Impeach Bush

Clinton waives restrictions on most advice records

Doves Call For Draft

Six-Nation Poll Shows Most Against Iraqi Strike

WH Says Record Deficit Is Not Record

Bush Projecting Record $307 Billion Deficit

Bush Digs Deeper Hole

Government Pension Protection Has Deficit

Bishop in Bush's Church Is in Antiwar Ad

Articles Impeaching: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft

Clinton waives restrictions on most advice records
Friday, January 31, 2003 Posted: 6:51 PM EST (2351 GMT)

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (AP) -- Former President Clinton has waived his right to restrict access to most records of confidential advice during his administration, opening the path for historians to more quickly study key decisions in the Clinton White House.

However, Clinton will not waive attorney-client privilege over personal issues such as Whitewater and the Monica Lewinsky-Paula Jones investigations.

The records to be released include exchanges among top advisers, staff counsel given directly to Clinton and advice from non-staff members regarding domestic policy and appointments. Clinton would like the records released before his presidential library opens at Little Rock next year.

"I believe that the more information we can make available to scholars, historians and the general public, the better informed people will be about the formulation of public policy and the decision-making process at the White House," Clinton said in response to written questions from The Associated Press.

Under the Presidential Records Act, which took effect in 1981, former presidents can withhold the release of records for at least five years and up to 12 years under certain criteria -- sometimes even longer if the documents are a matter of national security. Former Presidents Reagan and Bush have withheld most of their confidential advice documents under the 12-year exemption.

Before 1981, records were the property of outgoing presidents -- except Nixon, whose materials were seized by the government following the Watergate scandal.

Nancy Kegan Smith, director of the presidential materials staff for the National Archives, said it appears that "more confidential advice" from the Clinton administration will be open earlier than any other modern president.

Excluded from release will be personal information, inflammatory comments and issues of national security.

Clinton and the National Archives have agreed to release most of his records of confidential advice as soon as they are processed, including information on federal appointments and policy decisions, said Bruce Lindsey, Clinton's legal representative for records and a longtime confidant of the former president.

Under the Presidential Records Act, President George W. Bush retains veto power over the release of any Clinton records, Lindsey said, but he added that he doesn't expect Bush to object.

An executive order Bush issued in November extends the act, giving former presidents, vice presidents and the incumbent president more authority to withhold release of their papers.

For a time last year, President Bush blocked the release of some 68,000 pages of Reagan's records, then issued the executive order. After a coalition of activists, historians and journalists sued, the White House approved release of the Reagan papers.

Martha Joynt Kumar, a presidential scholar and political science professor at Towson University in Maryland, said Clinton's decision could be partially fueled by a desire to bring his administration out from under the controversies that dogged him.

"From his viewpoint, a lot of media focus was on the dark side and his records will show the policy side where he figures he made his mark," Kumar said. "Presidents often feel that the more that is known about their administrations, the better history will treat them.

For the doubters amongst us, doubt no more. President Clinton is and always will be a man of character and integrity. That can't be said about Reagan or the two Bush's who shroud what they do and did in secrecy. One is good, the other is not.

'Nuff' said.


Doves Call For Draft
NEW YORK Feb. 2 —

During the Vietnam War, presidents and the Pentagon defended the draft, while the peace movement assailed it. As America edges toward a possible new war, roles have reversed.

Backed by other opponents of a war with Iraq, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has proposed that the draft shelved since 1973 be reinstated in the name of "shared sacrifice."

The Pentagon disagrees, insisting that today's all-volunteer forces are more efficient and professional than conscripts.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has gone further, asserting at a news conference that draftees added "no value, no advantage" to the military because they served for such brief periods. After members of Congress and veterans groups protested, Rumsfeld apologized, but made clear he opposes a return to conscription.

Still, Rangel's proposal though unlikely to win passage has revived a dormant national debate about the concept of mandatory national service. It is a discussion that creates unusual allies and goes to the heart of American citizenship.

