Except the impeachment will not be someone saying you bad boys go away and they leave. The facts for impeachment go from the 935 lies to go to war to 9350 lies about the world trade centers to the blackbox voting and that rock gathers no moss as it gets rolling. All the crap and disinformation on talk radio and Limbaugh will be drowned put by this financial meltdown that is just starting to wake up the insulated think they are safe crowd. In the paper this morning Radian philadelphia mortgage insurer reports defaults doubled in one year including prime which climbed from 28.9 million to 53.2 million the last quarter.In the end Bush and Cheney will be safer in a jail cell than out on the street exposed to some rough and tumble justice which the disenfranchised will be looking to dole out.

by tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 255 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 7:01:04 AM

  (0+)

If there's any justice on this planet, it would include the hanging of GW and Cheney in a public place to send a message to any of their cohorts who think they'd like to "follow in their peer's footsteps".  In my nearly 60 years on this planet I've never seen the level of corruption that currently exists within our government.  If space travel were possible, I'd be looking for another planet....this one's gonna be "screwed" for quite awhile.

by Galen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 8:09:24 PM

  (0+)

"The number one priority this year has to be eliminating the stranglehold the GOP has held on the executive branch of government for the past eight years" is short-term thinking that tosses away long-term necessities--and you don't get any longer term than the Constitution.

Democrats cannot be trusted to govern reliably, they've proven this since 2006. Why does 2008 give you hope, when you watched your 'new majority' roll over and play dead for Bush?

Impeachment is a matter of regaining precedent. This country, which claims to be a nation of laws and not men, runs on legal precedent. The violations of the Bush administration, if not corrected and punished, become precedent.

I'm personally unwilling to trade the defense of constitutional precedent for a Democrat in the White House. 

by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 386 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 9:56:56 AM

  (0+)

Jim Freeman is correct, impeachment is not a political position, it is about ACCOUNTABILITY.  Let me put this is a different context.  Do some of the worst leaders in the world carry out their atrocities for anyone other than the people they presume to serve?  Bush and Cheney have excused the excesses of this administration based on the need to "protect us."  Many conservatives buy that logic, and I do not doubt that many Americans do as well.  Behavioral research shows 90% of the public is OBEDIENT to AUTHORITY.  People in society must be obedient in order for society to function.  The downside of that OBEDIENCE is when AUTHORITY decides it can define what laws to follow and which to break, people accept that authority.  They can even be easily coerced in to doing its bidding.  In order that our society not to follow the wrong AUTHORITY, it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that we ensure all AUTHORITY follows the rules we as a society have established.  Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing to prevent us from falling in behind a Hitler or Pol Pot, or any other charismatic leader who decides "he knows what is best for us" and will do whatever it takes to ensure the "greater good" for our society.

It is far to late to address this problem AFTER it has gotten totally out of hand and you are headed toward Armageddon.  It is absolutely essential this country address this issue, hold those who have broken laws accountable and then move on reaffirming we are a country of laws and rules and everyone in this country (including the President and the VP) are bound by our laws and rules.  Suggesting we do less, suggesting we let it go so Democrats are not hurt in the Fall elections is trivial by comparison to this far bigger and greater issue we now face:  Are we either a nation of laws and justice, or are we a nation that blindly follows authority and allows it to decide for us what laws and rules are most important and which ones can be broken!  In my book, this is a far, far more critical issue we address and resolve then the issue "who wins in the fall"?  Whoever wins, it won't matter a TINKERS DAMN if the President and VP have been allowed to set the precedent that it is okay for the EXECUTIVE BRANCH to break our laws when they think it is in our "best interests".  I could live with lots of things, but that is a situation I could not live with, ever.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:48:39 AM

  (0+)

you think the dem party is any better?

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 12:24:50 PM

  (0+)

If you read the article, you weill note that i state both parties as being the true source of the problem.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 3:35:45 PM

  (0+)

I continue to view our current and past political scenarios as reflected by an old cliche, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".  The majority of "life forms" that are attracted to these positions of authority share a number of deficiencies that include overt self-focus and a complete inability to see the "big picture" in any aspect that is beneficial to (planetary) longevity. For every one of these "turkeys" that we manage to shut down, there are a dozen more "waiting in the wings". 

Perhaps the only solution to curtailing this abberant political behavior is to start enforcing a stricter code of conduct (first) by eliminating all of the contrived "smoke screens" (ie electoral college, super delegates) in an effort to strengthen the effectiveness of the "popular" vote. As a "closet" human behavioralist I'm seeing a phenomenal amount of social unrest and distrust regarding the workings and structure of our political system and I don't think that our current "gaggle of leadership" has a clue as to how short their "career lives" may become.  Wake up Washington....there's a huge "can of whoopass" coming your way and it isn't going to be pretty.

by Galen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:44:43 PM

  (0+)

You have it spot on, Jim.  What is more, any who actually want a Democratic victory in November across the board will be well served by opening impeachment hearings now against Cheney.

There is a sleeper issue in re Cheney.  It is 9/11.  This has a better chance to surface if hearings begin even on the three articles in the present HR 333/799 bill now in the HJC.  A fourth and fifth article can be crafted, one dealing with Cheney's role in outing Valerie Plame Wilson, about which conservatives have much to hang their collective heads. That helps crush McCain!

The other is 9/11.  Cheney can be shown to have lied to the 9/11 commission about his own acts of treason that day. See Sec. Mineta's clear testimony to the commission.  This is so explosive that the MSM dare not NOT cover it!  It is fatal to the media to try to hide it, as their own complicity is exposed.  The media loves the fall of a celeb, and Cheney is made to order.

The best way the Dems can gain the WH in November is to have Speaker Pelosi sworn in as a caretaker until the election .  Cheney will never be impeached, but his "health" can fail very fast before the hearings are ten days old.  Before Bush can appoint a replacement, he crumbles from some new revelations that will shock and sicken the electorate.

Those who fear impeachment proceedings now, like Anthony, simply are not taking into account the dramatic developments that can unfurl once the trigger is set.

Let's see what the new Zogby poll says tomorrow... If it's a green light or even a blinking yellow, I say LET'S PUSH THE HJC!!!

by Carl Weis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:49:36 PM

  (0+)

Impeachment would be the straw that breaks the camel back.

Alternative news will have to become mainstream as the reasons for impeachment will come forth. The media will try to hold back the storm, but they will not be able to. Impeachment will be a strong attention getter and people

will turn aside from their everyday concerns for awhile to check all this out.

Just my two cents worth. Bottom line: go ahead with impeachment proceedings full steam ahead. 

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:08:36 AM

  (0+)

Congressman Robert Wexler can answer any questions you may have left. Your nervousness is understandable, yet there is no valid reason to run from duty on the field of battle.

by JustHisWordsdotcom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:21:34 AM

  (0+)

Derelect of duty as a citizen is what it would be should we turn our back on our obligatons. 

NON Accountability is not acceptable now, nor should it ever be.  

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 12:27:49 PM

  (0+)

This admin has run roughshod for seven years now but now is the time for accountability? And you are going to criticize me for being honest about what will happen? I was writing against this admin since the onset of the war.

