKinney, mentions, "Conyers was supposed to have investigations. They were chomping at the bit 6 months ago to do subpoenas."

McKinney quietly replies, "Now they say they aren't even going to issue subpoenas."

Looking up from her papers she takes a deep breath, "I'm going in alone on this one because now it is all about them playing majority politics."

This is McKinney's last week as a member of congress and this act, to impeach the president, is the final resolution she will enter into the Congressional record.

For those who know anything about Cynthia McKinney it may come as no surprise that she would file this resolution as her parting gift to Congress.

McKinney is no stranger to being attacked by the media and has been isolated from her own party.

From her inquiries into election fraud in 2000 to her calls for a transparent and thorough investigation into 9-11, not to mention the widely covered run-in she had with the Capitol Hill Police, the congresswoman is aware that this resolution will likely be ignored and that she will be ruthlessly attacked upon its filing.

"What do you think they are going to do to me this time?" she asks her staff. Everyone uncomfortably shifts in their seats and after no answer comes McKinney explains, "We have to do this because this is simply the right thing to do. The American people do want to hold this man and his office accountable for the crimes they have committed and if no member of congress is willing to do it, than I will."

It is questionable as to how effective this move could be in gaining support because of her reputation as a firebrand congresswoman and because, ultimately, she is on her way out of office.

The Congresswoman and her staff realize this but hope that by filing the articles of impeachment it will, at the very least, open up a discussion on whether or not President Bush and key members of his administration have committed impeachable offenses and whether our officials should be held to account.

"My duty as a member of Congress is merely to uphold and preserve the constitution and to represent the will of my constituency. Ultimately, it isn't up to me or any other member of congress - it is up to the American people to decide."

Matt Pascarella is a freelance journalist & producer who was present during the drafting of the Articles of Impeachment that Congresswoman McKinney filed today.

Digg!

Tagged as: impeachment, mckinney

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.


More Right-Wing Whining Over Media's Coverage of Sarah Palin
Ho-hum, the poor misunderstood woman.
Post by Eric Boehlert. July 10, 2009.
Hey Netherlands: Fox "News" Hates You! (VIDEO)
Oh, it's not just the pot and the hookers ...
Post by PZ Myers. July 10, 2009.
Hitler, Darwin and the Sasquatch
They're all inter-related, you know.
Post by General JC Christian. July 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Richard Searcy:
Posted by: rwa on Dec 8, 2006 4:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although democrats and progressive Americans are firmly against the war, it's hardly evidenced in the Democratic Party itself. Party leaders from Hillary Clinton to John Kerry to Nancy Pelosi have all capitulated to evil and held hands with Bush as he marched America off to the worst military blunder in American history, and they all claim that they were fooled by Bush trickery. But Cynthia McKinney was not fooled by Bush or his trickery. Why is that? What gave McKinney that much more insight and intelligent interpretation into the trickery of the Bush Administration than almost the entire Democratic Party? Today, the entire world knows the crime of this illegal and immoral attack on a small and virtually unarmed nation, and America is paying dearly for it with our loss of influence, stature, and respect throughout planet earth. America is no longer "the leader of the free world" and the "coalition of the willing" that Bush touted at the onset of this slaughter of innocents, has dwindled to almost nothing but brave American men and women doing the dying. Bin Laden is still unaccounted for, and America has been fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq longer than World War II lasted.

Of course, none of those doing the dying or getting blown apart are the sons and daughters of the politicians who sent them there. McKinney has spent her time in and out of office speaking for the mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, of those who are actually doing the dying, not for the corporations who control the politicians who sent them there. She not only challenges the funding of the war, but she speaks truth to the theft of billions of dollars, 21 billion at last count, that is being stolen from US taxpayers right under their noses.

At the massive anti-war rally that was held in Washington, DC last year, how many Members of Congress had the courage to show up, take to the podium, and speak truth to the war on Iraq? Cynthia McKinney did. Ask yourself how many others were there speaking to the sentiments of their constituents, including the Congressional Black Caucus whose constituents have been against this war more than any other demographic in America? This is the "crime" of Cynthia McKinney.
http://www.cynthiaforcon gress.com/blog.php?id=51

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ichard Searcy: Posted by: willymack
The McKinney version of Scalia's chin(s) wave?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Dec 8, 2006 5:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, if she's made herself such an unpopular embarrassment with her constituency that they fired her, perhaps these were either amends or just a giant FU2 to the Grand Poobah.

