The premise of your piece is, in my opinion, quite wrong. As are your facts regarding succession to office...remember Spiro Agnew? Bush appoints a successor to the office of the Veep, and should this scenario arise, the appointed one will be in a great position to run for the Presidency in'08. But why should Cheney resign, especially after the Democratic leadership has guarranteed him that he is not a target? Holding investigations after promising that impeachment is off the table will lead those investigations to a point short of the top, and not to it as you surmise. Either you accuse Pelosi and Conyers of lying or you put your loyalties beyond your common sense. If they state that impeachment is off the table then obviously any investigations conducted are done so to catch the bureaucrats and not those who issued the orders, dontcha think? I believe that Pelosi issued that statement in good faith, in an attempt to show that the new Democratic majority was not a vindictive one, that it would work with the GOP to effect change. I further believe that such a statement, in the light of all that has gone before, with the purposive leaving of all those spending bills for the dems to deal with, thus setting them up for the coming election in '08 is pretty sad. These last six years have seen a power mad and rubber stamping Congress trample all over the minority party, with their own complicity of course, yet Pelosi still thinks to work with such as these.....incredible.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 11:13:20 AM

  (0+)

It was you. Like I said, I don't know exactly how the VP is replaced. Do you?

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 11:54:07 AM

  (0+)

I'm not sure either, but some I've talked with in the past seem to think in would be Rice. Rice however will tumble down with Bush and Chenney should they fall.

by Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 12:09:25 PM

  (0+)

or in this case, the pResident.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 7:11:41 AM

  (0+)

Why ... the Speaker of the HOUSE. Wouldn't that be Pelosi?

by none (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 2, 2007 at 3:45:34 AM

  (0+)

You need to excuse Rob Kall I sense some lust towards Nancy Pelosi, if you don't believe me read it again and reflect back on him placing her on a silver plater. Gotcha, Bob !!!

by Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 2:33:47 PM

  (0+)

Well...she's old, but she's still not a bad looking woman. In fact, I think she is very attractive. Go for it Rob!

by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 27, 2006 at 8:38:18 AM

  (0+)

I was just gonna bring up the Spiro Agnew bit myself. Also notice how, after the election, the Repigs want to be 'bipartisan'? Where has this desire for bipartisanship been the last 6 years? No, we MUST investigate and then impeach. I think the investigations are important and must be VERY public (at least now the Dems won't be banished to the basement to hold 'unoffical' meetings; these will be HEARINGS).

by Putnik (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 32 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 10:44:04 PM

  (0+)

was promise #1 in an email from Howard Dean, on behalf of the Democratic Party, circa 24 hours before the Nov. 7 election: We will end the Republican culture of corruption and restore a government as good as the people it serves, starting with real ethics reform. [Translated: Impeachment is off the table, the Iraq war gets more funding.] The Democratic Party is committed to real ethics reform and meaningful campaign finance reform that protects our rights and ensures that elected officials act ethically -- not just within the law, but within the spirit of the law. Democrats offer an aggressive reform package to reverse Republican excesses and restore the public trust. [I'm still trying to figure what "law" and "spirit of the law" mean in this context--I think he's referring to the golden rule: Those with the gold, rule.] We are committed to immediate change to lead our country in a new direction, to put an end to Republican business as usual, and to make certain our nation's leaders serve the people's interests, not special interests. For us, this commitment spans our lifetime, as we were elected to represent the people, not the powerful. [This evidently refers to the people hiding behind coorporations and living in gated communities. The "special interests" refer to you and me.] Our goal is to restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government. To do so, we will create and enforce rules that demand the highest ethics from every public servant, sever unethical ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, and establish clear standards that prevent the trading of official business for gifts. [The accountability will start at the lowest levels, probably with already over-stressed teachers, who even now are accountable to instill insanity at an early age. Time will tell if the effort goes any further. Well, I hope I've got things all wrong, but I'm sure not holding my breath.]

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 9:20:31 AM

  (0+)

I often wondered if they were laying back on impeachment for similar reasons. The elements of surprise to keep catch his cohort's off guard was what I thought was going down. Its obvious you have a broader understanding on the outcome. I also felt it would be keep low profile to keep the media from blowing there investigations into Bush's Administration. The day it happens will be that of a long day coming. From my own circus ring however, Id like to see eminent domain seize all of Bush's assets to beautify America. We could put up dollar store where his properties our and don't forget trailer parks for the Neddie and Elderly. Oh and take his money for health care expenses for those that have been beaten out of it.

by Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 12:03:28 PM

  (0+)

Pelosi and Conyers and everyone else have constitutional responsibilities. They have no right to take their constitutional responsibilities off the table. Every day that they ignore the fact that members of the administration are criminals and/or traitors, they compromise their own integrity. They also teach our children not to believe in the Constitution and the rule of law. And they take away our faith in ourselves. They justify and rationalize our lack of courage. The criminals believe that the ends justify the means and now Pelosi and Conyers are adhering to the same philosophy. We need the hearings, we need the truth to become part of the national dialog. We need leaders who are not afraid of the truth, not afraid to live up to their sacred responsibilities, not afraid to fight for what is right.

by Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 12:17:56 PM

  (0+)

My patients have wore down, before we jump conclusions they won't take office until the new year. Once they do and have there agenda active we can see what goes on. Believe this from what I've been reading there is far to many angry people wanting the Bush Administration punished for it to be sweep under a rug by Pelosi or anyone else G.W.Bush's day is coming soon.

by Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 12:27:53 PM

  (0+)

The one hope that seems to make sense to me is that to state that an agenda of seeking impeachment would show that any investigating committee has prejudged the outcome of its investigations. Evidence needs to be gathered and statments need to be under oath before findings can be legitimate. We need findings in order to impeach. That makes sense to me, but I admit that my faith has worn thin. The president appoints the VP. I don't remember the confirmation of Ford, but I'm sure that the Senate must need to confirm the appointment.

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 312 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 1:03:45 PM

  (0+)

there is a major difference between an expectation of impeachment and a tabling of the process in advance of investigations. It is this that I object to so very strongly.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 7:13:43 AM

  (0+)

Remember how Ollie got rid of so much evidence to protect 41 and many other of the same ilke. It was so convenient to claim that he was "Out of the Loop". If the intention is announced before potential evidence is seized then we end up with more crap under the carpet. The carpet doesn't even begin to cover the crap that has been swept there now, but it would be nice to get some juicy stuff to really help drive the stakes deep into the Hearts of these vampires.

