Ashland Daily Tidings :: If tyranny were to come to America, would we recognize it? :: March 20, 2007

Document text

http:// --> Ashland, Oregon HOME Valley & State Sports Nation & World Opinion/Editorial Classifieds Business Columnists Local Issues Obituaries Weather Archive Revels Etcetera Backpage Hot Topics Most Viewed Forum Photo Galleries Video Readers Polls O-Zone Online Games Movie Preview Special Sections Real Estate Guide Menu Guide Shakespeare Subscribe Contact Us Rate Card Place an Ad Featured Galleries: March 20, 2007 If tyranny were to come to America, would we recognize it? From the Right Side Archives Tuesday March 13th Tuesday March 20th Tuesday March 27th Tuesday April 3rd Tuesday April 10th Tuesday April 17th Tuesday April 24th Tuesday May 1st Tuesday May 8th By Mike Green Ashland's own state representative Peter Buckley announced on March 17, that the Oregon legislature intends to vote today on a joint measure (HJM 9) declaring to the White House the official position of the state of Oregon against the policy of troop surges in Iraq and the war overall. Salem has finally heard the voices of Oregonians and is set to issue an official call to bring the troops home and end the war in Iraq. I applaud this move by our representatives. Unfortunately, I believe it has come too late. Much more is now needed to put the brakes on the runaway government train that is barreling through the Middle East. While it is difficult to understand why anyone would vote against such a measure, I hold no hope that such a declaration will make much difference even if passed and sent to Washington D.C. There is a more urgent issue at hand — our federal government is unresponsive to the people it was elected to serve. The sobering news is, if every state in the Union were to follow suit and issue a formal declaration to the White House and Congress to end this war in the Middle East (Iraq and Afghanistan) tomorrow, nothing would change. President George W. Bush, as well as his predecessors dating back to Jimmy Carter, have stated unequivocally their intent on protecting America's "vital interests" in the Middle East through the use of the peoples' military, regardless of the protests of the people. The people have lost power and have failed to recognize it. Despite the preponderance of evidence, the citizenry has failed to see the tyranny that has enveloped our nation in the guise of security. Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Those who will sacrifice an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither." In light of the fact that the executive branch is intent on abusing the mission of the military and sacrificing our sons and daughters, as well as the lives of innocent Iraqis; and in view of the fact that congress cannot, or will not, act in the best interest of the people, it is therefore necessary to issue the following declaration to our government: We, the American people, declare that a state of national emergency exists between the people and its elected leadership in both the executive and legislative branches of government. Listing of Senate votes for the war in Iraq S387 Jan. 25, 2007: Senator Ron Wyden's "Stop Arming Iran Act." Wyden's misguided notion that Iran is an aggessor helps pave the way for U.S. military action against Iran. S1936 Feb. 14, 2007: Senator Hillary Clinton proposing that the U.S. maintain all options toward Iran but choose to conduct “forceful” talks toward discouraging implementation of nuclear progress. Additionally, offering a bill that requires congress consultation prior to decisions of armed force being used against Iran. Concurrent Resolution 13 : Feb. 15, 2007: Concurrent resolution requiring president authorization from congress prior to use of force against Iran. S759 : March 5, 2007 Prohibition on use of funds for military operations in Iran. Although this bill has a cool-sounding name, and a decisive introductory paragraph, it contains so many exceptions as to render it utterly useless. In fact, the exceptions cover all the routine excuses given by the executive branch for using military force. S2897 March 8, 2007: Message from the president of the United States to congress. To the Congress of the United States: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent the enclosed notice to the Federal Register for publication, stating that the Iran emergency declared on March 15, 1995, is to continue in effect beyond March 15, 2007. The crisis between the United States and Iran constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iran that led to the declaration of a national emergency on March 15, 1995, has not been resolved. The actions and policies of the Government of Iran are contrary to the interests of the United States in the region and pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to Iran and maintain in force comprehensive sanctions against Iran to respond to this threat. GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE Actual Notice of Iran Emergency Notice: Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Iran On March 15, 1995, by Executive Order 12957, the President declared a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iran. On May 6, 1995, the President issued Executive Order 12959 imposing more comprehensive sanctions to further respond to this threat, and on August 19, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13059 consolidating and clarifying the previous orders. Because the actions and policies of the Government of Iran continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the national emergency declared on March 15, 1995, must continue in effect beyond March 15, 2007. