Hudson Valley: Impeach President Bush sign now

Do you live here in the Hudson Valley and think that President Bush should be impeached?

You're not alone.

As Elizabeth Holtzman notes below in her cover story for The Nation, "A Zogby poll taken in November-- before the wiretap scandal- showed more than 50 percent of those questioned favored impeachment of President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq."

As The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild recently wrote, "A total of eight U.S. House members have co-sponsored Resolution 635 to create a select committee to investigate the grounds for impeaching President Bush," according to Atlanta Progressive News. "The co-sponsors are Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)." [from "Impeachment Calls Grow Louder"-- The Progressive 1/12/06--]

Over 630,000 people have signed on to the petition. The Arcada City Council in California even passed a resolution calling for this on January 4th.

Enough is enough.

Call Congress at (888) 355-3588-- ask them to join Rep. Lois Capps, Rep. John Conyers, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Rep. Donald Payne, Rep. Charles Rangel, Rep. Maxine Waters, and Rep. Lynn Woolsey, and co-sponsor Res. 635 to create a select committee to investigate the grounds for impeaching President Bush.

Contact the Dutchess County Legislature at 486-2100 and [email protected] if you would like to see a resolution passed here similar to the one the Arcata City Council passed.

If enough folks sign on to this petition, we'll get this passed right here in Dutchess County (and all over the Hudson Valley)!

What are we waiting for?

How much worse does it have to get?

Time for us to pull together to send a strong message to Washington on this.


Joel Tyner
Dutchess County Legislator, D. #11
324 Browns Pond Road
Staatsburg, NY 12580
[email protected]
(845) 876-2488


"Bush Impeachment Inquiry Has 8 House Co-Sponsors" by Matthew Cardinale
Atlanta Progressive News 1/1/06]

A total of eight US House members have co-sponsored Resolution 635 to create a select committee to investigate the grounds for impeaching President Bush, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

The co-sponsors are Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), according to the US Congressional website

HR 635 reads as its official title: "Creating a select committee to
investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before
congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence,
encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics,
and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible

The bill was initially proposed by Rep. Conyers on 12/18/2005. The 7
other co-sponsors added their names on 12/22/05.

"In brief, we have found that there is substantial evidence the
President, the Vice-President and other high ranking members of the
Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war;
countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in
Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of
their Administration. There is at least a prima facie case that these
actions that federal laws have been violated - from false statements
to Congress to retaliating against Administration critics," Rep.
Conyers said in a press release on 12/20/05.

As reported last week in Atlanta Progressive News, US Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) stated in a radio program that he would sign a bill of impeachment of President Bush if it were drafted on account of Bush's approval of illegal domestic wiretapping. US Senator Barbara Boxer
has also requested a report by legal scholars regarding the grounds
for the Bush's impeachment for the same reason. The article regarding
the statements by Rep. Lewis and Sen. Boxer is available here: .


"Percentage approval rating of Bill Clinton the day after impeachment
and George W. Bush in November, respectively: 73, 37"
[Gallup polls cited in January 2006 "Harper's Index"]

"Zogby Poll: 53\% of Americans Support Impeachment; ImpeachPAC Announced" by Bob Fertik

For Immediate Release: November 4, 2005

New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeachment;
ImpeachPAC is Launched to Support Pro-Impeachment Candidates

By a margin of 53\% to 42\%, Americans want Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new Zogby poll commissioned by, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,200 U.S. adults from October 29 through November 2.

The poll found that 53\% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

42\% disagreed, and 5\% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9\% margin of error.

"These results are stunning," said co-founder Bob Fertik. "A clear majority of Americans now supports President Bush's impeachment if he lied about the war. This should send shock waves through the White House - and a wake-up call to Democrats and Republicans in Congress, who have sole power under the Constitution to impeach President Bush."


A former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during Nixon's impeachment reveals the whys, whens and hows of ousting president Bush.