While the Pentagon and the Bush administration support an all-volunteer military, a broad constituency favors some type of universal national service, either military duty or a civilian alternative.

"The problem with the all-volunteer force is that the children of America's elite are not serving," said Charles Moskos, a Northwestern University sociologist who studies military issues. "It's not good for the military, and it's not good for the nation."

Moskos has proposed a three-tiered draft specifically designed to include college graduates with the choice to serve with the armed forces, a homeland security agency such as the Border Patrol, or a public service organization such as the Peace Corps.

On college campuses, opinions about the draft are deeply divided.

"I don't object to the argument that there's a socio-economic bias in the military, but remedying that with a draft is ridiculous," said University of Virginia sophomore Chris Wilson. "I would protest every step of the way."

At the University of Oregon, law student Philip Huang suggested in a campus newspaper column in October that a draft would make U.S. leaders more judicious about launching war.

"You would have a different army under a draft, more of a cross-section politically and racially," Huang said.

In a survey of 1,200 undergraduates nationwide, conducted last fall by Harvard University's Institute of Politics, 67 percent opposed a return of the draft. The poll's margin of error was 2.8 percent.

The machinery for reinstating the draft is in place even now, thanks to the Selective Service System, which requires American males to register within 30 days of their 18th birthdays.

A renewed draft would differ from the Vietnam War draft in at least one important respect. Under revised Selective Service procedures, college students receiving a draft notice could defer only until the semester ended; in the Vietnam era, they could avoid service as long as they pursued a degree.

There could be other changes, as well. Some feminists object to the male-only aspect of draft registration; a suit was filed Jan. 9 by five Massachusetts students saying the current law amounts to gender-based discrimination.

"It's so ingrained in our society that this is the way it is," said plaintiff Nicole Foley, 17. "Boys, when there's a war, go off to war, and the girls wait home and get the letters."

Some gay-rights activists and military experts advocate another change extending the draft to openly gay men. This proposal has been endorsed by Moskos, who helped develop the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that lets gay and lesbian soldiers serve if they keep their sexual orientation private and don't engage in homosexual acts.

"We now have about 1,200 people a year getting out of the military with an honorable discharge by saying they're gay," Moskos said. "In a draft, that would become such a common loophole, it wouldn't work." The best way to block that option is to include gays in the draft, he said.

Rangel, a liberal from Harlem, made it no secret that his restore-the-draft proposal was intended to slow the march toward war with Iraq though he intends to push his idea, however that conflict turns out.

"I've been criticized by some of the CEOs of the country for not supporting the president," Rangel said. "When I ask them, 'Would you feel the same if it was your kid being placed in harm's way?' they hem and they haw."

The American Legion, the nation's largest veterans group, welcomed the debate and is urging Congress to hold hearings on how best to meet long-term military personnel needs.

"With the all-volunteer force doing such a fine job, it might to be difficult to make the case for reinstating the draft," said Legion spokesman Steve Thomas. "But the Legion is a long-standing supporter of the principal of universal military training."

I still think the fastest way to end this war with Iraq is to do a draft. Watch how fast support dries up if kids are yanked out of college to serve. Watch how fast the media stops pushing war when they learn their kids will have to fight in it too. It's far too easy to go to war using other families disposable kids.

Besides, bringing back the draft would show us who real patriots are. Not the flag wavers and not the "God Bless America" crowd you can be sure. Patriotism (or the sad excuse for patriotism we have today) would dry up in a heart beat if we had a draft. For this reason and this reason alone, the draft will not become a reality.


Six-Nation Poll Shows Most Against Iraqi Strike
Sat February 1, 2003 04:26 PM ET

PARIS (Reuters) - A majority of the public polled in France, Germany, Spain, Britain and Russia said they were against war against Iraq in any situation, according to a Gallup poll due to be published on Sunday.

The poll, which sampled a thousand people in each of the five countries, and in the United States, showed that Spain, whose government has backed America on the crisis with Iraq, led the poll with 74 percent saying they were against any strike on Iraq.