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Iran. Because the emergency declared by Executive Order 12957 constitutes an emergency separate from that declared on November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, this renewal is distinct from the emergency renewal of November 2006. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE March 8, 2007 Previous Iran Emergencies Continuation of Iran Emergency On March 15, 1995, by Executive Order 12957, the President declared a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iran, including its support for international terrorism, efforts to undermine the Middle East peace process, and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. On May 6, 1995, the President issued Executive Order 12959 imposing more com-prehensive sanctions to further respond to this threat, and on August 19, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13059 consolidating and clarifying the previous orders. The last notice of continuation was published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2000. Because the actions and policies of the Government of Iran continue to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the national emergency declared on March 15, 1995, must continue in effect beyond March 15, 2001. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency with respect to Iran. Because the emergency declared by Executive Order 12957 constitutes an emergency separate from that declared on November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, this renewal is distinct from the emergency renewal of November 2000. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. GEORGE W. BUSH Continuation of Iran emergency by Bill Clinton Washington -- "Because the actions and policies of the Government of Iran continue to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the national emergency declared on March 15, 1995, must continue in effect beyond March 15, 1998," President Clinton said March 4. The President reported to Congress that the factors that led to the declaration of a national emergency have not been resolved, including Iran's support for international terrorism, efforts to undermine the Middle East peace process, and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. Following are the texts of the President's report to Congress and notice to the Federal Register: TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent the enclosed notice, stating that the national emergency declared with respect to Iran on March 15, 1995, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) is to continue in effect beyond March 15, 1998, to the Federal Register for publication. This emergency is separate from that declared on November 14, 1979, in connection with the Iranian hostage crisis and therefore requires separate renewal of emergency authorities. The factors that led me to declare a national emergency with respect to Iran on March 15, 1995, have not been resolved. The actions and policies of the Government of Iran, including support for international terrorism, its efforts to undermine the Middle East peace process, and its acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, continue to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. Accordingly, I have determined that it is necessary to maintain in force the broad programs I have authorized pursuant to the March 15, 1995, declaration of emergency. THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary March 4, 1998 NOTICE CONTINUATION OF IRAN EMERGENCY On March 15, 1995, by Executive order 12957, I declared a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iran, including its support for international terrorism, efforts to undermine the Middle East peace process, and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. On May 6, 1995, I issued Executive order 12959 imposing more comprehensive sanctions to further respond to this threat, and on August 19, 1997, I issued Executive Order 13059 consolidating and clarifying these previous orders. Because the actions and policies of the Government of Iran continue to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the national emergency declared on March 15, 1995, must continue in effect beyond March 15, 1998. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency with respect to Iran. Because the emergency declared by Executive Order 12957 constitutes an emergency separate from that declared on November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, this renewal is distinct from the emergency renewal of October 1997. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. WILLIAM J. CLINTON What was this emergency with regard to Iran that needed an act from the president? It was a prohibition on oil contracts with Iran or doing any business with Iran in the petroleum industry. According to the Federal Register: And what about IRAQ? How did it become subject to a state of emergency as well? Con. Res. 19 : March 14, 2007 Economic sanctions against Iran Concurrent resolution to apply full economic sanctions against Iran and provide the framework for military aggression in the future based upon the hypothesis that Iran ought not be allowed to develop its nuclear energy capabilities without the consent and overisght of the U.S. due to fear that it will use such capability to launch aggressive attacks against U.S. vital interests. The congressional verbage exposes a belief that the U.S. congress is the governmental body best representative of the long term interest of the Iranian people. “... the elimination of the threat of a nuclear Iran is in the long term interest of the people of Iran, the region, and the world.” Over the years, it has become customary for the president to use the power of Executive Order to issue states of emergency. Under such situations, the power of the president to operate as the sole decision-maker on behalf of this nation has been used to authorize covert operations, overt military operations and economic aggression against targeted nations. The rationale for such actions has always been at the discretion of the White House, regardless of the occupant, due to the fact that the state of emergency itself legitimizes any and all actions — with, or without congressional consent or knowledge. At any point when the president acts without the knowledge and/or consent of the governed, it can be construed that he is acting as a dictator. DECEIVING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE The amount of deception occurring between the governmental branches and the American people should not be underestimated. It is this deliberate deception — disguised as "mistakes," "inaccuracies," "blunders," "ill-advised decisions," "decisions based upon faulty information" — that has continued to be the cover story for a massive ongoing foreign policy of aggression that transcends political ideologies and allegiances. If one were to calculate the impact of all of the decisions made that were eventually classified as one of the terms above, it would be difficult to understand why there is such a strong allegiance to either of the two main political parties. The sheer amount of lives lost, lands ravaged and polluted, American armed service members sacrificed and amount of monies spent in order to advance particular political, economic and military agendas over the past 5 presidential administrations and concurrent congressional bodies, can, in no way, be summarily dismissed by the term, "oops!" Today, while the American people are pre-occupied participating in protests against the 16-year U.S. military occupation of Iraq — which has been deliberately misrepresented as a 4-year war — the executive and legislative branches are going back and forth with intense rhetoric and proposed legislation regarding the pending war against Iran. Iran? Yes, Iran. Where are the monthly Town Hall meetings led by elected leaders? Where are the ongoing community forums that elected representatives ought to use to inform constituents and receive feedback? Where is there any interaction between the elected government and the people that elected them? How are the American people kept informed about the "crisis" that exists between the U.S. and Iran? And with all of the problems that have backfired in regard to this administration's plans in Iraq, how is it conceivable that the plans to go to war against Iran continue to move forward? The answer is historical. Iraq never was the main target of the U.S.. It is merely a means to an end. Iran is the end. Duped into attacking its neighbor, Kuwait, in 1990, Iraq became the sacrificial lamb in America's military feast of the Middle East. Saddam's blunder opened the door for the U.S. to step into the Holy Lands with both feet prominently placed in Iraq and Kuwait — right between fundamentalist Islamic Iran and the trembling headquarters of all Islam, Saudi Arabia. STATE OF EMERGENCY WITH IRAN With respect to Iran, president Jimmy Carter declared the first state of emergency against that nation in response to the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979. That crisis, contrary to popular propaganda, was not set off by the Iranian Revolution — which was a successful revolt in February of 1979 by the Iranian people against the tyrannical rule of the U.S.-backed Shah — but rather the hostage-taking was in response to Carter's admittance of the Shah of Iran into the United States late that year in November. The demands by the student-led assailants in return for the freedom of the hostages was two-fold: return the Shah to stand trial for atrocities committed against the Iranian people and; apologize for the role the U.S. played in overthrowing the elected Iranian government through a covert CIA operation in 1953. It is apparent the Iranians had little knowledge of American history. To this very day Black Americans have yet to receive even a simple official government-sanctioned apology for more than three centuries of Holocaust. The likelihood of Iran getting the U.S. government to admit it conducted an illegal and immoral act against a sovereign democratic government just 26 years prior was highly unlikely. The options given to Carter were both in line with seeking justice. Returning the Shah to stand trial would have been the