"The Impeachment of George W. Bush" by Elizabeth Holtzman
[cover story for Jan. 30th The Nation:]

Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching
President George W. Bush -- not in hushed whispers but openly, in
newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in
Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House
Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against
President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so.

I can still remember the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach
during those proceedings, when it became clear that the President had
so systematically abused the powers of the presidency and so
threatened the rule of law that he had to be removed from office. As
a Democrat who opposed many of President Nixon's policies, I still
found voting for his impeachment to be one of the most sobering and
unpleasant tasks I ever had to undertake. None of the members of the
committee took pleasure in voting for impeachment; after all,
Democrat or Republican, Nixon was still our President.

At the time, I hoped that our committee's work would send a strong
signal to future Presidents that they had to obey the rule of law. I
was wrong.

Like many others, I have been deeply troubled by Bush's breathtaking
scorn for our international treaty obligations under the United
Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions. I have also been
disturbed by the torture scandals and the violations of US criminal
laws at the highest levels of our government they may entail,
something I have written about before.

These concerns have been compounded by growing evidence that the
President deliberately misled the country into the war in Iraq. But
it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush
directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of
Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) -- and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in
the interests of national security to override our country's laws --
that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during

As a matter of constitutional law, these and other misdeeds
constitute grounds for the impeachment of President Bush. A
President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law --
and repeatedly violates the law -- thereby commits high crimes and
misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal
from office. A high crime or misdemeanor is an archaic term that
means a serious abuse of power, whether or not it is also a crime,
that endangers our constitutional system of government.

The framers of our Constitution feared executive power run amok and
provided the remedy of impeachment to protect against it. While
impeachment is a last resort, and must never be lightly undertaken (a
principle ignored during the proceedings against President Bill
Clinton), neither can Congress shirk its responsibility to use that
tool to safeguard our democracy. No President can be permitted to
commit high crimes and misdemeanors with impunity.

But impeachment and removal from office will not happen unless the
American people are convinced of its necessity after a full and fair
inquiry into the facts and law is conducted. That inquiry must
commence now.

Warrantless Wiretaps

On December 17 President Bush acknowledged that he repeatedly
authorized wiretaps, without obtaining a warrant, of American
citizens engaged in international calls. On the face of it, these
warrantless wiretaps violate FISA, which requires court approval for
national security wiretaps and sets up a special procedure for
obtaining it. Violation of the law is a felony.

While many facts about these wiretaps are unknown, it now appears
that thousands of calls were monitored and that the information
obtained may have been widely circulated among federal agencies. It
also appears that a number of government officials considered the
warrantless wiretaps of dubious legality. Reportedly, several people
in the National Security Agency refused to participate in them, and a
deputy attorney general even declined to sign off on some aspects of
these wiretaps. The special FISA court has raised concerns as well,
and a judge on that court has resigned, apparently in protest.

FISA was enacted in 1978, against the backdrop of Watergate, to
prevent the widespread abuses in domestic surveillance that were
disclosed in Congressional hearings. Among his other abuses of power,
President Nixon ordered the FBI to conduct warrantless wiretaps of
seventeen journalists and White House staffers. Although Nixon
claimed the wiretaps were done for national security purposes, they
were undertaken for political purposes and were illegal. Just as
Bush's warrantless wiretaps grew out of the 9/11 attacks, Nixon's
illegal wiretaps grew out of the Vietnam War and the opposition to
it. In fact, the first illegal Nixon wiretap was of a reporter who,
in 1969, revealed the secret bombing of Cambodia, a program that
President Nixon wanted to hide from the American people and Congress.
Nixon's illegal wiretaps formed one of the many grounds for the
articles of impeachment voted against him by a bipartisan majority of
the House Judiciary Committee.