French weekly paper Le Journal du Dimanche said the poll, carried out on January 15 and 16, asked whether people would either be totally against military intervention in Iraq, in favor of a strike only if authorized by the U.N., or support a unilateral strike.

The poll in France and Germany, which have publicly argued against a rush to war, showed that respectively 60 percent and 50 percent were completely against war.

In Russia, which has leaned toward France and Germany in urging Washington not to undertake hasty military action against Baghdad, 59 percent were totally against war.

In Britain, a close ally of the U.S., 41 percent of those surveyed said they were definitely against war, while the lowest figure was in the U.S. at 21 percent.

Thirty-nine percent of both Germans and Britons favored a U.N. authorized strike, followed by 34 percent in the U.S., 27 percent in France, 23 percent in Russia and 13 percent in Spain.

A U.S. unilateral strike on Iraq also failed to muster much support, even in the United States, with only 33 percent of Americans in favor of going it alone.

Only 10 percent of Britons, nine percent of Germans, seven percent of both the French and Russians and four percent of the Spanish supported a unilateral U.S.-strike.

What is a Bush to do. The world is against him and the American people don't support him doing it alone. Pooor Bush. It appears his only friend is war. Perhaps he should make peace with his only friend.


WH Says Record Deficits Is Not Record
Sat February 1, 2003 06:32 PM ET
By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's budget for fiscal 2004 will project record deficits this fiscal year and next, even without the cost of a possible war with Iraq, administration officials said on Saturday.

Bush's $2.2 trillion budget blueprint, scheduled for release on Monday, will estimate the deficit for fiscal 2003 at $307 billion, surpassing a 1992 record of $290 billion. The budget shortfall in fiscal 2004 would ease slightly to $304 billion, officials said.

The new estimates -- at nearly triple the $109 billion shortfall for 2003 forecast by the White House in July -- underscore a dramatic deterioration in the nation's fiscal picture since a record surplus in 2000. As recently as 2001, the government was forecasting 10-year budget surpluses of $5.6 trillion.

But when viewed in proportion to the size of the economy, the projected deficits would still remain well below the record level of 6 percent of gross domestic product during the Reagan administration in 1983.

Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget, said deficits of this size, as a share of the economy, would be "better than 12 of the last 20 years."

"This is nowhere near a record," Duffy said. "President Bush wants to reduce the deficit by growing the economy and holding government spending to the growth in family paychecks."

Bush's new budget will call for slowing spending growth to 4 percent, though the administration's top two priorities -- homeland security and the military -- will get far more.

But the 2004 budget does not include the budgetary effects of a possible war with Iraq. While the cost will depend on the length of a war and other factors, White House officials say it could be close to the $61 billion expended on the 1991 Gulf War.


Democrats accused Bush of pursuing economic policies that will dramatically increase the nation's debt burden and accelerate economic decline.

"Our national debt, once headed for a zero balance, will rise to about $5 trillion in five years," said Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. "The dead weight of that debt will drag down our economy for years to come."

He said it will lead to higher interest rates that will slow growth and argued that the debt was being financed by the Social Security trust fund.

"It's not a tax cut, it's a tax increase on future generations," Conrad added.

Bush has proposed a $670 billion 10-year tax cut that would slash investors' dividend taxes and accelerate scheduled income tax cuts. Republicans say the plan will give the lackluster economy a boost.

Democrats argue it will benefit mostly the wealthy and add to long-term budget deficits.

Bush's budget director, Mitch Daniels, acknowledged that the federal government would post deficits for the "foreseeable future." Though he said the deficits would begin to shrink starting in fiscal 2005, he expects the government to run a cumulative budget shortfall over the next five years.

The White House insists that deficits of this size are manageable and has put the onus on Congress to restrain government spending except in the areas of homeland security and defense.

Of $41.3 billion earmarked for domestic homeland security, Bush's 2004 budget will include $36.2 billion for the newly created Department of Homeland Security. That compares to an overall homeland security budget of $37.7 billion in 2003, $33 billion of which was earmarked for the department.

