Comments for Why We Must Have Impeachment at http://pacificfreepress.com , comment 0 to 5 out of 5 comments http://pacificfreepress.com Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:16:55 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://pacificfreepress.com/content/view/808/81/#pc_991 Pelosi can't lead an impeachment effort that would appear to end in her taking office. Impeachment goes nowhere if you target the empty suit and leave Cheney in the saddle (where he has been since 2000 anyway). Impeach Cheney first. It will be easier now than ever because he is about to perjure himself in the Scooter Libby trial. THEN go after this ridiculous Preznit after he has appointed a squeaky clean VP acceptable to all to replace Cheney and the Project for the New American Century with some evidence of sanity. - a guest Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:03:24 +0100 http://pacificfreepress.com/content/view/808/81/#pc_976 So, who is going to impeach him? - a guest Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:19:17 +0100 http://pacificfreepress.com/content/view/808/81/#pc_973 I have read through your article closely and strongly agree with the thrust of it Mr Lindorf. I thank you for writing it and for your continuing efforts. I was particularly taken with your statement that "The key reason this president must be impeached is that his offenses against the Constitution and the nation are so serious that the very survival of Constitutional government and the separation of powers on which it is based are at risk". If in Lincoln's time, during a civil war, Americans could find the time to have an election, and if in the time of the Independence war also taking place on their own continent, Americans could still forge a constitution complete with the prudent provisions for impeaching defaulting President's then, it is hard to see why Americans in these times should find their own responsibilities to themselves, and to their children, and to their friends to uphold the rule of law too onerous or too distracting. I have some questions which I would like some clarifications on, either from you, if you've the time, or from other readers that may be able to assist me - perhaps these are relevant to your concluding question "what are you waiting for?" On the matter of the war in Iraq, you say the "president clearly lied", perhaps he did lie, (I personally suspect that he did) but where is that lie most clearly seeable to third-party truthseekers as a lie and as coming from the president himself rather than as a mistake by him? I did not fail to read your fourth paragraph I just hoped that links to evidence demonstrating the lie still more clearly might be provided for truthseekers. The stronger the prima facie case is for impeachment to more people the more likely impeachment will occur I suspect. Regarding Bush "illegally" pulling out American troops and equipment from Afghanistan, was that really illegal? Doesn't Bush as President and Commander in Chief have the authority to redeploy his forces, isn't he in fact the decider on such matters, irrespective of whether his decision making is sound. I don't see illegality there. Your argument about Bush's use of signing statements is also very effective but could be still more effective if it were furnished with a particular example of such a signing statement being used to subvert the intent of the constitution. Can you provide such an exemplory example to support your contention? I am not an American citizen. I am an Australian. Despite my country's inclusion in the so called 'coalition of the willing' I find that I and my countrymen are described, as indeed are all non-Americans, as 'aliens' in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. It is that Act in which your Congress saw fit to give the President the power to determine of his own dubious judgement whether anyone in that class is an "enemy combatant". I have never been an enemy of the United States. Prior to the Bush Presidency I regarded the United States as the greatest country on earth to date. But today on the say so of your President I could be declared an "enemy combatant" and then I like all others in the class of alien would have no habeus corpus rights. I could be picked up whilst travelling either to the US to see friends or indeed anywhere Bush's agents might take me, simply because Bush doesn't like the content of my speech. And then I would be denied even the basic right to contest that I had be picked up in gross error of judgement in a court of law. And all this despite that your constitution says at section 9 that the "privilege of the writ of habeus corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it" - and clearly neither rebellion nor invasion are current facts in the United States of America. Please do not think as your endeavor to hold your President to his oath to "faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of (his) ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", that the the only interested parties are the "we the people" of the United States. We the other people, the people with whom the 300 million Americans share the planet and with whom American has made treaties including the United Nations treaties are also acutely interested in seeing that you country and your countrymen are determined to remain a nation of laws. - a guest Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:02:26 +0100 http://pacificfreepress.com/content/view/808/81/#pc_971 Should have been done before he was elected. - a guest Sat, 27 Jan 2007 05:55:06 +0100 http://pacificfreepress.com/content/view/808/81/#pc_962 I haven't encountered anyone, but House Democrats, who oppose impeachment. What we are looking for is a little more than impeachment - systemic regime change. The system is rotten to the core, and will remain so even if we impeach this one bad apple. Impeachment, stop the wars, universal health care, media reform, electoral financial reform, the restoration of constitutional law and human rights, the list goes on and on. Impeachment is necessary, but insufficient. We want more. - a guest Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:25:31 +0100