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 312 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 1:14:42 PM

  (0+)

Rob, I wish I could agree. Even the Republicans had an unfulfilled constitutional obligation to move toward impeachment in reaction to Bush's usurpation of power. How much more so do the Democrats as the loyal opposition (more loyal than opposition) have that same responsibility? What's really galling is that we owe them one for free for their Bonfire of the Vanities with Bill and Monica, yet we can't seem to find the will to impeach when it is not only justified, but an essential first step to restoring the primacy and the power of the Constitution. It's amazing how optimistic American liberals remain even in the face of apparent abdication by their political representatives, that some of us can even find reason to be optimistic about the Democrats' announcement that they had already pardoned all of the White House's criminality even as we were voting for them in November to put a stop to it. Some of us consider that a betrayal. I don't see how that makes them different from the Republicans that they have displaced. You've got to be looking through some pretty rosy specs, Rob, to see all of this in an optimistic light. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, and I'm just as hungry as everybody else is for a crumb of good news, but I just can't find any reason to be encouraged yet. And I don't have much need for or regard for false hope, which would be all that I could muster anyway in the absence of any solid indication that the Democrats even disapprove of the Republicans, let alone intend to fight for my interests. There is no positive spin possible in my mind to the history books showing that Clinton was impeached but Bush was not when he needed to be. Saying that the Democrats have taken impeachment off of the table so as not to appear vindictive is ridiculous. It reads like pardoning Manson before his trial so as not to appear vindictive. We don't want to appear vindictive, so we vindicate.

by Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 8:51:04 PM

  (0+)

Rob, Let me also add that Pelosi has not only taken impeachment off the table for herself, but has put herself in the position, given her leadership role, of standing in the way of, and against other representatives, who are trying to fulfill their own constitutional responsibilities and is therefore obstructing justice, which might very well be a criminal act in and of itself. She has compromised her office and disqualified herself as someone who is fit to hold high office.

by Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 12:35:06 PM

  (0+)

In response to a comment that Pelosi is blocking impeachment and therefore guilty of obstruction of justice... It is time for the anti-war people to get off the impeachment pitch. Bush is not the issue: whether or not the public can direct American foreign policy toward honorable and humane ends is the issue. Impeachment continues to hold Bush at the center and makes him rather than policies the object of debate. Bush's policies are wrong. At this time America faces a threat from foreign terrorist who are intent on killing and terrorizing pre-Western politicians, businessmen and academics in the Islamic countries. This threat is real and serious, but does not have the global reach or the dimensions of menace attributed to it by the American Right. The GOP has found ot politically expedient to exagerate the terrorist threat and claims that we are engaged in a multi-generational, world-wide struggle bordering on the Goetterdaemerung. The terrorist threat is real and the Bush Administration's two wars, the one in Afghanistan as well as the one in Iraq have been feeble, sluggish and eminently defeatable distractions from an effective effort against terrorism. In 04, Bush stated that the Democrats view the struggle against terror as a police action. Bush's statement was a deliberate oversimplification, but the fact is the Democrats were right in 04. Effective action against international Islamist suicide bombing requires actions more similar to international diplomacy and police work than to military operations. The failure of the Bush Administration's policies is their inability to recognize the true nature of the terrorist threat. The political rewards from their obstinacy in pursuing ineffective and unsustainable policies against terrorism have been irresistable. The failure of their policies is seen in recrudesence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and a bloody stalemate in Iraq. The continued overreliance on military will soon destabilize Iraq past the point the effective US action is possible. We have a very short time to withdraw from Iraq in a manner consistent with our security needs in that region. It is vital that the left not fall prey to the temptation to place partisan political objectives above our national interest. The Democrats have been successful electorally because they questioned Bush's war. Now it is incumbent on the left to offer a strategy to withdraw safely from an Iraq and Afghanistan. We must meet the following eight principles in withdrawing: 1. Iraq is sovereign country 2. Iraq will be allowed to conduct its affairs without the presence of foreign troops in its territory 3. Iraq's territorial integrity,ie, its boundaries will remain fixed and be respected 4. The solutions for Iraq's internal arrangements will come from Iraqis without the influence or presence of foreign military formations 5. The other nations in the region have vital interests in Iraq's military posture and will work in a regional diplomatic and economic framework to integrate Iraq into the region's commercial and diplomatic network. 6. Iraq will be free to develop, exploit and market her resources without outside interference and without the presence of foreign armies on her soil 7. Iraq will prioritize regional diplomacy and seek stable diplomatic and commercial relationships with the other nations in the region 8. All negotiations and agreements between the regional and other powers regarding Iraq will be based on reciprocity, equality of sovereignty and respect for international law. The American left needs to get over the Potomac fever currently gripping it and start thinking of how to make the US a humane and honorable player in the family of nations. Robert Chapman Lansing, NY

by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:46:18 PM

  (0+)

1. Iraq is sovereign country ...and was when Bush used manufactured evidence and outright lies to coerce Congress into allowing his damnable war. An impeachable action. 2. Iraq will be allowed to conduct its affairs without the presence of foreign troops in its territory ....this will be a bloodbath you may understand, I doubt that this is what you advocate. 3. Iraq's territorial integrity,ie, its boundaries will remain fixed and be respected .....As a manufactured nation in the first place I seriously doubt that Iraq will remain intact. More likely is three provinces with perhaps an overseeing body of some sort. That is the best we can hope for.. 4. The solutions for Iraq's internal arrangements will come from Iraqis without the influence or presence of foreign military formations ......This is a sort of redux of #2 and is unlikely, especially considering all that oil that everyone wants andf needs. 5. The other nations in the region have vital interests in Iraq's military posture and will work in a regional diplomatic and economic framework to integrate Iraq into the region's commercial and diplomatic network. ...Saudi, being Sunni supports that faction, Iran being Shia supports its own there as well. Turkey is afraid of the Kurdish influences on its borders, what neighbors being helpful do you refer to? 6. Iraq will be free to develop, exploit and market her resources without outside interference and without the presence of foreign armies on her soil .......you mean in the same way South America has been free to follow its economic future? Thus far, in our world history this just doesnt happen. 7. Iraq will prioritize regional diplomacy and seek stable diplomatic and commercial relationships with the other nations in the region ...see #5 8. All negotiations and agreements between the regional and other powers regarding Iraq will be based on reciprocity, equality of sovereignty and respect for international law. ......and if wishes were candy bars dentists would be zillionares. The American left needs to get over the Potomac fever currently gripping it and start thinking of how to make the US a humane and honorable player in the family of nations. ...I do not see impeachment as the exclusive province of the left, in fact more conservatives and far right folks are muttering that word of late. The law is what it is, Mr. Chapman, and if a seated President ignores, breaks and distorts the law, upsets the balance of power, lies, cheats and steals he deserves the full measure of that law, or why have laws to begin with?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 3:13:30 PM

