Thread: Website Set up for IMPEACHMENT VOTES

Originally Posted by JZ

Another reason President Bush should be impeached is he, Breached the Geneva Convention and tortured people to death in Abu Ghraib prison.

I am really confused as to how so many Americans can feel any sympathy for people who intend on killing all of us. Why not put your efforts into protecting innocent Americans?

Originally Posted by JZ

Another reason President Bush should be impeached is he, Breached the Geneva Convention and tortured people to death in Abu Ghraib prison.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19032

UN-dermined: The Right's Disdain for the UN and International Treaties


Torture

In January 2002, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales authored a memo arguing that the treatment of those captured in the war in Afghanistan was not to be governed by the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Convention grew out of concerns regarding the treatment of wounded soldiers in the late 19th century. Over the years it was expanded to cover the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians during war time. Additional protocols were issued in 1977 extending the Convention to cover guerrilla combatants and soldiers in wars of "self-determination" and while the U.S. signed these protocols, the Senate refused to ratify them.3

Relying, in part, on an earlier Department of Justice memo, Gonzales determined that the President had the authority to unilaterally decide that the Geneva Convention did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan. Gonzales urged President Bush to exercise that authority because doing so would substantially “[reduce] the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act." He argued that if the administration chose to abide by the Geneva Convention, it could open U.S. officials to prosecution under the 1996 War Crimes Act, which prohibits U.S. officials from committing “grave breaches” of the Geneva Convention.4

An earlier Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memo had concluded that “neither the War Crimes Act nor the Geneva Conventions” would apply regarding the treatment of prisoners captured in Afghanistan or held in Guantanamo Bay.5 In his own memo, Gonzales strongly seconded that view and argued that the Convention’s provisions were “obsolete” in the face of the war on terrorism and had, as such, been “render[ed] quaint.” Gonzales urged the President to determine that the Geneva Convention was inapplicable, as doing so “would create a reasonable basis in law that [the War Crimes Act] does not apply which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution.”6

In August 2002, Gonzales received another memo from the Office of Legal Council, signed by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, who was eventually nominated by President Bush to a seat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and confirmed by the Senate. The August memo covered the CIA’s methods of interrogating suspected terrorists and concluded that only methods that were “specifically intended” to produce severe pain or permanent damage would constitute torture and be prohibited.7 Among the procedures that were apparently approved was “water boarding” in which prisoners are strapped down and forcibly submerged in water in order to make them believe they are drowning.8 The memo narrowed the definition of what constituted torture, concluding that only practices that caused pain equivalent to that associated with “serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death” would qualify.9

The President ultimately decided that the Geneva Convention would apply to Taliban detainees, but not to al Qaeda detainees.10 Administration officials also insisted that the Convention would be applied to prisoners in Iraq.11 Yet, as chronicled by John Barry, Michael Hirsh and Michael Isikoff in their Newsweek investigation “The Roots of Torture,” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was so impressed with the intelligence gathered from Convention-exempt al Qaeda prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that he worked to export the techniques to Iraq. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller oversaw the implementation of a “72-point matrix for stress and duress” at Guantanamo Bay and, in September 2003, was sent to Iraq where he informed Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of running Iraqi detention facilities, that Abu Ghraib would henceforth be used for gathering military intelligence.12 The approved techniques were then applied to prisoners at Abu Ghraib, despite the fact that, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, “between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake.”13

Gonzales did not act alone in attempting to help the Bush administration sidestep the restrictions found in international law. William Haynes, the General Counsel to the Department of Defense, and current nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, played a key role in crafting legal opinions that, to some, appeared “designed to find legal loopholes that will permit the use of torture against detainees.”14 Haynes’s efforts to exempt the administration from the Geneva Convention, as well as the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, reportedly compelled some senior members of the military’s Judge Advocate General Corps (“JAG”) to approach the New York Bar Association to raise their concern that Haynes and other senior defense officials were creating “an atmosphere of legal ambiguity” that would lead to the mistreatment of detainees.15

When substantiated reports of prisoner abuse and other Geneva Convention violations, such as hiding “ghost detainees” from the International Committee of the Red Cross, first began appearing,16 many right-wing commentators instinctively insisted that it was just a few isolated incidents attributable to the actions of a “few bad apples” rather than the logical result of the Bush administration’s policies.17

Just days before Gonzales’ confirmation hearing, the Department of Justice released a memo officially rejecting the administration’s earlier views regarding torture, proclaiming that ''torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and international norms."18 While the Bush administration’s decision to exempt itself from key parts of the Geneva Convention has shocked and outraged many who value human rights and the protections the Convention ensures, with the urging and support of its right-wing base, the administration has worked to similarly exempt itself from, undermine, and oppose several other treaties during its first four years in office.

