The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush by Congressman Dennis Kucinich
Feral House has published the The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush by Congressman Dennis Kucinich and is offering it as a bound book and a free PDF.
Feral House offers this important and urgent publication of Dennis Kucinich’s Articles of Impeachment this election season in two formats: an offset-printed paperback book available for the cost of $12 and a free downloadable PDF available below.The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush by Congressman Dennis KucinichDavid Swanson’s additional article explains how the Impeachment process is possible and necessary even after the guilty perp leaves office, and how they can be used for prosecution of crimes. Those wishing to purchase over ten copies of the printed book can obtain them at discount from Feral House directly. Please contact info@feralhouse.com for costs.
the latest
latest episodes
Mark, why must you torture me so? I think I feel a migraine coming on.
Isn't Bush the dumb innocent one with Cheney behind the scene, pulling the strings. Yeah, that's it!
George W. Bush is a very dishonorable person. Anyone else would have fallen on his sword by now. The republicans are going to be punished November 4th.
I'm hoping it goes something like this. But, that's just me. We're forming a collective finger crossing and rabbit's foot rubbing this Nov 4th. All are welcome to join.
L'il Georgie is going to spend the rest of his natural days know as the "president" who broke the nation and wounded the planet in the bargain. If only that were punishment enough.
"We're forming a collective finger crossing and rabbit's foot rubbing this Nov 4th."
It's nice to see you practicing a little African American folk magic!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit%27s_foot
Prince Humperdinck: First things first, to the death.
Westley: No. To the pain.
Prince Humperdinck: I don't think I'm quite familiar with that phrase.
Westley: I'll explain and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand, you warthog faced buffoon.
Prince Humperdinck: That may be the first time in my life a man has dared insult me.
Westley: It won't be the last. To the pain means the first thing you will lose will be your feet below the ankles. Then your hands at the wrists. Next your nose.
Prince Humperdinck: And then my tongue I suppose, I killed you too quickly the last time. A mistake I don't mean to duplicate tonight.
Westley: I wasn't finished. The next thing you will lose will be your left eye followed by your right.
Prince Humperdinck: And then my ears, I understand let's get on with it.
Westley: WRONG. Your ears you keep and I'll tell you why. So that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, "Dear God! What is that thing," will echo in your perfect ears. That is what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.
Ah, some new material for the old guys at the Nite Owl Coney Island to digest with their morning coffee and glazeds. It's on me, you disabused Democrats For Bush!
Oh, I forgot:
Westley: Thank you, but no. Whatever happens to us, I want him to live a long life alone with his cowardice.
Republicans do not "colossally fuck up". They do exactly what they intend to do. For them the entire purpose to public office is to transfer wealth from the State into private hands. In oder to justify that you have to destroy a government service in the mind of the public.
So for instance you find some useful idiots like a dishwasher with bizarre ideas about public education and a whole bunch of bogus research and other equally deluded nuts. You fund them, hire them for your think tanks, you buy a pundit, a magazine, a TV network. From them you scream 24/7 about the failures of teachers, or students, or about the violence, or most of all about the minorities your working class listeners have been trained to hate. At the same time, when you are in power you do all you can to undermine gov services with legislation like No Child Left Behind that is designed to act as a legal bomb to destroy public schools.
Of course, you don't home school your children. They get the very best teachers money can buy and go to the very finest schools. Schools that don't practice the delusional theories your toadies preach. That's for other people, otherwise they could become a threat. Ya gotta keep your foot on their throat ya know.
No, republicans are very competent at what they do: destroying government services and transferring wealth to the private sector. If they weren't, we wouldn't have a kleptocracy now would we?
Why didn't you guys impeach him ages ago?
It's not like you didn't know he was lying and breaking human rights issues left and right - you just shrugged and closed your eyes, waiting for the next chance to vote him out.
But then you didn't vote him out, did you?
Free? Nice. That's about what it's worth. Kucinich needs to focus on his Dept. of Peace.
didn't read it, did ya Floyd?
#11 Keppoch,
Get off your high horse; you're not funny.
You know goddamn well millions of us voted against him. Which clean-handed country do you swear allegiance to?
#11: Google "election fraud 2004 iowa."
Basically, that lynchpin election was rigged. Either that or the elections around the world we've been flagging as rigged for decades aren't really.
just as santorum was justly coined,so "to really bush things up" must be given its rightful place.
We're forming a collective finger crossing and rabbit's foot rubbing this Nov 4th.
Wait a minute! When that witchdoctor "cleared" Palin against evil witches, he didn't say anything about good witches like TOM HALE working FOR her did he?