  (0+)

There are a variety of reasons why a person should or might obey the law: (1) There may be a fine or imprisonment if you don't and are caught, as with embezzlement. (2) You may be injured, as with running a red light. (3) You may injure somebody else, as with selling illicit drugs. (4) It may benefit somebody else, as with carrying auto insurance. (5) Because it is just, as with paying your fair share of taxes. (6) Because it sets a good example for kids and other adults and promotes lawful behavior. (7) It may benefit society specifically, as with registering for the draft. (8) It benefits society in general by promoting constructive attitudes, a sense of solidarity and a sense of belonging to a community with a common culture. --- --- --- --- --- --- In a nutshell, then, it is smarter and safer for one to obey the law, and it is just and promotes community, culture and tradition. We are repeatedly asked to consider the message that certain behavior sends, such as when a Democratic president has extramarital sex and lies about it under oath, or when war protesters openly dissent. Here is the message that glossing over the administration's crimes sends to me (and I'll bet to others as well): If the American people through their elected representatives don't insist on justice, there is no higher reason to obey their laws apart from the selfish ones: the potential cost to me. * They are telling me that justice isn't very important to them, and that if I am treated unjustly, they probably won't object or stand up for me; that they don't have sufficient regard for the rule of law or the Constitution. * They are telling me that there really is no reason to obey a law that I would benefit by breaking and which I felt I could break without penalty because they are telling me that our tacit agreement to play by the rules doesn't apply to everyone, maybe not to me either. * They are telling me that playing by the rules when it is possible to evade them is for suckers. * They are telling me that the fabric of this society is still unraveling and I had should expect things to get a lot worse before they improve. What is my incentive to stick around for that if America's standards are so low? If America can't or won't protect us from terrorist attacks, injustice from its government, lying media, a falling standard of living and further erosion of my freedom and privacy; and if I don't feel a sense of tradition or history or community or belonging, there is no reason to remain behind and fight for America, especially when half of the country hates the other half.

by Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 27, 2006 at 7:26:11 AM

  (0+)

The Presidential Succession Act of 1947, which is also later clarified in the 25th amendment of 1967, lays out the succession of both the President and the Vice-President. The last time the U.S. had to "replace" a sitting vice-president was Spiro Agnew in 1973, who resigned after he was charged with the crime of tax evasion. The only other sitting Vice-President was John C. Calhoun, who resigned to take a seat in the Senate in 1832. When the vice-presidency becomes vacant, the sitting president nominates a person to that position. That person must then be confirmed by the House and Senate(1). This was the case with Spiro Agnew, who was replaced by Gerald Ford and then after Nixon resigned, with Ford nominee Nelson Rockefeller, to replace Ford. ---------------- (1) Section 2 of the 25th Amendment provides that "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 12:58:04 PM

  (0+)

So, the Dem congress refuses to confirm a VP, while the investigations into Bush continue. When Bush takes his turn at resigning, Pelosi, next in the succession line, takes the helm.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 11:23:25 AM

  (0+)

Can Pelosi possibly be that stupid. We'll see when all the chips fall, mighty Bush & Company is what mainly my concerns. Life would have been so much simpler if the Bush's never were given the chance to self destruct this country to began with. I had a bad filling when people were willing to elect into the office of the Presidency a former CIA director. That was equivalent to putting Hitlers SS into a public office.

by Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 1:04:30 PM

  (0+)

Dude what are you saying? First of all we are in two wars and still in a dangerous and conflict ridden world. It is irresponsible and foolish to suggest that Congress impede the resignation of Rumsfeld or the inauguration of a successor to make political points. As for the remark about Himmler, HE WAS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL AND THE PUBLIC KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. We need to organize and develop the political muscle to put an end to the neo-Con philosophy of American hegemony. Only a grass roots effort can do this, the President's people are smart enough to dot their legal i's and cross their institutional t's. Robert Chapman Lansing, NY

by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:54:00 PM

  (0+)

I enjoyed reading this op/ed, but I doubt it's going to happen as described. In particular, I doubt that Cheney is going to be so legally cornered by the Dems that he will resign like a good boy. Do not underestimate the guy, he is an axis of evil all by himself. On the other hand, impeachment is out of the frying pan into the fire--who wants Cheney for President? Getting Bush out of the White House is not gonna be a piece of cake. I guess the Founding Fathers did not foresee the case of the Prez and the VP being BOTH dictatorial sociopaths.

by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 2:08:29 PM

  (0+)

If my major in college would have been politics or if I were a professor, I would reach every little thing Bush and his cohorts have done. It might seem a bit overwhelming at first. Than I'd put a stop to all there corruption and evil ways. Why, you might ask. A student going into politics that was responsible for nailing the mighty WAR PIGS would become an saint and gain political credentials along with many perks like that of a professor. I'm talking writing books that would distinguish your careers and fame for setting this country back on track globally. Plus the best of all the deed of doing something good is always something you can reflect back on through the years. And back to the subject of Pelosi if she don't do the right thing, she will ultimately cheat herself of such good for her own behalf. This is a day and age where voters will be looking for such qualities from there representatives during elections. Days of simply hiding facts for political gain are gone the Internet has became a powerful tool for us to use. We shall conker and make the world a better place.

by Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 2:18:46 PM

  (0+)

Dude, you don't have to be poli sci major or a professor to be a thought leader and to influence public opinion. You clearly have a good head on your shoulders, you think clearly and have a strong sense of morality. You are articulate and persuasive. Keep up with your reading, educate yourself on the war and the constitutional and political issues involved and attend meetings and make your views known. You will develop a following and begin leading us back down the path toward peace and humanity. Believe me, you can do it if you try. Robert Chapman Lansing,NY

by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:59:34 PM

  (0+)

Don't fall over your soe strings bubba.

by Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 1:55:52 PM

  (0+)

I agree the Internet has become a powerful tool for us to use. But have you noticed internet neutrality is also being attacked? Could this be to disable our way of learning the whole truth? We have already learned we cannot trust the media to tell the truth. If we are to survive this admin., something better come up fast. Say it ain't so!

by Theo (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 7:27:44 PM

  (0+)

It should be worth noting that impeacheable offenses are already a matter of public record, most evidently Bush's violations in invading Iraq of the UN Chapter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Geneva Accords, among others. These are all binding treaty obligations which have the force of law in the US. So the idea that Pelosi, et. al., need to have investigations to uncover some smoking gun is somewhat moot. There was no need for Pelosi to take impeachment 'off the table.' She need not have said anything about it. Looking back, the Dem would probably have won the election by even a bigger margin had she kept quiet. What's the point of trying to give the Dem leadership another pass?

by Kuzminski (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 93 comments) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 2:19:04 PM

  (0+)

You can be video taped robbing a bank, but you are not guilty until you have been charged and brought to trial. If a judge biased himself/herself prior to you being charged and found guilty they could be removed. I'm no lawyer, but I believe there is a process and you can't go to trial before you are charged.