Congress explicitly intended FISA to strike a balance between the
legitimate requirements of national security on the one hand and the
need both to protect against presidential abuses and to safeguard
personal privacy on the other. From Watergate, Congress knew that a
President was fully capable of wiretapping under a false claim of
national security. That is why the law requires court review of
national security wiretaps. Congress understood that because of the
huge invasion of privacy involved in wiretaps, there should be checks
in place on the executive branch to protect against overzealous and
unnecessary wiretapping. At the same time, Congress created special
procedures to facilitate obtaining these warrants when justified.
Congress also recognized the need for emergency action: The President
was given the power to start a wiretap without a warrant as long as
court permission was obtained within three days.

FISA can scarcely be claimed to create any obstacle to justified
national security wiretaps. Since 1978, when the law was enacted,
more than 10,000 national security warrants have been approved by the
FISA court; only four have been turned down.

Two legal arguments have been offered for the President's right to
violate the law, both of which have been seriously questioned by
members of Congress of both parties and by the nonpartisan
Congressional Research Service in a recent analysis.

The first -- highly dangerous in its sweep and implications -- is
that the President has the constitutional right as Commander in Chief
to break any US law on the grounds of national security. As the CRS
analysis points out, the Supreme Court has never upheld the
President's right to do this in the area of wiretapping, nor has it
ever granted the President a "monopoly over war-powers" or recognized
him as "Commander in Chief of the country" as opposed to Commander in
Chief of the Army and Navy.

If the President is permitted to break the law on wiretapping on his
own say-so, then a President can break any other law on his own
say-so -- a formula for dictatorship. This is not a theoretical
danger: President Bush has recently claimed the right as Commander in
Chief to violate the McCain amendment banning torture and degrading
treatment of detainees. Nor is the requirement that national security
be at stake any safeguard. We saw in Watergate how President Nixon
falsely and cynically used that argument to cover up ordinary crimes
and political misdeeds.

Ours is a government of limited power. We learn in elementary school
the concept of checks and balances. Those checks do not vanish in
wartime; the President's role as Commander in Chief does not swallow
up Congress's powers or the Bill of Rights. Given the framers'
skepticism about executive power and warmaking -- there was no
functional standing army at the beginning of the nation, so the
President's powers as Commander in Chief depended on Congress's
willingness to create and expand an army -- it is impossible to find
in the Constitution unilateral presidential authority to act against
US citizens in a way that violates US laws, even in wartime. As
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently wrote, "A state of war is not a
blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the
nation's citizens."

The second legal argument in defense of Bush's warrantless wiretaps
rests on an erroneous statutory interpretation. According to this
argument, Congress authorized the Administration to place wiretaps
without court approval when it adopted the 2001 resolution
authorizing military force against the Taliban and Al Qaeda for the
9/11 attacks. In the first place, the force resolution doesn't
mention wiretaps. And given that Congress has traditionally placed so
many restrictions on wiretapping because of its extremely intrusive
qualities, there would undoubtedly have been vigorous debate if
anyone thought the force resolution would roll back FISA. In fact,
the legislative history of the force resolution shows that Congress
had no intention of broadening the scope of presidential warmaking
powers to cover activity in the United States.

According to Senator Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader
who negotiated the resolution with the White House, the
Administration wanted to include language explicitly enlarging the
President's warmaking powers to include domestic activity. That
language was rejected. Obviously, if the Administration felt it
already had the power, it would not have tried to insert the language
into the resolution.

What then was the reason for avoiding the FISA court? President Bush
suggested that there was no time to get the warrants. But this cannot
be true, because FISA permits wiretaps without warrants in
emergencies as long as court approval is obtained within three days.
Moreover, there is evidence that the President knew the warrantless
wiretapping was illegal. In 2004, when the violations had been going
on for some time, President Bush told a Buffalo, New York, audience
that "a wiretap requires a court order." He went on to say that "when
we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about
getting a court order before we do so."