I get it: Duelling witches.
oui!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTlN-wqAzhg
I was just planning an election day weep-and-drink, just like in 2004. God, I got smashed and wept into my gin with a hint of olive juice fer the salt. There were five of us, bawling like babies and hammering down the boozeahol. And then we held each other.
It's good to be a girl, sometimes. Sooooo good.
Alas, I have nothing of the prescription variety for this one, so it'll have to be bourbon and Kleenex, but not in the same glass. Either way, I'm cryin'.
@Keppoch #11
Why didn't you guys impeach him ages ago?
Leaving aside the question of political will, wasn't there a problem with having enough votes in the Senate?
Which is really too bad. He should have been impeached and convicted to stop him from doing any more damage, as an apology to the world, to demonstrate to the world that we're really not crazy, and most importantly as a lesson to future presidents about what they'll get if they try to pull this **** again. No, you are not more important that the Constitution, and we really really mean it.
Our president takes a reality break (yet again):
http://dbsweeney.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/bush-merkel-grope1.jpg?w=300&h=223
My bet is that if Bush gets impeached it'll be not for good reasons, but because things go so wrong that the electorate turns into a feral mob howling for blood, after which our Congresspeople will do what they typically do: figure out which way the crowd is heading then quick go run up to the front of it and yell "this way". Following from the front. (Kucinich seems to be an exception.)
Interesting coincidence that Congressman Kucinich's book was published by "Feral Press".
But yes, let's impeach him and his administration and then try their sorry asses in front of the Hague.
So that the families of people killed in Iraq, by his administration's mishandling of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, by the infrastructure collapses all over the nation, by fraudulent recruiters who sent half trained soldiers off to die with shoddy equipment and left vets untreated, by people left homeless while his buddies pillaged our banks and he pulled the plug on inspections, the families of children who were hurt or died because of lax or non-existent inspections of imports and in-country goods, and for all the things I don't know about.
I want to see him squirming in front of the Hague for years while every last motherfucking 'i' gets dotted and 't' gets crossed. I want the entire world to get a chance to talk about and condemn what he and his administration have done. I want there to be a record and such an intense sense of shame that this never happens again, goddamn it.
*sniff* it's..it's almost worth becoming a vertebrate...
The problem I see here is that the republicans who have just blindly taken that side without investigating any of the facts arent going to bother reading something like this.
Im not saying all republicans are ill-informed, some have weighed the facts and chosen their political standpoint. I'm talking about the ones who have chosen republican because thats what their parents were, or its what the news channel they watch told them to do, or because Obama is black. They don't WANT to find out about the other sides real viewpoint, this can be said of democrats as well of course.
I think by this point people have made up their minds, whether it be a properly informed decision or not.
I thought impeachment was a form of trial? If so, the phrase "even after the guilty perp leaves office" sounds sinister.
Surely if justice is to mean anything, you aren't 'guilty' until after the verdict?
@Andrew Denny,
That's true and important, but in this case I think the evidence has been revealed in the press over the last few years (very much in spite of the "perp's" efforts to keep it secret). If I were a juror (or a senator) I know how I'd vote.
Has Pelosi ever offered a rationale explaining why it's in the public interest not to impeach? I'll accept there might be one, but I don't know what it is. I can see a political gain -- the longer Bush stays in office, the more obvious it is we need a change of national leadership, IMHO -- but that's not necessarily the same as being in the public interest.
Andrew Denny @ 24: Impeachment is the legal process which strips the POTUS of the special legal protections of his office so that he can be tried like a regular citizen in the court system. At this point, impeaching Bush would be stripping him of power officially (like the ability to use the military, and I think many of them would be glad to no longer be given orders by that jackass), and hopefully opening the door to removing some of the powers Bush has given the office. At this point, we have to use something to scale down the office or we have to keep holding our breath and hoping we don't get an asshole in office, and we cannot do that without legal proceedings. The system is currently broken and there are legal provisions to fix it, but they have to be used or the radically out of balance POTUS will just keep going to whatever person ends up there, with no oversight and basically no fear of prosecution. Bush has set a legal precedent for the office which has to be dealt with. And quickly, before everyone 'forgets' the changes have happened or that there was anything to change.
"The problem I see here is that the republicans who have just blindly taken that side without investigating any of the facts arent going to bother reading something like this.'
No, when we look at the supposed facts we just say "That's Bullshit! - Damn lying liberal bastards!" and change the channel back to FOX. Honestly, that's what really happens.
Keppoch: you're Canadian, right? Well, you take care of Stephen Harper, we'll take care of our mess.
ya know, tom, that says much about the current trend among republicans to shift blame and responsibility. and certainly the trend to not accept ANY for themselves.
