portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

government | imperialism & war

Rep. Earl Blumenauer's Yellow Response to Call for Impeachment

Earl Blumenauer once again dodges the call for impeachment of Bush, citing flimsy excuses in terms of political strategy rather than understanding his duty and the need for justice.
Dear Rep. Blumenauer,

I am deeply disappointed by your poor excuses for not performing your duty and impeaching Bush and Cheney for their many heinous crimes.

The decision to impeach or not is not meant to be one of political strategy but of justice. Remember that Nixon was nearing the end of his term when he was about to be impeached, and he resigned rather than be subjected to the process, even though his crimes pale in comparison to Bush and Cheney's.

These men, once found guilty, need not only to be thrown out of office, but to be thrown in jail for the rest of their lives. Can you think of any president or vice president in U.S. history who have committed as many or as severe of crimes as Bush and Cheney? If these do not call for impeachment, then what high crimes and misdemeanors ever will?

You are proving yourself to be far from the noble character and voice of your constituents you represent yourself to be. For shame!


January 17, 2007

Dear XX. Xxxxxxx:

Thank you for contacting me with your deep concerns about this administrations behavior. I have heard from a number of people who are ready for this president to be censured, even impeached. Certainly having endured the travesty of the Republican impeachment of Clinton, I can understand and sympathize with that point of view.

There are few people who worked harder in the 2004 election for George Bush not to be president. I traveled more miles, raised more money, gave more speeches, and did more political organizing than I think anyone else in Oregon. I truly believe the country deserves better than what George Bush is providing, and I am committed to finding a new direction here in Congress.

Our Democratic leaders made clear, as did virtually all our new successful candidates, that we were running to regain control of Congress and change the direction of the country. While we will hold the president, vice president, and their administration accountable, we will not indulge in an impeachment process for an administration on its way out the door. The practical matter is that given the rules of the Senate, there is no way that an impeachment process would lead to the removal of the President or Vice President. Instead, it would create a media circus that would detract from our mission of reversing the policies (both domestic and international) of what the public continues to see as a failing presidency.

While there is a part of me that would love to see this President publicly admonished by the Congress, I feel the American people have done that in terms of their votes in the 2006 elections.

If I were Karl Rove I would like nothing better than an impeachment process that wouldn't go anywhere to distract people from the very real failures of this administration in Iraq, with the economy, with the environment, with the ethics of this administration, and with civil liberties.


Earl Blumenauer
Member of Congress

signing statement 17.Jan.2007 21:02


Was the Clinton impeachment a charade, to desensitize us to the very real need to impeach BUSH? We can sleep well at night, knowing that liberal gaatekeepers like Earl will protect us from knowing about our descent into dictatorship,

Is This A Nation Of Laws Or Not 17.Jan.2007 22:46

Joe Anybody iam@joe-anybody.com

Ya know to me I bet we could run a circus and ...
AT THE SAME TIME say on top of the ISSUES we need to!

An Impeachment that wont go anywhere....... ?
What does he mean?
Hell, drag him through the trials and turn this country around as well.
Do all that simultaneously and more so.
How could the Impeachment, not go anywhere?

Where is the Honor and respect?
Or has "G" scared everyone - to "not" care or dare challenge him?
This looks like some bad movie where the rich/bad "head boss guy" pays *everybody off* ...and nobody stands up to him, he is untouchable because of the fear he lays down, the money he pays off, and the unchecked corrupt power and secrecy he ascertains.
That is how I feel this current Bush/Cheney Impeachment/Dynasty issue has transposed
As you stated Nixon resigned due to the Impeachment Charge at the near end of his term, so can "G"

Hell, this administration is out of control
Fueled by lies and power and neocon control
No wonder no one will stand up to this gang!
Just like on the Bad head-boss-guy TV show

I find this "G"-FEAR-factor intresting.....An interest that "the people of the world" are paying for with real blood and lives.

++ "we will not indulge in an impeachment process for an administration on its way out the door" ++
So what does that mean? A get out of JAIL FREE card? ... "because they are on their way out the door"?

Thanks Oregon Constituent, for contacting Earl ...I will do the same....and thanks for sharing the timid -(sic)Non-reps-reply
I like Earl on allot of issues.....but see this position of his to be "flimsy'" and not logical.
Like almost all the anti-Impeachment rhetoric, it doesn't even, hold weight.