Indeed, the claim that to protect Americans the President needs to be
able to avoid court review of his wiretap applications rings hollow.
It is unclear why or in what way the existing law, requiring court
approval, is not satisfactory. And, if the law is too cumbersome or
inapplicable to modern technology, then it is unclear why the
President did not seek to revise it instead of disregarding it and
thus jeopardizing many otherwise legitimate anti-terrorism
prosecutions. His defenders' claim that changing the law would have
given away secrets is unacceptable. There are procedures for
considering classified information in Congress. Since no good reason
has been given for avoiding the FISA court, it is reasonable to
suspect that the real reason may have been that the wiretaps, like
those President Nixon ordered in Watergate, involved journalists or
anti-Bush activists or were improper in other ways and would not have
been approved.

It is also curious that President Bush seems so concerned with the
imaginary dangers to Americans posed by US courts but remains so
apparently unconcerned about fixing some of the real holes in our
security. For example, FBI computers -- which were unable to search
two words at once, like "flight schools," a defect that impaired the
Bureau's ability to identify the 9/11 attackers beforehand -- still
haven't been brought into the twenty-first century. Given Vice
President Cheney's longstanding ambition to throw off the constraints
on executive power imposed in response to Watergate and the Vietnam
War, it may well be that the warrantless wiretap program has had much
more to do with restoring the trappings of the Nixon imperial
presidency than it ever had to do with protecting national security.

Subverting Our Democracy

A President can commit no more serious crime against our democracy
than lying to Congress and the American people to get them to support
a military action or war. It is not just that it is cowardly and
abhorrent to trick others into giving their lives for a nonexistent
threat, or even that making false statements might in some
circumstances be a crime. It is that the decision to go to war is the
gravest decision a nation can make, and in a democracy the people and
their elected representatives, when there is no imminent attack on
the United States to repel, have the right to make it. Given that the
consequences can be death for hundreds, thousands or tens of
thousands of people -- as well as the diversion of vast sums of money
to the war effort -- the fraud cannot be tolerated. That both Lyndon
Johnson and Richard Nixon were guilty of misleading the nation into
military action and neither was impeached for it makes it more, not
less, important to hold Bush accountable.

Once it was clear that no weapons of mass destruction would be found
in Iraq, President Bush tried to blame "bad intelligence" for the
decision to go to war, apparently to show that the WMD claim was not
a deliberate deception. But bad intelligence had little or nothing to
do with the main arguments used to win popular support for the
invasion of Iraq.

First, there was no serious intelligence -- good or bad -- to support
the Administration's suggestion that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were
in cahoots. Nonetheless, the Administration repeatedly tried to claim
the connection to show that the invasion was a justified response to
9/11 (like the declaration of war against Japan for Pearl Harbor).
The claim was a sheer fabrication.

Second, there was no reliable intelligence to support the
Administration's claim that Saddam was about to acquire nuclear
weapons capability. The specter of the "mushroom cloud," which
frightened many Americans into believing that the invasion of Iraq
was necessary for our self-defense, was made up out of whole cloth.
As for the biological and chemical weapons, even if, as reported, the
CIA director told the President that these existed in Iraq, the
Administration still had plenty of information suggesting the

The deliberateness of the deception has also been confirmed by a
British source: the Downing Street memo, the official record of Prime
Minister Tony Blair's July 2002 meeting with his top Cabinet
officials. At the meeting the chief of British intelligence, who had
just returned from the United States, reported that "Bush wanted to
remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction
of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed
around the policy." In other words, the Bush Administration was
reported to be in the process of cooking up fake intelligence and
facts to justify going to war in Iraq.

During the Nixon impeachment proceedings, I drafted the resolution of
impeachment to hold President Nixon accountable for concealing from
Congress the bombing of Cambodia he initiated. But the committee did
not approve it, probably because it might appear political -- in
other words, stemming from opposition to the war instead of to the
President's abuse of his warmaking powers.

With respect to President Bush and the Iraq War, there is not likely
to be any such confusion. Most Americans know that his rationale for
the war turned out to be untrue; for them the question is whether the
President lied, and if so, what the remedies are for his misconduct.

