Don't Blame Me... I'm From Massachusetts

Years ago, during the Watergate scandals, there was a bumper sticker that read: "Don't Blame Me... I'm From Massachusetts". The sticker was a derisive way of pointing out that Massachusetts was the only state that did not endorse Nixon's second term as president. Today, we are seeing a similar movement in the belly of Massachusetts. Like Paul Revere at the start of the American Revolutionary War, the alarm is being sounded... "Bush is coming... Impeach the bastards now!" Boy, oh boy! I am proud to be from Massachusetts!

Near Paul Revere Country, Anti-Bush Cries Get Louder

HOLYOKE, Mass. -- To drive through the mill towns and curling country roads here is to journey into New England's impeachment belt. Three of this state's 10 House members have called for the investigation and possible impeachment of President Bush.

Thirty miles north, residents in four Vermont villages voted earlier this month at annual town meetings to buy more rock salt, approve school budgets, and impeach the president for lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and for sanctioning torture.

The word is spreading... and the forces are marshalling... Where will the first shot be fired? Will it be Vermont, Massachusetts, Michigan or someplace entirely unexpected that finally introduces the impeachment resolution?

Window cleaner Ira Clemons put down his squeegee in the lobby of a city mall and stroked his goatee as he considered the question: Would you support your congressman's call to impeach Bush? His smile grew until it looked like a three-quarters moon.

"Why not? The man's been lying from Jump Street on the war in Iraq," Clemons said. "Bush says there were weapons of mass destruction, but there wasn't. Says we had enough soldiers, but we didn't. Says it's not a civil war -- but it is." He added: "I was really upset about 9/11 -- so don't lie to me."

The people are catching on... "Liar, liar, your pants are on fire!"

It would be a considerable overstatement to say the fledgling impeachment movement threatens to topple a presidency -- there are just 33 House co-sponsors of a motion by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) to investigate and perhaps impeach Bush, and a large majority of elected Democrats think it is a bad idea. But talk bubbles up in many corners of the nation, and on the Internet, where several Web sites have led the charge, giving liberals an outlet for anger that has been years in the making.

It should not be so slow. It certainly was not so slow when Clinton was called to answer for his "high crimes and misdemeanors." Why have we seen such a slow response from congress in the case of President Bush? Clearly, there are partisan reasons for not calling Bush to task for his "high crimes and misdemeanors." Certainly Clinton was guilty of perjury and lying to the nation, courts and congress... but no one dies as a result of his immorality. Bush has sent troops into places on falsified or incompetent intelligence. He has lied about WMD, terrorist connections, and he has violated the Constitution by spying on us without probable cause and warrants obtained via due process. Now, if we are to believe our own reasoning, there may be some evidence that the attacks occuring on 9-11 were part of a conspiracy hatched by a group that included Dick Cheney, Condaleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush and others BEFORE thay came to power.

"The value of a powerful idea, like impeachment of the president for criminal acts, is that it has a long shelf life and opens a debate," said Bill Goodman of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents Guantanamo Bay detainees.

We need to fully engage this debate and fully investigate the basis for impeachment.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted last month to urge Congress to impeach Bush, as have state Democratic parties, including those of New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina and Wisconsin. A Zogby International poll showed that 51 percent of respondents agreed that Bush should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, a far greater percentage than believed President Bill Clinton should be impeached during the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal.

Okay, which is worse... receiving oral sex from a naieve young intern in the Oval Office and then lying about it, or sending troops into harm's way on the basis of lies, incompetence or both?

And Harper's Magazine this month ran a cover piece titled "The Case for Impeachment: Why We Can No Longer Afford George W. Bush."

"If the president says 'We made mistakes,' fine, let's move on," said Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.). "But if he lied to get America into a war, I can't imagine anything more impeachable."

Amen... and the evidence is certainly there to point out that we are dealing with lies, misrepresentations and a pre-determined agenda.

Democrats remain far from unified. Prominent party leaders -- and a large majority of those in Congress -- distance themselves from the effort. They say the very word is a distraction, that talk of impeachment and censure reflect the polarization of politics. Activists spend too many hours dialing Democratic politicians and angrily demanding impeachment votes, they say.

Bovine excrement! There is a certain amount of political cowardice present in our Democratic and Republican representation. This is about the mid-term elections and trying to maintain or conquer the number of seats that are red or blue.

