US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this feature | View comments | Email this feature | Printer-friendly version
News :: Human Rights : International : Media : Organizing : Politics
To Impeach or Not to Impeach
01 Aug 2005
On July 31, 2005, a forum on the Downing Street Memos, leaked documents that indicate the Bush administration misled the public about reasons for going to war in Iraq, took place at Arlington Street Church.

Co-sponsored by several local organizations such as Brookline PeaceWorks, Boston Mobilization, Progressive Democrats of America, and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, among others; the forum was just one of 300 events across the nation planned to discuss the possible consequences of the leaked documents.
Invited speakers were there to inform the community of the events that led to and will possibly follow the leaking of the Downing Street Memos, but at the heart of the gathering, a debate ensued among speakers whether the impeachment of President George W. Bush─if and when the reasons for going to war in Iraq are indeed deemed illegal─should even be up for discussion in Congress.

State Representative Gloria Fox, Congressman Barney Frank, and John Bonifaz, attorney and co-founder of the national campaign,, that has called on a full congressional investigation into the memos, took turns at the microphone to debate whether to impeach or not to impeach is a question worthy of discussion by our elected officials.

The Downing Street Memos are a collection of seven documents leaked to the press on May 1st and days ensuing, containing minutes from meetings between March and July 2002, and involving high-ranking British officials. The minutes show almost one year before the US declared war on Iraq, the Bush administration knew the case for going to war was thin, and that the “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” to remove Saddam through military action.

Furthermore, the meeting minutes show that the Bush administration “had made up his mind to take military action” and that the three legal bases for invasion—self defense, humanitarian intervention, and UN Security Council authorization—were not available to them. The case for war, therefore, was fixed around terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, none of which were ever found on Iraqi soil.

Based on these facts, Congresswoman Barbara Lee (Dem., Calif.) introduced a Resolution of Inquiry in the House of Representatives (H. Res 375) which, if passed, will require the White House and the State Department to "transmit all information relating to communication with officials of the United Kingdom between January 1, 2002, and October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq." So far, 39 members of Congress have signed on to this resolution, which if not voted down in the next two weeks, will be moved for discussion to Congress in September.

Congressman John Conyers, Jr., together with 93 other representatives, have also sent two letters to the President requesting answers to “troubling questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your Administration,” to which they received no answer.

“It is our view that accountability must be found with respect to the President’s conduct,” said Attorney John Bonifaz, “If the Downing Street minutes are true, and the President and his top officials have been engaged in a deliberate deception campaign about the basis for going to war in Iraq, such conduct would amount to a high crime.”

“To get out of Iraq we’ll need votes of those who voted for the war,” responded Congressman Frank, who believes that the question of impeachment in Congress would alienate Republicans. “If you insist on an apology, it will delay getting us out of Iraq,” he said.

“I respect Congressman Frank’s leadership against this war,” said Mr. Bonifaz, “but I respectfully disagree on the question on whether we can fight bring our troops home and get out of Iraq, and whether, at the same time, we can ask for accountability for impeachable offenses committed by this administration. I think we can do both.”

Representative Gloria Fox agreed with Mr. Bonifaz about how matters on deceit used to engage in war with Iraq should be addressed in a straightforward manner. “I know enough about resolutions to know they have to have teeth,” she said.

Representative Fox also called for joining forces with diverse voices in the grassroots movement to build a case against war. “Some people know the truth,” she said, “There is a fear in my community that something is going to happen, that our children are going to be sent to this mayhem. For what? For oil and for money, we might as well say it like it is: a madman’s thirst for power.”

One thing was clear to all, including the fifty-plus people present at the forum: resistance continues to brew against what has been deemed by many as a wrongful war.

In a recent poll conducted by USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup, 51% of Americans said the Bush administration deliberately misled the public about whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and by 58%-37%, a majority say the United States won't be able to establish a stable, democratic government in Iraq.

