Vermont Towns Go Moonbatty

A few towns in Vermont have voted to force their House of Representatives members to call for the impeachment of President Bush.

In five Vermont communities, a centuries-old tradition of residents gathering in town halls to conduct local business became a vehicle to send a message to Washington: Impeach the president.

An impeachment article, approved by a paper ballot 121-29 in Newfane Tuesday, calls on Vermont's lone member of the U.S. House, independent Rep. Bernie Sanders, to file articles of impeachment against President Bush, alleging he misled the nation into the Iraq war and engaged in illegal domestic spying.

"It absolutely affects us locally," said Newfane select board member Dan DeWalt, who drafted the impeachment article. "It's our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, who are dying" in the war in Iraq.

At least four other Vermont towns, spurred by publicity about Newfane's resolution, endorsed similar resolutions during Tuesday's meetings: Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro and Putney.

In Newfane, the impeachment item came at the end of a roughly four-hour meeting that was devoted mostly to the local affairs of the town of 1,600 located in southeastern Vermont. Among the other items discussed was whether the town should fix some of its 100-year-old sidewalks.

The impeachment discussion took up more than half an hour, reflecting the intense interest in the topic and something of a division over whether the town meeting was the appropriate place to debate it.

"As a teacher I can't say to my kids that what happens on the national level doesn't affect us at the local level," Ann Landenberger told the Newfane meeting. "Would that we could all be in a cocoon, but that is not the case." Greg Record, a local justice of the peace, criticized the amount of time and attention such advisory votes get. "We spend more time on these things than on a million dollar budget item," said Record, who said the town is made up of people from the "far left."

Lenore Salzbrun defended Bush, saying she had close friends who died in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "I am so grateful that our president didn't just put his head in the sand ... and did go out and fight," she said. "How many attacks have we had on the U.S. since September 11?" asked another resident, Carlton Brown. "Maybe some of the terrorists around the world are sitting up and taking notice that we're not going to be patsies."

The Bush vote is not the first time Newfane has used its town meeting forum to take a state or national stand. Last year, for example, the town went on record against the Iraq war. Sanders issued a statement after the Newfane vote saying that although the Bush administration "has been a disaster for our country, and a number of actions that he has taken may very well not have been legal," given the reality that the Republicans control the House and the Senate, "it would be impractical to talk about impeachment."

Jim Barnett, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, said Sanders should reject the resolution: "We should not be impeaching presidents just because we disagree with them."

Ahem ... If I may instruct these people in a little Constitution 101?

Impeachment is explicitly spoken of in the Constitution. Simply put, impeachment does not remove a president from office. The Clinton impeachment trial showed us precisely this folly. Yes, President Clinton committed a crime; two to be specific. He committed perjury before a grand jury, and suborned perjury (sought and encouraged it) of another testifying to the same grand jury. Regardless of what the testimony entailed, or what it was over, he still lied. Articles of impeachment were brought against him by the House, and they voted in favor of impeaching him. The Senate, however, convicts, and through said conviction, they have the ability to vote for the removal of the president from office. The Senate did not see the egregious behavior to be impeachable, and voted against the measure.

The same process will be done in respect to President Bush. He is owed the accusation (articles of impeachment) by the House, and the trial conducted by the Senate. If, by some minor miracle, the House votes in favor of impeachment, the Senate would have to vote in favor of it, as well, to remove him from office. Neither house has a chance of voting in favor of removing the president. From a sheer political position, despite the RINOs in either house, no solid Republican would move in favor of the proposition. You need a two-thirds majority to remove him from office. Can the Democrats come up with sixty votes? I sincerely doubt it.

In addition, by removing the president, these moonbats forget that Vice President Cheney would assume the president's office. This is not a proposition they really understand. Unlike voting for president, where you get what you paid for in a two-for-one deal, the president's vice president is not removed. Again, articles of impeachment would have to be voted upon to remove the "new" president.

I am sorry to inform the moonbats of this, but it is a vicious cycle, our Constitution. And that is the ultimate law in the land. Nothing trumps it--not even foreign treaties, nor enacted legislation--and nothing sits higher than it--not the Geneva Convention or the Charter treaty with the United Nations. We answer to one thing and one thing only and that is the United States Constitution.

I heard Dan DeWalt, who is one of the motivated people in Vermont behind this effort, cite that the president had violated the Geneva Convention and FISA today on Michael Medved's show. Mr. Medved was obviously having an off day when he was dealing with him because he did not really challenge Mr. DeWalt. The Geneva Convention, while abided by many nations on the face of the planet, is not abided by the nations we are facing. Likewise, those caught while on the battlefield do not fall under the definition of a "prisoner of war." They are illegal combatants, and have zero protections under the convention, itself. "Torture," which this nation is against, and does not endorse, is out the window if national security is truly at stake. The president is responsible for protecting this nation--whatever it takes--no matter the circumstances or consequences. If torturing an individual for valuable, timely, and strategic information to protect this nation is necessary, then we do it.

Again, sorry to the moonbats, but if that is what it takes to protect this nation, then we will do it. I would, were I the president, and I surely hope the president would, as well.

Mr. DeWalt also mention FISA. Again, the president is charged with protecting this nation. The NSA intercept program, or the "terrorist surveillance program," as the White House calls it, is a legal protection of this nation by watching for her enemies within the nation itself. That is what this program does. No American is being surveilled without a warrant. Our Fourth Amendment rights demand such a thing. Unless probable cause wearrants otherwise, the government must obtain a warrant to conduct certain levels of surveillance. Among them is not "communication." That is not under the Fourth Amendment. Yes, a phone tap requires a warrant, but that is physical. This isn't. This is a monitoring of phone conversations and e-mails containing various words programmed into a series of computers. And no, no monkeys are programming these computers. These are analysts at the highest levels of their profession. They know what to look for, what to flag, and what to draw attention to. Uncle Earl's lengthy e-mail regarding his classic Mustang is not on the list, nor is Mom's meatloaf recipe after you mutilate the pot-roast.

In short, there is no charge to bring against the president. The arguments above do not stand any test of jurisprudence. Nor does the "he lied to get us into Iraq" argument. He did not lie. He moved forward with information in hand. At the time, he believed that information to be accurate as it had been cited by the previous administration, and all advisors around him agreed the information was relevant. You cannot blame him for the information he had in hand when everyone is telling him the information is accurate. The charge of torture does not wash as the military trial over the soldiers involved in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse case stated precisely that; it was abuse, not torture. The recent McCain torture law even acknowledges that the techniques used by interrogators in the war on terror does not break his law. Changes have been made, and the necessary steps to prevent such mistreatment have been removed from interrogation techniques. Someone recently informed me of a report filedback in 2004--the Tagabu Report. After careful examination of the report I find it unconvincing in any respect to the charge that we are torturing detainees. Others may feel that what we have done is torture, and their dissent to our actions is noted. But they are wrong.

Just as wrong as these Vermont towns. There is no crime committed or charge filed that could possibly stick for the president's impeachment. Furthermore, the chances for impeachment passing both houses and the Senate voting to remove the president are slim, at best. All of this talk about impeachment is a fruitless attempt; a circus side-show distraction. There are no grounds to call for this, and I sincerely doubt any of their representatives would call for such a measure in the first place.

The Bunny ;)