The Geneva Conventions were created to protect military regulars acting under orders. Period. And even then, if the orders are deemed to constitute war crimes, they must be disobeyed if the protections are to accrue. The sole purpose of the Conventions was to allow regular armies to maintain military discipline by not having the soldiers fear that following the orders of their superiors would lead to harsh retribution if they were captured by the enemy.

Terrorists and insurgents are not military regulars, but rather more closely fit the description of criminals and rogues. The Geneva Conventions don't protect them because the very nature of the acts in which they participate are deemed to be war crimes (such as the intentional targeted murder of civilians). They have no rank and are answerable to no chain of command.

As a backdrop to all this, American soldiers have never really been protected by the GCs, which makes the entire premise a joke. Look at the treatment of American POWs by the Japanese in WWII (Bataan Death March), by the VC (Hanoi Hilton), by the Somalis (Blackhawk Down) and by the Iraqis (dismembered, burned and displayed on a bridge).

Before you start going off on nonsense about the damned used bullfeed that is the Geneva Conventions, maybe you should make sure that you know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by JZ

Another reason President Bush should be impeached is he, Breached the Geneva Convention and tortured people to death in Abu Ghraib prison.

The Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer


How Torture Came Down From the Top

By Jackson Diehl
Friday, August 27, 2004; Page A21

The latest official reports on the prisoner abuse scandal contain a classic Washington contradiction. Their headlines proclaim that no official policy mandated or allowed the torture of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that no officials above the rank of colonel deserve prosecution or formal punishment. But buried in their hundreds of pages of detail, for anyone who cares to read them, is a clear and meticulous account of how decisions made by President Bush, his top political aides and senior military commanders led directly to those searing images of naked prisoners being menaced with guard dogs.

An abbreviated tour of that buried narrative could begin on Page 33 of the report by the panel led by James R. Schlesinger. There it details how President Bush, on the advice of his White House counsel and attorney general, decided in February 2002 that the Geneva Conventions would not apply to captured members of al Qaeda and Afghanistan's Taliban. This, despite the objections of the State Department and "many service lawyers," who worried that the decision "would undermine the United States military culture, which is based on a strict adherence to the law of war."

In October 2002, Schlesinger recounts, authorities at the Guantanamo Bay prison "requested approval of strengthened counter-interrogation techniques," and in December, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld authorized a number of harsh methods. He was challenged by the military lawyers whom he had failed to consult, and the policy was revised in April 2003.

Already, however, the techniques first authorized by Rumsfeld were circulating around the world. According to the report of Army Maj. Gen. George R. Fay, "the techniques employed in [Guantanamo] included the use of stress positions, isolation for up to thirty days, removal of clothing and the use of detainees' phobias (such as the use of dogs)," all of which had been approved by Rumsfeld. "From December 2002, interrogators in Afghanistan were removing clothing, isolating people for long periods of time, using stress positions, exploiting fear of dogs and implementing sleep and light deprivation."

How did these abusive practices spread to Iraq, where they were clearly illegal under the Geneva Conventions? "Interrogators in Iraq," Fay writes, "already familiar with the practice of some of these new ideas, implemented them even prior to any policy guidance" from Iraq commanders. But there was "policy guidance," too. In August 2003, Schlesinger says, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, then the commander at Guantanamo Bay, arrived in Iraq; "he brought the Secretary of Defense's April 16, 2003, policy guidelines for Guantanamo with him and gave this policy to" Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq.

On Sept. 14, as Schlesinger recounts it, "Sanchez signed a memorandum authorizing a dozen interrogation techniques beyond" the standard Army practice under the Geneva Conventions, including "five beyond those approved for Guantanamo." He did so, Schlesinger says, "using reasoning from the President's Memorandum of February 7, 2002," which he believed justified "additional, tougher measures." The methods he approved included several of those on which Rumsfeld had signed off 10 months earlier and which subsequently had appeared in Afghanistan: stress positions, fear of dogs, and sleep and light deprivation.