Reading on the preacher’s podium from his recently published book, Warrior King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush, Mr. Bonifaz mentioned how during the two-day debate in the Senate on October 18, 2002, which authorized the President to use military force against Iraq, one Senator quoted Hermann Göring, founder of the Gestapo and one of the main architects of Nazi Germany, to illustrate the patterns he saw in the Bush Administration’s approach to war:

<i>Naturally, the common people don't want war… But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country</i>.
See also:

This work licensed under a
Creative Commons license.
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


Spelling (and smelling) S-M-O-K-E-S-C-R-E-E-N
02 Aug 2005
The likelihood of George W Bush being impeached this year or this lifetime being what it is, one wonders why these turds even bother. But still the dog and pony show treads forth.

Gore and Kerry would have been worse, far worse. Instead of 200,000 foreign occupying imperialist war criminals in Iraq, there would now be 400,000 there.
Re: To Impeach or Not to Impeach
02 Aug 2005
Yawn, yeah right. lmao
Re: To Impeach or Not to Impeach
03 Aug 2005
And if impeachment were to happen, Cheney would be president. Would that be any better?

Fuck impeachment, we need a revolution.
Lenin's ‘Imperialism’ and the Downing Street memo
03 Aug 2005
Prime Minister Tony Blair is carrying out a campaign of racist repression in Britain and trying to pretend that the London bombings had nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

The British ruling class has a long and bloody history. Millions of oppressed people over the centuries of the British Empire suffered colonial justice. They have been invaded by British armies, their cultures have been trampled and destroy ed; they were meted out summary execution, imprisoned and whipped; they endured forced labor and were captured and sold into slavery—from Egypt and the Sudan to South Africa and Kenya, from India (inclu ding what is now Pakistan and Bangla desh) to Afghanistan, from Iraq to Palestine.

The war in Iraq is the latest in a long series of British colonial crimes.

To put things in perspective, the people of Britain, who are understandably grieving and in shock, should recall the blazing headlines of a month ago about the Down ing Street “memos” leaked to the world press.

In these documents are found a cynical, Machiavellian series of schemes secretly devised by the British government to frame up Saddam Hussein, conjure up a legal justification and political strategy to deceive the British public, and carry out a brutal colonial war against a sovereign Middle Eastern nation under the leadership of U.S. imperialism.

All this was done while the Blair regime was pretending it was seeking to avoid war.

Intelligence was fixed

The principal memo is a recounting of a secret cabinet meeting on July 23, 2002, in which: “C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

This problem did not faze the Labor Party cabinet. Defense Secretary Jack Straw said, “We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.”

The memo gives the conclusion of the group: “We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. ... The CDS (Chief of Defense Staff) would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

“The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.”

The following was stated in an earlier meeting of the Overseas and Defense Secretariat Cabinet on March 8: “A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers advice, none currently exists. This makes moving quickly to invade legally very difficult. We should therefore consider a staged approach, establishing international support, building up pressure on Saddam and developing military plans. There is a lead time of about six months to a ground offensive.”

The memo later continues: “Of itself, REGIME CHANGE has no basis in international law. ... In the judgment of JIC there is no recent evidence of Iraq complicity in terrorism. There is therefore no basis for action against Iraq based on action in self-defense.”

It ends by calling for “sensitizing the public: a media campaign to warn of the dangers that Saddam poses and to prepare public opinion both in the UK and abroad.”

Memo after memo shows the conspirators planning war and figuring out how to put it over while concealing their fundamental role as colonial aggressors.

Leaked memos reveal and conceal

These memos have a two-fold character. On the one hand, they are very revealing about the lying and the conspiracy to go to war. They are meant to expose Blair for concocting the case for war in order to justify an invasion that Washington and London were determined to carry out. As stated in the memos, their goal from the beginning was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of an Iraq compliant with imperialism.

But these memos are both a political revelation and an economic concealment. They are carefully targeted and they are limited in their content. They are significant for what they say and what they don’t say. The leaked part is obvious. But the un-leaked part is equally glaring.

