Are There Grounds for Impeaching Bush?
Wouldn't you like to know? So why not ask?
Are there grounds for starting impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush for his actions leading up to the war in Iraq? That's what the After Downing Street coalition is asking. If you think that Congress should investigate this question, please continue reading. Note that the coalition is not pushing for impeachment at this time, merely asking Congress to raise the question of whether or not there are valid reasons to move toward impeachment.
Personally, I think that it's pretty obviously an issue worth further investigation (at the very least). If Congress can launch actual impeachment procedures on the basis of a president lying about his sex life, surely we can ask them to look into whether Bush's actions with regards to the Iraq war might be just as important or as questionable.
In other words, there's not enough evidence in the Downing Street memo to start impeachment proceedings. There is, however, enough to start an inquiry. That is, if Congress can persuaded to do its job -- hence this blog swarm.
If you agree, or even if you're just curious as to what this is about, I've added the relevant information below the fold.
(This text was distributed to the member blogs of The Big Brass Alliance, of which I am one.)
AfterDowningStreet.org is a coalition of veterans' groups, peace groups, and political activist groups, which launched on May 26, 2005, a campaign to urge the U.S. Congress to begin a formal investigation into whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war. The campaign focuses on evidence that recently emerged in a British memo containing minutes of a secret July 2002 meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials.
The name is a reference to the Downing Street Memo, a British memo recently made public in the London Times, which contained the minutes (note: pdf) of a secret July 2002 meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security officials.
After Downing Street reports: In response to the release of the memo, “John Bonifaz, a Boston attorney specializing in constitutional litigation, sent a memo to Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, urging him to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House to impeach President Bush. Bonifaz's memo, made available today at www.AfterDowningStreet.org, begins: ‘The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution.’"
Congressman Conyers is now seeking 100,000 signatures to sign a letter on the Downing Street Inquiry. Information available at Raw Story and dKos.
Sign the letter here. Write to your Congresspeople here.
WHAT'S NEW
Editorial: Memorial Day/Praise bravery, seek forgiveness, By the Minneapolis Star-Tribune
Smoking Bullet in the Smoking Gun?
Bloggers Support Call for Resolution of Inquiry
A plea from Military Families Against the War in Britain to friends in America
$1000 Reward for Getting Bush to Answer Question
ON THE RADIO
Catch John Bonifaz and David Swanson on the Thom Hartmann Show, May 30, 1 p.m. ET.
Catch David Swanson on the Erin Hart Show, 710 KIRO in Seattle, May 30, 12:10 p.m. PT.
Catch Bonifaz on the Jon Elliott Show on KLSD San Diego, June 5, 1:30 PT.
Catch Bonifaz on the Bernie Ward Show, KGO Radio San Francisco, June 6, 10 p.m. PT.
Catch Bonifaz on the Liz Brown Show, June 7, 8 a.m. CT.
DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
Write your Representative Now!
Sign Rep. Conyers' Letter to Bush
It's simple really. The very reason for attacking Iraq never materialized. And, whether you agree with Hussein or not, by law deposing Hussein was a crime. Bombing, killing people, and destroying Iraq (and Afghanistan) was a crime. Bush ought to be more than just impeached; he ought to be tried and sent to prison for life for crimes against humanity.
Posted by: butuki | 2005.05.31 at 07:14 PM
Oh, I agree. I'd impeach him on his abuse of the environment alone, let alone all his crimes against humanity (the latter an easier sell for most people, alas).
But we've got a timid, corporatist Congress who isn't having its feet held to the fire by the media, and who doesn't listen to much of what its constituents have to say, so it's small steps for now. (sigh)
Posted by: Rana | 2005.05.31 at 07:25 PM
It's awful easy to throw "impeachment" around. The fact is, the House can impeach a president for about anything if it chooses to call a "high crime" or misdemeanor, then the Senate has to have a trial. All it takes is the passing of a resolution. ... The great Texas congressman Henry B. Gonzalez also called for Reagan's impeachment, as well as Bush I's impeachment, over disagreements over U.S. acts of war. Go here to see his Congressional testimony on Bush I: http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/impeach/gonz-intr.html ... A better idea is for the Dems -- and I am a Dem -- to offer real alternatives that middle America can vote for, for Congress and for the presidency. If "breaking the law" were real grounds for impeachment, I dare say every president in our history could be have been impeached.
Posted by: Erudite Redneck | 2005.05.31 at 09:54 PM
Ah, but, see, I don't think that they should be allowed to get away with that kind of thing. These guys are OUR EMPLOYEES, and they swore oaths to be good, honest PUBLIC SERVANTS. At the very very least, they should give lip service to those values -- and this administration not only doesn't, it thumbs its nose at them.
But still -- our Congresspeople are bound by their own oaths to investigate such matters, as our representatives and as agents for the good of the commonwealth.
I agree, we need alternatives for the future. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate possibly felonious activities now. That's like saying that it doesn't matter that a CEO has robbed his stockholders, since he's going to be replaced, or that a doctor shouldn't have his license taken away for malpractice because they're hiring a new one, and so on.
There's reason enough to open an investigation, one of great importance potentially. So why not? Why only go to the bother and expense for a blow job?
Posted by: Rana | 2005.05.31 at 10:51 PM