Paul Craig Roberts Calls for Impeachment Now

When a former high official under the Reagan administration is calling for impeachment, it might be time to reconsider its viability. From Paul Craig Roberts:

Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.

Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of “executive orders” that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, “terrorist” events in the near future.

Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran. [full text]

14 thoughts on “Paul Craig Roberts Calls for Impeachment Now

  1. Is this the same paranoiac who believes that it’s impossible that World Trade Center was destroyed by planes, and was obviously demolished by explosives planted on the ground?

  2. I read a little about Roberts before deciding to post about this. He has made statements that he does not believe the 9/11 Commission fully investigated and revealed what happened on that day, but he does not appear to be a conspiracy theorists and in fact, states his belief that conspiracy theories have had to fill the void where the 9/11 report failed to scientifically prove the plausibility of events. Here’s a link to wikipedia’s page on him:

  3. I did a quick read of the wikipedia page. It’s amazing how otherwise intelligent persons can fall to pieces when it comes to conspiracy theories. Bottom line, in any complex series of events, certain segments of the chain will be implausible. Just like it’s implausible when you drop something and it somehow manages to bounce or roll under the refrigerator. Probably “shouldn’t” happen, but it just did.

    However, given his background, it’s hard to argue that his call for impeachment is a partisan attack. A tad paranoid, but, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.

  4. So if Bush warns us of a possible attack, and we are attacked, you will say Bush concocted it as a way to end the republic.

    If Bush doesn’t warn us and an attack occurs, you will blame him, as in “he knew about 9-11 and said nothing.”

    If there are no attacks, you’ll claim it’s Bush’s war and there really hasn’t been any threat to us.

    Yet you’ll claim it’s not about politics. Hmmm.

  5. Mike, what’s with the straw man? No one is saying Bush is concocting terrorist threats, or that he’s not warning us. Although, the latest NIE–do you know what that is?–has stated pretty much point-blank that the war in Iraq has made a terrorist attack more likely.

    And, btw, he really didn’t do anything about terrorism prior to 9/11. The warnings were there; he wanted to invade Iraq instead.

    However, the issue is impeachment. Actually, I think the better course might be to wait until they’re out of office and then try them for war crimes. Quite honestly, I don’t believe the votes are there. Put them in front of a judge and jury. It worked for Scooter Libby, and Bush won’t be in office to dole out pardons.

  6. klaus, I was responding to the sources linked by Kiersten (vdare and wikipedia). More than a “quick read” reveals that Roberts, the man calling for impeachment, believes the Bush administration is purposely preparing Americans for an attack, and may in fact stage an attack, to ensure a “dictatorial state within a year.” From the vdare article:

    If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the “unitary executive” at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush’s declaration of “national emergency” and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

    A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconservatives’ Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel’s complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.

    If you do more than a “quick read” klaus you’ll also notice that the issue is not impeachment, but rather Paul Roberts call for impeachment. To argue the merits of Kiersten’s decision to post his opinions is hardly a straw man, a phrase you drastically overuse.

    In my comments above, Roberts (and indirectly Kiersten) make the assertion of my first point, you klaus make my second point (“And, btw, he really didn’t do anything about terrorism prior to 9/11. The warnings were there; he wanted to invade Iraq instead.”), and every liberal in Washington makes my third.

    The accusation of war crimes is gross, and those suggesting it are contemptable.

    Tell me how Scooter Libby is not a straw man klaus? I thought it was about impeachment!

    More than a “quick read” would be in order next time.

  7. To add to Mike’s point, one of the ideas in Roberts’ article is that Mossad is prepared to concoct terrorist attacks to help the Republicans, and that Mossad is more of a threat to launch an attack on the United States than al-Qaeda.

    That places Roberts deeply into tinfoil-hat territory.

    But look at the bright side, Klaus; now you have an example you can use whenever you want to say that supply-siders are nuts!

  8. There are idiots and there are idiotic idiots. This guy seems to have escaped from the Alien Theater in Roswell and some of the weather balloon aluminum foils has hindered his brain waves. Perhaps he and Rosie can co-host a new television program with out the aluminum foil.
    Americans are fortunate in that we have a means of “overthrowing” our government every two and four years, nicely accomplished without violence, except perhaps the violence done to our intelligence by the less than glorious political talent we see. But even that is our fault and part of being free. I forget who said we get the government we deserve.