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 312 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 2:42:32 PM

  (0+)

If it were you or I, we would be arrested and found guilty until proved innocent. Bush on the other hand has admitted guilt and known to be guilty of other crimes but remains free and not charged. It don't take rocket science to investigate his crime spree and Pelosi is definitely guilty of something if she don't uphold her sworn oath of office and pursues Bush and company's ways holding them responsible for there actions.

by Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 3:03:11 PM

  (0+)

Adrian states that Bush's offenses are already evident and cites UN declarations to back his statement. This question has been repeatedly raised in numerous parliamentary question periods in the UK. The Prime Minister has definitively deflected them by citing the UN resolution taken immediately before the invasion in which the Security Council offered its authorization to the Coalition for the invasion. Defense counsel in an impeachment hearing would the same. Robert Chapman Lansing, NY

by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 1:04:23 PM

  (0+)

The purpose of an investigation is to shield the higher-ups. The people on lower levels who have been designated to take the fall, are then convicted, and then pardoned by those they protected. And then the same people do the same things again, in different places. Many who were investigated in Iran-Contra and some who were convicted, have been players in the Bush regime. Negroponte, connected with death squads in Nicaragua, was sent to Iraq about the time death squads started becoming increasingly active there. But sometimes you can tell how serious an investigation is by how many millions of dollars Richard Mellon Scaife and others of his ilk are willing to put into it. Let's see, how much was spent on the Whitewater investigation? And how much do you think will be spent on investigating whether the Democrats who voted for Bush defense budgets at the expense of domestic social programs, have close family or financial ties to defense contractors profiting from his war crimes? Nancy's colleague, Democratic Senator from California, Diane Feinstein, is married to a defense contractor. Maybe the Democrats were fooled once, because only Barbara Lee voted against in invasion of Iraq the first time. But later on they found out that they'd been lied to. What's their excuse for continuing to vote for a war crime based on lies? If they can be fooled six times in a row with the same lies, do they really belong in Congress? And why in the world are you making excuses for them? I just read about an Inuit tribe in Alaska. Their village is extremely impoverished, and in below freezing temperatures their heating bills are about $300 a month. Yet they turned down an offer of heating oil from Hugo Chavez because they didn't like what he said about Bush. Only a few hundred years after their conquest, their loyalty is to their conquerors instead of to themselves and to other indigenous peoples. Chavez was right. Bush is the Devil (wasn't that the Democrats' campaign assumption, that Bush was the Devil so everyone had to vote for the lesser demon the Democrats put forward instead?) and those who support him will burn in his domain with him, except for those Inuits, who will freeze instead.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 3:58:39 PM

  (0+)

Believe me I want them to go down. It would be nice if investigations went deep into improprieties of many of this group and their actions back into the Reagan administration. I know Bush has admitted to warrantless wiretapping. The past Congress would not investigate and the new one is not in office yet. They will have to show their true colors soon enough. I hope the outrage of "We The People" is so loud and clear that they know if they cover this sh*t up they will also be held accountable by "WE THE PEOPLE". I'm could even support a week long nation wide strike to get their attention. A week off wouldn't be much worse then my past few years in fact if I worked 8 months out of the year. I would consider that a good year probably better then most since 2002. Without respecting a process your vigilanteism is of no better moral ground then theirs. At least the show should seem to be unbiased. Believe me, I think we've had enough Snowe Jobs to recognize the wishy washy stances long before any votes are cast.

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 312 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 5:26:24 PM

  (0+)

In bringing up Iran Contra one opens a pandorra's box. Number one, are we interested in getting out of Iraq and protecting ourselves or are we still stuck in the blame game? Second, I remember Iran-Contra and Gates was not indicted or convicted of wrong-doing. Gates may or may not be culpable, but it is hard to see how an investigation over twenty years later will be more effective in determining the facts of the matter than Judge Walsh was when he had Special Prosecutorial power to investigate and prosecute. Robert Chapman Lansing, NY

by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 1:11:39 PM

  (0+)