I also find this comment delusive....
++ "Our Democratic leaders made clear, as did virtually all our new successful candidates, that we were running to regain control of Congress and change the direction of the country" ++

.... to lack what this new Congress really should be doing... "REPRESENTING ALL OF US"
We want the bum Impeached....and WE WANT the illegal war to end
That is/was the message of the people.
We are sick of the WHOLE MESS...was our message!

Presented with "the facts" most people would say Impeachment "is" necessary...

Or to hell with it, just let the king go ......in using his Executive POWER like no one ever has in the history of the US ever done, and in using fear, .... and tricky lawyer-laced-loopholes
..."G" can do what ever he wants.

If the Government is not held to the law ...to hell with law and order.
Lets ditch it and move on, ......now we know!

The man we call bush and his sidedick kick ...have ruined our country, (illegal spying, mail reading, phone call listening, torturing, rendition, lies about WMD, premeditated-Iraq attack plans <downing street report>, Heabus Corpus removal, signage statements added, and ordering the murder of civilians of another country based on lies, did I mention all the war profiteering that was allowed, missing money (trillions) from the pentagon, 911 attack <bush knew>,the list keeps on growing. This is criminal! It needs to be investigated

And our State Representative thinks this is, all OK?
....YA surrrrrrrrre its OK!

Earl mentions ++ "It would be a media circus" ++
Well hell better than a killing circus!!!!!
--> that we all have been drug to and forced to accept <--

....Well I'm reading for a fucking media circus, bring it on!
What I am REALLY ready for is some long over due justice, and LAW & ORDER being followed by our President and Squad.
And how about some damn oversight and checks and balance on them by 'we the people'?
Is that asking too much, that in this "NEW" direction we cant have accountability and justice?
And that would be, to hold this gang responsible and get them out of office before more Damage Happens?

Seems like that ain't happening, as Earl said in his doublespeak quote:
++ "While we will hold the president, vice president, and their administration accountable" ++
.....but not as they leave

What a travesty to have this unaccountable administration that has run amuck, and....with a free pass?

Indeed, upholding the Constitution is not optional 17.Jan.2007 23:10

political reality

Ok, democrat politicians are completely divorced from political reality, that's a given in the past few decades. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that Blumenauer, like most politicians, doesn't recognize that impeachment efforts against Bush would reap huge benefits for the democratic party. If the democrats do not begin impeachment proceedings, and soon, and do not take action against the continued occupation of Iraq, they will be in serious trouble in 2008 running against anti-"war" and anti-Bush republican candidates. And whatever good legislation that the democrats do pass (such as revoking congressional pensions for those convicted of felonies and raising the minimum wage) is not going make a bit of difference to the average voter. Instead of a "distraction" this would be a focused emphasis on how the democrats are working to change the direction of the country. For that, they would see landslide victories in 2008, despite yet another round of election fraud.

But let's set political reality aside, since most politicians these days are utterly unfamiliar with it.

Let's suppose Blumenauer's analysis was actually correct. Then what he is saying is that his loyalty to the his political party is more important than upholding his oath to the US Constitution. And that would put him on the same legal and ethical ground as the republicans who want to ignore the Constitution when it suits their purposes as well. Now, none of this should be surprising, just disgusting.

Back to political reality for a couple quick points. First, if Blumenauer and the democrats think that the 2006 elections were sufficient admonishment then he and the democrats should prepare themselves for the same fate in 2008 when the voters reject their party's failure to reign in the Bush administration. Second, Rove's political future is uncertain but if I was a republican strategist (and I'd be a good one) I'd be praying that the democrats neither begin impeachment proceedings nor act against the occupation of Iraq and in 2008 run an anti-Bush anti-"war" candidate.

President Hagel anyone?

My letter to Blumenauer 18.Jan.2007 07:30


You can send him one, too, at:



Dear Rep. Blumenauer:

To take this nation forward, it is imperative that we first remove the heinous criiminals in the White House. That is your top priority, and it is also your duty. You do not have a choice whether to impeach or not based on political strategy. Numerous crimes have been committed in breach of the U.S. Constituion. It is your duty to uphold the Constitution. By not impeaching, you are breaking the law and are a criminal yourself.

If you and the rest of Congress do not impeach, more crimes will be committed, and the Constitution will no longer hold any power in this nation. Is that what you want?

Do you understand that the November election results reflected the desire of the people to clean this administration of the lies, the crimes, the bloody murder, and the rape of the people and the land? It was not about raising the Democrat's agenda of acting as the other side of the same coin of U.S. imperialism. It was about restoring peace, democracy, justice and the U.S. Constitution.