right thing to do, since Iran was among the worst offenders of human rights during the Shah's reign of terror. And the U.S. could have avoided five subsequent decades of chilly relations with Iran and a subsequent ill-advised support of Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980, by offering a simple apology for what was clearly wrongdoing by this nation by any standard one chooses to use. Carter decided to do neither, and instead declared a state of emergency between the U.S. and Iran. The emergency? America had lost control over the oil imports from Iran that we once controlled for 26 years through the auspices of the puppet regime we installed. In 1995, yet another state of emergency between the U.S. and Iran was declared. This time by Bill Clinton. Subsequent extensions were also issued. The same policy had been followed by his predecessors, Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush. The text of Clinton's state of emergency act reveals that he placed a prohibition on conducting oil business with Iran. That was the emergency. We didn't like Iran because we lost control of the oil flowing from that nation. Therefore, no one in America was allowed to deal with Iran in the petroleum business. STATE OF EMERGENCY WITH IRAQ Bush added Iraq to the list of Middle East nations with which there existed a state of emergency on August 2, 1990. You might recall that was the same date Iraq invaded Kuwait in an attempt to resolve an oil dispute along the border. What you may not know is that just 8 days prior to that military action, Saddam Hussein was visited by the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq at the behest of president George H. Bush. Her visit was for two reasons, she stated: to strengthen the friendship between the U.S. and Iraq and; to discuss lowering the price of oil from $25 per barrel. FROM FRIEND TO ENEMY IN ONE WEEK Hussein, on the other hand, expressed his specific intent to resolve an ongoing dispute with Kuwait over oil that had failed to be resolved during previous attempts at diplomatic talks involving various Arab nations and organizations in the region. The U.S. response to that notification of pending war was that we had "no opinion" on Arab to Arab conflicts. It should not surprise anyone that just over one week later the U.S. had declared a state of emergency with respect to Iraq, sent Dick Cheney to convince the Saudi rulers to allow the buildup of a half-million U.S. troops on the pretext of "defending Saudi Arabia," and have been involved in military operations in Iraq continually since we invaded that nation in January 1991. WAR IS HELL The importance of the level of deceit with which the U.S. government has operated in the world cannot be played down. The intentional targeting of nations, strategic deployment of military troops and eventual takeover of nations is directly related to the lies and propaganda promoted to both the American people and the nations of the world. Inherent in the decision-making process to deploy military troops is the understanding that people will die. Innocent men, women and children will be killed. There will be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions who will be injured in some way. People's lives will be disrupted. Food and water resources will be contaminated. Children will be abandoned. Schools will be closed, hospitals will be overloaded, disease will become rampant and death and destruction will become routine. Abuses of power will occur all the way from the top leadership in the Pentagon down to the troop decisions at the scene of devastation. Young men and women who willing — and with great trust and faith in our leader's decisions — serve their country, will be forced to live in daily fear of imminent death for months, even years at a time. Prolonged detachment from normal lives and relationships will result in unforeseen and unpredictable ways in each soldier, sailor, airman and Marine. Events that can be predicted are the atrocities that naturally occur from the imposed environment of war. Women and girls will be raped. People will be tortured and murdered. Some of our brave troops will be turned into unrecognizable monsters. Many will be handed back to us, forever changed in ways we cannot fathom. Surely, war is something we ought never enter into merely to "protect vital interests." The American people have made it clear we do not support such decisions. But our voices, despite the protests, have been ignored. WHERE'S CONGRESS ? Congress has been completely inept during the historical involvement of the U.S. in the Middle East. Henry Kissinger implied that very fact to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 1, 2007. He, along with several other high profile names you would recognize as sitting at the table of power in America's foreign policy objectives, told the Senate committee — chaired by Senators Joseph Biden and Richard Lugar — that the U.S. has a long history of protecting its "vital interests" in the Middle East. Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former National Security Advisor under Jimmy Carter, also provided written testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He denounced the war in Iraq as an "historical calamity." Brzezinski further elaborated on the potential for the U.S. government to create the circumstances for a war with Iran. His analysis included the notion that the U.S. would: create benchmarks for Iraqi progress and blame the failure to meet those goals on intervention from Iran and; create an act of terrorism either in Iraq itself or within the United States and blame it on Iran. In either case, Brzezinski's gloomy forecast says something much more than the inevitable targeting of Iran by our government. Brzezinski painted the U.S. government as sinister, immoral and determined to advance clandestine goals at all costs — even if it meant murdering hundreds or thousands of American citizens. This man, whose testimony was requested by those leaders seeking advice in the Senate, provided a clear picture that our executive branch is in no way serving the citizenry. Instead, Brzezinski offers us a window into a world where special "vital interests" serve as a compass — a world where right and wrong have no place. One need only glance at the oil import tables maintained by the Department of Energy to determine exactly what the "vital interests" of the U.S. is in the Middle East. As Kissinger aptly noted, America's involvement goes back to the CIA overthrow of Iran and takeover of its oil industry. Along with subsequent increased imports from Iraq and Kuwait in the aftermath of losing Iran, the U.S. has depended upon Saudi Arabia to maintain as much of a consistent flow of oil as possible to meet the ever-increasing demands of our nation. None of this is surprising news. But congress acts as though it is surprised with each act of the executive branch toward abusing the U.S. military in forcibly seeking to control oil resources and lands that do not belong to us in the Middle East. It is apparent to everyone in the Arab world that the U.S. has no jurisdiction, authority or legal standing to dictate what occurs in Iraq or any other nation outside of the United States. Nevertheless, through military might and economic bribery, the U.S. has foisted itself into the midst of a highly complicated region, seeking to control the flow of oil in the Middle East. AMERICAN TERRORISM The policy of using military means in order to protect U.S. "vital interests" — namely oil — in the Middle East region has its roots in the pronouncement made by President Jimmy Carter in his January 1980 State of the Union Address, when he stated: "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault upon the vital interests of the United States, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." Presidents Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton and Bush (43) have all used the exact same language in regard to the Middle East ( see video ) as though choreographed by a brain-dead political script-writer. The U.S. government, including its leaders in the White House and the halls of Congress, have maintained a policy of military aggression in the Middle East ever since Carter's annexation of that region as U.S. "vital interests." Using both covert and overt violence, the U.S. has been the mastermind behind many thousands of missions that have resulted in the loss of innocent lives, the irreparable damage to natural resources and untold atrocities. Meanwhile, the American people have been led to believe that the recent escalation of the U.S. violence in the Middle East is a result of a defense of American freedom and democracy. As it turns out, America's government is the aggressor — the terrorist. Today, America is involved in a war in Iraq that the government readily admits has nothing to do with 9/11 nor weapons of mass destruction ( see video ). Yet, no one will stop the killing. No one will bring the troops home right now. No one will de-fund the war machine. No one will impeach the president. No one will represent the will of the overwhelming majority of the American people. And so lives continue to be lost daily. Families continue to grieve in America and Iraq. And the president has maintained that no matter what the people decide, the decisions made within the authority of his executive branch will go forward. The president — and apparently most of our congressional representatives as well — have forgotten they serve at the pleasure of the American people. STATE OF EMERGENCY BETWEEN THE U.S. CITIZENRY & THE U.S. GOVERNMENT Thus, it is necessary to declare a state of emergency between the American people and our elected representatives in congress, as well as the leadership in the executive branch. Both branches of government are operating against the best interests of the American people. But the people truly have control over just one branch of government — congress. And despite having the most power, it has failed us miserably. While the executive branch has successfully bullied the peoples' representatives in the legislative branch into a quiet war protest that amounted to a whimper of a failed non-binding resolution against an escalation of the 16-year ongoing conflict, the brave men and women of the armed forces are being abused to do the bidding of the executive branch — which has been unequivocally denounced by the American people. Yet, the power inherent in the peoples' representatives has yet to be used to bring an immediate halt to the abuse of authority currently exercised by this administration. Such abuse is historical. And