Under Bush's budget, defense spending would rise to roughly $380 billion -- from $364.6 billion in 2003 -- or to nearly $400 billion including spending through the Energy Department to maintain and oversee the nation's nuclear weapons.

But the six-year Pentagon spending proposal would also include increases of $20 billion a year in each of the subsequent five years, pushing the military budget as high as $484 billion in 2009.

White House officials say growth in the rest of government should be kept down to 3 to 4 percent -- the amount the White House expects family incomes to grow.

But some non-defense programs will get a bigger boost. For example, the Treasury Department announced on Saturday that the president's budget would increase the Internal Revenue Service's budget by 5.25 percent to $10.4 billion. Included in that will be $133 million to increase audits of businesses and wealthy taxpayers.

After nearly a decade of republicans telling us deficits are immoral, they defend them once again, just as they did during the Reagan years. It seems deficits are moral whenever they have power and immoral when democrats are in control. Conservatism is for morons. Tax cuts are not cuts, as Conrad is finally saying. Deficits are future taxes plus interest and the masters of deficits are Reagan and Bush. So, vote against every republican for the rest of your life. Maybe then they'll figure it out.


Bush Projecting Record $307 Billion Deficit
Washington Post/AP
By Alan Fram Associated Press Writer
Saturday, February 1, 2003; 7:48 AM

WASHINGTON –– President Bush will send Congress a $2.2 trillion budget for 2004 that projects record federal deficits and proposes a long-range plan to push military spending beyond $500 billion, officials say.

Bush's fiscal blueprint will estimate this year's deficit at $307 billion, with the 2004 shortfall dipping only to $304 billion, said congressional and administration officials speaking on condition of anonymity. Until now, the historic high was $290 billion in 1992, when Bush's father was president.

After four straight annual surpluses under President Clinton, the revived red ink is already adding friction to this year's budget battle.

Democrats blame Bush-backed tax cuts and say war with Iraq and other problems could drive actual shortfalls even higher; White House officials and congressional Republicans play down the numbers and say the weak economy and fight against terror must be confronted first.

"They're underestimating the seriousness of it," said Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, senior Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee.

Conrad argued that deficits will be mounting just as the government should be shoring up Social Security and Medicare for the retirement of baby boomers beginning in a few years.

Without revealing the precise numbers before, administration officials have said for weeks that deficits of this size are manageable because the U.S. economy will surpass $10.5 trillion this year.

"The way to get rid of deficits is to grow the economy and reduce spending, and that's what we intend to do," said Trent Duffy, spokesman for the White House budget office.

According to administration figures, the projected shortfalls would equal 2.8 percent of the economy this year and 2.7 percent in 2004. When deficits peaked in the 1980s and 1990s, they were as much as 6 percent the size of the economy.

On Wednesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected deficits of $199 billion this year and $145 billion in 2004 – excluding any new tax or spending initiatives that might be enacted into law.

Meanwhile, Bush will propose a 4.4 percent increase, or $16.9 billion, in overall defense spending next year to $399.1 billion, even without any war with Iraq, according to figures obtained by The Associated Press.

The Defense Department would get $379.9 of that amount, compared with $364.6 billion in this year's budget. The rest of the money is for the Energy Department nuclear weapons program and defense programs in other agencies.

The proposal would increase money for missile defense and pay for seven new ships, compared with five this year. The higher costs also include pay increases ranging from 2 percent to 6.25 percent for military personnel.

Increases include:

–The military pay raises, which would cost an additional $3.7 billion.

–Inflation in areas other than pay, which would cost $4.3 billion.

–Spending for shipbuilding would increase by $2.7 billion, to $12.2 billion.

–Missile defense would increase by $1.5 billion to $9.1 billion.

–Spending for special operations forces would increase to $4.5 billion, from $3 billion.

The Pentagon says it would save $7.1 billion through a variety of programs to include early retirement of aircraft and ships, reducing Navy personnel and ending upgrades of some weapons systems.