Derilect of duty, that is ridiculous.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 3:40:19 PM

  (0+)

But cute catch phrases will not solve this problem. I have been on the front line of this battle for five years now. The truth is i was calling for impeachment and accountability when everyone else was watching the world disintegrate. These colors do run, they have run red with the blood of innocents for the past six years.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 3:38:33 PM

  (0+)

[No] one says aloud what the reasons are for opposing impeachment. That Cheney and Bush have committed impeachable offenses is universally understood. But the arguments against impeaching them (other priorities, bipartisanship, we don't have the votes, etc.) usually sound like lame cover for whatever the real reason is. I suspect the real reason is built into Nadler's plan of wasting a year in order to pass bills next year. He assumes that in 2009 there will be either a better Congress or a better president (he backs Hillary Clinton), or both.

Sadly, history says otherwise. For 230 years, the party that brings impeachment wins, and the party that fails to do so when it's called for loses. Conyers was there when the Democrats moved to impeach Nixon and then won big. He was there when they refused to impeach Reagan and then lost. And most of the current committee was there when the Republicans impeached Clinton against the will of the public for a non-impeachable offense and still won both houses of Congress and the White House.

When the Democrats held back from impeachment during Iran Contra, they lost the next elections. When the Democrats led the effort to investigate and impeach Nixon, they won big in the next election, even though Ford was running as an incumbent. When the Republicans tried to impeach Truman, they got what they wanted out of the Supreme Court and then won the next elections. Articles of impeachment have been filed against 10 presidents, usually by Republicans, and usually with electoral success following. When the Republicans impeached Clinton, impeachment was actually unpopular with the public. Even so, the Republicans lost far fewer seats than is the norm for a majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they lost seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their strength in the House, with representatives who had led the impeachment charge winning big.

Parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election. In fact, they frequently improve their position -- as evidenced by the Democrats in 1974, Republicans in 1952, and all the way back to the Whigs of last century. In every election back to 1842 where House members of an opposition party to a sitting president have -- as a whole or a significant caucus within the party -- proposed impeachment of the president, that opposition party retained or improved its position in the House at the following election. There is no instance of voters responding to a significant impeachment effort by sweeping its advocates out of office. In fact, history points in a different direction, suggesting that voters frequently reward parties for taking the Constitution and the rule of law seriously.

And we wouldn't wait until the next election to reward members of Congress who put impeachment back in the Constitution. The minute Pelosi or Conyers or Nadler opens the door to impeachment hearings, every activist organization in this country and around the world that works on behalf of peace or justice or the rule of law will flood them with flowers, donations, volunteers, and support.

[ripped from here]

by JustHisWordsdotcom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:27:53 AM

  (0+)

This time there is a corporate media that did not exist in the other instances. If i thought the media would tell the truth, i would agree. You speak in contexts that no longer exist.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 3:42:04 PM

  (0+)

Should never be allowed not to pay for their crimes.

I would hate to see Bush and Cheney living in the lap of luxury from all the money they have made from their crimes.  While it may be to late for Impeachment now these two must not get out of office and allowed to live happily ever after in Dubai.

by Linda (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:07:36 AM

  (0+)

My understanding was that they expect to move to Paraguay.

by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:34:50 AM

  (0+)

I would hate it too. Loo, i said at the beginning i support impeachment. I just think that people are not considering the timing. You can say cute things like "playing politics" but thats the reality of the situation. You can claim that the constitution is more important and i agree, but unfortunately they do not.

Does anyone honestly believe they will be convicted??? Seriously?

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 3:44:25 PM

  (0+)

Like Barack Obama, you have no reason to carry personal grudges over Watergate, In your study of history during the last half of the 20th Cent. you probably came to realize that the draft is not at play this time around, although the false call to arms from the government still exists.

I'm glad to see that you care what happens in Iraq and the terrible war which woke up most of the American public to reality of something wrong in Washington D.C. It's as simple as the fact that the President believes he has unlimited power and that if he scares us badly enough, we'll lay down and roll over.

Please read John Nichols' book called The Genius of Impeachment. There shouldn't be a trial to send anyone to permanent exile. As a matter of fact, if a careful committee investigation is carried out, it is likely there will be no need to go to "trying" Bush/Cheney et al for high crimes and misdemeanors. Already some of their operatives have slunk away. It could be a process which was orchestrated over Richard Nixon's imperial presidency issues. This time is simpler, because we already have so many smoking guns. It will be hard to determine which to name first.

Think of this--which Nichols makes a central argument in the current crisis--if we let George W. Bush ride back Crawford without letting him know he had some matters deadwrong, the next President (regardless of who) will have a lot of dying issues to grapple with before he/she can get down to important needs in 2009.

by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1852 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:24:16 AM

  (0+)

This is a diffcult issue.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 3:45:43 PM

  (0+)

force the media to report the truth for a change. They may not be able to finish the impeachment but they can hold the hearings and bring out the evidence. Perhaps the evidence can be used at a later date for war crimes againts Bush, Chaney and others in the administration.

by tginmn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:40:30 AM

  (0+)

WE know the truth but the truth becomes a malleable property in the hands of a media that will not support the impeachment. Alot of what we know still has to be proven in court and remember, it is ultimately up to two corrupt parties to convict. I simply do not believe that will ever happen.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 3:52:05 PM

  (0+)

that if the threat of impeachment is even breathed at this point, Bush declares martial law and is forever (and I mean that literally) secure in his power.

by Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:48:54 AM

  (0+)

The Congress doesn't have the huevos to press for impeachment.  They've caved on every important issue except maybe FISA, and they just let that expire.  The crux of the matter is not impeachment, it is criminal prosecution, and it goes far beyond Bush & Cheney.

However, we have an Attorney General, approved by our Congress, who can't even decide on a definition of torture that could be easily defined by a group of grade schoolers!  

Don't hold your breath, folks! 

by Angelo (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 209 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 12:30:26 PM

  (0+)

Bush and Cheney are MURDERERS.

Let that word sink in...MUR-DER-ERS!!!

They KILLED hundreds of thousands of people.  

And some of you think it's ok to let them go? That's sickening. What is wrong with you people? Are politcis and partisanship MORE IMPORTANT than LIVES?

We can't bring them back from the dead, but we can surely hold the responsible parties accountable and right this country.

If Bush/Cheney walked over and SHOT YOUR CHILD DEAD - just because, you would be ok with that?

My God, the damage they have done to this country's psyche is inconceivable. 

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 12:36:11 PM

  (0+)

And some of you think it's ok to let them go? That's sickening. What is wrong with you people?

Do me a favor, go lecture someone else. As i have said, i have been speaking out against this admin for alot longer than i remember you being around and so opinionated. I do not think it is ok to let them go but you are delusional if you think that impeachment will be successful. It will not. And in the interim, you open the door for four more years of MURDER and deaths of hundreds of thousands of more people. You can be principled and intelligent at the same time.  

Are politcis and partisanship MORE IMPORTANT than LIVES?

If you truly understood, you would see what I am talking about is saving more lives, in your zeal for what is right, you could open that door for four more years of death.

If Bush/Cheney walked over and SHOT YOUR CHILD DEAD - just because, you would be ok with that?

Silly analogy, and beneath the discussion

My God, the damage they have done to this country's psyche is inconceivable. 

Yes, so start using your brain to realize what you advocate and how it could contribute to more death.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 3:58:12 PM

  (0+)

Anthony I know you are wrong in your conclusions. This is the kind of stuff that makes Democracy a farce. Why in the world would any other country want these same troubles? They simply don't. And America can not rule the world. They may have power, but there are a mulitude of countries that have more. Given Iraq and the troubles the USA has with it, and we know it had no WMD, gives you a clue to those who do have those weapons, makes those countries no fools to the American Lies and its Fraud about Democracy. They will fight.  America has become so foolish and brazen that people across the world will eventually get rid of it. Think of it like this Anthony.... You have to go the bathroom so bad, but you can't ...you don't want to because you are driving or there is no place to go. You are left with great pains and anguish, but the corruption must be expelled....if not you will die. So you end up what? Yes crapping your pants.... So.. that is what is building in America's History Annals, the corruption will be expelled. There is no other choice or it dies.