In California, poet Kevin Hearle, an impeachment supporter, is challenging liberal Rep. Tom Lantos -- who opposes impeachment -- in the Democratic primary in June.

"Impeachment is an outlet for anger and frustration, which I share, but politics ain't therapy," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts liberal who declined to sign the Conyers resolution. "Bush would much rather debate impeachment than the disastrous war in Iraq."

Barney Frank is barely competent enough as a politician to stay out of moral trouble while in office. He is popular in his congressional district, but he is a political coward.

The GOP establishment has welcomed the threat. It has been a rough patch for the party -- Bush's approval ratings in polls are lower than for any president in recent history. With midterm elections in the offing, Republican leaders view impeachment as kerosene poured on the bonfires of their party base.

"The Democrats' plan for 2006?" Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman wrote in a fundraising e-mail Thursday. "Take the House and Senate and impeach the president. With our nation at war, is this the kind of Congress you want?"

The GOP strategy is to deflect attention from the problems that they face as a party, and from the disgrace that is the Bush administration. They have publicly claimed that the call for censure and/or impeachment is welcomed as a stretegy for defeating the Democrats yet again in the upcoming elections.

Bush Shows Strategy for Keeping Hill Majorities: Democrats Assailed On National Security, As Well as the Economy

President Bush on Friday provided a preview of his two-front strategy for protecting the Republican congressional majority in an ominous political climate: hammer Democrats on national security and the economy, and raise millions of dollars for embattled GOP candidates such as Rep. Michael E. Sodrel (Ind.).

At a luncheon fundraiser here, Bush repeatedly called Sodrel an indispensable ally in fighting terrorism, and emphasized his support for the military and a robust U.S. foreign policy. Sodrel, he said, "understands this is a nation at war" against terrorists intent on striking America again. It is imperative that voters elect candidates who know that "there is an enemy which hates those of us who embrace freedom and would like to strike us again." He warned the crowd that Democrats will raise taxes and harm the economy if they are elected. "If you want the government in your pocket, vote Democrat," Bush said.

It was not cheap to hear the president's newest campaign pitch eight months before the midterm elections. Republicans paid $1,000 for the buffet lunch and presidential speech; $10,000 if they wanted a picture snapped at a private reception afterward. For Sodrel, who won by a thinner margin than any other House member in 2004, the $500,000 he expected to raise through the event is much needed to fend off a tough challenger, former Democratic representative Baron Hill. Afterward, Bush flew to Pennsylvania for a nighttime fundraiser that was expected to net half a million dollars for Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who faces one of the toughest reelection campaigns in the country.

Notice that the effort is to distract us by focusing on the economy, which is not as good as the GOP and Bush claim, and national security, which seems to be up for sale or rent to the highest bidder--even to bidders that are wholly-owned by a foreign government or entirely foreign interests. Do they really think the American public is that stupid? Perhaps they do... and perhaps we are, given the conversations I have had lately regarding the need for warrantless invasion of our privacy to prevent terrorism from within at any cost... even if these measures are entirely ineffective and non-productive.

The argument for an impeachment inquiry -- which draws support from prominent constitutional scholars such as Harvard's Laurence H. Tribe and former Reagan deputy attorney general Bruce Fein -- centers on Bush's conduct before and after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

It is argued that Bush and his officials conspired to manufacture evidence of weapons of mass destruction to persuade Congress to approve the invasion. Former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill told CBS News's "60 Minutes" that "from the very beginning there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go . . . it was all about finding a way to do it." And a senior British intelligence official wrote in what is now known as the "Downing Street memo" that Bush officials were intent on fixing "the intelligence and the facts . . . around the policy."

Bush lied and our troops have died... Bush lied and our Constitution was tried... Bush lied and he continues to do so, still claiming that our involvement in Iraq will make the United States more secure from terrorism when there is not one iota of factual information to support these claims.

Please remember that I am a veteran of the Navy and the Army National Guard. I stood on the line and was ready to do my duty as required. I was on alert at the time when we sent troops into Iran in a failed rescue mission for the Hostages. I was on alert during Grenada. I am proud of my service and proud to be an American. I am 100% supportive of our military and promote a STRONG military presence and military readiness. But, as a veteran and a person of conscience--even as a Christian--I cannot support sending troops into harm's way on the basis of lies, misrepresentations and agendas that have nothing to do with honor, duty, national defense, or humanitarian relief.