Sanchez's policy was revised a month later, but interrogators at Abu Ghraib, Fay reports, had begun using it immediately. Consequently, some guards and interrogators who used dogs to frighten prisoners, deprived them of clothing or subjected them to extreme isolation had every reason to believe their acts were authorized. As Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones delicately put it in his report, "Some of these incidents involved conduct which, in retrospect, violated international law. However, at the time some of the soldiers or contractors committed the acts, they may have honestly believed the techniques were condoned."

The causal chain is all there: from Bush's February 2002 decision to Rumsfeld's December 2002 authorization of nudity, stress positions and dogs; to the adoption of those methods in Afghanistan and their sanction in Iraq by a commander looking back to Bush's decision; and finally, to their use on detainees by soldiers who reasonably believed they were executing official policy.

So why do the reports' authors deny the role of policy, or its makers? Partly because of the Army's inbred inability to indict its own; partly because of the desire of Rumsfeld's old colleagues, such as Schlesinger, to protect him. But there's another motive, too: a lingering will to defend and preserve the groundbreaking decisions -- those that set aside the Geneva Conventions and allowed harsh interrogation techniques. Schlesinger argues they are needed for the war on terrorism; he and senior Army commanders say they are worried about a "chilling effect" on interrogations and a slackening in intelligence collection.

The buried message of their reports, though, is that the new system is unworkable. Once the rules are bent for one class of prisoner, or one detention facility, or one agency, exceptional practices cannot be easily returned to their bottle -- and the chaos of Abu Ghraib is a predictable result. Just as the Army professionals foresaw, Bush's 2002 decision undermined "U.S. military culture" and its "strict adherence to the law of war." That is the headline the investigators ducked.

Originally Posted by LawnCheney

Bush knows that bonafide “TERRORIST” are crossing into the United States from our Southern border daily! Hezbollah is a terrorist group funded by Iran and Syria that is currently taking over the country of Lebanon by over powering the Lebanon government! Hezbollah is in the United States!

Has anyone noticed how many train derailment of Hazardous Chemical materials have happened in the last 2 years? Or how many manufacturing plants have exploded and burned in to rubble? Coincidence or Hezbollah?

http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investi ... Report.pdf

Homeland Security Report, Page - 4.

There is an ever-present threat of terrorist infiltration over the Southwest boarder. U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement investigations have revealed that aliens were smuggled from the Middle East to staging areas in the Central and South America, before being smuggled illegally into the United States.

Members of Hezbollah have already entered the United States across the Southwest boarder.

U.S. Military and intelligence officials believe that Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. The Venezuelan government is issuing identity documents that could subsequently be used to obtain a U.S. visa and enter the country.

http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investi ... Report.pdf

Homeland Security Report, Page - 32.

The illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries “pay larger amounts of money ($15,000 to $60,000 per alien) to employ the more effective human traffickers and smuggling organizations and are less likely to be apprehended.”

Isn't it Ironic that their were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq of course Bush and Cheney knew that. There were no Al Qaeda terrorist in Iraq, they were in Afghanistan. Bush has created more terrorist than there were in the first place since the war began.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Jun8.html

Washington Post

Memo on Torture Draws Focus to Bush

Excerpt:


The disclosure that the Justice Department advised the White House in 2002 that the torture of al Qaeda terrorist suspects might be legally defensible has focused new attention on the role President Bush played in setting the rules for interrogations in the war on terrorism.

An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, addressed to Gonzales, said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation" conducted against suspected terrorists.


In the view expressed by the Justice Department memo, which differs from the view of the Army, physical torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to the level of mental torture, the Justice Department argued, the psychological harm must last "months or even years."


A former senior administration official involved in discussions about CIA interrogation techniques said Bush's aides knew he wanted them to take an aggressive approach.

The former administration official said the CIA "was prepared to get more aggressive and re-learn old skills, but only with explicit assurances from the top that they were doing so with the full legal authority the president could confer on them."

Critics familiar with the August 2002 memo and another, similar legal opinion given by the Defense Department's office of general counsel in March 2003 assert that government lawyers were trying to find a legal justification for actions -- torture or cruel and inhumane acts -- that are clearly illegal under U.S. and international law.


Critics say that this misstates the law, and that it ignores key legal decisions, such as the landmark 1952 Supreme Court ruling in Youngstown Steel and Tube Co v. Sawyer, which said that the president, even in wartime, must abide by established U.S. laws.

Originally Posted by JZ

Another reason President Bush should be impeached is he, Breached the Geneva Convention and tortured people to death in Abu Ghraib prison.

#1......your proof please?