The Failure to Take Care

Upon assuming the presidency, Bush took an oath of office in which he
swore to take care that the laws would be faithfully executed.
Impeachment cannot be used to remove a President for
maladministration, as the debates on ratifying the Constitution show.
But President Bush has been guilty of such gross incompetence or
reckless indifference to his obligation to execute the laws
faithfully as to call into question whether he takes his oath
seriously or is capable of doing so.

The most egregious example is the conduct of the war in Iraq.
Unconscionably and unaccountably, the Administration failed to
provide US soldiers with bulletproof vests or appropriately armored
vehicles. A recent Pentagon study disclosed that proper bulletproof
vests would have saved hundreds of lives. Why wasn't the commencement
of hostilities postponed until the troops were properly outfitted?
There are numerous suggestions that the timing was prompted by
political, not military, concerns. The United States was under no
imminent threat of attack by Saddam Hussein, and the Administration
knew it. They delayed the marketing of the war until Americans
finished their summer vacations because "you don't introduce new
products in August." As the Downing Street memo revealed, the
timeline for the war was set to start thirty days before the 2002
Congressional elections.

And there was no serious plan for the aftermath of the war, a fact
also noted in the Downing Street memo. The President's failure as
Commander in Chief to protect the troops by arming them properly, and
his failure to plan for the occupation, cost dearly in lives and
taxpayer dollars. This was not mere negligence or oversight -- in
other words, maladministration -- but reflected a reckless and
grotesque disregard for the welfare of the troops and an utter
indifference to the need for proper governance of a country after
occupation. As such, these failures violated the requirements of the
President's oath of office. If they are proven to be the product of
political objectives, they could constitute impeachable offenses on
those grounds alone.

Torture and Other Abuses of Power

President Bush recently proclaimed, "We do not torture." In view of
the revelations of the CIA's secret jails and practice of rendition,
not to mention the Abu Ghraib scandal, the statement borders on the
absurd, recalling Nixon's famous claim, "I am not a crook." It has
been well documented that abuse (including torture) of detainees by
US personnel in connection with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has
been systemic and widespread. Under the War Crimes Act of 1996 it is
a crime for any US national to order or engage in the murder, torture
or inhuman treatment of a detainee. (When a detainee death results,
the act imposes the death penalty.) In addition, anyone in the chain
of command who condones the abuse rather than stopping it could also
be in violation of the act. The act simply implements the Geneva
Conventions, which are the law of the land.

The evidence before us now suggests that the President himself may
have authorized detainee abuse. In January 2002, after the
Afghanistan war had begun, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales
advised President Bush in writing that US mistreatment of detainees
might be criminally prosecutable under the War Crimes Act. Rather
than order the possibly criminal behavior to stop, which under the
Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act the President was obligated
to do, Bush authorized an "opt-out" of the Geneva Conventions to try
to shield the Americans who were abusing detainees from prosecution.

In other words, the President's response to reports of detainee abuse
was to prevent prosecution of the abusers, thereby implicitly
condoning the abuse and authorizing its continuation. If torture or
inhuman treatment of prisoners took place as a result of the
President's conduct, then he himself may have violated the War Crimes
Act, along with those who actually inflicted the abuse.

There are many other indications that the President has knowingly
condoned detainee abuse. For example, he never removed Defense
Secretary Rumsfeld from office or disciplined him, even though
Rumsfeld accepted responsibility for the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib,
admitted hiding a detainee from the Red Cross -- a violation of the
Geneva Conventions and possibly the War Crimes Act, if the detainee
was being abused -- and issued orders (later withdrawn) for
Guantбnamo interrogations that violated the Geneva Conventions and
possibly the War Crimes Act.

More recently, the President opposed the McCain Amendment barring
torture when it was first proposed, and he tacitly supported Vice
President Cheney's efforts to get language into the bill that would
allow the CIA to torture or degrade detainees. Now, in his signing
statement, the President announced that he has the right to violate
the new law, claiming once again the right as Commander in Chief to
break laws when it suits him.