Kudos to Pelosi and the gang for stopping the (absolutely undeserved) Congressional pay raises. That's one hell of a start down a fiscally responsible road. Let's hope some of our Congresscritters continue to remember what being a public servant is, rather than choosing sides among the Parties of Money and Power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Impeachment? Now? Wouldn't be prudent.
Posted by: waynels on Dec 8, 2006 5:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Inasmuch as Ms. McKinney has been repudiated by her own constituents, it appears that her 'parting shot' is only a bit of "spleen venting." From my perspective, there is no doubt that BushandCo deserve impeachment; however, Reality Politics dictate that the option is, wisely, off the table. I recommend David Corn's take on the subject as spot on. Refer to his website for the article or go to tompaine.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LET'S START WITH HEARINGS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Dec 8, 2006 6:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Iraq Study Group seems to be first, a wake up call to Americans that our President has failed us miserably. Secondly, it addresses Iraq. This report will be filed with the 9/11 Commission Report. We know what happened to that. If Americans want to make changes in Iraq we first have to change things in the White House. Our military and the people of Iraq are at the mercy of people who want to kill them and a man who has no conscience or morals. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Treason Can't Be Ignored
Posted by: rwa on Dec 8, 2006 8:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone needs to get on the phones and remind he new Congress that they were put into power with a clear mandate from the people.
END THE WAR

IMPEACH THE MEN WHO LIED US INTO THE WAR.

Nancy Pelosi is a traitor to the nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Treason Can't Be Ignored Posted by: sheena2u
"Impeach???"
Posted by: ~Fiona~ on Dec 8, 2006 11:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I personally won't be happy until All of the criminals (including the worms Rove, Libby and especially Gonzellas) are in jail for a very long time... Let's say about two lifetimes; that might be a nice start.

Simply removing these monsters from office isn't nearly enough, they need to pay for thier crimes against humanity and bringing the world to brink of distruction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Impeach???" Posted by: willymack
uphold thelaw/constituion, or cherry pick?
Posted by: phindrup on Dec 9, 2006 3:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This piece along with various other items that I have seen establish clearly that the Bush administration is in breach of the law, international law and the constitution. Certainly to the extent that they must face some forum capable of judging the matter.
If the Democrats do not pursue impeachment, or whatever other options are open to them, how are they any better than Bush’s outfit?
Either the law/constitution is there to be upheld, or they are worthless. If, for political reasons or otherwise, parties, and or politicians are permitted to pick and choose what they will, or will not uphold, you have no rule of law.
On pragmatic grounds alone Bush’s outfit ought to be prosecuted. If they were convicted, declared criminals, the US might, just might, gather a few ragged threads of credibility throughout the world.
What is absolutely certain at the moment is that you have no credibility, little, if any influence and no effective power. The timescale for the US to regain any of the above is not years, probably not even tens of years, but prosecution of Bush and Co would at least provide a leg up.
It seems to me that the only way the American people can tell the world that they were wrong — reelecting Bush changed the situation from a rogue administration, to a rogue nation — is to prosecute Bush.
To fail to do so tells the world that the US population still believes that they can do no wrong. This could prove to be a disastrous image to project.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Road to Perdition
Posted by: shangrilalad on Dec 9, 2006 5:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reagan wasn’t impeached for his dirty little war in Nicaragua and as a consequence the Military Industrial Complex grew stronger. Democrats then and now covered up a multitude of crimes, including genocide at the behest of America’s plutocracy. Which means the Military Industrial Complex will again grow stronger. Which means militarism, perpetual wars and perpetual profits for those who own the Military Industrial Complex are assured. Our leaders are rushing to fascism for profit.

The rule of law doesn’t apply to plutocrats because our lawmakers have been bribed into granting them immunity. Can anyone see a good outcome if we continue along this road to perdition, madness, economic collapse and moral depravity?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: oad to Perdition sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
THANK YOU Cynthia
Posted by: FAITHCARR on Dec 9, 2006 5:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank You Cynthia McKinney. The opening salvo for Iimpeachment, Indictment, and freedom in the battle for America's future.