Of course Impeachment is a fight for Justice. That's what we fight for, truth, accountability, and moral conviction. We can not lose the fight, the USA has been going deeper and deeper into hell since Harry Truman, and all the Presidents including Harry were liars, and candidates for Impeachment. Our System failed to bring justice. That is the American PROBLEM....THE INABILITY TO IMPEACH. So we keep falling deeper and pushing the envelope toward how can we get away with this?

There will be bloodshed I know it. There will be a fight I know it. And in the end the corruption will die. It can not go on, because it has reached it's moment in time. Call it destiny....that's what it is..

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 7:37:58 AM

  (0+)

Every time i wrote about someone speaking outside the system, Ron Paul, i was greeted with derision. We are stuck in reality now with Mccain and Obama. You can wax philosophical all you want about the evil that is Obama because he wont support your impeachment but to pretend he would be 100% better than McCain is simply beyond short sighted.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 6:36:32 PM

  (0+)

What reality Wade? We are the fish being fed crumbs, still prisoners in the bowl of corruption. Obama or McCain? Both liars, both war hawks, both anti-impeachment.  There will be a day when suicide bombs occur in the USA.

We think these little school rampages are a nuisance.  Our inabilty to bring justice for War crimes committed by leaders in power is the powder keg waiting to blow.

All the money in the world with military and possible Marshall Law, will lock down america for a very long time, and they will be unable to stop the fight for justice. No Impeachment to bring justice to the innocent, I am afraid the worse for the future. 

Obama and McCain simply carry the torch for that powder keg of destruction.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 7:25:58 PM

  (0+)

OF COURSE!!! Now, that we all agree that the 2 party system is broken and a cncer, can we please get back to REALITY. The reality is that Obama would be infinitely better than McCain and until you realize that, you are simply delusional.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:31:20 PM

  (0+)

I have to strenuously disagree. It is orders of magnitude more important to impeach than to make sure that another big government worshiping person (this time with a “D” by his/her name) wins the White House.

Had the democrats not failed the country in the Clinton impeachment trial and had Clinton been removed from office, I can assure you that Bush and Cheney would not have been so brazen and contemptuous towards congress and the constitution.

We must take the long view of our republic.

by M. Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 12:43:41 PM

  (0+)

of Cheney and Bush would be the first step in the impeachment process.  This is the best and most important part of impeachment.  As a former commenter on this article has already said, it will bring the illegal behavior of the Cheney/Bush duo factually to the public.  

Headlines saying "Bush, Cheney, Rice, lied and lied to get their Occupation of Iraq on" and is substantiated legally in the House of Representatives, this would be beautiful to me.

by zephyr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 74 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 12:46:34 PM

  (0+)

However, how will it be reported? You have already seen how the other side argues against the "they lied us into war" line. They will point to the "intelligence" and how the dems believed it too. You cannot prove intent, or at best it will be very difficult. Remember the Downing Street memos??? anyone??? that was cold hard proof that was dismissed out of hand!!

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 4:05:48 PM

  (0+)

As much a propaganda tool of the right the corporate media has become, I believe even it could not resist the lure of televising a Bush/Cheney impeachment hearing.   The mood of this country is becoming ugly.  I say let's focus its destructive energy on this criminal administration.  Let the chips fall where they may. 

by via (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 1:40:42 PM

  (0+)

I can appreciate that opposite opinion. Maybe the way i see it play out will not happen. Maybe the end result is worth what is "right".

I truly do not know, i am merely presenting the other side and what could happen.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 4:08:10 PM

  (0+)

The question is irrelevant with regard to this issue of to impeach or not impeach.  Impeachment is a tool that is essential to ensure  accountability and the rule of law in this country.  It is critical to use it to maintain that rule of law should ANYONE break it, period.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 1:43:53 PM

  (0+)

That's the biggest problem I see with impeachment right now, that it has been allowed to become such a partisan issue, when law enforcement (which this is, in my opinion) should never be a partisan issue. While it is a partisan issue, the current state of Congress, with barely a majority for Democrats in the Senate and not anywhere near a 2/3 agreement possible, impeachment looks as if it would stall.

I don't think Americans should be content with that, though.

Everyone in Congress, in every party needs to be challenged by the people they represent to look at the facts objectively and hold people accountable for their actions.

Otherwise we've lost our country already, and the only priority is to get it back.

by SpiritBlooms (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 55 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 2:19:35 PM

  (0+)

But theory will not play out that way. In the end, the dems will protect the GOP and vice versa.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 4:09:14 PM

  (0+)

Then we've lost our country already, and the only priority is to get it back.

by SpiritBlooms (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 55 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 4:33:17 PM

  (0+)

Here's a short list: 

Sustained, deliberate deception of the US public and Congress to achieve "consensus" for pre-meditated wars and militaristic agenda--OK

Pre-emptive wars of aggression against nations that pose no demonstrable threat, resulting in 1M+ deaths--OK

Disastrously expensive, prolonged military occupations of those nations for purposes of "stability" and resource "security"--OK

Indefinite secret detention and torture of anyone declared an "enemy combatant" as official US policy--OK

Wholesale "legal" spying on US public, including various violations of the 4th Amendment, in the name of "national security"--OK

Brazen refusal to honor Congressional subpeonas--OK

Demand impeachment of the current Executive criminals or forever shut up about any future abuses of your Constitution or your person authorized by the "Commander in Chief".

 It's that simple.

by Michael Fury (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 2:28:39 PM

  (0+)

Self-styled progressives can't tell the political forest from their own ideological trees. Instead of the chance to end the two current wars, stop one in Iran before McCain gets a chance to start it, save a womans right to abortion, get back our civil rights, restore the Constitution, close Gitmo, stop government sponsored torture, raise the minimum wage, extend health coverage to millions of the uninsured (all of which benefits the working class), self-styled progressives would rather express their political vanity by voting for a Nader, Kucinich, McFadden or Donald Duck (that's the same as supporting McCain, one less vote the Republicans have to offset to win). The call  for impeachment supports McCain as well because it takes time, energy and money away from the goal of removing the Republicans from power. Real progressives support the working class first and foremost. Self-righteous clammering for impeachment in Feb. 2008 doesn't. The outrage we all share is no excuse for aiding the Republicans. This is a capitalist two-party political system, not some pure, hollier than thou exercise where truth and decency prevails and right and justice win out in the end as the TV screen fades to black. There are only two choices from now until  November 2008: either indulge your political vanity and thereby help elect McCain, or suck it up, go register working class people to vote and then turn them out to defeat the war criminals in power. In the words of an old trade union organizing song, "Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on."

by James Cordray (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 56 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 3:15:11 PM

  (0+)

That was kinda the point.

Look, i knew this would be the reaction. You can state that you do not believe it will play out the way i think it will. You can say that who cares how it plays out, impeachment is more important than another four years of war and death. Just please, stop trying to lecture me about stuff I have written about for over five years now. I have spoken out against the abuses of the administration for a long long time now. I KNOW they deserve to be impeached, I said so. It seems that everyone is so wrapped up in their version of the flag that they have lost the bigger picture. There are real lives at stake folks.

