Impeach Bush
Impeach Bush
1) http://www.impeachbush.org/site/DocServer/impeachment_petition.pdf?docID=101
March 20, 2006: $2,610,028,507,700.00
In 1981 (before the Reagan tax cut), the US had only 994.8 billion dollars of debt. By 1988, the debt had risen to $2.6 trillion.
2006 Interest on the Debt for this fiscal year (October through March, 2006): $ 193,569,639,335.60.
US debt: $8,348,224,303,886.34 - 30% higher than it was before Bush took office.
4) http://www.thefourreasons.org/
5.a) www.costofwar.com
b) http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
5/5/06: $278,433,000,000 and increasing by $200,000,000 daily
c) http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/
8/05: $5.6 billion per month
6) http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
7) http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/gallery.htm
8) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm (Current War Wounded)
5/5/06: Dead 2,431 Wounded: 17,381
9) Below:
- US House Reps Want Bush Impeachment Probe
- Toll of War- Daily Average 10/1/03
- Toll of War – 1/18/05
- Wounded- 3/18/05
from http://zzpat.bravehost.com/
36 US House Reps Want Bush Impeachment Probe
Political Affairs
By Matthew Cardinale
May 1-7, 2006
(APN)
The two latest co-sponsors, as of Friday, were
"For the House to impeach and the Senate to convict a President, the public must be fully informed and convinced by credible information that a President deserves impeachment. That means gathering the facts. Rep. Conyers' bill calls for setting up a select committee to gather information to see if there is any basis for impeachment - i.e., a violation of the Constitution - or if impeachment should even be considered. With that understanding I support H. Res. 635," Congressman Jackson said in a statement released to Atlanta Progressive News.
Rep. Fattah´s Office was not able to provide comment in time for press, but was invited to send along comments to be added to the Atlanta Progressive News website when available.
"The Bush administration must be held accountable for the failures in their Iraq War policy. Congress has a Constitutional obligation to determine whether this disastrous
An Atlanta Progressive News analysis has found that, interestingly, 29 of the 36 total co-sponsors are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. However, only 29 of the 62 members of the Caucus have signed on.
Atlanta Progressive News is calling out the other 33 self-described progressives who have not signed on. They are Reps. Becerra, Bordallo, Corrine Brown, Sherrod Brown, Carson, Cristenson, Cleaver, Cummings, DeFazio, DeLauro, Evans, Frank, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Tubbs Jones, Kaptur, Kilpatrick, Kucinich, Lantos, Markey, McGovern, Miller, Holmes-Norton, Pastor, Rush, Serrano, Slaughter, Solis, Thompson, Udall, Watson, Watt, and Waxman.
As noted below, two of these Progressive Caucus members who have not signed on, are in fact two of the four Democrats on the House Rules Committee, meaning they have direct influence over this bill: Slaughter and McGovern.
In the US Senate, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) are currently the two co-sponsors of
"There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power," US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement prepared for Atlanta Progressive News.
"The Atlanta Progressive News has reported regularly on this bill," Conyers wrote in an article on his blog.
A spokesperson for Rep. Conyers noted the Congressman is continuing in his lobbying efforts for the bill, which was first introduced in December 2005, prior to so many recent additional shocking revelations about the actions of President Bush.
It was recently revealed, for one thing, that Bush himself authorized the leak of the identity of a CIA agent, endangering
In another recent revelation, Bush was provided with evidence that the information he was propagating on
Conyers´s spokesperson also concurred there continues to be some confusion among Members of US Congress who have not yet signed on to the bill about the content of the bill. Specifically, some members have not signed on because the media has not clearly reported that the bill is not a call for impeachment, nor an impeachment inquiry, but rather is a call for the creation of a committee that would look into the possible grounds for impeachment and could make recommendations.
Meanwhile, at least twelve (12) US cities, including Arcata, Berkeley, San Francisco, and Santa Cruz, each in California; Woodstock in New York; and Battleboro, Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro, Newfane, Putney, and Rockingham, each in Vermont, have passed resolutions calling for Bush´s impeachment, according to a running tally atwww.impeachpac.org/resolutions.