Oh, for pete's sake, there is every reason to and no reason not to Impeach the traitors bushcheney, and Pelosi be president before April. Anything else is powerlust corruptions. Furthermore, the Impeachment civil right goes way beyond The Fright House. Impeach Supreme Court and underlings all through the Judiciary, and cabinet Departments co-traitors including the Secretary on down, and even retribution can strip current and former Congress and staffs, whoever is found in on it. That's the scope of public understanding that Pelosi and the Incumbents try to obscure. And their plan is to get oath-sworn testimony in due course of investigations and hearings, and then to relieve public pressure, convict for petty perjuries and non-performance where insubordination and subverting the Constitution have been committed. None of the war criminals, from Ashcroft to Zelikow, have sworn a single word of testimony in six years -- can you believe it? That is their diagnosis of Clinton's mistake: He agreed to testify under oath. It would make a more effective and successful case to charge all of them at once, in mass, and investigate it with all the inter-relationships intact and pertaining. Instead of hairsplitting which one goes first, prez or vicer-prez. Plus the shock value in filing mass charges is the sort of news hook needed, in order to bust the evil out of official bunkers and into public consciousness. So many condemning facts indict the uber-GOP, that their only defense is to argue the law, which means stretch out the case in hairsplitting and process protocol, trying to win by fatigue and attrition, (and attention-deficit public pressure), trying to run out the clock to '09. When prez pardons aborts the whole thing. This defense is the so-called stonewall. A related defense tactic, which sometimes gets unwitting impeachers to work against themselves by stopping impeachment, is by recalling past arcana to divine the entrails. So media oxygen is stolen to shout back and forth - Clinton did it; No, Reagan did it; no, Carter did it; no, Nixon was a crook; no, you're on a JFK conspiracy; no, McCarthy was a Manchurian puppet; no, FDR did it; no, Hitler did it, the German people should have impeached him. Just as we should impeach bush and cheney. There you go again -- Clinton did it .... Don't make your conviction case on past argument, (it's guaranteed the defenders will use it). Don't bring your revenge for past injury to fulfill in convicting today's war criminals. The strongest weapon there could be, against the uber-GOP Reich-in-a-bunker, is forming a Communications Compound of satellite TV and media 'trucks' -- for Progressive news to start with, maybe it could be YouTube reporters with laptops in cars -- parked 24-7 outside The Fright House and Congress, whispering "any word?," "any word yet?," asking to interview government principals, filing reports and updates to The Time Line, day and night, day and night. Blog flogging. dailyKos could start the encampment, with a lawnchair. Signifying significant public pressure. Because here is the Vietnam lesson no one has mentioned -- How we stopped the Vietnam war: IMPEACH first, peace comes second. Spiro got out while the getting was good. Cheney ain't gonna. In fact, Cheney is the cohort of Herbert 'call me Poppy' Bush, so in the Evil Office camps now divided as Cheney versus Bush, the forces are old man Herbert versus Junior Jughead. (Sort of reverse oedipal syndrome, for the Shakespeareans and Freudists watching.) And Junior has got nothing. He's being kept in suspended animation, now, on a psychodelic pill diet -- if you can judge by his strange speech -- like a spider wraps her prey alive in a tangled web and keeps them on ice for the time to eat. Herbert is going to slay son number one, all right, but first he might pin the blame on the boy for everything guilty Herbert actually ordered done, and then in 'dispatching' Dubya, (now there's a book title), the hounding investigations and public clamour go away off Herbert's tail, and instead chasing the framed imbecile son, 'genius ghoul of treason past,' dissecting his savant statregy's though he be presumed lifeless. Then Cheney moves up, and if the method of Dubya's 'dispatch' is an explosion aboard Air Force One and the Iranians did it, THEN will you let Cheney invade Iran? What's it take, for chrisake. (All we know is it disintegrated over the ocean. In reality, it diverted Dubya to the Bush master race bunker compound under construction in Paraguay.) And the beauty of Herbert's man Cheney in charge -- wimp congressional investigations being thrown for a loop when the 'person of interest' goes blip, and be damned -- is a successor could be Herbert's-hand picked. Herbert 'call me Poppy' Bush has experience in this. "Chapter -XIII- Bush Attempts The Vice Presidency, 1974." Read Chapter 13 of the Unauthorized Bush Biography, about Herbert's chicanery and crimes (in league with Cheney, that far back, longer than he has known his own son who was still blotto in '74, on ice to de-tox at a CIA station along the Alaska pipeline), trying to get Herbert installed as Ford's vice-president ahead of Rockefeller. (In fact, read Chapter 12 and 14, while you're there, and Chapter 11 is most revealing of Herbert as Kissinger's sorceror's apprentice. In another scene, Herbert the Republican Party chairman, meets Rove the College Republicans president wannabe-by-cheating, and Herbert likes his style, and assigns him to nanny Dubya.) That's the way I see it. Pelosi can neither take down nor make stand her impeachment disavowal. She's twisting slowly slowly in the wind. The only way to get her installed is instantly -- we, the people, take out Bush and Cheney together at once, the despotic duo. That kicks down Herbert's house of cards, at the same time. If congress goes at them one-or-the-other, one at a time, then a new 'replacement' is going to 'cut in line' (the new next vicer prez) ahead of Pelosi, into the infinite future.

by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 25, 2006 at 11:49:03 PM

  (0+)

Pelosi's just a pawn. We need a President who cares about ordinary people, who will listen to ordinary people, who will put the needs of people before corporations and the interests of the wealthy elite. That ain't Pelosi. Cynthia McKinney maybe, but not in the lineup. So we gotta get rid of the lineup, get rid of the corrupt, collaborating, compromising two-party shills and hacks in Congress, and put in some people who won't vote to fund war crimes just because they might not have the votes to block the defense budget. I don't have the power to stop bank robberies, but that doesn't mean I'm going to join, or even aid and abet a gang of bank robbers. Decent people oppose things that are wrong simply because they're wrong, without regard to political expediency.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 7:59:36 AM

  (0+)

Could it be, my man, that Bush has a plan and a strategy that you don't see? While we are debating impeachment, the President is going around to veterans' groups, to meetings of parents with kids fighting in Iraq, to conservative elements of the electorate and to moderates who recognize that this is a dangerous world and that there are desperate men out there beyond the horizon plotting to kill us. The President goes into these meetings and says humbly, "I've made some mistakes, and a lot of good kids have paid the price. I regret it, but that is the price of freedom and if those brave men hadn't stood up, we would be fighting the terrorists on the streets of Baltimore instead of in Baghdad." How long are we going to keep letting him get away with this? Until we recognize the threat terrorism poses and advance a sound strategy for liquidating it, Bush will be able to send surges of troops to Iraq and appropriate trillions to pay for through supplementals. We need to stop waging last season's election and move on. We need to devise and organize support for a withdrawal plan that protects America and our friends. This is not an impossible task, but it is an essential one. Robert Chapman Lansing, NY

by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 1:21:37 PM

  (0+)

Venting is good. It gets the circulation going, gets the gut growling, helps pat you on the back that you are all right. You sure want to fly like chicks in the nest, but by the time you are old enough big daddy eagle is long gone. I do not think investigations are going to go anywhere, because proof is if we can't investigate 911 throughly, what makes you think it is going to work in chipping away at Bush? Not! going to happen! He is still the President! Investigations can't go anywhere unless he says so. They are going to maintain the plan in Iraq, as Iraq becomes another Japan, S. Korean American interest. Democrats cards are made in Republican factories, so you may think you are winning the game, but I have more faith we will land a man on Mars before President Bush is impeached.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 4:31:09 AM

  (0+)

It is probably more imperative than one would think to oust the pair. Perpetrating 9/11, slashing our Constitutional liberties, instituting a monstrous surveillance apparatus, paying Halliburton to construct hundreds of interment camps throughout America, ordering contingency plans for a military take-over and announcing the formation of the North American Union to be ruled by a non-elected board of governors all point to a future American police state. The blogosphere needs to hit Bush and company harder than ever to further arouse the public and pressure the new Democratic Congress to investigate Bush/Cheney crimes and treasons. Already articles that would have been exclusively relegated to the alternative press are now popping up in the mainstream media.

by Dan Merica (23 articles, 73 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 49 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 7:27:15 AM

  (0+)

Where are they building all these camps? I know a few people who need a job!

by larry booth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 303 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:44:37 PM

  (0+)

Joree, enjoyed your comment. We need a little levity and a chance to take ourselves a little less seriously. Robert Chapman Lansing, NY

by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 1:25:14 PM

  (0+)

that if you took a little time to search this almost infinite web we use you would find the information about all these new camps being constructed around our nation....

