Articles of Impeachment

Bush has Confessed

The Non-Impeachment of George W. Bush Downing Street Memo

You said it ... and then that little tongue came out; that weird way you stick your tongue out between your lips
like the little kid who knows he's fibbing. Like a snake licking a rat.
— Greg Palast, commenting on George W. Bush's 2004 State of the Union speech.

This page first appeared here in March 2003 when George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, a war crime and "the supreme international crime" according to principles enunciated at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials: "to initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime."

Impeachment is specified in the U.S. Constitution as a remedy for "high crimes and misdemeanors". "High crimes" means crimes committed by a holder of high office, and thus especially the office of the U.S. President, which office George W. Bush greatly besmirched by his actions during the course of his presidency.

Both before and after the invasion of Iraq Bush committed many more crimes, which amply justified his impeachment. But it never happened. That's because Bush was implementing policy that was decided by those behind the scenes who really run the United States, and thus the non-impeachment of their resident psychopath was required for them to further their own psychopathological aims, which include the domination of the Earth by military power so as to enrich themselves while impoverishing everyone else.

George W. Bush is a pathological liar. He shows his contempt for the American people whenever he says anything in public. Why do you think he smirks so often? It's because he knows he's lying and he's amused that everyone else (so he thinks) is a fool for believing him. (Lately his handlers have trained him not to smirk so often.)

In particular Bush lied to the people of the United States and to the entire world when he declared in late 2002 and early 2003 that Iraq had developed and deployed "weapons of mass destruction" and was an imminent threat to its neighbors and to the U.S. itself.

... George W. Bush and the members of his administration argued, day after day, week after week, month after month, that Iraq was in possession of massive stores of mass destruction weapons that would be delivered to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda for use against the United States. ...

"We have sources that tell us," said George W. Bush on February 8 2003, "that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons."

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt," continued Bush on March 17 2003, "that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." ...

George W. Bush, on March 18, had delivered a letter to Congress explicitly indicating that an attack on Iraq was an attack upon those who perpetrated September 11. Paragraph two reads, "The use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

On May 1 2003, when he announced the end of "major combat operations," Bush proclaimed, "We've removed an ally of Al Qaeda." ...

The uranium claims were based on crudely forged documents, the mobile labs were weather balloon launching platforms sold to Iraq by the British in the 1980s, the al Qaeda claims are utterly impossible to establish as true, any connection between Iraq and September 11 was publicly denied by George W. Bush himself recently, and the mass destruction weapons are utterly and completely absent.

— William Rivers Pitt: Donkeys of Mass Destruction

Bush's lies were used as a justification for launching an invasion and occupation of Iraq which has killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers and thousands of Iraqis and which has and will cost the U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars (far better spent on health, education and unemployment benefits for the workers whose jobs Bush has shipped overseas). The long-term damage to America is incalculable. Bush's lies amount to a "high crime" under the U.S. Constitution and justify impeachement and removal from office.

And not only Bush. In the run-up to the attack on Iraq Vice-President Dick Cheney claimed that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program and had recently attempted to purchase uranium, even though he knew (from the report of retired US Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the man he sent to Niger to investigate this) that this was false. He claimed that following an invasion of Iraq the Iraqis would welcome the American soldiers as liberators (instead the Iraqis are killing as many as they can). For his lies as well as his gross errors of judgment (amounting to wishful thinking) Cheney should be impeached and removed from office.

The same is true of Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice and the other neo-cons who did Israel's bidding by launching a war to remove the threat to Israel from Saddam Hussein. All should be swept away. However, as John Kaminski and Michael Ruppert have pointed out, removing Bush and his fellow sleazeballs from power will not fundamentally change the fact (in Ruppert's words), "that the system itself is corrupt and that the people controlling it — both in government, and in America's corporations and financial institutions — are criminals".

Articles on This Website

Articles on Other Websites

It is clear that George W. Bush is the most hated U.S. President ever. And for good reason: He is a psychopathic mass murderer who has brought the United States of America into disgrace, despised by the rest of the world. Even worse, he is an instrument in the coming destruction of the U.S. itself. But for the future well-being of all life on Earth maybe that's not such a bad thing.