Furthermore, despite the horrors of the Abu Ghraib scandal, no
higher-ups have been held accountable. Only one officer of any
significant rank has been punished. It is as though the Watergate
inquiry stopped with the burglars, as the Nixon coverup tried and
failed to accomplish. President Bush has made no serious effort to
insure that the full scope of the scandal is uncovered or to hold any
higher-ups responsible, perhaps because responsibility goes right to
the White House.

It is imperative that a full investigation be undertaken of Bush's
role in the systemic torture and abuse of detainees. Violating his
oath of office, the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act would
constitute impeachable offenses.

Next Steps

Mobilizing the nation and Congress in support of investigations and
the impeachment of President Bush is a critical task that has already
begun, but it must intensify and grow. The American people stopped
the Vietnam War -- against the wishes of the President -- and forced
a reluctant Congress to act on the impeachment of President Nixon.
And they can do the same with President Bush. The task has three
elements: building public and Congressional support, getting Congress
to undertake investigations into various aspects of presidential
misconduct and changing the party makeup of Congress in the 2006

Drumming up public support means organizing rallies, spearheading
letter-writing campaigns to newspapers, organizing petition drives,
door-knocking in neighborhoods, handing out leaflets and deploying
the full range of mobilizing tactics. Organizations like After
Downing Street and, actively working on a campaign for
impeachment, are able to draw on a remarkably solid base of public
support. A Zogby poll taken in November -- before the wiretap scandal
-- showed more than 50 percent of those questioned favored
impeachment of President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq.

An energized public must in turn bear down on Congress. Constituents
should request meetings with their Senators and Representatives to
educate them on impeachment. They can also make their case through
e-mail, letters and phone calls. Representatives and Senators should
be asked specifically to support hearings on and investigations into
the deceptions that led to the Iraq War and President Bush's role in
the torture scandals.

Senators should also be asked to insure that the hearings already
planned by the Senate Judiciary Committee into warrantless wiretaps
are comprehensive. The hearings should evaluate whether the wiretaps
were genuinely used for national security purposes and why the
President chose to violate the law when it was so easy to comply with
it. Representatives should specifically be asked to co-sponsor
Congressman John Conyers's resolution calling for a full inquiry into
presidential abuses.

Finally, if this pressure fails to produce results, attention must be
focused on changing the political composition of the House and Senate
in the upcoming 2006 elections. If a Republican Congress is unwilling
to investigate and take appropriate action against a Republican
President, then a Democratic Congress should replace it.

As awful as Watergate was, after the vote on impeachment and the
resignation of President Nixon, the nation felt a huge sense of
relief. Impeachment is a tortuous process, but now that President
Bush has thrown down the gauntlet and virtually dared Congress to
stop him from violating the law, nothing less is necessary to protect
our constitutional system and preserve our democracy.

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook

If you already have an account please sign in, otherwise register an account for free then sign the petition filling the fields below.
Email and the password will be your account data, you will be able to sign other petitions after logging in.

Privacy in the search engines? You can use a nickname:

Attention, the email address you supply must be valid in order to validate the signature, otherwise it will be deleted.

I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing


Who signed this petition saw these petitions too:

