?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

psa

IMPEACH



email Nancy Pelosi in favor of H Res 333 for impeachment of Cheney and/or call her office to vote for impeachment of the entire administration: 202-225-0100.



Dear Speaker Pelosi,

I am writing to urge you to support resolutions of impeachment for both President George W Bush and Vice President Richard B Cheney. I would like my vote to be counted among those who call your office this week; I do not use the telephone but I want my voice to be heard along with the rest of the American citizenry, the majority of whom are also in favor of impeachment for both of these men.

It shouldn't be necessary to list the grounds for impeachment as they are well known and often spoken of, but I personally have been convinced of their criminality since they misled the American people, the leaders of other countries, and even the United Nations into their illegal war in Iraq, in which hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost for no reason whatsoever.

Their criminal negligence at the destruction of an entire American city when New Orleans was hit by Hurricane Katrina only solidified my complete disrespect for this administration, which has made a mockery of both democratic and humanitarian values while claiming to represent godly concerns.

That this is hypocrisy of the most blatant sort is almost as shocking as is their complete disregard for the laws that call for the separation of powers of the Federal Government and for the constitutional right of every American citizen to live free of secret investigation and surveillance. Their appeals to the threat of terrorism are out of all proportion to the actual danger it presents; such are the lengths they are willing to go to make it possible to hold American citizens against their will without charges or legal counsel, and even to torture those whom they deem "terrorists"--a designation without definition and frighteningly easy to apply arbitrarily. Don't be misled: soon "terrorists" will be any and all who oppose this administration's unquenchable thirst for power and wealth.

I urge you and the rest of the Democratic leadership of Congress to do your job to protect the American people--and the world at large--from a rogue administration that believes it is above the law and above the will of the people and which will take advantage of any lapse of action against it to further solidify its power.

I sincerely believe that the greatest danger to our country is its current executive branch; I also believe that it is incumbent upon the United States Congress to put an end to its abuses of power. As an American citizen I demand leadership from the one branch of the Federal Government that is in a position to dismantle this criminal administration. Please do not leave this country defenseless in the face of their ambition to dictate their will as law of the land. Act now!

Sincerely,



Me!

Comments

( 26 comments — Leave a comment )
gesundyke
Jul. 9th, 2007 08:51 pm (UTC)
Pointing as many people as I can over here to nab your leter.
eriktrips
Jul. 9th, 2007 09:01 pm (UTC)
cool! somebody has to tell the dems that we are the electorate whose votes they are terrified of losing.
tessa_kun_chan
Jul. 9th, 2007 10:11 pm (UTC)
While I respect the fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I must confess a few problems with reading this letter.

1) THE WAR IN IRAQ: It was not just Bush and his administration who decided to go to war with Iraq. The entire government body was involved. Some of the loudest voices in congress now decrying the war were some of the loudest voices calling for it when it started *coughs*Hillary*coughs*. Saddam was a rather insane and vile leader of his country, and WMDs were discovered. He was also behaving in such a way as to give the impression that he had other things to hide. There was no lieing to the American people that I have ever seen proven.

2) Katrina: "criminal negligence at the destruction of an entire American city" Wow. So apparently our government needs to either be A) Psychic or B) Have other super powers to stop natural disasters. Katrina was a HURRICANE. Hurricanes are naturally occuring acts that cause massive destruction, and cannot be predicted accurately. NO ONE could have known that a hurricane would hit that city. Could the relief effort have been better? Probably, but that is hardly criminal.

3) Terrorism: It's easy to say that security and self inspection aren't needed when there is no clear and present danger. Do you remember 9/11 though? Do you remember the terror, the sorrow, and pain that was caused then? This is not war as we have known before. Those who wish to see us all dead have no problems with killing innocents, no problems with hiding behind women and children, and no desire to "fight fair". I do not endorse torture, but self scrutiny helps to protect us from those who would strike at our very core, killing any and all they can.

I do not post this to start an arguement, just to share my opinion. You have shared yours, and now I share mine.
dclarion
Jul. 10th, 2007 12:32 am (UTC)
This is going to get me in a lot of trouble, but...

Do you remember 9/11 though?

Yes, I do. It is my firm belief that the acts of 11 September 2001 were engineered by the very people who are using them to justify depriving the American populace of the liberties and protections guarantied by the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is my belief that the decision to institute a totalitarian police state had already been made. It was then necessary to convince the populace that they wanted it. Thus, "Operation 911"*.