Bush's budget will also propose more money for the Treasury Department to help the government sever terrorists from their sources of financing and to combat money laundering.

Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which plays a key role in trying to nab terrorist financiers and money launderers, would receive $57.6 million in fiscal year 2004, a 14 percent increase from a requested $50.5 million for the 2003 budget year, which began Oct. 1.

Bush, who will also renew his proposal to open mineral drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, will project $2.4 billion in oil lease sales there by 2005, said Rebecca Watson, assistant interior secretary for land and minerals management.

She said half the money would be spent to research solar, wind and other alternative energy.

© 2003 The Associated Press

It's official, these guys are morons. Bankrupting the future of this country is super important because we need a little more growth RIGHT NOW. Read: In order to get reelected we'll do whatever it takes, including destroying our future if necessary.

It's time for every American to vote against every republican in every office for the rest of their lives. This party must not have power any longer and must not ever have power again.


Bush Digs Deeper Hole
Washington Post/AP
By Martin Crutsinger
AP Economics Writer
Friday, January 31, 2003; 5:28 PM

WASHINGTON –– Borrowing a page from Ronald Reagan's supply-side textbook, President Bush says not to worry about projections of skyrocketing budget deficits.

But a lot of private analysts are plenty worried, saying that policies already adopted virtually guarantee budget deficits for as far as the eye can see.

The administration takes exception to this pessimistic view, arguing that if Congress passes Bush's $674 billion economic stimulus package, the higher growth generated from the tax cuts will trim those deficit projections.

Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's treasury secretary, said the government needs to control its borrowing appetite and thus lower interest rates for consumers and businesses. The administration's economic team has derided that view as "Rubinomics."

They note that while the budget returned to deficit last year after four straight years of surpluses, interest rates have actually gone down, not up.

"We have today the lowest interest rates in 40 years," Treasury Secretary designate John Snow said at his confirmation hearing this week. "That's not a signal of financial markets being deeply disturbed about deficits."

Administration officials argue that deficits don't matter at the present moment of economic weakness, when what the economy needs is stronger growth that will generate higher tax revenues.

"Getting the American economy strong is the best way to service the debt," Snow insisted to Democrats who were attacking the administration's stimulus plan as too large in light of projections for rising deficits.

Many private economists agree that the most important thing the government needs to do now is provide further stimulus to make sure that the economy, which saw growth nearly stall out in the final three months of last year, doesn't topple into a double-dip recession.

However, they note that more than half of the $674 billion Bush plan would go to slash taxes on investor dividends over the next 10 years, with none of that money showing up this year when the weak economy needs it most.

These analysts say that 90 percent of Bush's $674 billion tax cut package won't show up until 2004 or later. A better plan would be to offer a far smaller temporary tax cut package targeted to jump-starting growth this year, they say, and then phasing it out.

"Deficits during a recession or period of weak growth don't hurt," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York. "But once the economy gets back to stronger growth, deficits take away money that should be available to the private sector."

The Congressional Budget Office released new estimates this week predicting that last year's deficit of $157.8 billion, the first after four years of surpluses, would rise to $199 billion this year, with surpluses not returning until 2007.

And the CBO projections don't include such big-ticket items as the administration's new tax cuts or the cost of making Bush's 2001 tax cut package – $1.35 trillion over 10 years – permanent.

Adding tax cuts and spending items Congress is likely to favor will turn the CBO's 10-year surplus estimate of $1.34 trillion through 2014 into deficits totaling more than $2 trillion during the period, many analysts believe.

The administration's own deficit projections, which will be included when Bush releases his new budget on Monday, will be dramatically higher than the CBO's because it will include the cost of the new tax cuts.

White House budget director Mitchell Daniels told reporters this week that the deficit for the current year was likely to be equal to 3 percent of the total economy, or around $300 billion. That would be the largest deficit in history, and doesn't even include the cost of a war with Iraq.

But Snow, who in the 1990s headed up a private sector commission that urged the government to eliminate the deficits, said the level of deficits the administration is projecting was "a long way" from the danger point that would worry financial markets.