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Dec 30, 2006 at 9:54:52 AM

  (0+)

I believe the current position Ms. Pelosi has taken, not to impeach, is purely strategical in initially winning the Republican's cooperation and when the "time is right," she will bring the impeachment issue to the table again. She will strike them when they least expect it.

by Viki (2 articles, 16 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 73 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 8:59:40 AM

  (0+)

Alright, so since DAY 1 of Bush's FIRST term there have been angry liberals demanding impeachment; the problem? Bush has to break a federal law to be impeached. I am sorry but being conservative does not get a President impeached. Standing firm to your beliefs and convictions does not get a President impeached. Pelosi stepping up into office after Bush and Cheney are "put in jail" is the most assinine thing I have ever heard in my life... and it is competing with some pretty redicuouls stuff! The Media is truely a dying and destructive beast of the Democratic Party; but lets not lower ourselves to the level of the Media. I am so tired of Liberals who trust the Media's Bush Bashing and anti War reports to be UNDENIABLE TRUTH; yet b*tch and moan that every thing else is bias and unfair. Get a life and grow up.

by aman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 9:40:55 AM

  (0+)

They believed it in 1998 when Clinton talked about it though. Amazing, huh?

by larry booth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 303 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:50:17 PM

  (0+)

Pete Seeger used to sing a song about newspapermen, one of the verses went something like, Newspaper publishers are funny people, they have to go the masses for their readers and the fat cats for their dough. Seeger recognized from the economics of publishing that newspapers would always be independent and non-partisan. The main reason that conservatism is such a social, political and economic fiasco, is that so many conservatives think that they are right about everything. This extends to believing that anyone who disagrees with their pontificating is a morally inferior liberal. When Jesus admonished the disciples that the poor will always be with us, he was not telling them to turn their backs on the poor, but restating the Christian committment to serving them. Conservatives are incapable of recognizing that millions of people are in need and tens of thousands have been killed in pursuit of conservative utopia. Robert Chapman Lansing,NY

by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 1:34:47 PM

  (0+)

And now there is talk about the return of the draft(includung females). He has wasted billions, killed our soldiers and who knows how many thousands of Iraqis and he did not commit a federal crime???? Think again. Not only that he has spied on Americans in direct contradiction to law. No his crimes are to numerous to mention. You are living in a neocon dream world to say he has not committed a crime.

by SwampWitch (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 6:07:52 PM

  (0+)

The Media is truely a dying and destructive beast of the Democratic Party? What media are you watching? Fox news has it's nose so far up the Bush *** hole, they can smell his breath!

by Theo (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 7:54:19 PM

  (0+)

So, you come to a progressive site, butt into an ongoing conversation amongst progressives, and begin hurling gratuitous and offensive hyperbole. In a few short sentences, you claim that liberals control the media which is, remarkably, both dying and destructive, and that what you read here is the most asinine thing that you have ever heard. Then you tell us some of what about us sickens you. You describe us as continually bitching and moaning about unfairness and bias. For good measure, you gratuitously complain that our lives are incomplete and that we are immature. You're quite a class act, and that was a very valuable and helpful post. Thank you. You are obviously an accomplished student of politics and current events. I hadn't realized until you enlightened me that Bush hadn't broken any federal laws yet (I get that crap from the liberal-media), and that there is no way to impeach him until he does. I'll tell you what else. I was born believing that you *could* and should impeach a president just for being a conservative of steadfast resolve. Thanks for the heads up there. I'll start checking out Fox News more often, maybe exclusively, from now on. Please forgive me for my irrational and misplaced mistrust of Bush and the Republicans and all things good and patriotic. As a liberal, it's in my DNA to hate everything American or Christian, and for no other reason. I'll work on that more. I realize that there is no reason to dislike that good man. But as a liberal, I've had no choice. As a conservative, you've proven that you have a good head on your shoulders. You conservatives have repeatedly shown uncommonly good judgment in both domestic and world affairs. From Damascus to Nawlins, the streets have literally been littered with your successes. I've just got to learn to be more trusting of your conservative judgment on political and moral issues, as well as your keen conservative ability to read political character. If Bush says that he is a good Christian man of high moral character doing a heckuva job that should be good enough for me. If it were up to people like me, Iraq would be in chaos instead of being an exemplary democratic republic that makes us all so proud to be Americans today. Thank you, and please forgive me for trying to think on my own without the benefit of conservative talking points. It's un-Christian and its un-American, so naturally, it's liberal. It won't happen again. If I could, I would just pluck my defective liberal brain out and join you in the Matrix. You give me great hope and courage for America's future. Several tens of millions of impressive people just like you from sea to shining just couldn't be wrong. Please come back again again and share more soon.

by Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments) on Sunday, Dec 31, 2006 at 6:07:11 AM

  (0+)

Some of us damn liberals didn't believe for one minute all the Bush Administration hype about 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' that was repeated, ad nauseum, several thousand times a day in the news media. We knew it was just the first step in the preparation for another war. In fact, it was very reminiscent of President Bush Senior's mantras leading up to the 1991 Gulf War. You probably still believe everything that your psycopathic president tells you. That makes you Comment edited to remove ad hominem personal attack. No personal attacks allowed. Attack ideas, actions, not people. That is the refuge of the desperate who cannot defend their position.

by boing007 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 10:24:21 AM

  (0+)

I would prefer impeachment for symbolic reasons, but if your scenario plays out, that would be fantastic. I suspect that George may be wondering where the exit is, already, from the simple heat of being the most unpopular man in America. TSV

by (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 2:39:42 PM

  (0+)

ROB-Unless IMPEACHMENT is front and center when the new Congress convenes, your investigations will result in little if anything. That's because all the Bushites will lie starting with Dubya himself. They've already shown that they will. Even previously respected people such as Colin Powell lie out of mistaken loyalty. In other words, without the threat of impeachment there is little incentive to tell the truth because Bush could pardon anyone who testifies. But, if he' likely to be IMPEACHED, who would there be to pardon them. IMPEACH Bush and Cheney.

by Kenneth Briggs (186 articles, 88 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 142 comments [6 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 3:43:43 PM

  (0+)

Rob has a point .When the Watergate investigations came before Congress few expected it to lead to the Oval office directly.No one ever impeached Tricky Dick.He resigned to keep from being impeached.But George is not that smart.He and Dick will only leave when they are taken in chains from the White House and House of Representatives.They are traitors and murderers, not your run of the mill criminals.Elected /selected officials who usurp the laws and attempt to change the Constitution and Bill of Rights are guilty of treason.They have done harm to the very structure of government.Treason.

by cluelessfl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 188 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 6:45:19 PM

  (0+)

than Bush? He did the right thing and resigned and Bush wouldn't do it. I'm not sure about Bush. He's malignant, but like cancer, mindless. He's a coward and a pawn. He will do what he is told. Cheney could be a problem.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 9:27:01 PM