In addition, the State Legislatures in
Over 17% of US House Democrats now support the impeachment probe; over 8% of all US House Representatives now support the probe. In December 2005, there were 231 Republicans in the US House, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 1 vacancy, a clerk for the US House of Representatives told Atlanta Progressive News.
The best represented states on H. Res 635 are
The current 36 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Jackson, Jr., (D-IL), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Rep. David Wu (D-OR).
"What a lot of activists group want is the next step, which is Articles of Impeachment. You don´t have to pass this type of bill first. I think there´s a fair chance that if the list of co-sponsors grows dramatically, Conyers and others will take that next step of introducing articles of impeachment," David Swanson of ImpeachPAC told Atlanta Progressive News.
At least two members of Congress are prepared to sign Articles of Impeachment if they were to be introduced, sources tell Atlanta Progressive News. One of the members is
Dave Lindorff wrote in The Baltimore Chronicle that he and Barbara Olshansky (an attorney at The Center for Constitutional Rights) will reveal in an upcoming book that "members of Congress–even firebrands like Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)–have been strong-armed behind the scenes by the Democratic National Committee not to introduce an impeachment bill in the House."
Conyers´s bill was initially referred to the US House Rules Committee, which has not taken action. None of the US House Democrats on the Rules Committee have signed on as co-sponsors. The Ranking Democrat on the Committee is
The US House Rules Committee would need to take action on H. Res 635 because it calls for the creation of a Select Committee, in other words the creation of a new committee that is not a standing committee, Jonathan Godfrey, Communications Director for
If the Democratic Party is able to retake the US House of Representatives, Rep. Conyers would become Chairman Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee, whereas he is currently the Ranking Democrat on the Committee. The Judiciary Committee would oversee any actual impeachment investigation.
If not acted on this session, the bill would have to be reintroduced next session. It is possible that a new bill could include new language regarding Bush's approval of illegal NSA domestic wiretapping.
For now, however, sources in
Even though H. Res 635 does not specifically reference the NSA domestic wiretapping issue, some Members of US Congress have found the wiretapping issue to be a compelling reason to sign on as a co-sponsor, sources say.
In other words, why introduce separate legislation to address a single issue when momentum has been built with H. Res 635?
The thing about H. Res. 635 is, it deals with impeaching Bush over a cluster of issues from misleading the public to go to war, to authorizing torture. Wiretapping was not listed as one of the reasons to investigate the grounds for Bush's impeachment in the bill because the existence of the secret, illegal wiretapping had not come to light yet when the bill was being prepared.
US Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) withdrew her name from H. Res 635 at the end of January 2006, whereas she had been listed as a cosponsor throughout January 2006. Lofgren cited a clerical error for her name having been listed in the first place. Lofgren's Office told Atlanta Progressive News the Representative learned of her being listed as a co-sponsor after reading an exclusive article by Atlanta Progressive News issued January 01, 2006.
Lofgren, and 17 other Members of Congress, wrote to President Bush in February 2006 that they wanted the wiretapping issue to be pursued by a Special Counsel, which Lofgren considers a next step in a crucial investigation, seeing as how the Republicans have been stonewalling on necessary documents and testimony to determine if Bush´s domestic wiretapping program was legal.
H. Res 635 reads as its official title: "Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) also just released a book, Articles of Impeachment Against President Bush. The Center is extremely influential in high-profile court fights over issues such as wiretapping, the treatment of detainees by the
"We have the book, we are calling for the impeachment of the President, and we´re supporting Conyers´s resolution," Bill Goodman, CCR Legal Director, told Atlanta Progressive News.
Rock music artist Neil Young has also released a song with the lyrics, "Let´s impeach the President for lying..."
Atlanta Progressive News has provided near-exclusive–and during many times, exclusive–coverage of the progress of H. Res 635. We will continue to follow this story and any related developments.
From
--About the author: Matthew Cardinale is the Editor of Atlanta Progressive News and may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com
Times Argus (
By Darren M. Allen Vermont Press Bureau
April 26, 2006
Introduced by Rep. David Zuckerman, P-Burlington, and signed by 12 other Democrats, Progressives and the body's lone independent, the resolution requests that Congress "initiate impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush" under an obscure set of rules that allows state legislatures to directly seek such an action.