The point NO ONE addressed is the likely result of impeachment; which is that nothing will happen in the end. John Kerry walked away from blatant voter fraud in 2004 because he still got to go back and be a millionaire senator. The 2 party system ultimately protects the two parties, not your interest or the interest of the constitution. Most of the alleged offenses come down to opinion or at the least easily refuted. Now, you and I can see through the BS but the majority of the sheep in this country will not because they will still be fed by the corporate media machine, period.

Sorry I had to bring this up but I do not want to get to january 2009 and watch John McCain be sworn in and have all the progressives whine about how we got here. We get there by being short -sighted. I am just trying to present how it is likely to play out. Be well and stay informed.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 4:18:08 PM

  (0+)

"The call for impeachment supports McCain as well because it takes time, energy and money away from the goal of removing the Republicans from power."

That's like saying that while the sheriff is running for office, the law can't be enforced. That's absurd. Gaining traction for populist issues and electing a new President aren't the same process as impeaching the sitting President. They're energized from different sources. The only issue with timing, in this case, is whether a 2/3 majority in the Senate will happen by the end of this election year. Because of that I can see delaying a few months. Or maybe you're talking about Congress people running for reelection at the same time they're working on impeachment. Well, Dennis Kucinich is expected to do his job while he campaigns. Why not all of them? But, okay, give them a few months too. That doesn't mean the people -- you and I -- shouldn't still push for impeachment in the meantime. Because if we drop the ball now, I can almost guarantee it will never happen.

The only apparent distraction I can see, not related to timing, might come from our controlled mainstream media run by capitalist, greedy people who want to maintain the status quo. So what else is new? They're already distracting everyone from what's important. I don't see how impeachment would change that, especially if they continue to be as lax in covering it as they have been in covering the push for it so far. Most people know more about Paris Hilton than about the articles of impeachment against Cheney. Sometimes I'm amazed the mainstream media lets us elect anyone new. Oh, wait a minute, they don't. Dennis Kucinich was shut out by them so effectively that most Americans have no idea who he is beyond something to do with UFOs, while they remain ignorant of his push for impeachment and an end to the Iraq War. They remain ignorant that he wanted to take power from corporations and get us off our dependence on insurance companies for decent health care, while the top two candidates, heavily financed by corporate interests, give those issues only a little lip service.

"Real progressives support the working class first and foremost. Self-righteous clamoring for impeachment in Feb. 2008 doesn't."

What real progressives do you see ignoring impeachment as an option? Since when does it help the people to let the separation of powers become more and more eroded? It does help the next President to inherit lots of control he or she shouldn't have. But it doesn't help the people. If it's self-righteous to want justice in this country, or to believe in the Constitution, then I'm holier than thou and proud to be.

I notice that while the Republicans are running for office, the President is going ahead with his war and his lies. No distraction there. Are you saying that Progressives aren't as capable of multi-tasking?

I also question how the people are helped by electing a Democratic candidate who looks, sounds, and acts just like the Republican candidate in not wanting to hold those in power accountable for their actions. It's time for the people to run this country again, instead of letting a bunch of corporate shills do so. Then and only then will we see all those other populist issues take any priority other than lip service.

by SpiritBlooms (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 55 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 4:51:07 PM

  (0+)

The people will not multi task, that is the point. You can talk about what is right until you are blue in the face but i still do not see how anyone has refuted:

1) The impeachment will not result in a conviction, so you win nothing in the end.

2) The impeachment only helps McCain.

It is a self-righteous stand, and it is two years too late, hell it is four years too late. If Downing Street couldn't do it, nothing will. I am just saying that it can be very short sighted and if we go down the road, i will support it but if it plays out the way i think it will, we will look back with deep regret for not seeing the forest for the trees.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 6:20:29 PM

  (0+)

Anthony, you misconceive the way the impeachment will work, as most people do. The process starts with hearings-- The people the house has subpoenaed who refused, based on executive privilege, to testify, will be forced to testify.

 The mainstream media will be unable to resist covering the testimony. IT's hot news. They will trip over each other to get the feeds. They may try to spin the testimony, but it will come out. Witnesses will give evidence of crimes, of treason, of lies... The beast that is the media will be unable to stop itself from showing the testimony, discussing the evidence. Chris Matthews will have to talk about the testimony, not just about the hearings. 

It is VERY unlikely that hearings will ever lead to articles of impeachment, let alone a trial in the senate. The senate hearings will never happen. BUt the public will be blanketed with reports of testimony documenting corruption and criminality. We know it will work that way because we saw it happen with Gonzales. WE SAW THAT THE MEDIA COULDN"T BLOCK IT!!

So, bottom line, you're basic assumptions are wrong. We can still do this and it will HELP get the right wing out of the whitehouse. 

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 7:44:52 PM

  (0+)

I was wondering when you would weigh in. I respect your opinion but you end up agreeing me partially. You agree that it will not result in impeachment, meaning you are doing it soley to have the debate over testimony. Great. I think that distraction ONLY helps McCain and ONLY hurts Obama. You cannot seriosuly think that the enormous distraction would not help McCain, cmon. Instead of the election, it will be impeachment 24-7 and that only helps Obama.

Good luck with it, and i mean it. I would love to see them pay for what they did but like you say, that probably woill not happen. Then for what do we do it? It will not heal the constitution, and it will only hurt on the election, my opinion of course.

I am almost sorry i brought it up. To have people with a handful of articles or just a few comments coming in here and lecturing me when I was calling for impeachment before and after downing street, was quite disappionting since it missed the POINT. People do not want an intelligent discussion i guess. They want to pound their fist on the pdium and scream "I am right!"

As long as being right doesnt end up screwing you in the end, jeesh.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 6:44:03 PM

  (0+)

Last line of the first paragraph there shoudl read "hurts" Obama, not helps

my bad

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 6:45:35 PM

  (0+)

Your point is silly, Wade. Stop worrying about the Media and let's MAKE the "news"!

The WAR (Occupation) it's false reasons, the Economy stripped by the "War", -ALL are intrinsically connected to the IMPEACHMENT issue, and only impeachment will finally link what the Bootlicking Media refuses to connect! 

Then, If it DOES become a "partisan issue ", we'll know which party to vote for, won't we?

Otherwise, what's to keep the NEXT prez from USING and further abusing the POWER left to them by these crooks!?

Let's get our PRIORITIES straight, please!

by Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:52:55 AM

  (0+)

I dont think I know you, so if you please, call me Anthony or Mr. Wade, but not "wade".

Secondly, i understand the zeal but you have to be smart. It is SILLY to think you can blindly impeach and not even consider the effect it would have on the election. I am sorry, not silly, but STUPID.

I have my priorities straight. I do not want to see another 100,000 dead because we took our eye off the ball.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:29:25 PM

  (0+)

The number one priority this year has to be eliminating the stranglehold the GOP has held on the executive branch of government for the past eight years.

If you want future elections and the bill of rights to mean anything the number one priority has got to be the reestablishment of the rule of law and the repudiation of the precedents of the Bush administration.

The real danger in failing to repudiate the unitary executive theory is that you leave the Presidency as a standing office for unchecked tyranny. People claiming to be democrats are capable of being bribed and of becoming tyrants too.