  9. Sorry, Mike. Just responding to your lead. You’re the one who tried to change the course of the discussion with a straw man. But then, that’s been the RW MO for years now. The only thing you left out was “But Clinton did it too!” whether he did or not.

    As for the war crimes, the Nuremburg Tribunals declared that aggressive war is a “supreme international crime.” In case you’ve forgotten, the US helped write those principles.

    And if the guy is such a nutcase, how is it that he worked for the Reagan Admin? Was he a nutcase back then, too? Is he the only nutcase that was working for Reagan, or were there others? It seems to be a Republican trait, because every person who’s left the Bush Admin and criticized what the Admin was doing has been villified as a nutcase, or disgruntled employee, or something. Doesn’t say much for the judgment of Republican Administrations, does it? They can’t even hire non-nutcases.

    My point was simply that a former member of the Reagan Admin is calling for Bush & Cheney’s impeachment. The “rebuttal” is that the guy’s a whacko. So, let’s focus on why Republicans hire so many nutcases. Like this guy.

  10. klaus, I am fairly certain now that (1) you don’t know what a “strawman” is, and (2) you really don’t read (or perhaps just quick read) what others are saying.

  11. Hey there, sports fans… check out link below. John Nichols, an editor for that lefty rag The Nation teams up with Bruce Fein, long-time columnist for that righty (speaking of tinfoil hats) Moonie rag, The Washington Times. Together they present a unified and, by my lights, well-reasoned argument for impeachment. Watch the whole video. These guys put the onus of effecting change squarely where it belongs – on we the people. If the next election actually occurs, whichever party wins the Presidency, (yes, even the Greens,) will inherit an executive branch that has never before held such unaccountable power. Precedents are now being set that will never be undone. If we and our corporate press continue to sit by and placidly allow this administration to usurp constitutional mandates, then Mr. Wolberg is certainly right to remind us that we get the government we deserve. Another old saw, “The triumph of evil requires only that good men do nothing.” also comes to mind.

  12. My apologies to Bruce Fein and the Kmareka community…
    I mistakenly associated Mr. Fein only with the Washington Times and can only hope he choses to not sue me for libel. Although he continues to write for the WT, Mr. Fine’s credentials are more completely as follows:

    Bruce Fein commands impressive experience and influence in the corridors of both national and international power. He graduated from Harvard Law School with honors in 1972. After a coveted federal judicial clerkship, he joined the U.S. Department of Justice where he served as assistant director of the Office of Legal Policy, legal adviser to the assistant attorney general for antitrust, and the associate deputy attorney general. Mr. Fein then was appointed general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, followed by an appointment as research director for the Joint Congressional Committee on Covert Arms Sales to Iran. He recently served on the American Bar Association’s Task Force on Presidential signing statements.

    He is frequently quoted in The New York Times, The Financial Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal and other major national publications. He has been featured on the cover of the American Bar Association Journal, the legal profession’s most prestigious publication.

    He has authored several volumes on the United States Supreme Court, the United States Constitution, and international law. He has assisted three dozen countries in constitutional revision, including Russia, Spain, South Africa, Iraq, Cyprus, and Mozambique, and consulted foreign nations on matters ranging from telecommunications and cable regulation to sugar quotas, oil and gas pipelines, immigration, election laws, and human rights.

    Mr. Fein has been an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, a resident scholar at the Heritage Foundation, a lecturer at the Bookings Institute, and an adjunct professor at George Washington University. He has also been executive editor of World Intelligence Review, a periodical devoted to national security and intelligence issues. He regularly lectures to foreign guests and dignitaries visiting the United States on behalf of the State Department.

    At present, he writes weekly columns for The Washington Times and Capitol Leader, and a bi-weekly column for the Lexington Herald-Leader devoted to legal and international affairs. He is a guest columnist for numerous other newspapers, and articles for professional and lay journals. He is invited to testify regularly before Congress and administrative agencies by both Democrats and Republicans. He appears regularly on national and international television, cable, and radio programs as an expert in foreign affairs, international and constitutional law, telecommunications, terrorism, national security, and related subjects. He is a regular guest at the BBC, C-SPAN, CNN, Reuters, MSNBC, and NPR.

    Mr. Fein can be reached via email at:

    Just want to be factual.

Comments are closed.