Home

Republican Congressman Says Bush Should Be Removed from Office

Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2006-07-12 15:17.

By David Swanson

A radio show reported yesterday that Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul said the following:

"I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President, and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office."

And this: "Congress has generously ignored the Constitution while the President flaunts it, the courts have ignored it and they get in the business of legislating so there's no respect for the rule of law."

And this: "When the President signs all these bills and then adds statements after saying I have no intention of following it - he's in a way signing it and vetoing - so in his mind he's vetoing a lot of bills, in our mind under the rule of law he hasn't vetoed a thing."

And Paul said the United States had entered a period of "soft fascism."

The report of these statements might surprise some people, especially people who rely on the corporate media for their news, but it fits with previous remarks by Congressman Paul, including these wonderful speeches recently made on the floor of the House of Representatives by Rep. Paul and Rep. Walter Jones, a Republican from North Carolina: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/12673

The report also comes from a media outlet that has repeatedly interviewed Paul, and they've posted a link to the audio of the interview here, although you have to join the site to hear it:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/100706impeachbush.htm

Rather than do that, I phoned up Congressman Paul's communications director in Washington this morning. More than confirming this report, I wanted to ask Rep. Paul why he would declare that the President should be removed from office, yet fail to introduce an article of impeachment or even sign onto Congressman John Conyers' (D., Mich.) bill, H. Res. 635, to create a preliminary investigation. I also thought I wouldn't mind knowing why Paul used the plural: "…these people should be removed from office." Whom would he include along with Bush? Cheney? Rumsfeld? Rice?

Paul did give something of an answer in the interview to why he would not act on his conviction that impeachment was merited, namely he asserted, without any evidence, that the Democrats, if they won a majority, would probably try to impeach Bush for the wrong reasons: politics and revenge. There are a couple of problems with this excuse of Paul's for his inaction:

1. Out here beyond the Beltway it's progressives who couldn't stand Clinton and have no use for defending him and spend their time these days attacking his wife who are pushing impeachment.

2. The Democrats, even if they have a majority, will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to attempt impeachment, having – as they do – significantly less in the way of spine than Congressman Paul, who is probably failing to realize entirely how timid and useless they are.

3. If a president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – as we all know this one has – then whether some Members of Congress might support impeachment for impure reasons can in no way justify a failure to impeach. In persuading nonprofit groups to work for impeachment it is often necessary to explain to them that supporting such action by Congress is not partisan just because the President belongs to a party. Is it really necessary to explain to Congressman Paul that impeachment is not partisan just because Congress Members belong to parties? This is about defending the Constitution, and either you obey your oath to do so or you violate it.

Millions of U.S. citizens, like Paul, support impeachment and removal from office. And we can rightly be challenged by anyone as to whether we are sacrificing enough to make it happen: are we working every moment of the day that we can to drag a few more Congress Members onto H Res 635? Are we passing resolutions in every town and city and state possible? Are we straining enough to try to shove the peace movement and the labor movement or other potentially helpful organizations onto the impeachment agenda? Are we protesting? Going to jail? Fasting? Do we wear our Impeach Bush and Cheney shirts every day?

Just as we can very reasonably be asked such questions, Rep. Paul can be asked this one: Why have you not introduced articles of impeachment, or at least signed onto Conyers' bill for a simple bipartisan investigation?

How does Congressman Paul think history will look on one of the 435 people in a position to act who declared action needed and then sat down and did nothing, who actually summoned the courage to admit publicly that he recognized the slide to fascism, but stood aside and wished the country well as it slid down the slope? Will history smile on such behavior?

Were Paul to put his signature where his mouth is, he would become an instant hero, the chances of impeachment would dramatically increase, and the chances of impeachment being dominated entirely by partisanship would be eliminated. And Paul would catch a ton of flack from partisans, btu they'd be partisan Republicans, and I think he could handle it.

But I digress.

So, anyway, I phoned Paul's communications guy, whom I'd never spoken to before, Jeff Deist. But Deist turned out to be, like most Hill staffers, more cautious than his boss. Deist did not deny what Paul had said on the radio, but changed the topic to telling me what Deist believed.

For those who care, Deist believes that the issue that matters is Congress's failure to insist on its power to declare war. "Bush is not really the culprit, the blame is with Congress," Deist said, complaining of "Congress's cowardice."

I asked Deist if I could check with the Congressman on whether he agreed, and Deist said I could do so by sending a detailed request, explanation of the article I was writing, etc., to rep.paul@mail.house.gov

While Deist made it very clear through his defensiveness and hostility that I'd never get an interview on this topic, I'm not sure it wouldn't have an impact if, say, 10,000 people sent an Email to that address thanking Paul for his statements and asking him to do more than talk. Can you do that please?

We thank you, Congressman, but we can all talk, and talk is cheap.

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

one email, anyway

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2006-07-12 22:20.

Here's what I sent Rep. Paul:

Dear Congressman Paul,

I just wanted to thank you for having the courage and integrity to say publicly what we all know to be true: that President Bush, and possibly other members of his administration, have greatly exceeded their constitutional authority and have violated both the letter and the spirit of the constitution’s provision for separation of powers (among other offenses that you did not address). I am not one of your constituents, but I greatly envy them in having a representative who will stand up for them and demand accountability from an administration run amok.

I am non-partisan and have witnessed the increasingly hostile and obstructive partisanship in our government with disbelief - disbelief in what it can make people do and how it can completely obstruct what should be the real work of government. I hope you will see your way to presenting articles of impeachment of the president, the vice-president, Mr. Rove and anyone else who has participated in or supported this usurpation of power.