We The People do not need an "elected" politician to lead us in our desire for Truth, Justice and the American Way. We need strength, and outspoken passionate leadership. None of the worlds greatest leaders for justice, honesty, freedom and peace. were elected. Yet they led social revolutions that changed the face of the world. Jefferson,and Washington in 1776, Mandela, Ghandi, King, Mother Theresa, Cady Stanton, Susan B. Betty Fridan, and yes, Jesus.

Cythia can do more, achieve more, focus more, without the corrupting, co-opting power of electoral politics. Cythia, shake the clinging corrupt dust of congress from your sandels and move forward the sword of truth is your walking stick.

Lead us, we are here. Ready and waiting. There are more of us than one might think.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Like the TV ad for Fram oil filters says, "You can sign it now or sign it later" and pay more
Posted by: amacd on Dec 9, 2006 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, Cynthia, I'll sign on now.

The Iraq war is going no where. It's not going to be stopped by 'normal means'. The ISG fig leaf of bipartisanship is not going to stop this war. Nothing is going to stop it except the American people --- and it will be tough even for all of us together, because this Iraq war is not a normal American war.

However much the ISG report represents a shock to some Americans of how wrong the Iraq war currently is, and dangles hope that bipartisanship may partially right this wrong, most Americans' will be far more shocked to discover that their sovereign rights to control their own government do not extend to the imperial oil-war in Iraq.

The real, and yet unrevealed, reason that the Iraq war can’t be stopped is that it is not a war being prosecuted by the US ‘government’ in any normal sense.

The Iraq oil-war is a war of empire being waged by global economic interests, particularly by energy, arms and financial interests, but more generally by the entrenched ‘old economy’ elite that controls the faux-bipartisan political process that they have purchased.

The ISG report even gives a hint of this truth when it states that beyond the sacrifice of American blood and treasure, and beyond the already loaded term ‘American interests’, the real threat of chaos and failure in Iraq is to “the global economy” and ‘global economic interests’.

Yes, Cynthia, the House should follow articles of impeachment with thorough investigation, and just removal of Bush by the Senate. And then, Cynthia, the American people should learn of and remove all those Senators and Representative posing as representatives of the people, who have really sold our democracy to this global corporate elite empire --- and retain only brave and true representatives of the people like you.

Maybe that way we can still correct and reverse Franklin's precient warning about our then new republic, "we have a republic, now if we can keep it" (from devloving into the killer of all republics and democracies --- empire).

Today, we have already lost it once to global empire --- "now if we can recover it"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keep it Simple
Posted by: yesca on Dec 9, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
G.W.Bush and co., through lies and deceptions,are responsible for many more deaths of innocent people than Osama Bin Laden.
Why should they not be held accountable and tried for their actions?
Keep it simple.
All the political B.S. and deceptive manipulations is what got us here in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Keep it Simple Posted by: VZEQICVA
Hear Hear...
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Dec 9, 2006 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the history of this country there has NEVER been more justification for impeachment than for this president and his administration.

In fact this is the first president and administration in history that could and should be tried and convicted of war crimes.

I know, I know, ~ 4,000 of our kids and 650,000 innocent Iraqis killed for nothing pales in comparison to a BJ in the oval office.

Do I believe that the new Democraps have the stones to do much else than be lap dogs for the Shrub? No, but I can dream.

So much for the culture of life hypocrites...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are courageous people out there
Posted by: rwa on Dec 9, 2006 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just not enough courageous congresscritters.

Active-Duty Military Personnel Will Protest War in Iraq on Wednesday
by Tina Kim

Wednesday, more than a hundred members of active duty military, reserve, and National Guard will speak out against the War in Iraq. Organizers say this will be the first time active servicemembers will voice a protest since the United States entered Iraq in March 2003.

Senior Navy Seaman Jonathan Hutto will be among them.
Hutto says, "We think at this moment that the occupation is seriously flawed... We've lost many American lives - over 2,700, and 20,000 have been mangled and disfigured because of this war and we have actual priorities here at home that we need to look at - education, healthcare."