That Bush is in the second half of his failed, stolen presidency does not justify lettting him walk. He and Cheney need to be impeached and to be served justice for their many outrageous crimes. We need to restore our government for and by the people. Do your duty and stop making cowardice excuses.

List of all Bush & Cheney's impeachable offenses 18.Jan.2007 11:59


What would be great is a bulleted list of all of Bush and Cheney's impeachable offenses. This we could sent repeatedly to everyone in power and build the case. Anyone got such a thing?

Call the Coward 18.Jan.2007 12:22

V & G

We called his offices and let them know that if he was not going to uphold the rule of law, not only would we not support him , we would actively support any future opponents.We pointed out that even the Nuremburg Trials created a "media circus"..should they not have happened ? Should Ted Bundy have been released to avoid the media circus that followed his arrest and trial? Here are the phone numbers: DC office---202-225-4811 Portland office: 503-231-2300
The fax numbers are : DC 202-225-8941 Portland: 503-230-5413

Thanks for that reminder 18.Jan.2007 12:24


You know, I had promised myself that I would never vote for Earl, nor support him in any way again, after his refusal to take a stand against the horrific crimes of Israel when they bombed the children of Lebanon. I just could not get past that. Little babies in pajamas being dragged out of the rubble, and that asshole refusing to demand that Israel be held accountable, or even just fucking STOP it.

But attention spans being what they are, I had almost talked myself back into supporting him. Actually, I had almost let myself be talked into it, by someone who kept telling me that, hey, he fucked up, but you know, he was anti-war, and he's a progressive, you know, and like, there aren't very many of those and we should support them. I had ALMOST given in to this. But thanks for the reminder. Just saying one is "progressive" doesn't make it so. It's by their actions that we must decide. And his actions are decidedly not progressive.

NO support for Earl Blumenauer.

Earl just lost my vote, too. Uphold your oath of office, Earl! 18.Jan.2007 12:50


ARTICLE II, Section I: Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

ARTICLE II, Section 4: Section 4. 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.

Okay Earl, let's check the record here:

> He authorized the NSC to conduct illegal wiretaps AFTER he was denied permission by Congress, thus violating habeas corpus.

> He authorized the use of torture (and his administration continues to defend it), when it was illegal to do so based on a law passed by a Republican led congress!

> He has seized and detained American citizens without due process.

> He claims war powers and to be a "war president" in a "time of war," but Congress has made no declaration of war, only an authorization for "use of force." Wholesale occupation of what was a sovereign nation is an act of war, not a use of force.

That's just a sampling of the treason (against the constitution and American people) and high crimes (torture! leading to death in many cases!) and misdemeanors.

So the American people are supposed to be pacified by minimum wage increases and a longer work week? Where does getting rid of rigged elections (HAVA) and repeal of the Patriot Act come in to play?

Here's a little flashback for you Earl: "I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

In case you didn't fully absorb the meaning of those words, let me help you out a little bit in case the bow tie was too tight that day, Earl. You WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. The Founding Fathers didn't instruct you in that oath to defend the constitution "unless it will create a media circus."

Not pursuing impeachment is the worst course of all, because it allows all of the actions of this presidential administration to set precedence in the future. You are basically ratifying through inaction his crimes. You are basically saying that the President of the United States is above the law and that the Constitution does not compel Congress to act on behalf of the rights of the people by removing the president for violating it, which is basically saying that we don't have a Constitution. Which is saying that any given American may have his fundamental rights upon which the nation and its governing principals are meant to operate taken by the state. That's not democracy, that's Leninist Communism. That makes you a traitor, too.

yes don't forget, and let people help you to remember 18.Jan.2007 17:21

political reality

I've never voted for Blumenauer but people have certainly tried to convince me. It means I'm not a vote he's lost, which many consider to be a more potent threat, but rather a vote he never had in the first place, which I consider a more potent threat. Every person who cannot be convinced to vote for candidate and says so distinctly and articulately has a lot of sway I've found, particularly with those who have doubts and reservations about a candidate.

Anyway, Hagel's political team is doing quite well with Hagel co-introducing the non-binding resolution against increased troop deployments to Iraq. You might think the democrats wouldn't want to setup a republican for an easy shot at the White House (if he got the nomination while is his real challenge) but only if you haven't been watching the democratic party for the last few decades. Barring the unforeseen the democrat politicians' choices may never have been simpler: oppose Bush now and win in 2008; don't oppose Bush now and lose in 2008 (and by win and lose I don't just mean the presidency though I am using that as example). And I don't particularly care since I'm not a member of the democratic party, nor will I ever be. But I sometimes think the average democratic party member would rather back a winning strategy for a change and not rely on coming to power only when the republican party runs a losing strategy. Or maybe most democrats really want a republican president.