It would be understandable if your fear that partisanship would make a mockery of possible impeachment proceedings – as it did during the Clinton administration – made you reluctant to initiate them. I believe you should not allow that fear to dissuade you from doing what you know is legally and ethically right. I have difficulty believing that there are not many in both parties who feel, sincerely, as you do: that the president has drastically overstepped the bounds of his authority and it is time for Congress to do its job. It is Congress’s responsibility to oversee the executive branch. I fervently hope that you will inspire it to do so.

Thank you,
Louise-Annette Marcotty

»

Another Texas Idiot

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2006-07-16 03:38.

Ron Paul & George Bush -

OLD TIRED TEXAS FOOLS
Pray they are both gone soon.

EXPOSE VISION AMERICA
SAY NO TO HOLY REV. RICK SCARBOROUGH
http://exposevisionamerica.blogspot.cmo

»

Bush Constitutional?

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2006-07-12 23:42.

Not only unConstitutional, but anti-Constitutional and IMPEACHABLE!

»

the libertarian view

Submitted by Progressaurus Rex on Thu, 2006-07-13 07:08.

this really isn't surprising, if you actually know anything about ron paul. he's really a libertarian, so although this is significant to some extent, i wouldn't read too much into associating what he says here with republicans in general. yes, he runs as a republican and carries that (r) by his name, but that's fully the extent to which he is a republican. he certainly couldn't be considered a member of the republican caucus, as he votes against them often -- including voting against the iraq war resolution.

the libertarian party often refers to congressman paul as "the only libertarian in congress". inasmuch, he is a true small government/free market conservative (if you check you'll find that he actually votes this way, in contrast to other republicans who like to give lip service but otherwise are 'borrow and spenders'), but that's about where the comparisons end. he has been known to make similar kinds of statements in the past that aren't in step with the typical republican party line.

for an example, have a read of this...
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst121602.htm

the truth is, ron paul is one of the more honest and respectable members in congress today.

»

hopefully, in a body bag, or a doggie dooley bag, whichever

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2006-07-13 07:18.

need to feed the son of a bitch a whole fucking lot of pretzels, and just like any garden variety slug, watch him foam up and die!

»

Dear Rep. Paul,

Submitted by newjerseyimpeac... on Thu, 2006-07-13 18:09.

Dear Rep. Paul,

I don't live in your district; my family and I live in New Jersey.
I'm not a big shot and I'm not rich. This is the first letter I'm
sending to you.

I'm writing out of my concern that there's a terrible trend of
lawlessness in the executive branch. I decided to write to you
after reading a quotation of you in which you said of the Bush
gang generally,

"I would have trouble arguing that he's been a
Constitutional President, and once you violate the
Constitution and be proven to do that I think these
people should be removed from office."

We are extremely disturbed by the actions of Bush and his
administration, and we have come to the conclusion that he
and his gang must be called to account for them, and that
furthermore the evidence at hand compels impeachment
proceedings against Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, and
Rumsfeld, at the very least.

You made some courageous statements regarding the flagrant
violations of law by the President and his Vice President,
and his officers of the United States, and their violations
of their oaths of office.

Now we ask you to transform your good words into action.
We believe our democracy is in a state of crisis, that
our election process is compromised, and that Bush and
his gang are now the greatest threat to our country.

We ask you to support Rep. John Conyers efforts to pursue
an investigation of impeachable offenses, and further ask
you to take the lead in introducing articles of
impeachment against Bush-Cheney and their officers.

This crisis is severe, and requires allegiance to democracy
far more than one's allegiance to his political party.
For the sake of our country, we ask you to step up to save
our country in the name of democracy and freedom.
The nation will be in your debt.

Thank you for your consideration of this.

CONTACT impeachthem@gmail.com
NORTH JERSEY PATERSON/
WAYNE IMPEACH GROUP
ImpeachBushNJ

All patriots must work together
to save our country.
Impeach Bush-Cheney, indict,
prosecute and convict them,
Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzales,
Ashcroft, Powell, Rove.
When we care for justice
and dignity and common decency,
for the sake of our commonwealth,
we stop the barbarians of single
selfishness and compulsive greed.
We can't let tyranny destroy us.
For us, for our children's sakes,
for the sake of our precious world,
we must save our country.

»

Ron Paul

Submitted by grammy on Thu, 2006-07-13 22:17.

I don't know if it was on c-span or radio, but I listened to rep.Paul give a speech on the real reasons why Bush went to war. Since I can't remember all of what he said, I know it had something to do with Euros vs. Dollars, but it might be interesting if we could get a transcript from his office. It seemed to be an eyeopener.
Although, I don't really understand world finance,he appeared to know what he was talking about. The only reason I tend to believe him is because I've heard some of his other speeches and I could understand that he wasn't too fond of this adminstration, so naturally I liked him.
Anywho I hope he gets enough balls to do what he knows is the right thing to do!

»

GEORGE BUSH

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2007-02-14 18:19.

WHY ARE ALL THE POLITICIANS SO AFRAID OF THIS PRESIDENT? HE IS WITH OUT A DOUBT THE WORST AND HIS ADMINISTRATIONS THE WORST OF ANY IN MY LIFETIME. ANY COMPANY WOULD HAVE FIRED HIM ALONG TIME AGO. YET HE CONTINUES TO KEEP THE MOST IMPORTANT JOB OF ANY. WHY! WHY! WHY! WHAT HAS THIS COUNTRY BECOME. WERNER

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.