  (0+)

Bush likes operating in circles of chaos, where I think Nixon just preferred being undetected. We all no Bush is dangerous with strong political backing. Roto Rotter wouldn't get threw the sewers Bush resides in.

by Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 9:42:16 PM

  (0+)

high crimes and misdemeanors, not the violation of any particular federal laws. It is a purely political process, as it should be.

by JimZ (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 8:57:17 PM

  (0+)

I'm sure there's enough evidence to nail the Dick but is there enough time? You know they'll stonewall it as long as possible. If it's a choice between actually rolling back Republican policies which will position us to do even better electorally in 2008 or a pyrhic victory of booting Bush/Cheney that leaves the government on auto pilot for the next 2 years and the American public disgusted with all politicians I say let Bush and Cheney twist in the wind while we put the country back on track. The only worse fate for a president than impeachment is being utterly repudiated and then ignored while still in office. I like that scenario better than a Pelsoi-McCain matchup in 2008. Our prospective presidential candidates are so much better than theirs. I like Pelosi where she is.

by markg8 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 11:01:21 PM

  (0+)

that he will use Executive Priviledge to ignore any subpoena from Congress. By the time this wends its way through the courts he'll be gone. Perhaps this could go directly to the SC for an immediate ruling.....hopefully we could then nail the reptile eyed bastard to the wall!

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Jan 4, 2007 at 6:25:03 PM

  (0+)

". . . their [they're] executing that stragegy." I like your writing but you clearly need a proof reader. Very convicing piece and I sure hope you're right. If Cheney goes the way of Agnew and GWB the way of Nixon without selecting a VP, Pelosi becomes president. My guess is there's a lot of heavy hitters who really don't want that to happen. Not that it can't but the pressure on Bush to appoint someone like Tricky Dick did will be immense.

by L. RETZACK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2006 at 11:47:58 PM

  (0+)

that would be >>there are

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 27, 2006 at 11:52:59 AM

  (0+)

The Democrats limit their investigations into what will be of use in their next election, but protect and defend the empire at all costs. Bush/Israel attacks Iran, erasing everything from memory after the world's economy melts down. Oil becomes $250 per barrel. Banks close down, homes are foreclosed across the nation, the dollar plummets. The draft is reinstated, with the full blessing of Nancy Pelosi, et al. Your children are sent into the meat grinder of naked imperial aggression, and both parties cheer them on. Which scenario is more likely, Rob Kall, yours or mine? Crimes of the State

by johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 166 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 27, 2006 at 12:19:10 AM

  (0+)

I wrote about this in end November, on my blog, although Rob has fleshed-out my spartan comments. click here Where Rob asserts the Dems should not hasten to confirm a VP proposed by Bush, as Nixon did with Jerry Ford (RIP), I believe the better path would be to have Bush name a new VP, and know that such a choice must be confirmable by our new ('and dynamic?') Democratic Congress... (Am still drafting a reminiscence on Jerry Ford... our 'only prior unelected president') ZENmud

by ZENmud (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 27, 2006 at 8:54:28 AM

  (0+)

...to get the job. 1. He was acceptable to both parties because no Republican thought he could win the nomination and no Dem thought he could win the general election in 1976 if he broke his promise and ran for president. 2. He promised he wouldn't run for president. So with that in mind I suppose Bush could nominate the even more lackluster and colorless Denny Hastert for Cheney's job and get him confirmed. But he'd more likely nominate McCain. The pressure to confirm him would be immense and he's about the the only senator left except Lieberman who supports Bush's foreign policy. Having said that the party would object because the Dem governor of AZ would probably get to appoint McCain's successor. Given the choice between salvaging his legacy by turning the blame for Iraq over to someone equally misguided who will be left holding the bag and helping his party Bush will always put the personsal over party.

by markg8 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 27, 2006 at 9:13:01 AM

  (0+)

Rob, I agree with a lot of what you say in the "Pelosi and Conyers" piece. In fact, I've had several fairly heated arguments with some of my progressive friends about why Pelosi et al. made the "impeachment is off the table" remarks. Essentially, I never believed it - I believed and still do that they said that because they knew what a political bombshell it was to seek re-election almost solely on that premise, and they also realize that when the investigations do finally get underway, there's going to be no way to STOP impeachment - the people, even including some of the wingnut Bush supporters, will insist on it. Here's a link to something I wrote on my blog back in February of this year that speaks to some of the things under discussion in your article, as well as the impeachment concept in general. I agree, Bush MUST serve some prison time. The rest? Well, see below: click here

by richmiles (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 27, 2006 at 10:49:48 AM

  (0+)

"They lie with impunity to keep us fearful, terrified, weak. They steal our birthright, kill our children, destroy our country. We must stop them. We must do all legally in our power, and we must start now. Before they stop America forever." I'm with you brother. Just, perhaps, we have different ideas on how to rescue our nation.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 27, 2006 at 11:57:14 AM

  (0+)

That's the hole morals of the quest. I commend everyone that push's forth for the better long waited days for Impeachment day.

by Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 27, 2006 at 3:54:33 PM

  (0+)

The Democratic Congress has not even been sworn in yet. Just because Pelosi and Conyers say that Impeachment is "off the table" for now, does not mean it cannot be put back on the table after investigative hearings have been held. I agree with Kall, Bush is a chicken-sh*t. Faced with certain impeachment, he will resign.

by Krashkopf (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 27, 2006 at 6:07:29 PM

  (0+)