President Bill Clinton should have been impeached. That he wasn't left the American citizen weaker. The American citizen should not have tolerated the white house being used as a sexual prop - not because sex is dirty but because its not important enough to be a white house activity and because Presidents should not be using their power selfishly. Bill Clinton abused the trust of the people that elected him and that the people let him do that gave a good indication that the people were willing to tolerate more disrespect aimed at them by future Presidents.

Clinton disrespected the office of the President and in so doing disrespected the American citizen.

Bush is merely the most serious and eggregious overreacher and disrespecter of the US citizen. Disrespect of the US citizen has become bipartisan. The rising rot in the American presidency goes back at least as far as Reagan and Nicaragua and has been getting steadily worse because the people, the citizens, have been getting dumber and more willing to let their laws and themselves be disrespected.

Politicians take oaths to the constitution which are really oaths to the people and the people are now routinely tolerating breaches of those oaths. You cannot have a government of the people by the people for the people without the people being willing to shoulder some share in upholding their own rights.

Impeachment is the last chance for the people to stand up for themselves. If they don't do that no politician become President of either party is going to respect them.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 4:21:10 PM

  (0+)

But the Clinton impeachment should be a sobering reminder of what will happen again. Just because we want to hold Bush accountable, does not mean they will. That is the point.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 4:44:24 PM

  (0+)

You seem to be saying its more dangerous to have a Republican President John McCain perhaps as a result of a failed impeachment then it is to have a Democratic President Obama or Clinton without either of those Presidents having had to see that Americans wanted their oaths of office to mean something.

I am not American. I don't put the national interest of America as my highest priority. I put the broader human interests at the top. An America that tries to impeach and fails is an America that contains some redeeming value to the rest of humanity - it shows that it is a least willing to have a serious moral and legal conversation. An America that doesn't try to impeach on the other hand is virtually a writeoff and a rising threat like 1930's Germany was a rising threat.

From where I sit there is no chance that a President Obama or Clinton will have any diplomatic credibility in the world that they cannot muster through threat of force because America will not be respected as a nation of laws in the world - unless impeachment occurs. I'm not saying that foreign leaders won't smile at them and shake their hand, I am saying that their people will actively distrust all American leaders and that distrust will manifest itself in the political leaders of other countries getting endorsed for hurting America.

Threat of force will be politically difficult for the next American President whoever he or she is because American domestic opinion is switching against the use of force and because the rest of the world is learning the limitations of American force.

America simply isn't strong enough to shape the whole world for very long by the use of military force uncoupled to any higher values. To the extent that America tries to without also demonstrating that it walks its talk on broader and largely shared human values America will just reignite another arms race.

A President Clinton or Obama can no more singlehandedly rebuild American values or respect for America in the world than could a President McCain. American values will be judged by what the American people as a whole do. At the moment it looks from the outside like torture and aggressive invasions are American values. And those regressive values (are sadly not uncommon amongst other peoples - humans of previous generations had to struggle hard to get beyond acting on them) but coupled with a strong military those values can make America the biggest terrorist in the world.

I think the rest of the world is willing to lose America more than it is willing to lose the rule of law. That I think is the real big picture.

Don't impeach Bush and McCain is very likely to be correct about looking forward to many more wars in the next 100 years. More than anything else it will be systemic American lawlessness coupled with its resistance to its loss of leadership that will bring about those wars.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 5:31:45 PM

  (0+)

I do not agree, lol. Once again, you speak in grand terms but not reality based. Of course a president obama could regain international credibility. The correct powers of the three branches could easily be restored with a dem executive and dem congress. Most countries would be happy just to have the neocons out of office.

The inherent problem in your argument is that it is better to engage in a fruitless impeachment, which could lead to at least 4 more years of bloodshed, then to be prudent.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 6:11:34 PM

  (0+)

credibility. 

How?

Without repudiating torture and aggressive invasion how do you imagine a President Obama could regain American credibility internationally?

You have treaties with the rest of the world against using torture and against aggressive invasions. You really think the rest of the world should or will just forgive and forget because one American decided to forgive another American for things he did to other non Americans? 

Why wouldn't you think the rest of the world would recognize that okay Americans are going to use torture and aggressive invasions whenever a President thinks it suits his political purposes now? Why wouldn't you think the world (or larger numbers of people in it) would not resent that and start to look to find ways to hurt America?

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 7:27:36 PM

  (0+)

Obama would not use torture or invasion as foreign policy. he would seek to reverse the Bush trend and that would satiate alot of people int he world, who while may dislike us, need us for the global economy.

You make it sound as if Obama would continue to invade and occupy as well as torture. If that were the case, then i would agree to go ahead with impeachment because it wouldnt matter if it was mccain or obama.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 7:54:19 PM

  (0+)

The rule of law, unlike the rule of the jungle, is not self enforcing. The rule of law requires accountability and the application of justice.  And because they are man made laws men (and women) must uphold them.

Obama took an oath to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies.  He cannot be a Pollyanna without failing in his duty as a Constitutional defender. Sometimes one has to be a prosecutor in order to have justice. 

Torturers and aggressive invaders are breakers of both international law and the supreme law of the United States incorporated through ratified treaties.  

If you don't prosecute the guilty then their victums don't see justice.  When humans feel themselves unjustly treated they look to appeal. When appeals fail they take matters into their own hands. Americans cannot deny their failure to uphold justice when the whole world is a witness to it. That is how terrorism, in desparation, arises.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:16:13 PM

  (0+)

Anthony I know you are wrong in your conclusions. This is the kind of stuff that makes Democracy a farce. Why in the world would any other country want these same troubles? They simply don't. And America can not rule the world. They may have power, but there are a mulitude of countries that have more. Given Iraq and the troubles the USA has with it, and we know it had no WMD, gives you a clue to those who do have those weapons, makes those countries no fools to the American Lies and its Fraud about Democracy. They will fight.  America has become so foolish and brazen that people across the world will eventually get rid of it. Think of it like this Anthony.... You have to go the bathroom so bad, but you can't ...you don't want to because you are driving or there is no place to go. You are left with great pains and anguish, but the corruption must be expelled....if not you will die. So you end up what? Yes crapping your pants.... So.. that is what is building in America's History Annals, the corruption will be expelled. There is no other choice or it dies.

Of course Impeachment is a fight for Justice. That's what we fight for, truth, accountability, and moral conviction. We can not lose the fight, the USA has been going deeper and deeper into hell since Harry Truman, and all the Presidents including Harry were liars, and candidates for Impeachment. Our System failed to bring justice. That is the American PROBLEM....THE INABILITY TO IMPEACH. So we keep falling deeper and pushing the envelope toward how can we get away with this?

There will be bloodshed I know it. There will be a fight I know it. And in the end the corruption will die. It can not go on, because it has reached it's moment in time. Call it destiny....that's what it is..

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 7:28:16 AM

  (0+)

I was responding to YOU. YOU brought up torture and war. You do not get to move the goal posts because i poked holes in your theory.

NO CANDIDATE is advocating impeachment. So amidst your zeal, is still important who gets elected?

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 6:48:42 PM

  (0+)

who gets elected. Without impeachment none of the candidates are being bold enough or serious enough about repairing the damage to confidence.

I find it absurd that so called America progressives can be so narrow minded and parochial as to talk about health care and abortion rights and no child left behind. Those things may be worthwhile discussion points in normal times but they are ridiculous luxuries in a world where aggressive invasions are being allowed to become the norm.

You talk about 4 more years of war as if that is a terrible thing. But I don't think you can possibly understand what Bush has done by claiming the right to invade countries against the UN Charter which is a part of US supreme law. I don't think you understand that Bush has effectively broken humankinds peace treaty which was put together by the warleaders FDR, Truman and Churchhill.