The memos are silent on the overriding unanswered question. Why would the British ruling class, its government and its media all decide to support Washington in its adventure in Iraq, in defiance of world opinion and public opinion at home, and risk isolation and condemnation? A million people demonstrated in London on Feb. 15, 2003, trying to prevent the war. And the Blair government saw the military and political difficulties far more clearly than the Bush administration.

The answer is that what has not been revealed is the secret agreement between the Bush administration and the Blair administration about the division of Iraq and its oil between the stronger and weaker imperialist robbers.

Certainly Blair would not risk blood and treasure in Iraq out of a mere desire to be in the good graces of Bush and the U.S ruling class. It could hardly be cultural affinity that drew these imperialist robbers into this joint venture. The British ruling class is as ruthlessly profit-hungry and as calculating as the U.S. ruling class—only weaker.

The subservience of the Blair government, and its use of cunning and ingenuity in helping to make the U.S.-imperialist-led war effort succeed, can only be explained on the basis of a secret arrangement to give London a significant cut of the spoils.

Lenin, imperialism
and the Sykes-Picot treaty

The British participation can be correctly understood on the basis of Vladimir Lenin’s analysis of imperialism in his ground-breaking book “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.”

This work was written at the height of World War I in 1916. Millions of workers and peasants were dying in a conflict unleashed for what Lenin explained was the re-division of the world, its territory and resources among the profiteering transnational monopolies.

In his book Lenin demonstrated by overwhelming statistical analysis that capitalism had advanced from the stage of competitive capitalism to its monopoly stage—the domination by banks that had merged with industry to create capital in all the major capitalist countries of Europe, Japan and the United States. These countries and their ruling classes had completed the division of the world by the time of World War I. Virtually the entire globe was under the rule of one imperialist power or the other.

Lenin wrote: “[T]he characteristic feature of the period under review [1860 to 1899-F.G.] is the final partition of the globe—final not in the sense that a repartition is impossible: on the contrary, repartitions are possible and inevitable—but in the sense that the colonial policy of the capitalist countries has completed the seizure of the unoccupied territories on our planet. For the first time the world is completely divided up, so that in the future only re-division is possible ... .”

Even as Lenin was writing this book, unknown to him and to the world the Brit ish and French imperialists were entering into a secret treaty, known now as the Sykes-Picot Treaty of 1916, that confirmed his analysis. The secret treaty divided up the Middle East between the two powers, giving Iraq and Palestine to the British and Syria and Lebanon to France, among other provisions.

The two powers were dividing up the remains of the Ottoman Empire behind the backs of the workers, who were dying on the battlefields thinking that they were fighting against the dictatorial Kaiser of Germany. In fact, Germany, which had few colonies, was fighting for re-division also.

This treaty would not be known at all but for the fact that the Bolsheviks, after seizing power in Russia in 1917, published all the secret treaties entered into by the tsarist government—including the Sykes-Picot treaty, which had given Constan ti nople to tsarist Russia.

The Bolsheviks published all the treaties in the first days of the revolution. They made them into pamphlets so that the workers could see the machinations of the class enemy and would understand, by reading the very words of the imperialist diplomats, the class character of war and diplomacy under capitalism.

Redivision through re-conquest

Lenin wrote his book before the rise of the socialist revolution and the national liberation movements. But these developments did not alter his analysis at all.

The grip of the imperialists on the globe was loosened by these struggles. But the battle among the imperialist powers to re-divide the globe has continued. Except that now the re-division of the globe was combined with the attempt to re-conquer territories lost because of socialist revolution and the bourgeois national liberation struggles, such as those in Iraq, Iran and Libya.

Fast forward to 2002: The USSR, which had been an ally of Iraq and a counterweight to U.S. imperialism, was no longer in existence. The relationship of forces on a world scale, and in the Middle East in particular, had changed in favor of Washington. The first Bush administration had tested the waters with the first Gulf War in 1991.

By 2002, Bush the younger and his right-wing neo-cons were in the saddle and, like all imperialists, were eager to take full advantage of the new relationship of forces. This drive to re-conquer Iraq was also part of a struggle to re-divide the wealth in the Middle East.