But then, too, for all the talk about honoring and supporting our troops, the Bush administration and the GOP has not fully funded veteran health care, have not provided (after three years) proper armor for the troops, and have not realistically planned for troop rotation and relief of battle-weary units. There is no clearly delineated mission for our involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the proof of that is in examining the fruits of our efforts, including the prosecution of a man for choosing a religion other than that he was given by his parents... absent of reason and choice.

Critics point to Bush's approval of harsh interrogations of prisoners captured Iraq and Afghanistan, tactics that human rights groups such as Amnesty International say amount to torture. Bush also authorized warrantless electronic surveillance of telephone calls and e-mails, subjecting possibly thousands of Americans each year to eavesdropping since 2001.

A violation of international treaty, our own Constitution (by means of several articles, amendments and clauses), and the very principles by which we, as Americans, claim the moral high ground. We are not "the good guys" when we resort to unethical methods. Vioalting our own laws and principles demonstrates a willingness to employ an "ends justfies the means" approach to ethics, government and foreign policy... making us the very bastards that Al-Qaeda claims we are...

"Bush is saying 'I'm the president' and, on a range of issues -- from war to torture to illegal surveillance -- 'I can do as I like,' " said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "This administration needs to be slapped down and held accountable for actions that could change the shape of our democracy."

Indeed, he has usurped power at every opportunity and our congress critters have allowed it to go unchecked... and he has stacked the courts with ideological "yes men" that promote big business and ultra-conservative government at any cost... and the call for impeachment is as legitimate now--perhaps even more so--than it was for Clinton.

Tribe wrote Conyers, dismissing Bush's defense of warrantless surveillance as "poppycock." It constituted, Tribe concluded, "as grave an abuse of executive authority as I can recall ever having studied."

Professor Tribe is the foremost authority on the US Constitution in the entire world. He has written the seminal reference text on Constitutional Law... and it is used by liberal and conservative alike. Tribe is not the type of scholar to go off half-cocked on any topic, much less the idea of impeachment.

But posed against this bill of aggrievement are legal and practical realities. Not all scholars, even of a liberal bent, agree that Bush has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." Bush's legal advice may be wrong, they say, but still reside within the bounds of reason.

I maintain that anyone that has proposed such reasoning has not read the Preamble of the Constitution, or many of its articles and amendments in light of that Preamble.

"The Clinton impeachment was plainly unconstitutional, and a Bush impeachment would be nearly as bad," said Cass R. Sunstein, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. "There is a very good argument that the president had it wrong on WMD in Iraq but that he was acting in complete good faith."

I would agree that the Clinton impeachment was a political hack job, but the bottom line is that Clinton committed perjury, a felony under state and federal law. It rose to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and betrayed the trust of the people in the presidency, as well as betrayed his oath of office... not to mention basic principles of morality and ethics.

Sunstein argues that Bush's decision to conduct surveillance of Americans without court approval flowed from Congress's vote to allow an armed struggle against al-Qaeda. "If you can kill them, why can't you spy on them?" Sunstein said, adding that this is a minority view.

Congress provided an authorization for military force against terrorists... not suspects of a crime. So, if they were tapping the phones of known terrorists, then the NSA would be within the scope of the AUMF resolution. Further, it is a stretch of semantics to include wiretapping of doemstic telecommunications in the definition of "military force." On top of all of this, NONE of the wiretaps were conducted on terrorists... and all of them involved legitimate US citizens or residents, according to the reports from the NSA, the DOJ, the FBI and whitleblowers within the government (i.e. Russell Tice).

Here in Massachusetts and Vermont, though, in the back roads and on the streets of Holyoke and Springfield, the discontent with Bush is palpable. These are states that, per capita, have sent disproportionate numbers of soldiers to Iraq. Many in these middle- and working-class towns are not pleased that so many friends and cousins are coming back wounded or dead.

Reasonable people can disagree on matters of opinion and perspective... but how long does it take before the facts become an overwhelming idctment of a wrong-headed leadership that will do anything to push forward its pre-determined agenda.

"He picks and chooses his information and can't admit it's erroneous, and he annoys me," said Colleen Kucinski, walking Aleks, 5, and Gregory, 2, home.

Would she support impeachment? Kucinski wags her head "yes" before the question is finished. "Without a doubt. This is far more serious than Clinton and Monica. This is about life and death. We're fighting a war on his say-so and it was all wrong."

Without a doubt... Impeach the bastard and his gang.