ONLY 4 more years of war is almost ridiculously optimistic and rosy coloured glasses stuff unless the illegal invasion of Iraq and the doctrine of preemption are repudiated.

What you don't seem to realise is that the world cares deeply about things like aggressive invasions not being launched. When the world sees that its imperialism season again the world will rearm and get ready to fight America. And not necessarily in the symmetric way that would suit existing American forces. 

When the people of the world who don't vote in US elections see that the United States is torturing they don't think horray for the United States in rounding up the terrorists they think the United States is becoming a terrorist state.

That Obama and Clinton and even Republican McCain can be running for Presidency without being constantly asked about impeachment and Americas position on war crimes and torture and as swag of other very serious issues just shows how far removed from reality - how delusionally separated and isolated from the rest of the world, Americans are.

For you to think that the world will welcome back America out of relief that Obama isn't Bush is naive in the extreme.

The principle thing of importance is not that America is having a Presidential election it is that America is not bringing its local scoundrels to account for breaking humanities most serious laws. You whole country is being watched and judged by billions of foreigners. More and more of those foreigners are asking themselves is terrorism wrong when it is used against the people who allow their leaders to torturers and aggressive invade.

You say I am unrealistic and speak in grand terms. But Constitutions and United Nations Charters are necessarily grand because they have to satisfy so many stakeholders. I think it is you that is unrealistic if you think that the rest of the world (some of the billions of individuals and some of their organisations and governments) are not going to come looking for payback.

I have not been personally or directly harmed but I would not welcome Obama or Clinton or McCain merely because they were not Bush - indeed I would regard them, insofar as they do not EFFECTIVELY PARTICIPATE in repudiating Bush's precedents as sharing responsibility for the undermining of the rule of law.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 5:48:14 PM

  (0+)

If you think it really doesnt matter who is president, then we have discovered your problem. You would prefer to pursue a worthless impeachment, that Rob himself admits will not result in any conviction, then worry about who the next president is.

I am very concnered about another 100,000 people dead, maybe you arent, but I sure am.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:26:43 PM

  (0+)

compared to the numbers of fatalities I expect to come about as a result of breaking the UN Charter's prohibition on aggressive invasions and as a result of "we the people" NOT repudiating the President for his doing so.  

And I mean no disrespect to yourself whom I take to be genuine and thoughtful (but still profoundly mistaken in your priorities and assessment of the big strategic picture) when I say, (as a non-American that can't and won't be voting anyway), that the real problem I see is the lesser-evil type thinking that folks like you are applying on what is actually too small a scale.

I simply can't see Obama or Clinton or any other President making Democracy work according to "instructions" if the Bush presidency is not robustly and comprehensively repudiated for its own robust and comprehensive repudiation of the normal standards and of the rule of law. I think you are underestimating the adverse response of the rest of the world to precedents going unrepudiated via impeachment.

The difference between us I think is that you think I am looking at the smaller picture and I think that you are. I will see a failure to impeach Bush as a systemic failure of the world's most sophisticated democracy. I will be as if impeachment is not in the Constitution going forward. It will be as if Americans to the citizen (on average) are accepting that torture and illegal invasion and domestic spying and the suspension of habeus corpus are just part of what is to be expected from future presidents. (In essence Americans are forgoing rights of citizenship which they are unlikely to get back). And I have little doubt that future presidents, responding to the pressures of their job as well as to their own human nature, will be more than willing to use the powers that the Bush presidency has usurped.

You and I are running out of typing space here. Perhaps I will have to develop my argument(s) elsewhere.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Friday, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:33:17 AM

  (0+)

AMEN.....Anyone who thinks that filling the House with Democrats would be a cure-all for this nation's problems hasn't been paying attention.  Remember all the high hopes back in November 2006?  The fact that we are still debating about the efficacy of impeachment, plus the fact that this damned (FULLY FUNDED!) Iraq War is still going strong, plus the fact that the recent vote in the Senate on stripping the telecoms--and, by extension, Bush--of any kind of immunity for their crimes could garner only 31 votes, convinces me that although we can always count on the Republicans to do BAD, we should never count on the Democrats to do GOOD! [QED]

by Bill Tower (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:47:31 PM

  (0+)

The Clinton Impeachment was a ridiculous farce that never should have happened. There is not even any COMPARISON to the CRIMES now being committed by THIS administration...against ALL of us and our cherished Constitution!

The rest of the world was laughing at us, as surely as they are now laughing at us and despising us for letting an imbecile become our DICTATOR!

Like I said, let's FINALLY! get our Priorities straight!

by Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:00:32 AM

  (0+)

Don't live in fear of right wing spin. Sure, hearings will initially play like Bush is being persecuted - it's the neo-con specialty to monger hate and fear and manipulate media to puppeteer you. But that would die out the instant evidence of wrongdoing was made public. I'd take that bet because enough evidence of violations is already out - hence the neo-cons trying to retroactively change the laws! 

Showing the public irrefutable proof that the war was fudged and corruption ran rampant through the Bush/Cheney administration would be more effective in advancing a progressive agenda then turning a blind eye to crime on our watch. If we don't insist on lawfulness, we are no only complicit, but we are emboldening criminal politicians.

Even if it doesn't happen in time, the message for future generations should be that we saw crimes, we voted, and fixed the problem, signaling to future Presidents that we don't tolerate corruption. And we shouldn't.

Don't let the bad guys loot the treasury for another year, hide their tracks, pardon everybody and fade out of the picture to regroup later. At the end of the Reagan administration we all just let it slide that they sold drugs, laundered money and illegally armed militias, accepting lame excuses and lies because their term was ending anyway. 

The bad guys come back when you don't put them in jail. This is why they're baaaack....

by Gustav Wynn (77 articles, 65 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 421 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 5:04:42 PM

  (0+)

They will get pardoned anyway, or in all liklihood never be convicted. It will send no message whatsoever. As for your legal analysis, it simply doesnt hold water. What you think are slam dunks, are far from guranteed and what you think is a possibility has already been dismissed. You really are underestimating the power that corporater media has on this country.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 6:14:46 PM

  (0+)

So what if they're pardoned anyway?

If I witness a murder and I don't report it or testify about it, if the police don't investigate, if the DA doesn't prosecute the killer, we're all wrong.

If we do the right thing, and the killer is acquitted or pardoned, does that mean we shouldn't have done anything? No. Not doing anything is wrong.

There's not really any gray area here, Anthony. People can try to paint it gray all they want, but impeachment will still be the right thing to do, now that all the questions and the evidence have been raised.

by SpiritBlooms (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 55 comments) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:50:36 PM

  (0+)

Try to keep up. Now, go back and read what i was responding to, then you will have CONTEXT, to understand why i was speaking about pardons. Otherwise you just look like you are respondign blindly.

As for what is right, you need to go back and read my first 200 articles, then once again, you will have CONTEXT. This was meant to generate a discussion about progressive strategy. You go ahead and impeach blindly, and we will see where the chips fall. And when your kids are dying in Iran in 2011, you will maybe finally understand.

be well.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 6:51:45 PM

  (0+)

I shouldn't need your entire resume in order to put this article in context. If you had bothered to read my other comments, you would know I'm not suggesting we impeach blindly.