The huge diplomatic and political tug-of-war among the French, Germans and Russians on the one hand, and the U.S. and British on the other, was part and parcel of that inter-imperialist struggle.

Displacing German, French
and Russian corporations

The 2003 Security Council debate in the United Nations between France, Germany and Russia on the one hand, and Wash ington and London on the other, about establishing “authority” in Iraq was in reality a continuation of the pre-invasion struggle that split these powers over whether to support the U.S.-led war.

Workers World newspaper analyzed this internecine rivalry at that time: “In the political sphere, this is a struggle by the leading imperialist powers of continental Europe to contain Washington in its drive to strengthen its absolute world domination, as outlined in the Bush National Security Strategy document of September 2002.

“In the economic sphere, where the tensions are the greatest, the resistance in the Security Council to the war was really a resistance by French, Russian and Ger man transnational corporations to being displaced or shut out by U.S. corporate power, enforced and protected by the Pentagon.” (Workers World, Oct. 9, 2003)

French oil giant TotalFinElf had a $4-billion contract to develop an Iraqi oil field in Majnoon. Russian oil companies Lukoil and Zarubneft had spent years working out drilling agreements for contracts in the tens of billions of dollars. In addition, Iraq owed Russia between $7 billion and $12 billion.

German companies had $350 million in two-way trade annually between Iraq and Germany and $1 billion through third parties. In addition, Germany was going to get a prime spot at the Iraq trade fair of 2001 in which 101 German companies would be represented. And, according to documents obtained by UN weapons inspectors, German corporations were the market leaders in supplying Iraq, even in the decade after the first Gulf War. Over 80 German firms supplied weapons and industrial devices.

The only hope these imperialist rivals had to execute their agreements and recoup their loans was to have the U.S.-led United Nations sanctions lifted.

However, the Workers World article explained, once the Pentagon moved in and overthrew the Iraqi government, “the U.S. authorities would take control of Iraq’s oil and finances and would inevitably cut down or totally exclude their rivals.”

British ride back on Washington’s coattails

Compare this with the situation of the British imperialists. They had been driven out of Iraq in 1958 by a militant, bourgeois nationalist revolution. The British-backed monarchy was overthrown and eventually the Iraq Petroleum Company and the Basra Petroleum Company, both British-owned, were nationalized.

The anti-colonial hatred for London, which ruled Iraq from 1920 to 1958 and whose forces used bombs and poison gas to put down a mass anti-colonial uprising in 1920, has made the British distrusted and unwelcome in Iraq—which has the second-largest oil reserves in the world.

It was entirely in London’s imperialist interests to grab onto Washington’s coattails and slide back into Iraq at the expense of the French, Germans and Russians.

The British wanted to participate in the re-conquest of Iraq in order to regain a minor position in the re-division of that country’s oil wealth. Perhaps, if there were victory in Iraq, Washington might even carry them further on to Iran in the next stage of the war.

No one can say with certainty what modern version of the Sykes-Picot Treaty was struck between Washington and London. But the military deployment once the invasion began might be a clue. During the joint invasion from Kuwait, the Pentagon forces marched straight to central Iraq and the Baghdad region and towards the Kirkuk oilfields in the north. The British went straight to the southern region and took control of the Basra oilfields and the port area.

Whether or not this reflects a secret agreement between these two robbers cannot be known yet.

Sam Marcy, the late chairperson and founder of Workers World Party, made clear in an illuminating 1990 article on the first Gulf War: “We don’t know any more about the secret agreements being made today than the people during World War I knew about the Sykes-Picot Treaty. But we do know about the greed of the imperialists—whether in the U.S., Japan, West Germany, France, Britain or even Denmark.

“None of them would gratuitously join a naval armada out of humanitarian instincts. They would do it only for what is called in imperialist diplomacy ‘a consideration.’ And the division of oil is an enormous factor in getting their cooperation. The hows we may not know, but we know the whys.” (Workers World, Aug. 23, 1990)

The same may be said of the British participation in the war, and the motive behind the collaboration reflected in the Downing Street memos. There was a dirty deal made in secret.

