- WND - http://www.wnd.com -

Move under way to impeach Bush

Formal efforts are now under way to impeach President Bush over allegations that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors,” Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, reported today.

A meeting Tuesday assembled between 40-50 prominent liberal attorneys and legal scholars who mulled over articles of impeachment drafted against President Bush by activists. The two-hour session featured former attorney general-turned-activist Ramsey Clark and took place in the downtown office of a prominent Washington tort lawyer.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.

Participants said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who hosted the meeting, was the only member of Congress to attend.

“We had a pretty frank discussion about putting in a bill of impeachment against President Bush,” said Francis Boyle, an Illinois law professor who has been working on the impeachment language with Clark.

The articles of impeachment were drafted by Boyle, who told WND that it is now a “matter of public record” that Rep. Conyers hosted, convened and asked for the meeting, which was held at a location close to the White House. Boyle also said that his campaign to impeach the president is independent from that of Ramsey Clark’s.

In November of 2002, WND reported that former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark had been retained by Iraq to represent that regime’s legal interests.

Clark first called for impeachment publicly at anti-war demonstrations in Washington, D.C., and later in San Francisco. He subsequently created the Vote To Impeach website, which warns, “Each of us must take a stand on impeachment now, or bear the burden of having failed to speak in this hour of maximum peril.”

Ramsey Clark donning judicial robe to defend Rwadan Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana against charges of genocide.

On Jan. 18, WND was the only news organization to report that the groundwork was being laid to impeach the president. At that time, WND reported on statements made by Clark, former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter and lawyer-activists Mara Verheyden-Hilliard and Carl Messineo.

Verheyden-Hilliard, who was the M.C. at the Washington, D.C., anti-war protest last year, and Messineo were the first to post legal arguments on the Internet, accusing Bush of high crimes and misdemeanors.

That was followed by the release of a book by the two lawyers, “Empire at home: George W. Bush and John Ashcroft v. the Bill of Rights,” accusing the administration of a deliberate and systematic erosion of civil rights.

At that time, the author told WND that many were raising questions about impeachment of Bush and said, “many more are seriously evaluating it and discussing what mechanisms are appropriate to it.”

“We need to fight by being in the streets,” Verheyden-Hilliard said, “by educating our neighbors, and taking appropriate legal action. We can’t sit back and wait for government to do the right thing.”

In addition, in a previous interview with WorldNetDaily, Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector, said the following:

“I would be in favor of the impeachment of President Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors. Murder is a high crime and misdemeanor, and I can’t think of any better definition than murder when he talks about American service members and putting them in a war which is not only illegal but is based on a foundation of lies.”

He added, “What I would find to be grounds of impeachment is the president lying to the American people. I believe the president has lied to the American people. I believe the vice president has lied to the American people. And if we go to war where American service members are killed, I think the president should be held accountable for this judicially.”

The day after the WND report, details of a former arrest for allegedly soliciting an underage girl, although under seal, were leaked to the press. Ritter supporters called it a political hit, while detractors called it proof of his duplicitous and untrustworthy character.

Anti-war activists recently have been emboldened by what some held were an embarrassing series of revelations that some documents and claims referred to by politicians as supporting the war were not what they first were made out to be. These included the following:


Ramsey Clark, the key mover behind the impeachment drive, may have his own PR uphill battle due to his controversial past. He has been called “the war criminal’s best friend” and a tool of left-wing cultists who defend Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and Rwandan torturers as anti-imperialist heroes.

Ironically, according to the same writer, “The social and cultural rights claimed by [Ramsey Clark’s] Iraqi hosts include the right to hang opponents in public.”

Manny Goldstein of New York City’s underground paper The Shadow wondered if Clark might not himself be a “ruling-class spook.”

In November, WorldNetDaily produced a special investigative report on the controversial ties of major anti-war leadership, including some of those involved in the current push for impeachment. Anti-war activists and a handful of liberal writers complained of the “hijacking of the anti-war movement” by dangerous political extremists. The WND report told of links to Islamic extremist groups and cult-like, radical Marxist/Stalinists, some of whom are pushing for an armed overthrow of the U.S. Some leaders and speakers were shown to be have a history of being supportive of enemy regimes of the U.S., as well as terrorists. Groups mentioned in the article included the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, the International Action Center and an organizational coalition group, A.N.S.W.E.R.

Fox News’ Jim Pinkerton called the WND article a “terrific piece of investigative journalism,” while Neil Gabler labeled it “McCarthyist.” Verheyden-Hilliard labeled critical reporting “lies,” charging that the media had engaged in “heavy red-baiting.”

While A.N.S.W.E.R. was founded by the International Action Center, a group linked to the extremist Stalinist World Workers Party, A.N.S.W.E.R. defenders say that they were an organizational umbrella group only. The statement omitted the key fact that every protest event is controlled by A.N.S.W.E.R. because of its organizational leadership, and as such, each protest event conveys the didactic stances of its parent group as it seeks to “instruct” protesters from the rally pulpit. Critics charge the key reason A.N.S.W.E.R exists as an organizational group is so that its key leadership can achieve a large audience for propagandist reasons that extend far beyond, and may have little to do with, the anti-war argument.

To this end, protesters have been told that the U.S. is the foremost terrorist threat to the world, that the U.S. must disarm completely and unilaterally, and that all present world problems are the fault of Israel and the U.S. alone. The suffering of the Iraqi people is blamed solely on the United States, just as the suffering of Palestinians is blamed solely on Israel. Stung by charges of anti-Semitism, the A.N.S.W.E.R. site now boldly proclaims that it is fighting anti-Semitism.

The mainstream media have failed to report the motives and beliefs of many in the anti-war movement, including Clark. The following are points that have gone largely unreported:


Related story:

Has anti-war movement been hijacked?