#2......And are the islamic maniacs, void of a nation's uniform, upholding the GENEVA CONVENTIONS, sir?

Originally Posted by April

Maybe, if Americans keep Bush busy fighting against his impeachment, he will be too busy to keep ICE, border agents and towns who want to enforce immigration laws from doing their jobs.

With Bush signing away the Nations sovereignty (SPP), and illegally using FISA and the illegal wire taps and I think we can keep Mr. Bush very busy! Bush43 is by far the worst Presidente in the History of America. Now even the National Debt is in question. Not to mention him stripping away the “Writ of Habeas Corpus” simply by him calling an American citizen a terrorist he can arrest detain without any questions or due process, very Unconstitutional!

“At some point, it seems to me we will come to a national security issue if the financial leverage continues.”
http://www.house.gov/tanner/press110-006.htm

February 6, 2007

TANNER QUESTIONS TREASURY SECRETARY
ON GROWING DEBT TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Fears security risk of borrowing from foreign sources
for President's new $2.9 trillion budget proposal
Congressman John Tanner again pressed U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on the Bush Administration’s growing dependence on foreign investors to finance U.S. deficits.

Foreign Ownership of U.S. Debt

- The Bush Administration has borrowed more money from foreign countries than all 42 previous presidents combined.

- In 1980, 17 percent of the U.S. privately-held debt was borrowed from foreign sources. In 2006, 44 percent was borrowed from foreign sources.
- The largest foreign owners of U.S. federal debt is Japan ($637 billion), China ($346 billion), United Kingdom ($223 billion), OPEC nations ($98 billion) and South Korea ($68 billion).

- Since 2001, China has increased its ownership of U.S. debt by about 500 percent.

Source: Treasury Department

Foreign ownership of U.S. debt is a potential threat to national security and the U.S. economy, and the U.S. is forced to spend taxpayer money to make interest payments to foreign investors, Tanner said in a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee, on which he serves.

The federal debt is $8.6 trillion, more than $2 trillion of which is owed to foreign investors. The President’s new $2.9 trillion budget proposal would add an additional $239 billion deficit in the upcoming budget year.
“Last year, the [$248 billion] deficit was covered by borrowing, almost 90 percent of which was from non-U.S. citizens,” Tanner said to Paulson during the committee hearing. “Last year alone, this country wrote interest checks to non-U.S. interests of over $140 billion, more than we appropriate for the Education, [Veterans Affairs] and Justice departments combined.

“At some point, it seems to me we will come to a national security issue if the financial leverage continues.”

Paulson indicated that the Administration will need to ask Congress within the calendar year to raise the debt ceiling – the amount the federal government is allowed to borrow, including from foreign sources.
Tanner had asked a similar question of President Bush after Bush delivered a speech to the House Democratic Caucus. According to news reports of that meeting, Bush said he did not know which specific countries held ownership of the U.S. debt and said his administration hopes to balance the federal budget by the year 2012, well into the next president’s administration.

Tanner represents Tennessee’s 8th Congressional district in west and middle Tennessee. He is a founding member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats.

Originally Posted by April

Thank God that Impeachment was put in place by our forefathers so WE THE PEOPLE always have an avenue to fight to save our country against overwhelming corruption and oppression.

The BIGGEST reason we should impeach him is he's threatening our Nations Sovereignty!

PLEASE CIRCULATE!


YOU CAN HELP TO STOP MERGER OF UNITED STATES-MEXICO-CANADA:

Rep. Virgil Goode, Jr. (R-VA) introduced Bill H.Con.Res. 40 which expresses the sense of Congress that the United States SHOULD NOT engage in the construction of a NAFTA Superhighway System or enter into a “North American Union” (NAU) with Mexico and Canada or the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (SPP)

***

Please SUPPORT the Bill H.CON.RES.40 that will STOP the Unification of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Call, Email and Fax!

*****IT'S A FREE CALL!*****

Call today and leave a message for your Rep. and tell them;

Tell your Rep. To SUPPORT Bill H.CON.RES.40

The Bill will:

1. To Help STOP The Unification of the United States, Canada and Mexico!

2. STOP the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)

3. STOP the “North American Union” (NAU)


Tell your Rep. To SUPPORT Bill H.CON.RES.40

CALL:

United States Capital
PH: 1-877-851-6437

or

United States Capital
1-866-340-9281

House of Representatives:
How to find out who your Rep. is type in your zip code
http://www.house.gov/


*****

How to find the Bill.