The only answer 18.Jan.2007 21:35


I've said for years, the only answer is to impeach Bush/Cheney. Otherwise this nigthmare (and more crimes) will continue until the day the leave office. Think how much more damage can be done.

glad I'm not alone 19.Jan.2007 14:44

SE Progressive

I'm glad to read how pissed you all are about this lame response from Blumenauer. "Let them continue to destroy the Constitution because an impeachment would create too much of a fuss" is his argument. We are all complicit in these crimes -- elected representatives of congress especially -- if the administration is not stopped.

Uphold your offfice or be replaced 19.Jan.2007 23:39


Dear Rep Blumenauer, How utterly politician-like and disgusting. Represent your constituents, uphold the US Constitution, or leave office. Those are your choices. Unlike some of the other voices here I WILL be a lost vote and will go from an active campaigner, supporter, and donor to an adversary if you allow those holding the highest offices in the land to escape punishments for high crimes in the name of political expediency. I guess the critics are right, perhaps the bulk of Democrats don't deserve their office. How sad. Oh well, who's up for a third party next election I see a new "wave" that will wipe remaining Repugs and quite a few Dems out of office.

A brief list of impeachable offenses and laws broken 20.Jan.2007 00:33


Evidence to Support the Call for an Impeachment Investigation

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.
U.S. Constitution: Article II, Section 4

Impeachable Offense 1: The President and Vice President Used Fraudulent Information to Persuade Congress and the American People to Support the Iraq War

"Bombing Iraq for 9/11 makes as much sense as bombing Mexico for the Pearl Harbor Attack."
Richard Clarke, White House terrorist expert

There is ample evidence from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil that Bush was already planning to invade Iraq long before 9/11.
The leaked Downing Street memo stated that the intelligence and facts were "being fixed" to support military action.
The U.N. Weapons inspectors, as well as the CIA told the President, that there were no weapons of mass destruction. He ignored it and told the public and the Congress they existed in his State of the Union speech in January 2003.
The President and the Vice President went around the country saying there was a connection between Al Quada and Iraq. This was false and Richard Clarke, as well as the CIA before the State of the Union Speech in January 2003, had told them that on numerous occasions.
The President and Vice President argued that the war was necessary because Saddam was perilously close to making nuclear weapons. This was false and the UN, the State Department and the CIA told the President it was false. The President even ignored the request by CIA Director to delete this claim from the 2003 State of the Union Speech.
The uranium claim is part of the Valerie Plame story; her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, publicly denied the uranium claim and the White House has been implicated in making her status as a CIA covert operative known to the public.

Violated: Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S. C. 371)
Fraud and False Statements to Congress (18 U.S. C. 1001)
War Powers Resolution (PL 93-148)

Impeachable Offense 2: Dismissed civil liberties and due process, and tortured prisoners

"We have to work, though, sort of the dark side.--Dick Cheney.

There is no dispute that Bush authorized the indefinite detainment of people without due process. There is also ample evidence that prisoners have been tortured; however, this needs to be further investigated to determine the extent to which the President and Vice President were directly responsible.

President Bush stated on November 7, 2005 that anything done to gather information about terrorists and disrupt their plans "is within the a law."
In 2006, the Supreme Court declared that Bush's military tribunals, with their classified evidence and testimony obtained through torture, were unlawful. Here, the court also said that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, which bans torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, applied even at Guantanamo.

Example: Army Chaplain James Yee, an Olympian, served at Guantanamo Bay. In September 2003, Yee was secretly arrested on his way to meet his wife and daughter for a two week leave and was locked away in a Navy prison without being charged or provided with legal counsel. His wife, waiting at SEATAC did not know what happened to him.. He spent 76 days in solitary confinement. He was then let go, all the allegations dropped and he was honorably discharged from the Army with a citation for meritorious service.
Example: Maher Arar: Canadian citizen was detained in 2002 when passing through JFK airport in 2002; he was detained without a hearing or trial, "rendered"--sent to Syria where he was tortured -and then eventually released to the Canadian Government.

Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S. C. 234040A)
War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S. C. 2441)
Article VI of the Constitution: all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.
Geneva Conventions and Hague Convention: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees
U.N. Torture Convention against Torture, and Cruel, Inhuman and degrading Treatment.

