ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Sunday, February 26, 2006


Stupid Country (that apparently thinks we're stupid) seriously asks whether articles of impeachment are necessary.... and points to...


Ramsey [haahaahaahaa] Clark's ImpeachBush.Org...

hahaha...sorry, that's just hilarious. I've been aware of the site for some time, but didn't think that anyone actually took it seriously!!!

Even StupidCountry recognizes that Ramsey is a nutjob... or, to put it more diplomatically, "out there":

Draft Articles of Impeachment

So is there a real case for impeaching George W. Bush? To some of us it seems there is, and that the only things standing in the way of impeachment are the Republican Majority in the House and failure of will among the Democrats. John Conyers' resolution demanding a full investigation of the NSA spying program and consideration of impeachment grounds now has 27 co-sponsors -- a small minority including some decided flakes, but a start.

I've been wondering whether someone might draft Articles of Impeachment, for consideration and discussion, and it turns out that former Attorney General Ramsey Clark has taken a whack at it. Just to invite discussion, I have snarfed these articles from (with many thanks). Clark gets pretty far out there at times, but he surely has the credentials to draft a straw man such as this. Have at it.

Ramsey has been pushing impeachment for quite some time, so I'm not sure why his "movement" would all of a suddent take off. I know, the "corporate" media is unwilling to spread his rational message to the proletariat... how can I be so blind?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (8)
Stupid Country said...

You just don't seem to be able to resist this tendency to belittle ideas by linking them to individuals you see as easy targets. You took the same tack with Al Gore when I had flattering things to say about his Martin Luther King Day speech. It's a cheap, meaningless dodge.

Have your fun with this if you like -- but be fair and notice that, while we're on the subject of crazy uncles, I've been pretty gentle with John Ashcroft.

You're welcome to drop by this post again if you actually have something to say about the draft Articles of Impeachment I really wanted to discuss. Clark may be a fruitcake, but he's got the lawyering chops to whip up a version that's serviceable enough as a starting point.

I have, by the way, posted topical musings on individuals from time to time. Next time I do that, I'll certainly invite you to weigh in, since that seems to be your style.

Monterey John said...

John Ashcroft "crazy uncle"?

I've known John Ashcroft for 30 years or so. I have not known him to do or say a "crazy" thing in his entire life. He may be crashingly boring by most folks standards, but he is certainly not crazy. Kind, decent, faithful, conservative in word and deed seem far more appropriate descriptions of him.

As for Algore, "He betrayed our country!!!!" (describing our president) you call that what you want.

I have several words for it, none of which would sit well with Stupid.

St Wendeler said...

Last time I checked, John Ashcroft was off doing his own thing....

Lsat time I checked in on Ramsey, he was doing the commute to Baghdad to defend Saddam.

Stupid Country said...

The full context of the Gore quote was: "He betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."

I'm on board with all of that, yeah.

Actually, I'm not sure what Ramsey Clark's involvement with the Saddam defense is these days. It was one of those things he does sometimes that occasioned my description of Clark as "out there." He says he did it do insure that Saddam got a fair trial -- actually, that as much in the interest of the prosecution as the defense, and is actually a positive contribution if it means Saddam's eventual conviction and execution are perceived as fair and reasonable. I'm not a lawyer, but I gather some of the higher-profile guys have taken on hopeless cases just because they knew no one else would. It's probably an ego thing. And everything I've ever heard Clark say in connection with this has been eloquent and rational.

St Wendeler said...

If he was so concerned about the ramifications of the Hussein trial, he wouldn't be seeking to undermine it with baseless charges:

"International law requires that every criminal court be competent, independent and impartial. The Iraqi Special Tribunal lacks all of these essential qualities. It was illegitimate in its conception — the creation of an illegal occupying power that demonized Saddam Hussein and destroyed the government it now intends to condemn by law.

The United States has already destroyed any hope of legitimacy, fairness or even decency by its treatment and isolation of the former president and its creation of the Iraqi Special Tribunal to try him.

Among the earliest photographs it released is one showing Hussein sitting submissively on the floor of an empty room with Ahmad Chalabi, the principal U.S. surrogate at that moment, looming over him and a picture of Bush looking down from an otherwise bare wall.

The intention of the United States to convict the former leader in an unfair trial was made starkly clear by the appointment of Chalabi's nephew to organize and lead the court. He had just returned to Iraq to open a law office with a former law partner of Defense Undersecretary Douglas J. Feith, who had urged the U.S. overthrow of the Iraqi government and was a principal architect of U.S. postwar planning.

The concept, personnel, funding and functions of the court were chosen and are still controlled by the United States, dependent on its will and partial to its wishes. Reform is impossible. Proceedings before the Iraqi Special Tribunal would corrupt justice both in fact and in appearance and create more hatred and rage in Iraq against the American occupation. Only another court — one that is actually competent, independent and impartial — can lawfully sit in judgment. "

do the Dems really want to ally themselves politically with someone who will be seen by the American people as a defender of Saddam?

Stupid Country said...

What part of the statement you've cited here is crazy? It all sounds eminently rational to me -- pretty good lawyering, I think, even if it is in defense of a vicious dictator who probably deserves whatever is eventually going to be his fate. Why are you dissing Clark for being an effective and eloquent advocate? Actually, the more we talk about this, the saner he sounds to me.

He might not win any popularity contests for having taken this challenge on, but Ramsey Clark's not running for any office. And no one's suggesting the Democrats ally themselves with him in this. Ramsey Clark only entered into discussion because he happened to be the one to supply something I was looking for: Draft Articles of Impeachment for Bush.

If Gary Hart had been the author, I guess we'd be arguing about his womanizing 15 years ago, wouldn't we?

Monterey John said...

This is what happens when I get hit by insomnia: Ramsey Clark isn't crazy and Algore didn't really scream, "He betrayed our country," in a screeching tone I haven't heard since last I visited Fulton State. (Consider the context? Maybe I should just play like I really didn't hear it at all.)

Impeach the president?

Stupid, a while back I suggested you turn your flag right side up as it left an off-putting impression the way it was and folks would not take your seriously.

Never mind, leave it the way it is.

Stupid Country said...

I believe I'll just leave it as is, yeah.