I added another site to sign a petition to impeach Bush. I am not really sure which one is the legitimate but if I had to guess I would say it is the first one because there are more than 484,000 who have signed that one. I will keep looking for the official one so keep coming back and putting your name on each one to be sure we do this. High Crimes and Misdemeanors to name a few things is the reason to impeach this man.

http://www.impeachbush.org/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/371129241

______________________________________________

http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/34855.php

FORMER ATTY GENERAL SAYS "IMPEACH BUSH"
by Don Bech Tuesday November 09, 2004 at 04:14 PM

Message from Ramsey Clark "Bush can run, but he cannot hide from the Constitution" "The election does not pardon the President for past, or future "high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Impeachment is not a partisan political issue. The House of Representatives, possessed of the "sole power of impeachment," is required to consider a bill of impeachment on the facts even if every Member were of the same party, or political persuasion, as the President. The seven specific provisions of the Constitution setting forth the powers and duties of the Congress in considering impeachment intend that any President or other civil officer of the United States who has committed a high Crime or Misdemeanor "...shall be removed from Office."

The power of impeachment assures the people against criminal acts and despotic ambitions by government officials.

We, the People have the power to require the House of Representatives to do its duty and act on a bill of impeachment after full investigation and consideration. If it fails to do so those House members who failed to perform this Constitutional duty can and should be voted from office. Remember that President Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment for Watergate less than two years after his landslide reelection in 1972.

Impeachment is Imperative

For the American people who support and defend the Constitution of the United States, who want to prevent further crimes by a lawless administration, who believe we can redeem our country in the eyes of those we have assaulted and those who have witnessed this brutality and who dare to demand of future government leadership, NEVER AGAIN, Impeachment is Imperative. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we Americans should declare the causes which impel us to impeach.

President George W. Bush chose to wage a war of aggression against Iraq, which had not attacked the United States and presented no imminent threat to our people, or legitimate interests. A small cabal, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby and Rove wrested decision making processes from established institutions of government to reinforce President Bush desire to seize Iraq, defying international institutions, the opinions of humankind and the rule of law to commence a disastrous criminal military adventure.

A Campaign of Deceit and False Propaganda

War of aggression is the first offense listed in the Nuremberg Charter as a Crime against Peace. The Nuremberg Tribunal after hearing evidence of Nazi crimes in World War II convicted the leaders of waging wars of aggression, which it called "the supreme international crime."

At Nuremberg, the Chief U.S. Prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, promised posterity that in the future all nations, including our own, would be held accountable for such crimes.

President Bush and key administration officials engaged in a lengthy campaign of deceit, concealment and false propaganda to create support for, and acceptance of, its war of aggression by claiming Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, harbored terrorists, had close ties with and supported Al Qaeda and intended to attack the U.S., U.S. citizens and U.S. interests. A free society, democratic institutions and constitutional government cannot survive such deceit by its own government.

The U.S. has made civilians and civilian facilities its direct object of attack. It has pursued assassination and summary executions as official policy. President Bush boasted of summary executions in his State of the Union message in 2003. Excessive and indiscriminate force and illegal weapons have been used. Many thousands of Iraqi citizens, whole families, women, children, elderly Iraqis have been killed as a result.

U.S. military casualties exceed 10,000 including more than 1,100 deaths with many additional thousands returned to the United States for physical and mental illnesses.

The U.S. has employed torture, including torture to death, rape and sexual assault and humiliation, as approved and ordered policy from Afghanistan and Guantanamo to Iraq, inflicted on thousands of prisoners, many, if not most, without any evidence of wrongful conduct. An admitted 37 human beings have been murdered while being held in captivity by the United States under these conditions. We know not how many more. All the mounting evidence makes clear that this program of torture and death is not aberrational conduct of rogue or undisciplined soldiers but is rather the policy adopted at the highest levels of the Bush/Rumsfeld chain of command. All this in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the International Convention Against Torture, the laws of all nations and common human decency.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States provides: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, Shall Be Removed From Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

More than 100,000 Dead Based on a Lie

We learn from the prominent medical journal Lancet of the report by researchers at John Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad that the U.S. war of aggression against Iraq and military occupation has cost "at least" 100,000 Iraqi lives already must civilian, women and children. Already President Bush has launched a massive aerial and ground assault on Falluja which may kill thousands of defenseless civilians.

Haiti, where President Bush forced the elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide from office, is in chaos with many thousands killed by widespread daily violence committed by U.S. supported paramilitaries against Aristide supporters.

Nearly 500,000 have voted to impeach. Help us increase that number into millions the Congress cannot ignore.

Every American should choose whether to vote for impeachment entirely on the facts, straight up, or down, without political, or partisan fear, or favor. We owe this to the country, its future, the Constitution and our common heritage. Impeachment is Required Now.