I really enjoyed Kucinich's remarks when I saw them live on the floor:
http://tinyurl.com/3kzpmt
I like the stylized pdf version too :)
Kucinich continues to show zeel in his recent (much shorter) speech against the rushed "bailout"
http://tinyurl.com/3l3zeq
Just wish more politicians where more like him we would not have gotten into such a mess with so many criminal acts going unpunished.
S why r dmcrts vtng fr bm? stll dn't ndrstnd. Vt Kcnch!
minTphresh - You can show someone facts, but if they know their side is right, it's almost impossible to convince them otherwise.
An example: One of the nurses I used to work with is extremely liberal, not that it mattered I love her to death, but after she saw Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 she was convinced it was all true. I tried to show her Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11, she refused to look, not wanting to have her beliefs shaken.
I will read The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush, but I seriously doubt if I accept it as fact. If my research, shows it to be true or mostly true, I promise to show it to my Conservative friends.
"No, when we look at the supposed facts we just say "That's Bullshit! - Damn lying liberal bastards!" and change the channel back to FOX. Honestly, that's what really happens.''
TOM HALE,
To toss a few metaphors together: my hat's off to you, you've let the cat out of the bag, and you're the rare Republican with an open mind. you, sir, are not without honor.
But I am curious about the following: "I tried to show her Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11..." I know it is a chrome-plated meme that Michael Moore is a liar, but every challenge I've given to those who repeat it to prove it has either been evaded or gone unanswered. As with the "Al Gore said he invented the internet" canard, it seems to be just something people say without ever having any intent to prove it. Comfort words?
So, what are the "Fifty-nine Deceits"?
By the way, by definition one cannot reject a "fact." What is is. All one can do when denying a fact's existence is to bluster and lie.
Tom, if you can read that document with an open mind, pretend it is written about a democrat, say. i believe you will come out of the experience almost as angry at this admin as i. is that even possible for you? i say that not as a put down, but as a legit question.
Buddy66, here ya go. Here's the Four Page PDF from the site that summarizes the alleged deceits..
minTphresh, do you really think I'm not angry at the Bush administration? Republicans had control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate for 6 years. What did they accomplish that I really cared about? - not a lot. Sure, the 9/11/01 attack followed by the War on Terrorism really screwed things up (not that the next 25 comments should be about this) but, I think they could have concentrated on our agenda a lot more than they did.
Tom Hale: If you see the lies and hypocrisy of bush/Cheney, why are you still going to vote for their third term?
When will it dawn on the party faithful, Republican politicians at the national level don't care about your agenda. They trot out the agenda every four years to get your votes, and ya'll keep falling for the same bag of bisquits like Pavlov's dog.
After everything they have done, how can you honestly believe they give a flying fuck about your social agenda?
Phikus, after reading Tom's comments over the last few days, it seems to me he is a one issue voter, and that issue is the criminalization of abortion.
FoetusNail, how about you and Takuan NOT bogarting every political conversation? That said, I disagree with your comment. How about you or Takuan playing devils advocate for a while. Come on, take one for the team.
eh? Make sense Tom.
Tom Hale,
Over the last few days you have made a variety of off-topic, politically motivated, unsubstantiated accusations. If you're going to make any sort of accusation, you must back it up with a clear citation. That means a news item (not a blog item) from NYT, BBC, etc. And it still needs to be on topic.
TOM HALE: What do you think you are doing, exactly, playing God's advocate? Many of us here welcome FOETUSNAIL and TAKUAN's comments because they present reasoning in their arguments; show an original synthesis of ideas; and support what they say through verifiable credible sources. When are you going to step up to do the same? When are you going to participate in a discussion instead of just spouting off?
The best thing about Kucinich?
His smokin hot wife
Maybe he did see a UFO, it would explain more than a few things about him.
I thought we were just talking here. But I'll try to stay on topic from now on. I'm asked for my opinion a lot though - A few: "why are you still going to vote for their third term?" "is that even possible for you?"
I brought up the "59 Deceits" thing as part of an example about how difficult it is for people to change their beliefs, not to make any political statements about the movie or about the Bush administration, then Buddy66 asked about it - though I would have just googled it for myself if I were him.
Again, I'll stay as close to the topic as I can. When asked why or what about my beliefs I'll try to fit my explanation into the topic if possible.