The whole episode reveals that Lenin’s thesis on imperialism, monopoly capitalism and the inevitable struggle among the banking and corporate monsters to re-divide the globe, peacefully at times but primarily by force, is a law that will remain in force until imperialism, and capitalism upon which it rests, is destroyed.

-- 30 --
Re: To Impeach or Not to Impeach
06 Aug 2005
Interesting article, Sofia - thank you for posting it
Actions in Boston
07 Aug 2005
I know this isn't the best place to post, but I'll be visiting Boston for a week and want to know where I can find out about any actions/rallies/protests going on the week of Aug 9-13 (Aside from the Boston IMC calendar).
links to activists
07 Aug 2005
hi emmanuel,
here's a great link for you:

Impeach the bastard
09 Aug 2005
Thanks for the article.
Yes, Impeach the Lying Bastard Chimp
09 Aug 2005
Don't let fear of failure stop you from doing the right thing. Better to have tried and failed. At least the rest of the world will know there are still some decent Americans alive. Impeach Cheney too, while we're at it.

Bush doesn't fear failure: he's made it his life's mission. Can't even ride a bike or a segway, much less win a war, balance the budget, correctly pronounce "nuclear," or pay attention to terror warnings.
The Bush Tribunal on Iraq
11 Aug 2005
Bush: "Sorry to Oil the Carpet Bombings, WMD's, and Napalm being used in Iraq but Oil comes first."
Re: To Impeach or Not to Impeach
12 Aug 2005
I say that impeaching Bush is the easiest method of fighting him.
Unfortunately, we are using or grasping at issues where some level of deniability is already built-in.
If you need that irrefutable evidence, read the following article "Bush and Blair, if the moon could talk, what would it say?" and the article that follows it.
Both articles can be found on
I am the writer of the articles and can be contacted through the website or the email posted here.
Re: To Impeach or Not to Impeach
16 Aug 2005
Impeach Bush for invading Iraq? Right, that's not going to happen because you cannot prove deception. Even if he lied to the American public, you cannot prove he knew anything to the contrary without his confession. Asking congress to investigate what he did know is not a bad idea, but bringing formal charges without any credible evidence is simpy fighting a losing battle.

What we know is that he told the public the same information that Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and every other politician received from American intelligence. This intel is what prompted the congress to ok the use of force in Iraq. Wake up...that isn't Bush lying, it's bad intel.

I know the impeachment of his predecessor was the first in about 30 years...would you also advise Bush to follow his precedint in retaining power after impeachment?

Stop the Bush bashing and come together to find a solution. Stop the unfounded and ill-conceived conspiracy theories. If you care about the welfare of the United States as a whole, you should look for solutions, not try to point a finger, place blame and shame. Stop the partisain BS and start doing good for the common man. If you simply can't see through the contempt you have for Bush to know what's in the best interests of the US, please, I emplore you...move to Europe.
Re: To Impeach or Not to Impeach
18 Aug 2005
Impeachment is an interesting idea, but does anyone out here actually know what it means? I mean, beside the fact that impeachment doesn't necessarily mean you get removed from office (ask Bill Clinton). Who are the 1/2 of the House who would vote to impeach? Who are the 2/3 of Senators who would convict?

Let us not forget, as said as it may seem, that the majority of Americans voted for Bush. I don't think impeachment is anything more than a pipe dream because neither the government nor the majority of Americans will support it.

Doesn't it make more sense to stop wasting time on the idea of impeachment, and start worrying more about finding a viable candidate for 2008?
Re: To Impeach or Not to Impeach
18 Aug 2005
Impeachment proceedings keep the issue(s) in front of the public relentlessly and afford a marvelous opportunity to air "dirty laundry". They can 'suceed' in that way importantly even if they don't actually win in the vote(s). They also can hamstring an executive under political and legal seige from taking further inimical initiatives. Remember - Nixon wasn't finally impeached, he was forced to resign!
Re: To Impeach or Not to Impeach
18 Aug 2005
Good point, Silver Lining, but what do you mean by "impeachment proceedings?" An "impeachment proceeding," as far as I can infer from your words, is the same as an impeachment (not to be confused with a conviction, which is what happens after one has been impeached). One can not simply decide to have an "impeachment proceeding" - you need 1/2 the House of Reps to approve it first.