every president, from Dwight Eisenhower to Dubya has maintained a policy of aggression in the Middle East while simultaneously talking about peace. Congress has supported the objectives of each presidential administration — including the current one — despite the costs in lives, resources and economic impact. It is time to derail this out-of-control locomotive by changing the direction of its tracks. The American people are the engineers of the train, not one president or all of them put together. And the declaration made by this administration that it need not listen to the peoples' representatives must be met with an equally bold statement that expresses to the president and our leaders in congress that we are not pleased. And since they serve at our pleasure, it is time for a surge of power exercised by the people and a pronouncement to the politicians who have proposed a prolonged strategy in the Middle East regardless of protest. We, the American people, have no choice but to declare a state of emergency exists between ourselves and those we have elected to conduct our business in congress and the White House. They have failed us. They continue to fail us. And, according to the aggressive talk from the executive branch and the cowardice exemplified in the inaction of congress, the servants in power seem more determined than ever to force their will upon the people they were elected to serve. That now begs the question — what can, or will, the people do about it?   Mike Green is the author of, "The WHOLE Truth about the U.S. War on Terror: answers to every question you never knew to ask." www.theTruthAboutTerror.com Current Comments: Easy there, Lenin. What, are we supposed to protest Middle East policies by starting civil war here at home? The cure is worse than the disease. The reason we have 2-year election cycles in the House is to obviate the need for revolution when the people demand the removal of representatives. P.s: Impeaching a president who hasn't committed a high crime or misdemeanor is unconstitutional. And "crime" means a violation of the United States Code. Eddie Burke - Ashland, OR - March 21st, 1:52 PM Eddie - impeachment is not the same as conviction. It's analogous to indictment. The definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is pretty loose - Gerald Ford said "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." Mike Green - as usual you are deeply right on... tom - ashland - March 22nd, 8:58 PM Mr Burke: Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." My suggestion is not civil war. It is to exercise the power inherent in our citizenship that was promoted by the Founding Fathers who despised government tyranny. The congress and president have failed the people, deliberately. Impeachment is an option when the president abuses his authority. Your choice to scrutinize my remarks, rather than the gov't is telling. I welcome your solution. mike green - Ashland, OR - March 23rd, 10:31 AM Whatever the impeachment power is, it is NOT the general power to recall. "Treason, Bribery, and high Crimes and Misdemeanors" under Article II was meant by the Framers to emcompass a limited set of activities. George Mason had sought to add "maladministration" to the list, which was quickly nixed, as it would mean, according to Madison, "a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate" (Former Vice President Ford's sentiments notwithstanding, of course...) Eddie Burke - Ashland, OR - March 23rd, 12:49 PM Thus, impeachment is not necessarily an option when a president "abuses his authority" -- it depends on how he or she has abused it. The offense must be sime type of crime, a la President Clinton or Scooter Libby lying under oath. "Tyranny" rhetoric and the like doesn't cut it. For example, Andrew Johnson was impeach for violating the Tenure of Office Act; Nixon for obstruction; and Clinton for lying under oath. Eddie Burke - Ashland, OR - March 23rd, 12:58 PM Eddie, Would you please consider voicing your opinions/facts more often? So far you sound like an intelligent, voice of reason. Perfect for knocking the edge off of "let's talk about a revolution, so I can sell a book" Mike Green. He's intelligent also, but self serving and greedy. Kind of like the people he so vehemently despises. Please help Ed. FormerAshlandTimberman - McCall, ID - March 24th, 7:00 PM When will the people of this Country think that enough is enough? Millions of people should be marching in the streets and I mean Millions! Bush hasn't stopped the insanity in Iraq, because him and his cronies don't believe that the people in this country really give a damn! The universities are no longer a hot bed for free thought and debate. The majority ofyoung people whose peers are dying just don't give a s***! I just don't get it. Signed A baby boomer that gave a damn and still does Anne Celia - Clayton, NJ - March 25th, 8:32 PM Hi Anne Celia ! You are far from alone. tom - ashland - March 26th, 12:48 PM Rock on, Annie!!!! Emily Franco - Philadelphia, PA - March 28th, 7:04 AM Leave a Comment: Advertisement: Advertisement: Paid Advertising: Debt Help Inkjet Printers Payday Loans Free Ringtones Debt Consolidation Security Systems Debt Relief New Hampshire Primary Advertisement: Copyright © 2007 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.   Del.icio.us