Lying down and taking what this administration has done is wrong, not just wrong ethically, but wrong strategically. It sends the message that what was done is fine with the American people, and that makes us all complicit in what was done.  I refuse to have these things done in my name, so for me impeachment is the right thing to do. The only question is a matter of timing.

I agree that it's entirely possible an actual impeachment now isn't perfect strategy.

But even so I don't think progressives should meekly back down and stop discussing it. We must insist that it stay on the table, because if we back down, it will be forgotten.

It's clear this discussion is over, though, and I have other work to do. Good luck to you.

by SpiritBlooms (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 55 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 4:32:40 PM

  (0+)

How about Impeaching them all the day after the Election results are in...and while they are still in office?

Al Feldstein

Retird Editor: MAD Magazine

by afeldstein (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 5 comments) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 5:10:42 PM

  (0+)

That is all I am saying, use some wisdom. The reason the neocons have won so much is they are so calculating while their opponents are predictable. Bush and Cheney are running for nothing.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 6:16:08 PM

  (0+)

Mr. Wade

I will agree with you when you assure me ,as you are  certain that impeachment will fail,that there won't be a small nuclear devise set off in a small city say like San Francisco, with seeming Iranian fingerprints all over  it, as portrayed by the present administration. That happens and Mc Cain, the true defender,will win hands down with a congressional republican majority, You know what I'm referring to ,an October surprise of such magnitude that the American public rallies around the Republicans and leaves your dreams of a Democratic President and congress in the dust. Of course President Bush will be validated as visionary. You have to accept this as part of your premise,no? As I've stated before this here's for all the marbles.

by tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 255 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 7:10:05 PM

  (0+)

Another false flag is always possible.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 7:55:43 PM

  (0+)

I beleive the Bush Cabal has NO intention of having elections later this year.

If we don't IMPEACH NOW, and keep these miscreants too busy to create their next "Catastrophic Success" (Bush's own words) they will have whatever way they want with us.

There are eyewitness reports of a "De-commissioned" military camp in Northern Maine, too, near the Canadian border, stumbled upon by some hikers, who noticed that the barbed wire was turned INWARDS!

An eirily-accurate analogy to what has happened to our Freedoms, I think!

Mr Wade, you need to go down-thread and read about the concentration camps if you want to know why Impeachment is ESSENTIAL.

Being from post-Holocaust Germany, I think I know whereof I speak!

by Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:02:03 AM

  (0+)

Odd, how your Filtering "service" would not allow me to say

"Post-Nazi" Germany, but saying "Post-Holocaust Germany is OK?

"Hurtful"? to what, the Truth?  

by Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:04:47 AM

  (0+)

Mr. Fury,  Thank you for your excellent list that may become precedent under our present political process.

Mr. Wade,  I fear these precedents, and other actions that have been established in the last 28 years.  Impeachment would bebunk some of the Cheney/Bush violations.  Perhaps "via" is correct that the corporate media might suddenly embrace the impeachment procedures: advertising dollars are also big incentives for the media bottom line.

Washington insiders, both Republican and Democrat,  support the power precedents have slithered  into our governance.  The insiders should be denied those powers, and learn from the warning impeachment would convey: Presidents, Vice Presidents, Senators, Representatives and administrative officials are not above the law of our Constitution.  (Stirring up the neocon base might not be worth it.)

I still strongly support IMPEACHMENT!

by Toby Touby (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 at 7:41:37 PM

  (0+)

Mr. Wade, you are exhibiting the fundamental impotence of liberalism that is always afraid to do anything because of all the terrible results that you imagine MIGHT happen as a consequence.  The "wisdom" of the liberal is to always caution against fighting because the other side MAY retaliate by making matters even worse for us.

The reason the Republicans lost the Congressional elections after impeaching Clinton is because they impeached on the basis of Clinton's pesonal sexual behavior which was dwarfed in importance by the political issues at stake.  Fortunately the majority of Americans realized this and massively repudiated the Republicans in the elections.  Unfortunately, they were not stupid enough to try to string impeachment out to the 2000 elections and be really repudiated in the 2000 elections.

The Republicans "won" in 2000 because the Supreme Injustices carried out what was no different than a military coup, ordered us to stop counting the ballots, and appointed Bush.  The voters who never elected the Republicans in 2000 were even more fed up with them by 2004.  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote a long article in SALON documenting the Republican theft of the 2004 elections.  They will have to conduct an even more massive theft of the elections in 2008 to avoid an even more massive route.

Another commenter alleged that people who voted for third parties were helping the Republicans in the same way that Mr. Wade alleged that impeachment would help the Republicans.  Those who wrote that it made no differance whether a Republican or a Democrat won in 2008 are right.  If we look at the last disastrous war the U.S. got bogged down in, Vietnam, we see that Kennedy increased the 750 "advisers" Eisenhower had in Vietnam to a few thousands.  Johnson increased American troops in Vietnam to half a million and the U.S. only realized the necessity of pulling out when they realized that even half a million was not enough.  At a debate on whether to support Eugene McCarthy or the Socialist Workers Party candidate for President in 1968, a Democrat told of how he told a conservative, Republican friend, "You vote for Goldwater and within months we'll be in Vietnam!"  After the election, the Republican friend told him, "You were right.  I did vote for Goldwater and we are in Vietnam."

On the three most important issues confronting us, we see that electing a majorty of Democrats to Congress has done nothing for us.  Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table even before she became speaker.  Although the Democrats only need a majority of votes in one house to defeat a war appropriations bill, and not the two-thirds majority they claim they need, Democrats have continued to vote right along with Republicans to fund the war.  And since single payer with its savings of at least twenty percent is the only way to stop our escalating, out of control health care costs from getting even worse, the only course with any chance of success is to keep explaining single payer's necessity until the majority of Americans support it.  It only leaves the problem unsolved and growing worse to say, as Hiliary Clinton said, that the majority of Americans won't support it.

Since electing the Democrats to control of Congress has let to exactly zero movement on all three of the most important issues, the proponents of supporting Democrats as the lesser evil have not achieved enough with their allegedly realistic strategy to justify the time, effort and money they put into it.

Robert Halfhill

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 3:40:51 AM

  (0+)

I am not a liberal. I am a born again conservative, both fiscally and socially. I just believe in what is right. I also might add, that the article was designed to discuss something i think no one is considering, not necessarily advocating one path or another.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 6:25:46 PM

  (0+)

I KNEW it!

No liberal here, and certainly no Progressive .

Born again? Maybe you should have gotten it right the First TIME! 

by Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:07:42 AM

  (0+)

The one thing that I have not seen in all the comments is the reputation of America by not impeaching. Forget, for the moment all the leaders of other countries, who are a law unto themselves, just like Bush, but what about the people of the world, most of whom that use the internet, know all about this stuff, and wonder why the Americans are so stupid to put up with it, and also fear that the Americans will allow another war with Iran, Russia and China. Public opinion counts far more in other countries than in America. witness the pressure from below on the EU countries who are refusing to send more troops to Afghanistan. Its on the cards that this one issue will lead to the break up of NATO. What will Bush's replacement do to bully the EU to do its bidding? More and more, the people of the world are becoming aware of America's role in the subprime greed of bankers which is causing the world wide recession and the failure of banks. If business as usual is what is going to happen, (without impeachment) America will lose what little credibility it has left. Whereas, impeachment hearings will be avidly watched world wide, and no doubt with cheering, relieved crowds, glued to their TV's to see the outcome. If no impeachment, then the world's more informed people will just give up on America and the bullying of foreign leaders to do America's bidding will meet with more and more resistance as in Afghanistan's occupation. Even Canada is questioning what it is doing in Afghanistan. Nearly everyone I know, that has the time and inclination, is fed up with the American empire, torture, illegal wars for oil, and if there is another horror on American soil, false flag or not, there will not be the same sympathy shown on 911 - you will have deserved it. You cannot preemptively decimate and destroy a country for the oil barons, kill over one million Iraqis and just walk away from the consequences. Think about it.

by ibrahim turner (26 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 6:23:27 AM

  (0+)

Impeachment is a first step in a process. It will reveal to the sleeping masses of America the corruption and empire building of the elite Neocon cabal that is running America. It will give the neocons pause, or it might provoke them to go for broke with Iran. Can you guarantee that they will not attack Iran anyway?