There are, however, two major problems with the removal of George W. Bush by impeachment and conviction:

  1. It requires a simple majority of the House of Representatives to impeach and a two-thirds majority of the Senate to convict, and both houses are controlled by the Republican party.
  2. It is a slow process which requires months, and in the meantime Bush, an insane psychopath, remains commander-in-chief of the world's largest arsenal and a born-again lackey of that other insane psychopath Ariel Sharon, who apparently (with U.S. assistance) is about to plunge the whole Middle East into war.

There are a few other possibilities for removing Bush. One is: Arrest the President Now!  A radical course of action, but perhaps necessary if the world is not to be plunged into major wars, famines and comprehensive disaster.

Another would follow from the public recognition that George W. Bush is, if not certifiably insane, at least mentally incompetent to perform his duties as President. There is clear evidence of this, for example:

WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: I don't really understand. How is it the new [Social Security] plan is going to fix that problem?
DUBYA: Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

— Dubya explains the virtues of his Social Security plan, Tampa, Florida, Feb. 4, 2005

This is taken from Fresh Dubya (The 15 most recent Dubya declarations). This statement of Bush's plan to "save" social security is reminiscent of the well-known statement by a Marine commander in the Vietnam War, speaking of a Vietnamese village: "We had to destroy it in order to save it."

This possibility that Bush could be removed from office on the grounds of being mentally incompetent to perform his duties as President was discussed in July 2005 by Jeffrey Steinberg in his article The Plame Affair: Rove and Cheney Are Guilty As Charged:

Cheney's departure, and replacement by a qualified, experienced figure, such as several leading Republican Senators, would create the safe conditions for the removal of President George W. Bush, for the good of the nation.

Procedures for the removal of Bush from office are contained in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which spells out the procedures for the removal of the President from office if he is determined to be "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." The Constitution itself demands that the President meet the standard of competence. And that is where Bush fails, miserably.

It was amusing to watch the press conference given by George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin in Bratislava on January 24th, 2005. While Putin delivered concise, coherent and intelligent answers to the questions put to him by reporters, Bush was only able to mouth platitudes about how important democracy and a free press is, and when he couldn't think of anything else to say he resorted to rambling on about how, when "Vladimir" says something, you can be sure that he means it. As if anyone thought otherwise. Seen standing next to a statesman, Bush was revealed to the entire world as a bumbling fool, and a disgrace to America as well.

A transcript of the press conference was available for awhile on the website of the L.A.Times (here), but they removed it (perhaps because it was embarrassing). The transcript provided by the Washington Post is still available here.

The Downing Street Memo

Impeach Bush

The Watergate burglary occurred in Richard Nixon's first term as US President. Accusations of a cover-up did not stop Nixon from being re-elected in 1972. Nixon was impeached in 1974.

The US attack on Iraq occurred in Bush's first term. The charge of taking the US into an illegal and immoral war did not stop Bush from being re-elected (by means of rigged voting machines) in 2004. Were history to repeat itself Bush would be impeached in 2006.

The movement for Bush's impeachment gained strength following the publication on May 1st, 2005, of the Downing Street Memo by the Times of London.

Bush had Prior Knowledge of the Katrina Disaster,
Did Nothing, and Lied about it

Bush has Confessed to an Impeachable Offense

Bush has confessed (on TV even) to a high crime (that is, a crime committed by someone in a high place). Why hasn't Congress begun impeachment hearings?

But now, at last (2006-01-15), things are beginning to move ...

In the November 2006 congressional elections, widely seen as a referendum on Administration policy regarding Iraq, the voters installed a slim Democratic majority in both houses, a clear sign of their wish for American troops to be withdrawn from Iraq. George W. Bush, in typically psychopathic fashion, responded by ordering more troops to be sent to Iraq. It looks like the U.S. is headed for a constitutional crisis, in which the people can win against a ruthless dictatorship only by exposing its crimes. Ideally this will include exposing the role of elements at the top of the U.S. Administration in the planning and implementation of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

But, as someone said, if Congress had ever had the courage to impeach Bush it would have happened on September 12th, 2001. There has been ample opportunity, and almost nothing was ever been done. Bush won't be impeached. Nor will Cheney. That's real bad news for the rest of us.