Go here: http://www.house.gov/

Click on: Find a Bill, Amendment, or Debate

Insert into "Search Bill Text" box: H.Con.Res 40

Choose number 14. [below]

14 . Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North... (Introduced in House)1. [H.CON.RES.40.IH]


*****

Here's a copy of the Bill.

THE BILL:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North... (Introduced in House)

HCON 40 IH


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. CON. RES. 40

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 22, 2007
Mr. GOODE (for himself, Mr. WAMP, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. PAUL, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. DUNCAN, and Ms. FOXX) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.

Whereas the United States Departments of State, Commerce, and Homeland Security participated in the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) on March 23, 2005, representing a tri-lateral agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico designed, among other things, to facilitate common regulatory schemes between these countries;

Whereas reports issued by the SPP indicate that it has implemented regulatory changes among the three countries that circumvent United States trade, transportation, homeland security, and border security functions and that the SPP will continue to do so in the future;

Whereas the actions taken by the SPP to coordinate border security by eliminating obstacles to migration between Mexico and the United States actually makes the United States-Mexico border less secure because Mexico is the primary source country of illegal immigrants into the United States;

Whereas according to the Department of Commerce, United States trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly increased since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);

Whereas the economic and physical security of the United States is impaired by the potential loss of control of its borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA and the SPP;

Whereas the regulatory and border security changes implemented and proposed by the SPP violate and threaten United States sovereignty;

Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the west coast of Mexico through the United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union to facilitate trade between the SPP countries;

Whereas the State of Texas has already begun planning of the Trans-Texas Corridor, a major multi-modal transportation project beginning at the United States-Mexico border, which would serve as an initial section of a NAFTA Superhighway System;

Whereas it could be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the United States, which would likely increase the insurance rates for American drivers;

Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs, illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities; and

Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would likely include funds from foreign consortiums and be controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--

(1) the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;

(2) the United States should not allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) to implement further regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and

(3) the President of the United States should indicate strong opposition to these acts or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.

Originally Posted by April

http://pepib.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage

Firecracker,this is the link to the impeachment site I am updating daily. The name is www.VoteToImpeach.org . There are lots of websites set up with petitions to impeach Buh right now, so I can see how it might be confusing.

Certainly a lot of sites to put your name and email down. Not only confusing but likely not legitimately set up for impeachement purposes, rather just catchy websites to fish for email addresses.

Call me a cynic but there is no reason to believe that any website which collects any name one cares to enter has any power to affect the impeachment process. It may make us feel good to add our names , it may make us feel we have accomplished something, but I would be very wary of online phishing sites.

The particular site listed above (convio.net) , with all the fancy statistics of updated visitors can be traced by a simple whois search. It's owned and operated by a "David Crooke", who, coincidentally, is somehow connected to the bulk email business . I found this page where he counsels his audience in how to avoid their bulk email bypassing our spam filters. Why would his audience want to bypass our spam filters? Take a guess.

http://www.convio.com/site/PageServer?p ... am_article

I am not positive, but definately leaning to the belief that a million people leaving their names and email addresses at his "impeach Bush" site only provided Mr. Crooke, or whoever had the subdomain, a nice mailing list to sell later.

Here is a more authentic site which deals with the impeachment process the old fashioned way, via pressuring your elected representatives etc.

http://impeachpac.org/resolutions-list

Like you I am astounded that our treasonous President is still in office, but signing most online "petitions" is a waste of time. If I am wrong please correct me.

JustSayNo wrote:

Here is a more authentic site which deals with the impeachment process the old fashioned way, via pressuring your elected representatives etc.
http://impeachpac.org/resolutions-list
Like you I am astounded that our treasonous President is still in office, but signing most online "petitions" is a waste of time. If I am wrong please correct me.

Thanks for the website address.I have added the address to the list on the first post so everyone has a choice of which sites they choose to check out. I believe all these sites have the same motivation and that is to Impeach Bush. This site states that each person's petition vote goes on a referendum that states he/she wants her representatives in the House of Represetatives to vote to impeach Bush, Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for high crimes and misdemeanors, and to have the case prosecuted and tried in the U.S. Senate. Most of America is furious with Bush. I did not post this to convince people to sign this petition , but to give them a choice and get them thinking. This is one of many sites and I think each person has the right to decide how they stand on this issue and what they choose to do. I personally enjoy seeing the numbers go up. The sites goal is a million.


853297 :
the number of people
who have already voted
in the referendum
to Impeach Bush!
(figure updated daily)