While Snow didn't say what deficit level he would consider dangerous, private economists said those danger points have already been hit, given the list of demands the government faces in coming years for everything from prescription drug benefits to increased spending for homeland security.

"The long-run budget deficits that we are facing look pretty ominous," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at "Large, persistent deficits will matter a lot. They will have a corrosive impact on the economy's ability to generate long-term economic growth because they will lead to higher interest rates and less business investment."

© 2003 The Associated Press

One more time. Deficits are future taxes plus interest. So if you STILL think Bush is giving you a tax cut, wake up. All he's doing is postponing when the bill comes and calling it a tax cut. Good grief.

When will economists come to understand how immoral conservatism is? Since the Reagan tax cut of 1981, (the cut that was supposed to balance the budget in four years) the US has created $5.3 trillion of debt. Prior to Reagan, all previous generations had created less than $1 trillion of debt, so since the Reagan tax cut the US has created 5.3 times more debt than all previous generations combined.

To top it off this moron thinks we need more tax cuts. It's kinda like this; Bush is digging us a huge hole (deficits) hoping that hole will get us out of a bigger hole (debt). It doesn't work like that....when you're in a hole, stop digging.


Government Pension Protection Has Deficit
Washington Post/AP
By Leigh Strope
AP Labor Writer
Thursday, January 30, 2003; 1:59 PM

WASHINGTON –– The government program protecting workers' retirement income earned in private employer-sponsored pension plans posted a record $3.6 billion shortfall in 2002 after burning through its entire $7.7 billion surplus last year.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. said Thursday that the bulk of that $11.4 billion net loss last year – also the largest in the agency's 28-year history – was from securing a record number of underfunded pension plans at bankrupt and financially troubled companies, particularly in the steel industry.

The PBGC's executive director, Steven A. Kandarian, said the insurance program still had sufficient assets to pay benefits to retirees "for a number of years." But officials must find new ways to financially strengthen the program to meet future obligations, he said.

About 80 percent, or $9.3 billion, of the $11.4 billion net loss was because of underfunded single-employer plans. Declining interest rates accounted for nearly $1.7 billion of the loss.

The PBGC's last deficit was in 1995, at $315 million. The only surpluses it has recorded were in 1996 through 2001.

Two key lawmakers said they intend to examine the financial troubles at the agency. Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, and Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, a subcommittee chairman, said a hearing will be held in the spring.

The hearing will "examine both the challenges facing the PBGC and the mandated funding formulas used by corporations and unions to determine if any challenges need to be made in order to better protect American workers," Johnson said.

The PBGC was created in 1974 to guarantee payment of basic pension benefits. About 44 million American workers and retirees currently have pensions under PBGC control. The agency is financed by insurance premiums paid by companies that sponsor pension plans and by PBGC's investment returns.

A Treasury official said the financial report "is a wake-up call, reminding us of the work we need to do now so that retirees continue to receive in coming years the pension benefits they have earned," said Peter Fisher, treasury undersecretary for domestic finance who also sits on PBGC's board of directors.

He said officials need to carefully select a permanent replacement for the 30-year bond as the rate for valuing pension liabilities. A higher rate, for example, would diminish liabilities.

Other ideas being considered are a hike in employer premiums, tightening funding requirements for pensions and imposing restrictions on benefit increases in underfunded plans.

The PBGC last year had its largest pension takeover ever when it insured the underfunded pension plans of LTV Corp. for $1.85 billion. The steel industry accounted for almost 80 percent of the underfunded plans in 2002.

Already this year, the PBGC has moved to take over the pension plans of National Steel and Bethlehem Steel, which together account for $5.16 billion and are not included in 2002 financial numbers.

The agency assumed control over 144 pension plans covering 187,000 people last year, up from 104 plans and 89,00 participants in 2001 – a record increase.

Also, the PBGC paid a record $1.5 billion in benefits, nearly 50 percent higher than 2001.