Impeachable Offense 3: Illegal Spying on U.S. Citizens without a Warrant

"A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
"There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."
Federal Judge, District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor

There is no dispute that Bush ordered wiretaps of American citizens without a warrant. The NY Times exposed the eavesdropping program on December 16, 2005 and reported that the President has authorized this at least thirty times. Bush claims he has the power to wiretap anyone he deems a threat but nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force authorized the President to conduct warrantless wiretapping.

QUESTION: Mr. President. Getting back to the domestic spying issue for a moment, according to FISA's own records, it's received nearly 19,000 requests for wiretaps or search warrants since 1979, rejected just five of them. It also operates in secret, so security shouldn't be a concern. And it can be applied retroactively. Given such a powerful tool of law enforcement is at your disposal, sir, why did you see fit to sidetrack that process?

BUSH: "... . And without revealing the operating details of our program, I just want to assure the American people that, one, I've got the authority to do this; two, it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and three, we're guarding your civil liberties. And we're guarding the civil liberties by monitoring the program on a regular basis, by having the folks at NASA (sic), the legal team as well as the inspector general, monitor the program, and we're briefing Congress. This is a part of our effort to protect the American people. Source: CNN Transcript, December 18, 2005.  http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.transcript/

Amendment IV"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Amendment Vno person will "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
U.S. Constitution: Article II, section 2: "He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)
National Security Act of 1957 (50 U.S.C. chapter 15)

Impeachable Offense 4: Refusing to obey over 750 laws by the use of "signing statements."

"I'm the decider." George Bush

Illegal signing statements are the greatest threat to our form of government that carefully divides power between three branches in order to check and balance power. There is no dispute that Bush has signed bills passed by Congress while also issuing an illegal "signing statement" asserting he does not have to follow particular provisions of the law. For example, in 2005 when the Congress passed a bill that contained a measure banning the use of torture by any American agency, including the CIA, the President could have vetoed the bill. He did not. He signed it and then issued a "signing statement" saying he would decide whether he would follow it. The Boston Globe has documented 750 instances in which the President issued signing statements in April 2006 and that number continues to climb.

The President has the authority to veto any bill that he finds objectionable for any reason, including a belief that the bill is unconstitutional. However, during his first five years as President, he did not veto a single bill.
The President claims that he does not have to follow any law or provision of law that he deems to be unconstitutional or an encroachment on his Constitutional powers. However, deciding on the Constitutionality of a law is the sole responsibility of the Courts.
Other Presidents have issued signing statements but none on the scale of this President. This is the clearest attempt at creating a "unitary executive" who has power above the other two branches, and thereby dismantling the Constitutional checks and balances.
The American Bar Association has called the use of these signing documents unconstitutional.

The U.S. Constitution
Article 1: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."
Article II: President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
Article III: "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested on one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Sources of Information

U.S. House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff, "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and the Cover-ups in the Iraq War," December 12, 2005; updated, August 2006.  http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/iraqrept2.html

Center for Constitutional Rights, Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush, 2006.

Elizabeth de la Vega, United States v George W. Bush et al., 2006

Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky, The Case for Impeachment, 2006.

Elizabeth Holtzman, The Impeachment of George W. Bush, 2006.

Lewis Lapham, "The Case for Impeachment," Harper's, March 2006.

Charlie Savage, "Bush challenges hundreds of laws; President cites powers of his office"
The Boston Globe, April 30, 2006

Internet Sources:


Let's remove impeachment from the Constitution 20.Jan.2007 16:28


Earl will regain his "progressive" credentials if we remove impeachment from the Constitution, thereby removing his obligation to protect it.

By the way, Earl has also refused to discontinue funding for the continuing occupation in the Middle East, thereby supporting "the troops" (and ignoring the fact that no one has suggested leaving our soldiers bullet-less in the desert). But, we can alter the Constitution again and give Cheney permanent war powers in perpetuity, thereby relieving Earl of the appearance of being a despicable, war-mongering slimeball.

no he hasn't 21.Jan.2007 15:15


what are you talking about, ironicallyinclined? earl has always voted against funding the war and, as far as i know, has never said he intends to support it.

Worshipping at feet of clay 22.Jan.2007 12:54


fish: I know it's as difficult for you who worship at the feet of Dems as it is for those who worship at the feet of Repubs, but you need to separate yourself from the propaganda. Ask Kucinich or Feingold if Blumenauer has pledged to stop the funding. The fact is that Earl has consistently refused to acknowledge the McGovern Amendment, which would cut off funds for all but that needed to get the troops out. He also has refused to support HR 508. Look it up if you doubt this.