*There are those who are going to throw the "Conspiracy Theorist" book at me, but I believe that the date of the events in New York and D.C. was not a co-incidence. Because of the nature of the plan, knowledge of the details would be available to only a select few. The entire reason for the existence of the plan, however, was to set other events into motion, on a wider scale. 11 September was chosen as D-day because of the similarity of the date to the "Uniform Emergency Number", which is "911". Those who had something to do after the emergency occurred, but who were not privy to the details of the plan, were told "When something bad happens on 11 September, get to your work."

Such a signal would not be novel. From the documentary, JFK: The End of Camelot: Charles Brehm was a witness to the assassination of John Kennedy. Earlier that morning, he had been helping cook for a gathering the next day. He took a break to see the Presidential motorcade with his five-year-old son, and Kennedy was hit by rifle shots right in front of him. Police suspected that Brehm was involved in the assassination, and while they were questioning him, he asked if he could call the kitchen and remind someone that the main course, which had been roasting, was very likely finished cooking. The police would not let him make the call himself, but asked what his message was, such that they might relay it. Brehm told them that his message was "Turn the oven off, the meat is done". Police took that as a "mission accomplished" message.
tessa_kun_chan
Jul. 10th, 2007 02:47 am (UTC)
Meh. Like I said, each person is entitled to their own opinion, and to search for the truth on their own. Obviously I don't agree with you, but I see that as little reason to get into an extremely pointless debate. :)

You have your beliefs, I have mine, we disagree, but there is no reason why we can't still be pleasant or even *gasp* friendly to each other. Most of my friends would actually love the idea of Bush being impeached. Just cause I disagree with them doesn't make them any less of my friends. :)

Sorry if my original post came off as a bit rude or bitting, I did not intend it as so.
dclarion
Jul. 10th, 2007 03:35 am (UTC)
Sorry if my original post came off as a bit rude or bitting, I did not intend it as so.

Oh, it wasn't. If anything, I'm a bit bitter about the whole thing. I see this whole Homeland Security thing getting just a little out of hand.
eriktrips
Jul. 10th, 2007 03:28 am (UTC)
actually, I'm not so sure that you are wrong. from what I've read and the way in which events unfolded, I find it increasingly likely that 9/11 was engineered by our own leaders. that they have little regard for american lives was demonstrated after the decimation of new orleans; that they have no regard for the rule of law and civility is proven day after day after day.

I'd be easily persuaded that the 2004 election was rigged too. the next one? gods I don't even want to know what they have up their sleeves for that.
dclarion
Jul. 10th, 2007 03:37 am (UTC)
gods I don't even want to know what they have up their sleeves for that.

I just hope there is one.
eriktrips
Jul. 10th, 2007 03:02 am (UTC)
you know what? I'm not even going to argue with you. anyone who still believes the things you are saying has obviously been brainwashed by fox news and I hold not the slightest hope that I could interest you in anything like a fact.

do some research outside of the corporate media. you'll be very, very surprised.

I do have one question, though: how will we know when we have won against the war on terror?
tessa_kun_chan
Jul. 10th, 2007 03:29 am (UTC)
Wait, when I did become a zombie? I don't remember any strange craving for brains or anything like that... *laughs*

Believe it or not, I don't watch fox news. I do research outside of the corporate media. If you've got facts you'd like to show me, then I'll be happy to see them. I'm not so insecure in my thoughts and feelings to be afraid of looking at different opinions, or to think those who think different than me have been "brainwashed" into believing such by an evil organization.

As I said before, we are not fighting the typical war. This is not a struggle over land, resources, or power. These are people who want to kill us. It is more akin to the war on drugs or crime, rather than the wars of our past. When will we win those other wars?
dclarion
Jul. 10th, 2007 03:40 am (UTC)
You know, I don't see you too far off the mark, comparing the "war on terror" to the "wars on" crime and drugs. Throw poverty in there, for good measure. None of those "wars" are winnable, either.

My pessimism is showing again.
eriktrips
Jul. 10th, 2007 03:53 am (UTC)
I'm not going to do your research for you. the facts of this unnecessary and illegal territorial war are freely available.

there is no such thing as a war on crime. there is law enforcement that sometimes succeeds and sometimes does not. there is a system of courts set up to deal with those accused of crimes so that their rights are protected against ideological zealots.

the same can't be said about the war on drugs, which is as much a sham and travesty as the war in iraq and wastes as much taxpayer money on a "war" that cannot possibly be won. there is a reason there is no war on crime. it would not be winnable. we appeal to the legal system for remedy for and prevention of crime. the war on drugs oversteps that system and is corrupt, needlessly cruel and violent, and racist to boot.