Hutto is stationed in Norfolk. He says he is one of 118 military, men and women, who are part of the Active Duty Military Project-- a grassroots effort to get the U.S. to pull troops out now. Hutto says, "There are active duty service members, reserve, national guard who believe that the time has come in the occupation to bring the troops home."

Wednesday, Hutto will be part of a national call to get military against the U.S. presence in Iraq to go to www.appealforredress.org.

There military members can sign just that -- an appeal to their U.S. representative to bring American troops home. The website explains military members have a right to protest the war through their congressmen based on the Military Whistleblower Protection Act.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Future
Posted by: laoma on Dec 9, 2006 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THink of the scenes of the '68 Democratic Convention in Chicago. Terry Southern wrote:
"...the 1968 Democratic convention was less notable for its politics than for its televised display of social unrest and national disunity. The country had reached the boiling point. Two American icons, Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy's brother, Bobby, had just been assassinated. Everyday, young American boys were being slaughtered in a war that, for many, had already lost its meaning. War protesters decided to gather in Chicago and send a message to candidate Hubert Humphrey and the Democratic party. But Chicago Mayor Richard Daley was unsympathetic. He posted 12,000 police officers on the streets, and called in the Illinois National Guard. Television cameras recorded a bloody riot as police arrested over 500 people in clashes that injured more than 100 police and 100 demonstrators."

That is what is needed again. Massive protest in the streets, but most people are legitimately scared for their lives. THe US government and it minions, lackeys and mercenaries will be much more brutal and deadly this time around than they were in 68 or Kent State. When the momentum rises high enough each of us has to ask, "Am I ready to participate in re-establishing democracy against fascist tyranny? When the time comes, am I ready to get bludgeoned or worse for future generations?"

This sentiment is one of those 900 lb. gorillas sitting in the shadows of most of the emotions and sentiment expressed on alternet and other sites. It is also tinder waiting for the spark.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Charges Should Be Brought Against Congress
Posted by: rwa on Dec 9, 2006 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sworn to Defend the Constitution

www.opednews.com

While the staff was editing the document, one advisor told me, "As we sat down and worked on this, a pattern became very clear ... a pattern to specifically undermine the constitution and establish a unitary presidency."

The charges addressed in McKinney's resolution are nothing revelatory or new. Rather, they are issues which have been in the public eye for quite some time and have increasingly been covered in the media over the last year.

Despite winning the congressional majority, the Democrats have yet to put forth a plan to investigate what have become somewhat ubiquitous allegations.

Speaker-elect, Representative Pelosi, dismissed any possibility of impeachment, saying it is "off the table" and that it is "a waste of time ... making them lameducks is good enough for me." Although, in the November election, 60% of the voters in her own district cast ballots in favor of Proposition J, a measure calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOT good news at all
Posted by: xbj on Dec 9, 2006 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what happens now? If the rest of the Democrats refuse to back McKinney and vote for impeachment, will that effectively and permanently postpone indefinitely, or worse yet, end ALL chances for impeachment in the next two years "because it failed to get any support the first time around."?

Also, don't forget the Democrats are NOT in power YET, and that Bush and his criminal administration have dead nuclear aim on Iran, with no one to stop them but a few very brave military top brass.

I understand McKinney did this with the best of intentions, wanting to end her career with a statement she believed in, BUT when a lone wolf jumps the gun, it's often the first to be shot and that shot runs off the rest of the pack. And this time it could be permanent, ending all chance at impeachment.

Politics involves strategy and timing, and people just aren't getting the fact that NOTHING HAS CHANGED until after the New Year. The Democratic leadership is simply trying to fake out the opposition so they don't nuke Iran in desperation. And NO ONE is getting this.

Have some faith for a change. Unfortunately, McKinney's understandable lack of faith in her colleagues just might have killed the impeachment of the Administration. Not to mention completely derailing any power the Demcoratic majority had; how in the world are they going to vote FOR impeachment on the same exact grounds once they voted against it?

And believe it, none but a suicidal handful are going to vote for it NOW. And it will chop the party into pieces.

McKinney simply never had enough support to force the hand of the Democrats, and she sure won't have it now.