Let's be real, that's not going to happen. That's why I suggested that the right focus is 2008, not a pipe dream of impeachment in 2005.

If you're suggesting that we continue to investigate this matter, both as individuals and by encouraging our representatives to do so...I agree, but "impeachment" isn't going to happen.

See what I mean?
Re: To Impeach or Not to Impeach
19 Aug 2005
The issue is not really whether impeachment is or not a good strategy. I think what's at stake is whether people at the top should be prosecuted for taking us into an illegal war and lying to Congress in the process. It's about respecting the law as much as impeachment of a President.
Re: To Impeach or Not to Impeach
19 Aug 2005
I think you're right, Muriel. My point was that all these people calling for "impeachment" really want an investigation because (as I've now stated a few times), impeachment just isn't going to happen. It's a distraction to talk about impeachment. That's my whole point.
Re: To Impeach or Not to Impeach
21 Aug 2005
I have a few seriousq uestions for those who think something along the lines of "...people at the top should be prosecuted for taking us into an illegal war and lying to Congress in the process...". I honestly do not understand your logic and would like to discuss this.

First, is getting intelligence reports that end up being incorrect lying? As lying implies the intent to deceive. If the intel was believed to be true by those who relayed it to the masses, how can you be so sure of their intent to deceive?

Second, Illegal war, please explain how the re-invasion of Iraq is illegal? Who's law's were broken? International, American, Iraqi? For something to be illegal, wouldn't a law have to be broken?

Third, if nation A is at war and a treaty is signed to end the war, removing them from nation B. Nation B would then have some terms and conditions of surrender that must be met (For this instance see UN res 687). If these terms and conditions are not satisfactorily met, wouldn't a re-invasion be called for? The treaty would be broken by nation B, giving nation A full right and responsibility to continue the initial invasion.
Re: To Impeach or Not to Impeach
22 Aug 2005
Jones, for information about why the war in Iraq was illegal and the Bush administration had made up their minds well before declaring war on Iraq to invade it. See: (from Iraq War veterans)
(illegality of war in Iraq)

All the information is out there. It's just a matter of reading everything you get a hold of and making up your own mind.
Re: To Impeach or Not to Impeach
22 Aug 2005

All websites you post (minus the Al-jazeera website, which I refuse to enter) show the same opinion that I asked to see logic for. I understand your opinion, now I request the logic behind it.

Only the site and the BBC site where Annan said that he believed the invasion to be illegal even mention the legality of the invasion. Once again, they are stating opinion, not proven fact.

Please don't substitute opinions and conspiracy theories for fact. It's ok to investigate, but to speak of pressing formal charges on anyone, let alone the President, without facts or evidence is lunacy. Doesn't innocent until proven guilty apply to George W. Bush?

Please, show me what law was broken, not opions...I'm looking to logically make these connections...there is no logic in unfounded opinion.
Impeach The Criminal...NOW!
24 Aug 2005
Congress is living in Disneyland. If they don't want to deal with our Constitution? The newly elected demos of 2006 will...And monkeyboy will be ousted.
These politicians are arrogant and illiterate. Ignore the people? Is to ignore our sacred document. "We the People" shall overcome all obstacles.
Re: To Impeach or Not to Impeach
25 Aug 2005
It's not just opinion. The Iraq War Veterans are witnesses to war, they are soldiers who have deal with the daily horrors they lived at war.

The includes multiple links to House Representatives opinions, lawyers, journalists, links to the actual documents:

I'm only providing you with information. It's up to you to read it or decide you can't read it because it's "biased", but then I wonder, are you really reading all the facts before making up your mind about the truth?
10 Jun 2006
Hi, very nice site! my links:
[url="http://"]herbal pharmacy[/url]