Impeachment now is the only way we, the American people, can promise ourselves and the world that we will not tolerate crimes against peace and humanity by our government. Knowing what we know, to wait longer is to condone what has been done and risk more.

Sincerely,
Ramsey Clark
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please help with this important campaign to uphold the Constitution and show that the people of the United States will not tolerate war crimes committed by the highest officials of this country. Let's hold Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft accountable.

If you or your friends or family have not yet voted to Impeach Bush - be sure to do so now. Simply visit http://www.ImpeachBush.org <http://www.pephost.org/site/R?i=E94fjz8iLOe72suC2Mm5YQ..> where you can cast your vote to Impeach George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft.

SIGN THE PETITION TO IMPEACH BUSH

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/371129241

_____________________________________________________

I am very surprised that so many people have no clue about the Islamic Nations and in particular the extreme militant ones who are promoting the Jihad. Maybe we didn't start this battle between the Palestinians and Jeruselum but by participating to the point we have in the last one we have given them more reasons to hate us and want to destroy us.  They hate anyone who doesn't share their views period. We could walk on water and create bread from rocks and they would still hate us. When we kill anyone there they do believe in getting even and that is that. They don't turn the other cheek, forgive and forget.  They believe in getting even. It is a concept most people in the United States can't even comprehend.  We do forgive and forget they don't. They will pass it down from generation to generation. Just because Sadam Hussein was a horrific man, us bringing him down does not make us safer. Who next?  There are other horrible, tyrannical leaders who need to be taken out of their positions of authority.  Do we step in and take all of them out? Oh, that's right, there is oil in Iraq. Who do we think we are?  Where does it stop? The Bush administration are warmongers.  They love war and power and their egos drive them to "take out people like Saddam". First let me also point out that if we really wanted to we could have taken out Saddam without a war.  We have a very sophisticated CIA that could have easily paid someone to slip him some poison and be done with it. The Cheney puppets are into war and their egos are so wrapped up in winning. Should we do something about terroism?  Yes.  Do we do it by joining into a war where the battle will never end and at the end of time we will still be fighting with these people? There are people of the Muslim relgion that I know that live here and the way they believe is quite different from those in Iraq and those areas. There are many years of hate and getting even that span back since biblical times. It is a culturally based hate with a deep seated belief in using suicide bombers and any way to win agains Americans. They hate us and our egocentric views. It is a notch on their belt to kill us and think they will enter into heaven for doing so.  And the Bush administration thinks we are ever going to win against this type of thinking?  I think not. He got Hussein out, but where the hell is Osama?  We need to get out of there and let that country fight their own internal hate battle. We have starving families here and we need to take care of them.  Well, I need to stop because I am getting even more upset as I think of this boob running our country.  It is so unfair that a man can be impeached for a sexual affair that was no body's business yet we let a blatant liar stay in office. Impeach this goon.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/howtoimpeach.html

"Making statements about sexual affairs in sleazeball investigations is not a duty of the President. Yet, when President Clinton lied about a sexual affair, he was impeached
.
On the other hand, the State of the Union IS a presidential duty. In fact, it says so in the Constitution
:
Article 2, Section 3
Duties of the President
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union...

Bush blatantly lied while performing this duty.

So now we'll see...is lying to Paula Jones' attorneys an impeachable offense, but lying to Congress and the American people, while performing one of the few explicitly enumerated duties of the president, in order to build support for a war on false pretenses is NOT an impeachable offense?

But he wasn't under oath...

unless you count the "I do solemly swear to faithfully execute the duties..." part of the swearing in ceremony...)

Yes, he was under oath

As you noted, it was the Oath of Office.

If it had been any OTHER speech, perhaps you'd have a point, but the State of the Union is an officially assigned constitutional duty of the President. Given that fact, I'd say it has as much weight as any affidavit or sworn testimony.

They issue the retraction like "it was only the state of the union address, not something important..." when this address is one of the few MANDATED duties of the office that is specifically laid out in the constitution!"

*********************************************

I wanted to throw up during the State of the Union Speech tonight. Terroism, terroism, terroism.  This man has no clue that he has created more danger for us than anyone in the history of the United States.  The people who have been in war since biblical times are not going to stop fighting because he came along. However they do believe an eye for eye and all he did was yank us into this lifelong battle that has no end.  He is a damned fool and needs to be taken out of office.