Of course, here's an out for Pelosi... say IF the investigations show just cause, and impeachment is warranted, THEN and ONLY THEN will they vote JUSTLY to impeach the Administration. They will NOT vote to impeach as revenge or as a "good-bye" present. Taking the high road, and giving them the time they need to GET BUSH'S TRIGGER FINGER OFF IRAN and all their ducks in a row.

Unfortunately, it renders McKinney's motives in the worst possible light, but she obviously didn't think about that possibility before trying to force their hand.

Desperation makes poor motivation, on either side. Sure, McKinney had nothing to lose, but the American People and the world surely have a lot more at stake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NOT good news at all Posted by: ignition
Yes, IMPEACH!
Posted by: Jeanne on Dec 9, 2006 6:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an act of purification and contrition. As a nation we need to do this. Air it out, put the facts on public display. Those who (mis)led the US into war won't be able to trot their tripe out there unquestioned. If they have the audacity to repeat the lies, they will be proven to be lying. I don't see a downside. Only the discomfort of the US recognizing the colossal error we've made and the scope and scale of our wrongs to the Iraqi people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Impeachment is a hollow victory and the wrong strategy
Posted by: KevinSchmidtSterlingVA on Dec 9, 2006 6:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no doubt that if the House wastes a year of their time impeaching Bush and possibly Cheney too, the Senate will not have enough votes to remove them from office.

That means, an impeachment will not only ring hollow, but will have wasted valuable time that could have been used to investigate the culture of Republican corruption in Congress.

Who knows how many more Republicans could be outed for the criminals that they are?

Think about how many more disgraced Republican will have to give up their seats in Congress. Think about how many of them will get to keep Abramoff company in prison.

That is what we will give up.

That will be the price for wasting our time with an inconsequential impeachment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need more real Americans like her
Posted by: Krain61 on Dec 10, 2006 3:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've said we need to get politician out of office and put people of the working class in there and there should be a limit on years period..No working your way up because it breeds the crooks we presently have..I think anyone with common sence and compassion and emphthy would be good in office..Also that dam near 400 billion they sent over to Iraq could of been used to put up power towers in this country and once up they would have no excuse to raise our rates..We know that will not ever happen in our Suppably great country..We would be more apt to do that for another country but not us..We are a country doing the back slide and I'm wondering what langauge I should be learning

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Impeachment Day: Sunday December 10
Posted by: DinTN on Dec 10, 2006 3:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Impeachment Day: Sunday December 10
Breaking News: Fox News is coming to our NYC kickoff event on Saturday - are you?
impeachforchange.org
www.democrats.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Impeachment Day: Sunday December 10
Posted by: DinTN on Dec 10, 2006 3:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Impeachment Day: Sunday December 10
Breaking News: Fox News is coming to our NYC kickoff event on Saturday - are you?
impeachforchange.org
www.democrats.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm wondering what langauge I should be learning
Posted by: DinTN on Dec 10, 2006 3:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"We are a country doing the back slide and I'm wondering what langauge I should be learning"
If Bush isn't ousted before he signs the amnesty bill and Pelosi gets her way (siding with Bush on this bill), you know Spanish will be the primary language soon!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Same old song and dance
Posted by: Krain61 on Dec 10, 2006 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They say what they think we want but after elected they never follow up with it..We should know better but we just vote who we think is the lesser of the evils.When was the last time we even come close..Every one of them lies at one time or another..I'm wondering if there is a site where we can check there voting record and on what there voting on and if they voted or if not why? Every issue they should be forced to voted up or down and it should be printed so we know who is screwing who! I think lobbiest should be out lawed because they are not in {WE THE PEOPLES} BEST INTEREST.
I think alot of this has to do with this Goverment Not coining it's own Money and I believe the federal Reserve{Central Bank} is calling all the shots..I think that's why they changed the bankrupsy laws and credit card laws with regards to your payments etc.. While our milatary is shrinking Chinas's is growing and we can thank Slick willy for that..Every President since atleast Regan has gave some of our country away..When are we the people going to Unite????????????????
We have shut down bases and then we tell the world what we did..They surely don't need to spy because they can find out what ever they want from the papers or the internet which put's the papers online..The "New World Order"
I'm willing to bet that you could find a link between banks and oil and the pharmacutical companies that all go straight to London England.Where some of the Federal Reserve Banks are Located.. I expect some day we will be joining the EU and you may laugh today but don't be surprized

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everyone knows that...
Posted by: ekipnrut on Dec 10, 2006 6:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The set of facts and the applicable law..the Constitution..demand that impeachment proceedings be commenced forthwith. Only in the presence of compelling
and extraordinary circumstances would opting not to impeach
be justified. So the ONLY issues are whether or not such
circumstances are present.
From an operational standpoint clearly there does not exist
a practical impediment to literally carrying out the
procedural mechanisms of impeachment in the House.