the war on terror is being carried out like a conventional war except in those areas where it is being carried out as a war against civil liberties. "war" simply is the wrong paradigm for preventing terrorist attacks. take a look sometime at how many terrorist attacks the clinton administration foiled through meticulous intelligence that did not impinge on anyone's rights. take a look sometime at how that system was meticulously dismantled by the bush administration. then bam! a terror attack!

nevermind the possibility that it was engineered by the neocons themselves, and that the biggest threat to the safety of americans may be their own executive branch of government.

supporters of the war in iraq continue to conflate it with the war on terror. how will we know when we've won either war? is endless war really all you can imagine as a way to keep the peace? can you even see the gross contradiction of that sentiment? war doesn't work to prevent and punish crime, which was what the attacks on the WTC were. who the criminals were should be investigated by an entirely disinterested party, someone who does not stand to make any profit from any "war on terror." how would that be? would you like to see the actual perpetrators of the attack brought before a world court? I would.

then perhaps we could start prosecuting crimes against humanity worldwide, from those committed by our own government to those that happen daily in the sudan. war is obsolete.
tessa_kun_chan
Jul. 10th, 2007 04:39 am (UTC)
*laughs* Easy now. Slow down and breath. A couple things I'd like to point out.

1) I never equated the war on terror to the war in Iraq. Regardless of the reasons for the start of the war there, the fact is we have a duty there. Our duty there is to help the Iraqi people rebuild a government which we took away. I feel that just leaving Iraq right now would be akin to an international hit and run. "Ooops, sorry. Took out your government. Well, good luck fixing it *dashes off*" Now that I would consider a crime worth punishing.

2) Doing some (admittedly quick) research gave me this information on terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration:
15 Terror attacks foiled, 5 carried out successfully.

A 1 to 3 ratio, not too bad. I believe there has been one terrorist attack during Bush's administration (9/11), and more than 3 foiled. Hmmmm... Guess we're due for a new one soon then?

3) Yes I would like to see those who committed the 9/11 attacks brought to justice, though I'm not overly anxious to do so. I believe those who do ills in this world will receive punishment for it, in this life or the next. The same goes for those in our government, and any and all. That is why I'm not overly eager to get out my pitchfork and torch to chase down ANYONE who has wronged another.

4) As far as wars go, I guess it's all just based on your definition of war. I personally am along the lines of this one:
"a concerted campaign to end something that is injurious; "the war on poverty"; "the war against crime""
Terrorist attacks are most certainly injurious, so I think a "war on terror" is entirely appropriate. They certainly seem to feel like they are at war with us.

The war in Iraq is currently more in line with the war in crime in my opinion. We are not there to defeat an enemy, so much as we are there to protect and defend. Do you honestly think it would be better if we just packed up and left? What do you think would happen to Iraq as it is now? We'd probably end up with a very bloody and drawn out conflict, ending with someone in power most likely more cruel, bloodthirsty, and (for a lack of a better word) evil than Saddam.

4) "War is obsolete": As much as I would love to agree with that sentiment, sadly we cannot do such in this world. If we were to give up war that would not make the rest of the world do the same. We would become a easy target for those who are willing to use violence and death to get what they want. War is not obsolete, it is the sad reality of our world. You must fight for what you want to protect.

I don't believe just because something is "unwinnable" or "impossible" to achieve we should not strive for it. To me, that line of thinking says we should just make everything legal, as everyone can get around it anyways, and then the world descends to anarchy. Fun little MMO, not so fun in real life.

As I said before, I'd love it if you would show me some information. Sadly, when I look on my own all I find are extremist views (on both sides) that usually make me laugh and shake my head sadly.
eriktrips
Jul. 10th, 2007 05:19 am (UTC)
wars have never been "concerted campaigns to end something that is injurious." throughout western history they have almost always been campaigns to violently occupy territory held by a another social group. it's been this way as long as records have been kept in western civilization.

there have also been wars of extermination, meant to eliminate or assimilate entirely a given social group. there have been wars of genocide, where assimilation was not even an option, but complete extermination of a given social group was the sole desired goal.

war is always, always, accompanied by deadly violence.

your personal definition of war is sweet and innocent-sounding, but doesn't stand the test of history or of everyday usage. it would be nice if we could make words mean just what we want them to, but we can't. they are culturally determined and carry connotations that no individual has the power simply to nullify.

the war against drugs has been extravagantly and needlessly deadly.
the war against "terrorism" has been extravagantly and needlessly deadly.

the "war" against crime needn't be deadly and in fact needn't be particularly violent and generally is not. doesn't really fit the definition of war and in fact there is no concerted campaign to end crime, only to prevent it where possible and punish it where not. the only way to end crime would be to suspend that which defines it: law.

