Crimes against peace?

To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question.

That is, it would be the question if Democrats were somehow able to 'seize power' in November-- If that were to happen, (a big if), the impeachment of George W. Bush is more likely than not. Also, that is, if Karl Rove's patented right-wing mind grip somehow fails to sway the gullible masses.

Impeachment is something that the left has been foaming at the mouth about since the 2000 election. But all of the sudden the leadership is trying in their own bumbling way to silence official talk of censure and impeachment of President Bush, (the greatest President with the initials GW since George Washington by the way).

For instance, I noticed, as I was perusing the archives of Hatemonger's Quarterly, that Russ Feingold had introduced a measure back in March to censure GW, the merciful and compassionate (conservative), for daring to spy on terrorists to keep us safer. This was abruptly followed by Nancy Pelosi declaring that, "Oh no, we would never not try to impeach Bush if we suddenly, somehow found ourselves in control of the House, (despite trying our best to lose elections)." I'm paraphrasing of course, but you get the idea because further down in the same article in which this is reported she says the following:

In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to."  ~Washington Post

So, "we're not going to impeach Bush," really means, "we are not going to announce that we are going to impeach the criminal-traitor-President Bush, but we'll get to work on it right away."

As Pelosi explained:

Pelosi also vowed "to use the power to investigate" the administration on multiple fronts, starting with the task force convened in secret by Vice President Cheney to devise the administration's energy policy. The administration has successfully fought lawsuits since 2001 that sought to reveal the names of energy company executives tapped to advise the task force.

"Certainly the conduct of the war" in Iraq would be the subject of hearings, if not a full-fledged House investigation, Pelosi said. Another subject for investigation could be the use of intelligence on Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction to make the case for the 2003 invasion.

Hoyer added that he would like to see investigations into the extent of domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency, and the billions of dollars wasted by contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.  ~Washington Post

Political and ideological inertia is very similiar to physical inertia in that a political impulse in motion tends to want to stay in motion. And the political impulse to impeach Bush is something that will be very hard if not impossible for democrats to overcome.

Some House Democrats, including ranking Judiciary Committee member John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, have called for impeachment hearings into allegations that Bush misled the nation about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and that he violated federal law by approving warrantless wiretaps on Americans. ~Washington Post

Since Bush is such a dangerous President, (he's not called Mr. Danger for nothing after all), why not impeach him? I mean after six years and counting of rhetorical excess in this regards how can anyone deny that democrats don't think that leaving this man in office for even a year would be too much to risk for our nation? Especially if Republicans have lost control of congress.

Is Bush guilty of "Crimes against Peace?"

...When you see a peace protestor shouting that Bush is a war criminal, you're hearing more than partisan hyperbole. When you hear someone refer to the war in Iraq as an illegal war, such an accusation is not made lightly. As Americans we are all party to having allowed this war to take place. ~Official website for the Tribunal to prosecute US war crimes

Is Iraq an illegal unilateral pre-emptive war of aggression? Did Bush break international law by invading Iraq? Many on the left believe this to be the case. Many are ready to charge Bush not only with impeachment, but with war crimes in an international court.

The Charges:

George Bush and Dick Cheney deliberately misled Congress and the American public about Iraq in order to justify an illegal war. Over 2500 American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died as a result. This and other "high crimes and misdemeanors" are grounds for impeachment. ~impeachbush.tv

This is what virtually every Democrat has been saying for several years now. There's also a ground swell of impeach Bush resolutions throughout the land being passed by City Councils and Boards and wherever Progressives hold power.

John Kerry:

"If we take back the House, there's a solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this president." Another listener heard a slight variation: "If we win back the House, I think we have a pretty solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this President." Kerry then quickly added, according to several in the audience, "Don't tell anyone I said that."  ~Impeach Bush

The California Democratic Party:

...the California Democratic Party calls for whatever steps must be taken by Congress and others to ensure a full and complete investigation into possible abuses of power by President George W. Bush; and especially calls for the appropriate remedy and punishment, including impeachment, to be identified and followed to its conclusion. ~cadem.org

The San Diego County Democratic Party:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the San Diego Democratic Central Committee asks Congress to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the San Diego Democratic Central Committee calls on the California Democratic Central Committee to adopt this resolution and urge Congress to impeach President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for high crimes and misdemeanors.  ~sddemocrats.org

It's interesting to note that democrats had Articles of Impeachment written up as far back as 2003 in anticipation of the war in Iraq. So no matter what Democrats think they have to say now impeachment is on the table.

But did Bush lie about WMD? Well, a recent poll of the American people says no. Apparently, at least 50% of the population believes that the democratic mantra about WMD is wrong.

Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded the country in 2003 -- up from 36 percent last year, a Harris poll finds. Pollsters deemed the increase both "substantial" and "surprising" in light of persistent press reports to the contrary in recent years.

The survey did not speculate on what caused the shift in opinion, which supports President Bush's original rationale for going to war. Respondents were questioned in early July after the release of a Defense Department intelligence report that revealed coalition forces recovered 500 aging chemical weapons containing mustard or sarin gas nerve agents in Iraq.

"Filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist," said Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, during a June 21 press conference detailing the newly declassified information.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, who shared the podium, said, "Iraq was not a WMD-free zone." ~Washington Times

Oh yeah, and a peace prize winner wants to kill Bush.

[H]egemonic Word count: 1251

Powered By: BackLinkr

 

---