Tony Blair has not got off scott free; the ongoing investigation into the stalled BAE corruption - it is going to the courts as we speak. It has been revealed that Blair was threatened by that Saudi prince of further terrorist attacks on London if he did not stop the investigation. They threatened to withhold any information about terrorist plans from Saudi terrorists! If Blair is indicted what effect do you think that will have on public opinion world wide about the incestuous UK and USA war mongering agreements?

Brown was the first out of the traps to say he would join with America on an attack on Iran. Why?

If you do not impeach, the neocons will feel safe and justified in implementing the next phase of their plan, (they wanted permission from Congress to attack 7 countries in 7 years, when they asked to attack Iraq!) think about that!

America desperately needs to clean up its act, starting with impeachment, bring all the filth into the light, clean out the neocons and for goodness sake, prevent Israel from dictating your foreign policy so completely.

by ibrahim turner (26 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 6:43:44 AM

  (0+)

Of course that is NOT how it will play out. THAT was the POINT.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 6:27:17 PM

  (0+)

Jim is absolutely correct. If we allow this administration to walk away from this atrocity completely without reprisal we send a message to the potential despots that will surely come in the future, if not next. Think about McCain in the Oval Office knowing he can most likely do whatever he wants because the document that is meant to protect America from men like him has been made useless. The very fact that nothing has been done about the criminal administration yet is a crime in and of it's self! Having knowledge of criminal activity and not doing what is necessary to stop or prosecute the offenders is a FELONY! That makes every member of congress and the senate that have turned the other cheek guilty in the eyes of the law because the creeps are still free men and women. It's a sad state of affairs when political appearances are trumping common sense and the point of law. It's time to stop all of this posturing and dilly dallying and do our constitutional duty, impeach the criminals and send the proper message to others who conspire to follow in their footsteps, and the world at large, that America is a nation that stands on the principals of truth and justice.

by Rick Mason (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:49:40 AM

  (0+)

Once again, I have said i agree they should be impeached for all the passionate response and reasons given in this thread. That doesnt mean that you do not approach it intelligently and project what will happen!!! You all are delusional if you think the media will go, "gosh darn it, look how evil they were!"

They CANT!!! They were part of it!! My God, wake up!

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 6:29:16 PM

  (0+)

I say, "IMPEACH now....and let the chips fall where they may!"  Anybody who votes against impeachment deserves to be replaced in the next election, anyway, whether s/he be a Republican OR a Democrat.  The biggest problem with almost ALL these political critters in Washington is that they refuse to do the Right Thing unless they think it will work to their own (personal and/or partisan) advantage.  That's one reason why all this Republican legislation gets passed EVEN when the Dems control one or both Houses.  These people are supposed to work in the People's interest.  If they don't, then they need to be replaced by people who will.

We've had more than enough "political calculation" from these gutless wonders....It's time for some "political leadership".  Impeaching these S.O.B.s in the White House would make for a good start

by Bill Tower (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 12:19:13 PM

  (0+)

the very people you correctly state as being corrupt are the very same people you will need to convict!!! What makes you think they will suddenly not be corrupt??

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 18, 2008 at 6:31:08 PM

  (0+)

...because they will have to recognize that it is in their own self(ish)-interests to convict Messrs. Bush & Cheney once everything comes to light in a public forum like impeachment hearings and the inevitable trial that will follow such exposure.  There's no "honor"--or blind loyalty--among these thieves...they will be quite happy to throw Bush/Cheney under the bus, rather than risk their own careers with the voters (who already are suffering 'buyers' remorse' over the Bush/Cheney 'product').

They'll be like ships leaving a sinking rat...and not a one of them will want to be the last to desert.

by Bill Tower (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 1:25:09 PM

  (0+)

The moral and political arguments against failing to impeach, which you agree with, Anthony, are powerful, and there's nothing the matter with bringing up a pragmatic demurer, but I think the pragmatic consideration is probably wrong. You are assuming that the media has final sway over the American people. The media promulgated the government account of 9-11 with passion. Rudy Giuliani, who expected to ride to universal adulation over 9-11, took a "spectacular nosedive." You are assuming that impeachment would never get to the Senate, and that if it really did, there would be no conviction. When Nancy Peolosi took the Speaker gavel, impeachment was off the table. Now, apparently, it is very close to being on the table. Do you think Dick Cheney's office papers would have burned up had he not been concerned about impeachment? Impeachment says something. Pragmatically, I hope you will agree it should go forward as far as we can make it go!

by MyTwoCents (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 1:28:01 PM

  (0+)

Anthony Wade sounds like John Conyers claiming he can't support it cause the corporate media would attack the effort and would help the Republicans win. The fact is it doesn't matter which party wins since both parties have the same agenda and have no interest in upholding the Constitution.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:00:01 PM

  (0+)

Is your fatalism more important to you than your hope for a better future?

OF COURSE impeachment of the Neocons will help Obama!

If nothing else, it will expose McCain and the Repugs as more of the same corruption. (at worst, the Dems who have been too quiet will come off as Wimps, but Obama won't be one of them. )

How can he BOMB BOMB BOMB Iran after it has been established that these "wars" are based on LIES?  That is the centerpiece of Impeachment, the REST of the Story will come out too, and even FUX News will be in on the feeding frenzy. Then, after all the vultures have cleaned up the mess we can finally get on with America as it SHOULD be!

by Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:19:46 AM

  (0+)

Initiate impeachment during the "lame duck" phase so the impeachment will not affect the outcome of the election, whatever it is.

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:17:03 PM

  (0+)

But logistically I can't see it happening in that short a period - between November 2, 2008 and 20 January 2009.

In order to give the senate a chance to try Bush and Cheney one would have to allow them X amount of time in terms of sitting days to deliberate. There can't be more sitting days then there are actual days of the year even if special sitting days were rostered.

For impeachment to happen the intellectual arguments are going to have to be mustered for it and SOME Republican misplaced wrath is going to have to be risked. It is simply not going to be possible (I suspect) to have a complete presidential election without the candidates taking positions on impeachment and ignoring it because its a hot political potato, and then, once the President elect is determined, go ahead and start.

That whole scenarion, to me, wreaks of wishful thinking. For me, I am make absolutely no bones about this. If a Democrat Presidency has to be risked to have impeachment then dammit a Democrat Presidency DOES HAVE TO BE RISKED. The rule of law is WAY more important. Its not even a close call.

If you disagree with what I'm saying then please show me I'm wrong by mapping out what you consider would be realistic milestones for the house and senate between 2 November 2008 and 20 January 2009 which could still get impeachment done.  Show me (us) you know its a real possibility and aren't just wishfully thinking to have the best of all possible worlds.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Friday, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:48:00 AM

  (0+)