Please, please, please, don't even bother claiming that Bush hasn't lied under oath.  He took the oath of office and while performing his official duties he has lied. He has lied to Congress and he has lied to us. Isn't that enough?  Here is the site to sign the petition to impeach this bozo.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/371129241

Yes, we do need to impeach this man. He has lied, lied, lied.  For those who value integrity and for those who want to turn our country back to the right track, IMPEACH THIS MAN!!! To sign the petition go to this link. It is directed to House of Representatives. Yeah!!!!!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/371129241

Isn't this an impeachable offense? Compared to lying about a sexual affair, this is horrific. I say Bush has gotta go!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geeklog/public_html/article.php?story=20040603013257871

Bush is impeachable - because he's under oath.

Wednesday, July 09 2003 @ 01:32 AM GMT
Contributed by: Stranger

TBTM Commentary by Symbolman
July 9th, 2003

While cruising one of my favorite, up to date and insightful websites I came across an interesting exchange. The thread was about the "Retraction" made by the White House over the bald faced lie to both Congress and the American people that helped to launch thousands of deaths in Iraq. Specifically the Niger Forgeries Bush presented as fact tho many knew then and it's coming out that HE knew as well they were faked.

So he lied. Knowingly.


Here's the exchange I read today that I think is VERY Useful:

*************************************************

Making statements about sexual affairs in sleazeball investigations is not a duty of the President. Yet, when President Clinton lied about a sexual affair, he was impeached
.
On the other hand, the State of the Union IS a presidential duty. In fact, it says so in the Constitution
:
Article 2, Section 3
Duties of the President
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union...

Bush blatantly lied while performing this duty.

So now we'll see...is lying to Paula Jones' attorneys an impeachable offense, but lying to Congress and the American people, while performing one of the few explicitly enumerated duties of the president, in order to build support for a war on false pretenses is NOT an impeachable offense?

But he wasn't under oath...

unless you count the "I do solemly swear to faithfully execute the duties..." part of the swearing in ceremony...)

Yes, he was under oath

As you noted, it was the Oath of Office.

If it had been any OTHER speech, perhaps you'd have a point, but the State of the Union is an officially assigned constitutional duty of the President. Given that fact, I'd say it has as much weight as any affidavit or sworn testimony.

They issue the retraction like "it was only the state of the union address, not something important..." when this address is one of the few MANDATED duties of the office that is specifically laid out in the constitution!

*********************************************

We're not lawyers but this sure looks like a reasonable legal rationale for IMPEACHMENT.

While we're at it CHENEY made pretty much the same OATH.

Now, remember that there's a whole lot of WAR PROFITEERING, Nepotism and Shady Business deals involved - a big shot here for any Actual Journalist to get a Pulitzer or better.

Let's hear from some legal scholars on this. Remember what the Drumbeat was by the right wing during their Impeachment of President Clinton?

"It's not about the Sex, it's about the LYING."

Well, then - Let's Update that mantra and use it. "It's not about the WAR - It's about the LYING."

In the Meantime write/call/email your Congressman or Senator and/or any Media outlet you can and tell them that BUSH LIED UNDER OATH.

He did. He swore an OATH and LIED to CONGRESS During an OFFICIAL DUTY.

It's just that simple. Pass the Word.

UPDATE: A LAWYER BRINGS MEAT TO THE TABLE:

The Case for Impeachment

The wheels are really coming off Bush & Co.'s case for the Iraqi war. In particular, little reasonable doubt can remain that Mr. Bush did not know the following statement, made during his 2003 State of the Union Address, was a lie:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. ... Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

The administration claims that the statement was not a lie, because it was "technically" correct. In other words, the statement supposedly gave a truthful accounting of the British position. The administration's hyper-technical approach to lying is still lying: The American intelligence community, along with the White House, had long known the information was false. As such, Mr. Bush could not truthfully maintain the British had "learned" information he knew was false -- particularly in light of the fact that he intended to mislead Congress into believing the information.

Did Mr. Bush commit an impeachable offense when he knowingly used false information to convince Congress and the American people to support a war with Iraq"

The President can be removed only upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment and trial can rest only on "Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4.)

Since Mr. Bush seems to have lied to Congress, then he apparently violated at least two federal statutes. Each violation is a felony, a "High Crime" punishable by impeachment.

18 USC section 1001 provides that in matters within federal jurisdiction, any person who "knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

In matters involving Congress, the statute applies to any "document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch . . . ."

The State of the Union address is "a document required by law . . .to be submitted to the Congress." Article II, Section III of the U.S. Constitution states: "The President . . . shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

If Mr. Bush lied in his State of the Union address to convince Congress to support him in war, he may have violated 18 USC 1001 several ways. For instance, lying about non-existent uranium purchases would falsify, conceal or cover up a material fact " that the purchase never occurred. Lying also obviously violates section 2 of the statute: "makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation". Knowing reliance upon the forged documents would violate section 3 of the statute: "uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry".