poverty is a completely different proposition and is not conceivably avoidable through any warlike action that I can think of. a redistribution of goods might help, but that is ::gasp:: communism!

and honestly, those who rely on some supernatural being or post-death event to mete out justice instead of working to end injustice where they see it in real life make me a little ill. it's a great way to relieve oneself of any responsibility for suffering, isn't it?

you have an imagination. try to use it in a way that does not dream violence for every perceived wrong or an ultimate, eternal punishment for your enemies. it's been proven that nonviolence can spark revolutions. how many ways can you think of that might make such a thing work? leaving it to a supreme being to straighten out after the fact is, for me, quite near the ultimate in ethical bankruptcy.

as for research, I dunno, start here.
tessa_kun_chan
Jul. 10th, 2007 05:34 am (UTC)
You assume much, and know little. As you appear perfectly content to assume things about me and my way of thinking (And apparently I make you ill o,O), instead of attempting to understand and asking questions, as I have tried to do, I will bid you good night. For you see, I am off to wage war against dirty dishes and garbage, as they are injurious to my sense of smell and aesthetics...

Ja

And may god have mercy upon your soul. ;)
eriktrips
Jul. 10th, 2007 05:58 am (UTC)
well you freely admit that I assumed right about your making me slightly ill (and yes, you do. you argue in circles and I'm getting dizzy and motion sick) which would lead me to believe that some of my assumptions were true after all, so I'm not sure what the problem is here. you didn't come to understand; you came to combat. I give as I take. sorry you aren't up to doing the same.
tessa_kun_chan
Jul. 10th, 2007 06:18 am (UTC)
*laughs* No, if I came to combat, I would be insulting, and rude, and mean. I would say that you make me ill (Though I think that feeling came more from the fact that I have been feeling sick for a few days).

Understanding does not mean agreement. Obviously, you are of no mind to understand either. I came seeking clarification on ideas that baffle me, and received none. Instead I was vaguely insulted. So who is the one seeking combat here?

While I do enjoy a lively and friendly debate, there is no pleasure, understanding, or enlightenment received when one side makes assumptions about the other.

You are right, I don't give as I take. I give as I feel is right. When I offer polite conversation and respect, and do not receive it, I have little desire to continue the conversation.

I bid you a good life, sir/madam.
eriktrips
Jul. 10th, 2007 05:54 am (UTC)
oh and if you are not that concerned that the perpetrators of the WTC attacks be brought to justice anytime soon, why are you so interested in fighting "terrorism," if indeed that is what was responsible? who, exactly, are "they" who want to kill us and how, exactly, did invading iraq have anything to do with fighting "them"? you do realize, don't you, that terrorism was explicitly linked to iraq by our president who, as I started out with here, lied to god and everybody in order to be able to fight his war, which has become long, drawn out, bloody and pointless.

for that, at the very least, he should be removed from office. so should those who advised him and abetted the deception.

but since you don't really care if anyone responsible for any wrongdoing be brought to justice, why would you want to bother fighting for causes that claim to be doing just that?

phoo. keeping up with your inconsistencies and simplistic reasoning is exhausting. and here I told you I wasn't going to do it. I guess I lied.

this is another enlightening article.

you do the rest. I'm tired.
oldcroaker
Jul. 9th, 2007 10:17 pm (UTC)
Yes Yes
labrat78
Jul. 10th, 2007 12:30 am (UTC)
It would make this woman happy if the world court indicted Bush and his cronies for war crimes.

The son of a bitch and Cheney both need to be removed, NOW!
dclarion
Jul. 10th, 2007 03:47 am (UTC)
Um... Erik? I was just perusing your profile. You say that, on Undernet, you call yourself "catdoc". That name sounds eerily familiar. Have you, by chance, hung around USENET, too? Like, ASD, maybe?
eriktrips
Jul. 10th, 2007 04:00 am (UTC)
heh. yeah. I showed up there around 98 and stayed for a few years, and catdoc was my nick most of the time. any happy memories? :D
dclarion
Jul. 10th, 2007 04:15 am (UTC)
Heh. You wouldn't remember a Hagbard Celine, would you?



:o)
eriktrips
Jul. 10th, 2007 04:19 am (UTC)
I do, actually. that would have been you, then?
dclarion
Jul. 10th, 2007 04:24 am (UTC)
Bingo :)

Diana came later, but she's going strong
eriktrips
Jul. 10th, 2007 05:31 am (UTC)
far out. glad to meet you. again. :)
( 26 comments — Leave a comment )

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars

Latest Month

March 2012
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031