NOVEMBER IS IMPEACHMENT REFERENDUM OF THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY...do your
part to save the USA and mankind.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/29/193445/904

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:n0QU-xqpkkIJ:www.apfn.org/pdf/DIY.pdf+do+it+yourself+impeachment&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10
(the above link is the html version of a pdf file... please click on
the pdf link it brings up and download the form that lets you help in
getting Bush impeached... you need Adobe to read and print the pdf
form)

Note there are also clauses in the Constitution by which we can get
impeached all the corrupt judges that the impeached Bush has stacked
the courts with....

Do Not Give Up Hope.

-- Bush Crime Family Is the "Mountain of Corruption" on which all the
other molehills live(dating back to granpappy Prescott Bush's
patnership with Adolph Hitler) ... it is a symbiotic coupling, cut off
the head of the serpent and the culture of corruption surrounding and
supporting Bush Crime Family will fade. NOVEMBER IS A REFERENDUM ON
IMPEACHMENT OF THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY...do your part to save mankind...
vote Democrat (or if the Green Candidate is winning vote Green)

Karl Rove exposed, thus destroying, a legitimate undercover CIA
operation that was protecting the U.S. and the world from black market
nuclear weapons... WHY? because they had proven that Bush was lying
about WMD's in Iraq before the 2004 elections. Karl Rove, one of the
main people who tells Bush what to say(everyone knows Bush is dumb as a
rock) is guilty of TREASON.

==================================================================================

From NEWSWEEK, 9/1/06:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14623879/site/newsweek/


GOP Playbook

Expect to hear the war drums on Iran.

Web-Exclusive Commentary
By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek

President Bush is boasting about all the books he read this summer,
including a tome by the French existentialist, Albert Camus, "and three
Shakespeares," he told NBC's Brian Williams.

Three Shakespeares?

Presumably the president means plays.

Williams pressed for more detail.

The biography of Joe DiMaggio, which was on last year's reading list,
seemed more to his liking.

"As you know, I like to keep expectations low," Bush parried, a hint of
testiness beneath the cowboy amiability.

Some 63 percent of Americans oppose the Iraq war, according to the
latest NEWSWEEK poll, and they deserve better from their president than
a calculated verbal assault that calls them appeasers and Fascist
sympathizers.

This is a new low for Bush, but not surprising given his family
history.

The Bushes, father and son, traditionally run viciously negative
campaigns to win elections.

With polls showing the Democrats poised to win control of the House and
possibly the Senate, the Bushies are ramping up the rhetoric to smear
the opposition.

Bush apparatchiks are good at the politics of destruction.

John McCain still carries the wounds from the character attacks they
launched against him in South Carolina in 2000.

Bush 41 demolished Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988 by assailing his
patriotism and calling him weak on crime.

This latest launch of pusillanimous rhetoric is designed to distract
from the Katrina anniversary stories and get people talking about the
one issue where the Republicans have a fighting chance, the wider war
against terrorism.

In the GOP playbook, Iraq becomes a footnote and what to do about the
nuclear threat posed by Iran becomes the new crisis du jour.

An off-year election without a presidential candidate on the ballot is
about turn out, which side can rev up more of its supporters to come to
the polls.

Conservatives right now feel pretty lackluster about Bush and the
Republican Congress.

The energy is on the Democratic side.

What better way to alter that equation than to generate fears that
Democrats are weak on national security and will talk and talk while
Iran and the crazy mullahs get the bomb.

The tough language could get out the conservative vote in November, and
it's also laying the groundwork for a possible attack on Iran.

The same people who beat the war drums for invading Iraq are now
leading the way within the administration and in the media for a
preemptive strike in Iran.

Crazy as it sounds with U.S. troops mired in Iraq, it could happen.

"I've been in the camp that thinks they're not that nuts to bomb
these guys," says Matt Bennett with Third Way, a centrist Democrat
group.

"But I've talked to a lot of senior smart Democrats who think they
are that nuts."

Whether the administration and its allies are serious or bluffing, who
knows?

But it feels like we've been down this road before.

Getting even weak sanctions through the U.N. Security Council will be
hard, and Bush has no patience for diplomatic dithering.

The temptation to bomb will be there despite what we should have
learned about the limitations of air power in Israel's misguided
assault on Hizbullah.

There's no way to hit all the sites in Iran even if we had good
intelligence.

Bombing would do little real damage of the nuclear infrastructure while
inflicting a huge number of civilian casualties.

The blowback would be enormous with everything from attacks on oil
tankers in the Gulf to terrorist assaults in America.

The administration's terror talk is at odds with expert opinion that
says Iran is five to 10 years away from acquiring the bomb.

A new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to
describe only "slow progress" in Iran's ability to enrich uranium.

But when U.N. weapons inspectors did not find evidence to back claims
about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, the Bush
administration didn't believe them and even accused the inspectors of
being in cahoots with the Iraqis.

It is unlikely Bush would attempt to attack Iran before the November
election, but he'll make the willingness to undertake military action
one of the bright lines between Republicans and Democrats.

Senate Republicans are also ginning up a package of bills that will
force Democrats to vote yes or no on such White House goodies as
wiretapping.

Those who refuse to give Bush blanket approval will get slapped with
the charge "soft on terror."

It's the Max Cleland strategy of '06.

Former Georgia Senator Cleland remains the cautionary lesson for
Democrats.

He voted against an early version of the Homeland Security Department
in order to protect workers' benefits and was defeated in '02 on
grounds of being insufficiently patriotic--despite being a Vietnam
veteran and a triple amputee.

Even if the numbers are looking good for Democrats, never underestimate
their ability to seize defeat and hold on to it tightly.

Of course, Bush lost a war we didn't have to fight and shouldn't
have lost--and he's saying the Democrats don't understand the
stakes.

Tragedy or comedy, it's Shakespearean.

____________________________________________________

Right-wingers nuts? Of course they are. *You* know that.

Harry
(see all of Harry Hope's excellent posts as they break, put this link
in your browser, use it, this is a search on google groups, on the
author Harry Hope sorted by date... nothing fancy):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&start=0&scoring=d&enc_author=-nIhFBQAAACtBOUGAhN9cSve8yYdFJBuOPANdqfI6prRsqjc7uCt1A&


With history moving so fast these days you might also want to sort
Harry Hope's posts by "relevance" particulary if the lies and
misdirection that we are all being sujected to by the extensive Bush
Crime Family Propagand machine are confusing you. Using the "sort by
relevance" option has a way of letting you take in the big picture.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&start=0&enc_author=-nIhFBQAAACtBOUGAhN9cSve8yYdFJBuOPANdqfI6prRsqjc7uCt1A&