This may be a bit off topic, but since it was mentioned above, I'd like to add that it would be nice if we could vote for people who truly have their party's best interests at heart for a change (and not be throwing away our vote.) This election would be Dennis Kucinish vs Ron Paul, and we'd be seeing debates on issues instead of personality contests. Of course, then we'd have viable 3rd, 4th, and 5th party candidates as well. I can dream...
dream on phike! for me, the ultimate candidacy would be : Dr.Paul/kucinich! truly across the aisle politics! so far as i can tell, the only 2 in congress who aren't completely bought and paid for.
I'm tired of Tom Hale and his omnipresent stance on abortion in the political comments here at bb. Who votes solely on abortion this election?
Wingnuts, that's who!
Lets face it...if it were the man who carried the child abortion would be largely a non-issue and everyone could just stfu, including Tom Hale. I realize this is not reality, but just imagine for a moment how the issue might be different if it were not a woman's life/body/fate involved. Of course Tom Hale will say the gender of the host doesn't matter and its about the clump of cells, er, I mean "child". (sorry Tom!)
Back on topic, I admire Kucinich's gravitas for standing his ground on this one, regardless of where it goes.
@ druranium, What-the fuck-ever - Read my past posts on how I feel about the subject.
TOM! Fuckin language, dude! Whoa!
Everyone else can say whatever they want - So, I'm a little bitter. Through all of these political posts, I've always been nice, I give respect to other's opinions, I try not to be argumentative, I stay on topic unless everyone is already way off topic, I don't attack anyone's beliefs, I don't intentionally post false or unreliable sources. Yet I'm the one that's put under pressure to always have a reliable news source for any comment I may post, and whatever I post must be on topic. I love BB, for a while I thought we could have political conversations for or against Democrats - apparently the rules don't apply too both parties.
No worries, I'll still be nice-ish
Tom: when the fox gnaws...
well, well.. I see Canadians have elected to flush their country down the toilet. Better luck next time - if you get one.
tom, it was a joke. note the words "fuckin' language". considering some of the things i've had hurled at me like beer bottles, soda cans, a sandwich, whilst protesting the iraq war, let alone the hate-filled venomous verbal spew, then if the way we assholes treat you on bong-bing is one of your largest concerns...consider yourself EXTREMELY fortunate. you gotta have a bit of the masochist inya though, dontcha?
Yeah, I guess I sometimes feel like the Lone Ranger. But not a hero for Bush or McCain - just for the Republican agenda. As far as masochist goes - it doesn't bother me until I'm forced to adhere to certain limitations, while others aren't. But I can work with that too - it sucks though because with every comment I'll have to add, "but still, I have to stick with the topic, so I can't say anymore than that." After just mentioning something good. Good as in - You'll think -I'm about to stomp that Republican's ass into the ground! Wait, what! he can't finish his comment because he'll be breaking a moderator's guidelines! Arrrrrrgh!
Tom,
What you don't seem to understand (or choose to ignore) is that this is a conversation. People who walk into conversations with the goal of pushing their opinions on the other conversants are bores. You've tried to paint a picture of yourself as some sort of warrior of truth, but mostly, you just come off as a propagandist for intolerance and hatred.
Tom Hale: Look at it this way. Many of us here are well informed on the issues. If we don't provide a citation, it is because we may be speaking to an event that we may feel is well documented, at least within BB circles. We don't provide links to the obvious, generally, but it seems that many of these perspectives are fresh to you. I salute you for beginning to peer outside of the Fox news - AM radio talkshow - NRA sponsored - Bill O'Reilly - right wing documentary - puditsphere that passes for news for most conservatives these days when it is actually bush's Ministry of Information / mouthpiece of Karl Rove. While you're here, you might do better by asking questions.
If someone - anyone - here makes wild leaps of ill informed conjecture, they will be called on it. If you see posts from leftist perspectives speaking to facts that you don't believe, politely ask for a citation (if you can't google the event from a reasonably neutral respected source yourself.) That's how it works, for everyone. It is also best to try not to speak outside of your direct sphere of knowledge.
Accusing the moderators of bias is the last and least effective (read anti-) way to try to win anyone over.
Saying "but still, I have to stick with the topic, so I can't say anymore than that." on every post now is a game that you should drop. If what you say is interesting enough, even if off topic, it might be something people will want to explore with you. (A conversation is an organic thing, like a river, and may take new directions at any time.) If not, you'll hear about it. If you hear about it enough or from a moderator even once, you should listen.
hey lone ranger! betcha didn't know that 'Kemosabe' means 'sexual deviant' in Lakota.
He's such a maverick...
ya know, the REAL mavericks are gettin sick and tired of John McSamo and Bible Spice using their trademark: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/weekinreview/05schwartz.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Maverick&st=cse&oref=slogin&oref=slogin