It comes a little more than two weeks after the Vermont Democratic Party decided to write a letter to Congress seeking impeachment, and a day after a similar resolution was introduced in the Illinois Legislature.
"George W. Bush has committed high crimes and misdemeanors as he has repeatedly and intentionally violated the United States Constitution and other laws of the
His resolution would carry more force than the Democratic Party's letter because if the Legislature actually approved the measure, Congress would be obliged to at least begin an investigation into impeachment.
Zuckerman's approach was endorsed weeks ago by many grassroots-level Democrats in at least eight
Republicans scoffed at the latest example of growing anti-Bush sentiment in
"Instead of focusing on the real priorities and needs of the people of Vermont — like affordable health care, property tax relief, college scholarships and good paying jobs — Democrats in the Legislature continue to consume themselves with partisan fantasies of impeaching the president, raising the gas tax and banning the cropping of dogs' ears," said James Barnett, chairman of the state Republican Party.
"If this is the best they can do at this late hour of the legislative session," he said, "then it's time to close down shop and go home for the summer so they can explain to their constituents that they didn't reform health care because they were too busy trying to impeach the president."
Democratic officials, too, weren't keen on Zuckerman's measure.
"We support the resolution that was passed unanimously by the Vermont Democratic Party state committee and encourage Congress to initiate an investigation into President Bush's blatant disregard for the law," said Andy Bouska, communications director for the party.
The legislative measure has little chance of success, given that it has been introduced in the waning weeks of the session and had a tepid reception from legislative leaders. House Speaker Gaye Symington, D-Jericho, has indicated that the impeachment resolution would first have to be sent to at least one committee for testimony.
Moves to push for Bush's impeachment have intensified among rank-and-file Democrats in at least four other states. When
The Vermont party's central committee that day wrestled with whether to ask for the General Assembly's intervention — a move that some said would give the impeachment request more teeth. In three hours of contentious debate, the party's rulers decided that it would be better simply to ask Congress.
No one — including Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean — seriously expects the Republican-controlled Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings. Nonetheless, supporters said it was important to be on record about their displeasure with the president.
"Impeachment should not be used simply because you disagree with a person's policies," Zuckerman said in a brief interview. "If you disagree with someone's policy, you vote them out. But President Bush has committed crimes, and that's what impeachment is for."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1001/p01s02-woiq.html
from the October 01, 2003 edition
|
Beyond fatalities, an average of eight American soldiers a day are wounded. | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Politicians and the press tend to tally the human costs of going to war by counting those killed. So far, that's 311 Americans in But the number of those wounded in action (or injured in combat-zone accidents) is far higher. And while combat deaths have been relatively low since the Vietnam War, the ratio of these nonfatal casualties to war fatalities is increasing - from 3 to 1 in World War II to more than 5 to 1 in
With no end in sight to a substantial Seen positively, the higher ratio of wounded to killed means more soldiers are surviving their battle injuries. Kevlar helmets, body armor with ceramic plates, and top-notch medical facilities nearby all help. Attacks more severe But what this also results in is "a large number of survivors with permanent physical and emotional scars, not to mention profound disabilities," says Loren Thompson, head of security studies at the Lexington Institute in Alexandria, Va. "Not only are some wartime wounds uncommonly complex to treat, but the range of treatments provided - including counseling, assisted living, disability benefits, and so on - can be quite extensive." One reason: the nature of the attacks on US troops in The war in Worse than earlier war "This was by all accounts a vastly dirtier enterprise than the Gulf War was last time," says Larry Seaquist, retired US Navy warship commander and Pentagon strategist. In addition, the impact of post-traumatic stress - tied to longer periods in the combat zone, more urban fighting, and the likelihood of double tours in "I wouldn't be surprised if we had a real bow wave of such problems still to come," says Captain Seaquist. Big veterans' budget All of this puts the spotlight on the overall costs of national defense, in particular the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which is second only to the Defense Department in the size of its workforce. The VA expects to spend $59.6 billion this year, nearly all of that on health care and benefits for some 2.7 million veterans now receiving disability compensation or pensions. As veterans of the wars in [Editor's note: The original version of this story repeated a paragraph.] This may be especially true because US forces in Lessons
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