Separately, the PBGC's multi-employer program, covering 9.5 million participants in 1,661 plans, remained financially strong in 2002. It had a surplus if $158 million, up from $116 million in 2001.

Are you getting like me? If the free-market is so great, why is it that the government has to take control of 144 pension plans in ONE year? Let's face it, the free market works when times are good, but the boys running things don't really care if things go bad because they're taken care of.


Bishop in Bush's Church Is in Antiwar Ad
Washington Post/AP
The Associated Press
Friday, January 31, 2003; 9:11 AM

WASHINGTON –– A bishop of the United Methodist Church, President Bush's denomination, stars in a new anti-war ad in which he declares that making war against Iraq "violates God's law and the teachings of Jesus Christ."

"Iraq hasn't wronged us. War will only create more terrorists and a more dangerous world for our children," Bishop Melvin G. Talbert, chief ecumenical officer of the United Methodist Church, says in the 30-second spot.

Slated to appear several times a day on the CNN and Fox networks in New York and Washington, the ad is part of a $1 million media campaign sponsored by a coalition of organizations and celebrities–including actresses Janeane Garofalo and Susan Sarandon–opposed to Bush's Iraq policy.

Talbert, 68, also opposed to the 1991 Persian Gulf War against Iraq, which was waged by Bush's father.

On the Net: National Council of Churches: National Council of Churches

© 2003 The Associated Press

The nice thing about these so-called "born again Christians" is they almost always tend to be very anti-Christian. There isn't a single major religion in the US that says war with Iraq is a "ust war." Does anyone care? Nope. Americans like to call ourselves religious, but we're not.


Articles Impeaching: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft
Vote to Impeach. org
January 15, 2003

Articles of Impeachment
President George W. Bush
Vice President Richard B. Cheney
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General John David Ashcroft

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. --Article II, Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States of America.

Acts which require the impeachment of President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld; and Attorney General John David Ashcroft include:

1) Ordering and directing a proclaimed "pre-emptive", or "first strike" war of aggression against Afghanistan causing thousands of deaths indiscriminately, a major proportion non combatants, leaving millions homeless and hungry and installing a government of their choice in Kabul.

2) Authorizing daily intrusions into the airspace of Iraq by U.S. military aircraft in violation of the sovereignty of Iraq and aerial attacks on facilities and persons, on the soil of Iraq, killing hundreds of people indiscriminately, initially falsely claiming self defense though over a period of eleven years not a single U.S. aircraft has been struck or damaged by gunfire from Iraq, but later admitting the targeting of defense installations in Iraq, as war preparations they ordered progressed.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilians facilities and locations where civilian casualties are unavoidable.

4) Threatening Iraq with proclaimed "pre-emptive", or "first strike" attack and a war of aggression by overwhelming force and military superiority including specific threats to use nuclear weapons while engaged in a massive military build-up in nations and waters surrounding Iraq.

5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently proclaiming an intention to change its government by force while preparing to assault Iraq in a war of aggression.

6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

7) Authorizing, directing and condoning bribery and coercion of governments and individuals to cause them to act in violation of their duty and the law, including to maintain and tighten enforcement of economic sanctions against Iraq which continue to increase the death rate of infants, children and elderly persons; to attack and kill designated groups, or persons; to permit use of land, facilities, territorial waters, or air space for U.S. attacks on Iraq; to vote, abstain in a vote, or publicly proclaim support for a U.S. or U.N. attack on Iraq; to defect from Iraq, or to falsely accuse it of weapons concealment to break down opposition to a U.S. war of aggression; and to reject ratification of the Treaty creating an International Criminal Court, or reject its jurisdiction over the United States.

8) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks by the U.S.

9) Violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in "pre emptive" wars, first strike attacks and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and other nations by assuming powers of an imperial executive who is not accountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and the people of the United States to prevent interferences with the unlawful executive exercise of military power and economic coercion against the international community.

10) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting, violations and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

Ramsey Clark
Former Attorney General of the United States of America
January 15, 2003

Original Text