Lies contained in the State of the Union address would also violate the federal anti-conspiracy statute, because the lie would come about through the efforts of many people. That statute, 18 USC section 371, criminalizes acts by two or more people who conspire "either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy. . . ." Violations of the federal anti-conspiracy statute are punishable by a fine and imprisonment not to exceed 5 years.

A strong legal case for impeachment exists. However, impeachment is only quasi-legal. Impeachment is really a political act. Therefore, the question arises whether these kinds of crimes " the result of lying " should be the basis for presidential impeachment. Given Republican control of Congress, Republican beliefs regarding presidential lying are of real import.

Here is what several Republicans said to Congress in the context of Mr. Clinton"s impeachment:

Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) , on Friday, said in Congress on December 11, 1998:

"When asked to name the single most important gift America had given the world, Daniel Webster replied, "The integrity of George Washington." How many of us have wondered, as a child, holding a shiny new quarter in our hand, why the profile of George Washington adorns more coin and paper money than any other national figure's Integrity. . . .

"While reverence for parallels with the Nixon impeachment is seductive but inappropriate, there are some points worth noting. In the Nixon case, for example, lying to Congress and to the American people in just such a manner, provoked a separate article of impeachment. Is the danger of such an attack on our constitutional processes any less dangerous today?"

Mr. Barr continued:
"You know, as children, all of us believed certain things with all of our hearts. We knew there was a difference between good and evil.

"We knew it was wrong to lie, and equally important, that if we got caught, we would be punished. We knew that honesty and fairness were as much a part of why we respected our parents, pastors, and teachers, as we assuredly knew they were part of why we pledged allegiance to our flag.

"What happened to these simple things that we all knew in our hearts just a few short years ago? Why do so many adults now find it so hard to call a lie a lie, when as parents, teachers, and employers, we have no such hesitancy? Why do so many now resist the search for the truth and accountability, when we do so day in and day out, in our lives at home, in business, in school, and in our religious institutions?"

Rep. Charles Canady (R-FL), said in Congress on December 10, 1998:

"A constitution is often a most inconvenient thing. A constitution limits us when we would not be limited. It compels us to act when we would not act. But our Constitution, as all of us in this room acknowledge, is the heart and soul of the American experiment. It is the glory of the political world. And we are here today because the Constitution requires that we be here. We are here because the Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. We are here because the impeachment power is the sole constitutional means granted to Congress to deal with the misconduct of the chief executive of the United States.

"In many other countries, a matter such as this involving the head of government would have been quietly swept under the rug. There would, of course, be some advantages to that approach. We would all be spared embarrassment, indignity and discomfort. But there would be a high cost if we followed that course of action. Something would be lost. Respect for the law would be subverted, and the foundation of our Constitution would be eroded.

"The impeachment power is designed to deal with exactly such threats to our system of government. Conduct which undermines the integrity of the president's office, conduct by the chief executive which sets a pernicious example of lawlessness and corruption is exactly the sort of conduct that should subject a president to the impeachment power. Alexander Hamilton himself acknowledged that those who set examples which undermine or subvert the authority of the laws lead us from freedom to slavery. That is what William Jefferson Clinton has done. There must be a constitutional remedy."

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said to Congress on December 11, 1998:

"Should he be impeached" Very quickly; the hardest decision I think I will ever make. Learning that the president lied to the grand jury about sex, I still believe that every president of the United States, regardless of the matter they called to testify about before a grand jury should testify truthfully and if they don't they should be subject to losing their job.

"I believe that about Bill Clinton and I'll believe that about the next president. If it had been a Republican, I would have still believed that and I would hope that if a Republican person had done all this that some of us would've went (sic) over and told him, You need to leave office. I understand that the dilemma that all of us are in about that. His fate is in his own hands."

Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) said to Congress on December 11, 1998:

"This vote says something about us. It answers the question, just who are we, and what do we stand for" Is the president one of us, or is he a sovereign? We vote for our honor, which is the only thing we get to take with us to the grave."

Each of these Republican Congressmen were arguing for Mr. Clinton"s removal from office for purportedly committing perjury in a sexual harassment case. However, the federal court had ruled that Mr. Clinton's testimony regarding his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky was not material to that case. In other words, these Congressmen strongly believed that lying under oath to immaterial matters were a proper basis for removing the Chief Executive " and the House of Representatives agreed. If Republicans believe Mr. Clinton's purported misdeeds were the stuff of impeachment and removal from office, then what of Mr. Bush's lies?

Rather than lying about immaterial matters, Mr. Bush lied about the most important matters imaginable, whether to send Americans to their deaths while killing citizens of another country. If Mr. Clinton should have been removed from office for his purported lies, then Mr. Bush " if he really did lie " should be removed from office and subsequently prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Copyright ?Frank Bloksberg 2003, All Rights Reserved

Symbolman