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook

If you already have an account please sign in


I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing

Goal reached !
100 / 100

Latest Signatures

  • 19 November 2015100. Manfred H
    bush is the most corrupt president in our history Address; Zip Code 22 Spruce Street Poughkeepsie NY 12601
  • 16 October 201599. Jason A
    George W. Bush is a cancer who must be excised. Address; Zip Code 127 Primrose Hill Rd, Rhinebeck, NY 12572
  • 04 September 201598. Barbara B
    Preserve our Constitution IMPEACH George W. Bush Address; Zip Code 10940
  • 23 August 201597. Julie H
    What better way to show the rest of the world, (& terrorists), where real power & justice comes from and what Democracy is really all about - the people- not a few corrupt, elitist leaders who bought their way to power and feel that they have the
  • 01 August 201596. Doug M
    This man tried to raid our Social Security fund, engineer coups in Haiti and Venezuala, and while campaigning, thought the Taliban were a rock band? enough already!! Address; Zip Code 37 Hornbeck Ridge Poughkeepsie NY 12603
  • 12 July 201595. Jennifer H
    We needed to not give him power in the first place Address; Zip Code Rhinebeck ny 12572
  • 17 June 201594. Eugene H
    This man and his gangster coterie believe that US and international law, as well as human decency, do not apply to them. Impeach him. Address; Zip Code 85 Pressler Rd., Wallkill, NY 12589
  • 17 April 201593. Connie H
    The reasons for impeachment of Bush mount and it is time to take action in this Congress if our precious rights and our democratic freedoms are to be saved. for the next generations Address; Zip Code 20 Hartsook Lane, Beacon 12508
  • 03 April 201592. Jennifer D
    Please impeach GWB for any one of his several crimes. He should not be allowed to go on breaking the law and lying to the American people. Address; Zip Code 757 Route 308, Rhinebeck, NY 12572
  • 05 February 201591. Lisa R
    When Clinton lied nobody died! Address; Zip Code Rhinebeck, New York 12572
  • 10 January 201590. Steven W
    The whole world wants Bush impeached. Address; Zip Code 101 Park Road Extension, Golden's Bridge, NY 10526
  • 16 December 201489. Lillian R
    Such total incompetence cannot lead our country. Address; Zip Code 10516
  • 30 August 201488. Sara Miotk
    I fully support the legal action of Impeachment of President Bush Address; Zip Code 55 Hickory Ridge Road, Catskill, New York, 12414
  • 25 August 201487. Nikolas C
    President (untruly elected in the first place) Bush has blundered on numerous decisions/policies during each term of his presidency and its too bad he can not be impeached for those blunders, alone. Bush has actually lied and has BROKEN THE LAW, which, un
  • 08 August 201486. Bill C
    no one is above the law Address; Zip Code 12508
  • 27 July 201485. Amy N
    2 Reeder Road Address; Zip Code 12572
  • 03 July 201484. Pat L
    If Clinton committed an impeachable offense, surely Bush has. Once impeached, he should be tried for war crimes as well as illegally spying on his fellow citizens. Address; Zip Code 27 Meyer Avenue, Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
  • 07 June 201483. Adam R
    Uphold the Consitution and hold those who violate it accountable. Impeach Bush and Cheney Address; Zip Code 12471
  • 10 May 201482. Margaret Y
    President Bush has violated Federal law - he must be held accountable to the American people. Address; Zip Code 10524
  • 07 February 201481. Annie Lutz
    I thought that the citizens were more important than the Supreme Court! Address; Zip Code 1313 Williams St. #504 80218 (Denver, Colorado)
  • 14 November 201380. Cecelia L
    Fire the Liar Address; Zip Code New Rochelle, NY 10805
  • 17 October 201379. Luke Rf
    Impeach Address; Zip Code 110 Draper Ln. Apt. L2 Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522
  • 02 October 201378. Dennis C
    He stole the Presidency, and led us into the horror of Iraq he must be stopped before he can implament his plans to go to war with Iran. Address; Zip Code 12571
  • 01 September 201377. Olivia D
    Bush must be held accountable for his actions. Address; Zip Code P.O. Box 243 Beacon NY 12508
  • 30 June 201376. Thomas B
    I believe it is time to curb our president's march toward establishing a dictatorship in our country in place of the democracy that we have had. Address; Zip Code 19 North St., Beacon, NY 12508
  • 16 May 201375. Matthew C
    Impeachment is the least that Bush deserves Address; Zip Code New Paltz, NY 12561
  • 30 April 201374. Daniel E
    His lies and incompetency have cost lives and put future generations in debt Address; Zip Code 12790

browse all the signatures


Rochelle LopezBy:
Petition target:
Hudson Valley residents


No tags


Invite friends from your address book

Embed Codes

direct link

link for html

link for forum without title

link for forum with title