Despite multiple offenses and parole violations, Spahn Ranch [residence of Charles Manson and Charles "Tex" Watson] wasn't raided before [the] Tate-LaBianca [murders] because the police were expressly told they should not arrest Manson or his followers. Despite the grievous injuries they've inflicted upon the nation and the constitution, George Bush and Dick Cheney will not be impeached because Democrats have elected, for some reason, to take impeachment "off the table." Like an unmolested Manson sending his family on "creepy crawly" burglaries of canyon homes Bush will not be stopped by the law, because behind the law are the gods of Helter Skelter who are not yet finished with him. As [Los Angeles County deputy sheriff] Guillory said of Manson, so Bush is "a very ready tool" who currently enjoys the unprecedented and seemingly unaccountable permission to do the unthinkable.

... Only after his chaotic work is done and the last doorpost daubed in gore may he be brought low. Not to justice, because American presidents never are, but perhaps to a singular injustice that has sometimes made their acquaintance. Until then, he may as well tell us as another Texan [Watson] reportedly did, "I am the devil, and I am here to do the devil's business."

— Jeff Wells (Rigorous Intuition, 16 January 2007), We Are Family

The Senate report [by the armed services committee says] ... that Bush "opened the door" to the use of a raft of techniques that the US had once branded barbaric and beyond the realm of human decency. ... For this Bush should surely be held to account. ...Barack Obama is unlikely to want to spend precious capital pursuing his predecessor for war crimes. But other prosecutors elsewhere in the world should weigh their responsibilities. In the end, it was a lone Spanish magistrate, not a Chilean court, who ensured the arrest of Augusto Pinochet.

— Jonathan Freedland (Guardian Online, 24 December 2008), Bush and his cronies must face a reckoning

The self-deluded unrepentant psychopathic scumbag George W. Bush — responsible
(along with his fellow unrepentant psychopathic scumbags Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld)
for the deaths and impoverishment of millions of people —
at the end of his presidency, the worst ever in the history of the United States.

But how was it possible for this scumbag to commit so many and such major crimes? It was possible because (with some help from rigged voting machines and a partisan Supreme Court) he was voted into office by about 50% of those who bothered to vote in the 2000 presidential election. And after it was obvious that he was a war criminal (having in 2003 ordered the invasion of a country which was in fact no threat to the U.S.) he was voted into office again in 2004, by people who were too stupid to recognize a war criminal when they saw one. Or did those 50% of voters applaud Bush's military aggression? For Bush's crimes, both domestic and foreign, and for the lasting damage that Bush has done to his country (and to the rest of the world), the people of the United States also bear responsibility.

George W Bush should be prosecuted over torture, says human rights group

George W. Bush, the worst president in U.S. history A US human rights group has called on foreign governments to prosecute George W Bush and some of his senior officials for war crimes if the Obama administration fails to investigate a growing body of evidence against the former president over the use of torture.

The New York-based Human Rights Watch said in a report released on Tuesday that the US authorities were legally obliged to investigate the top echelons of the Bush administration over crimes such as torture, abduction and other mistreatment of prisoners. ...

Besides Bush, HRW names his vice-president, Dick Cheney, the former defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the ex-CIA director, George Tenet, as likely to be guilty of authorising torture and other crimes.



Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal: Bush and Blair Guilty

International law scholar Richard Falk writes that in November 2011

Blair and Bush -- war criminals after two years of investigation by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC), a tribunal ... consisting of five judges with judicial and academic backgrounds reached a unanimous verdict that found George W. Bush and Tony Blair guilty of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and genocide as a result of initiating the Iraq War in 2003, and in the course of maintaining the subsequent occupation. ...

[Such] national tribunals have the legal authority to prosecute individuals accused of war crimes wherever in the world the alleged criminality took place. The underlying legal theory is based on the recognition of the limited capacity of international criminal trials to impose accountability in a manner that is not entirely dictated by geopolitical priorities and reflective of a logic of impunity. In this regard, UJ [Universal Jurisdiction] has the potential to treat equals equally, and is very threatening to the Kissingers and Rumsfelds of this world, who have curtailed their travel schedules. The United States and Israel have used their diplomatic leverage to roll back UJ authority in Europe, especially the United Kingdom and Belgium.



A copy of the Serendipity website is available on flash drive.  Details here.

Bush isn't a moron, he's a cunning sociopath The Madness of George W. Bush
Seymour Hersh on Iraq, Bush and the Neocons Bush Flubs it Again
The Iraq War Serendipity Home Page