400+ well fed,affluent,meticulously groomed and health
pampered individuals with the power of the fuckin' US of A
behind them accompanied by legions of Ivy League
aides with unlimited investigative resources...can't walk
(Impeach) and chew gum (carry out the regular business of the House) at the same time. ???
Therefore the only considerations remaining are of a speculative 'what if' nature ,e.g. what if the Senate doesn't
convict?...what if this, that or the other fallout from an unsucc-
essful impeachment attempt compromises Dem efforts in '08,
and so on.
Some of these concerns may have substance,,,but
impeachment is a safety valve that was not contemplated
as available only in fool proof fail safe scenarios free of
'complications'.
It's kinda funny in a sick way...people who can't get over OJ...
but are willing to give mass murderers and war criminals
a pass.....go figure......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

inconsistency
Posted by: dr_bognus on Dec 11, 2006 3:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if you can impeach someone for lying to a jury because he didnt want to admit that he had an affair, a crime that many readers of alternet may not be able to deny commiting (or even the senate) while allowing someone guilty of war crimes to walk away free is insanity. impeachment may not prehaps be the best action, but it would be a start.

i would prefer to see bush and cronies tried in the proper place, in the hague by the international criminal court. this would not only give them a fair trial, something they have denied to many people, but also show the world that no-one is above the law.

i woul not like to see the trial take place in the US at the moment as it is likely to be like the hutton inquiry, a complete whitewash which shied away from anything which could give th government problems. prehaps in a few years the US legal system may be able to handle the trial fairly but not at the moment when it is most needed

i say that bush should be impeached to get him out of office before he can do any more damage to american civil liberties and then tried for war crimes in the hague.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank You Cynthia McKinney.
Posted by: dale0k on Dec 11, 2006 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, there are reasons to impeach. Is it wise, politically? Who knows? But it is worth it; it would get all the salient issues out on the table. And, I would add, that arrogant, self-deluded ass deserves to get his comeuppance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Which Constitution?
Posted by: mom'z the word on Dec 11, 2006 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am really confused here. First, we are quoting the Constitution as if it were still in effect. It is not. The Patriots Act is in effect. Congress violated their oath of office, promising to uphold and preserve the Constitution when all but one signed the Patriots Act into law. Who declared war on Iraq? Not Congress, the President did and according to the Patriots Act that was o.k. Yet according to our Constitution only Congress can declare war. So what rules are we operating under? The Patriot’s Act or the Constitution? Since Congress can not undeclared this war, bring the troops home today, impeach, or act in accordance with their oath of office to uphold the original Constitution, I think this proves the Patriots Act is in effect and not the Constitution. This poses an interesting quandary.

Come January when the newly elected members of Congress are sworn into office which Constitution are they swearing to uphold? Are they swearing to uphold the Patriots Act, that gives the president the power to declare war, or the original Constitution that gives Congress the power to declare war? As voters we need to know which set of rules they plan on upholding and preserving. I need to know which habeas corpus is in effect, and who is going to declare peace, Congress or the President.

And, finally about the oath of office. The oath is a nonpartisan promise to uphold a nonpartisan document. That means upon taking the oath party hats are checked at the door. The Constitution makes no provisions for party. The Framers hoped to create a unified country; they sought to bring order out of the chaos of the 1780’s. To most of them, parties were ‘factions,’ agents of divisiveness and disunity. George Washington reflected this view when, in his Farewell Address in 1796, he warned the new nation against ‘the baneful effect of the spirit of party.” I would like to see any member of Congress that uses their political affiliations to influence as a violation to their oath of office and just cause for immediate expulsion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]