I hope Rob is right, but these people have a lot of power and expertise in destroying people. They can dig up or make up dirt on everyone and get away with it. Daddy's time at the CIA doubtless contributes to that capacity. Do not forget that Bush's girlfriend who likely had an abortion would not speak out. Her friends, also, became afraid to speak out. He was charged with rape, but that person, regardless of how sane her charges sounded, DID end up dead. Even his sister-in-law recanted much of what she said about the Bush family. For the god "money" most likely. Look what they did to Jim Hightower, John McCain, John Kerry etc. Nearly EVERYONE who makes a trip to the oval office after having said or written something true but unflattering about the president recants. And we know the Joint Chiefs and the chief generals on the ground were unanimously AGAINST a "surge" in troops in Iraq until AFTER former CIA man, now Defense Secretary Gates "talked to" (threatened?) them and (doubtless) their future careers. I think you give the Democrats too much credit. After all, many of them (Hillary, for one, in my opinion) think mainly of their own political futures, and the majority of the public is still too ignorant and apathetic to get angry enough to force them to do what is best for the country. It is not THEIR kids who are dying in Iraq. The DRAFT is the only thing that would arouse the kind of passion likely to accomplish all, or even most of the results Rob is dreaming of here. It is CORPORATIONS who run this country. They pick candidates in both parties who are "acceptable" to them. It is true the Republican candidate is probably MORE desirable to them, but with all the money involved in obtaining office, many of the Democrats have sold their souls to corporate Anerica as well. The Progessive Populist had a great article on the money party versus the people party -- which Democrats and Republicans belonged to the money party and which belonged to the people party -- And corporate America is doing just fine the way things are. Why do you think Kucinich is totally ignored by the corporate controlled media??!! In a country truly concerned with the well-being of its people, he would be touted as THE candidate with integrity and vision. As it is, even though he votes for the people all the time and is probably the only candidate running who voted against the war and wants to stop funding it, he is ridiculed and belittled by the press because a man who is for the people is against short term corporate greed and goals. The people who attack Bush are likely to be demonized themselves. If Bush/Cheney really get scared there will likly be another terrorist attack or they will find another way to frighten the people. War with Iran, for instance. That would likely get the people so panicked they would not want to focus on anything but "wiping out" the enemy. And the enemy to most of them would be Muslims in general and Iranians in particular. Do not forget many Bush supporters believe in and LONG for Armageddon!! Also, first, last and always the Bush bunch protect themselves before all else. They have proven over and over again, they care nothing about the common good or the people other than those who contribute to their own well being. On top of that, there is ample evidence they are egomaniacs -- mentally ill. Also, history has shown us what mad acts men might carry out if the truly believe "God" is on their side. I have no idea if Bush still believes that or not. One might wonder how he could STILL believe that since so much has gone so terribly wrong. However, some "religious" guru might convince Bush he is merely being "tested" and must persevere for "God and for the ultimate good." These people create their OWN reality, and what a power trip to know they could destroy the world if they chose to!! I am sure Bush believes he would "magically" be saved and things would work out if he chose to do so. He believes what he wants to believe. After all, he has never really had to face "consequences" for his wrong actions in his entire life. Someone else has always paid the price for him. These people are destroyers. They may go down eventually, but you can bet they will take a lot of innocent people with them. They already have. And they do not care one whit about all those innocents. I see no evidence that they are anything other than totally selfish. They do not know the meaning of sacrificing for others -- they think it is natural that others should be PROUD and HONORED to sacrifice for them -- even sacrifice their LIVES for them. Lonna Gooden VanHorn

by Lonna Gooden VanHorn (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 27, 2006 at 10:11:57 PM

  (0+)

You think Cheney's Energy Task Force will be investigated? That would be excellent! There are bound to be a few surprises for everyone. Wonder if Iraq was talked about in depth? Probably no surprise about that. The testimony from Watergate that surprised the investigators involved secret oval office taping of conversations. I imagine Bush/Cheney will invoke executive privilege to an extent incompatible with the Constitution. 2007 promises to be interesting, educational, and informative. The facts should speak for themselves to such an extent that even the media might awake. Truly, it has been a long national nightmare.

by Greg33 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Thursday, Dec 28, 2006 at 2:40:23 AM

  (0+)

I have no idea how our sleazy mystical Represenatives are going to accomplish this balancing act. I just hope that the outrage of the people rises enough to get the duo out. I would love to see them brought before an international body for Crimes against Humanity. Investigations are a start. I am amazed reading weekly letters from Ron Paul a Republican calling for us to return to this nations "Original Foreign Policy". http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul356.html and this one which is critical of the administrations policies. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul357.html I hope the Democrats move toward rescinding the free trade givaways and return to a legitimate Trade Policy. We need to force improvements in foreign manufactures so the influx of illegal aliens ceases. We can make progress on that and protect our workers here with a trade policy that is not based on multinational Corporate greed. The Corporatist in both houses need to be exposed and investigated. A purge would be a dream devotly to be wished.

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 312 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 28, 2006 at 12:59:43 PM

  (0+)

Your stuff's great, Rob, and we really appreciate it here in the Garden State. Readers will be interested to know this update regarding the impeachment campaigns across the country: Resolutions to Impeach Bush-Cheney are pending now in California, Illinois, Minnesota and Vermont. The introduction of Resolutions to Impeach is pending now in New Jersey and New Mexico. See New" target="_blank">http://www.impeachthem.com/node/203">New Jersey and New Mexico Coming, Vermont's on the Move! In January, a delegation of New Jerseyans is meeting with our General Assembly's Assistant Majority Leader to discuss the proposed language of our state's Resolution to Impeach, and we aim to get the bill introduced in the upcoming legislative session. To learn more visit our site ImpeachThem.com," target="_blank">http://www.impeachthem.com">ImpeachThem.com, and have a look at our argument for justice, New" target="_blank">click here Jersey Impeach Time. We need support from everybody --- you don't have to live in New Jersey to support impeachment legislation here. Visit our site, contact us, print out a copy of our IMPEACH" target="_blank">click here PETITION USA and get out there to save our country! Thanks.

by HUTCH (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Friday, Dec 29, 2006 at 1:56:46 PM

  (0+)

A Different Opinion of President Bush Take for instance the notion that we have no right to be in Iraq. We claim to be a Christian Nation. Do Christian's turn their back on other people like the Iraqi's, who are being rounded up and murdered by Saddam Hussein? Do Christian's turn their back on Iraqi people who have never really known peace in Iraq? You know I have been anti Bush for the past 6 year's; but then I tried to start thinking about the reasons why President Bush thinks the way he does. Iraq has been nothing but a hellhole since 1534 when Iraq was added to a conquest list of nations conquered by the Ottoman Empire. Iraq became a British subject after WWI, when the British did the same thing we are doing now, in setting up a government. They put Prince Faisal on the throne. Britain did a restructuring of Iraq's boundary's, by separating Kuwait, and making claim's to the Oil in Iraq and part's of Saudi Arabia. To this Day Iraq still disagrees with the taking of Kuwait. Throughout the 1920's and 1930's the Kurd's, the Shiite's, and Sunni's have been doing the same acts of murder and violence as they are doing today. I dare say that Iraq has been in a Civil War since the 1920's, even up to this period in time. From the 1940's to 1970's Iraq has seen coup after coup. Saddam came into power in 1968, and the beginning of the Iran-Iraq War unfolded; when the Shah encouraged the Kurd's to rebel. In 1975 the War end's when Iran agrees to stop supporting the Kurd's if Iraq sign's over the Shatt al-Arab waterway, on the Persian Gulf; a waterway essential for oil export. Then Iran's Revolution ousts the Shah, and Ayatollah Khomeini now became the leader of Iran. Iran is now declared an Islamic Religious State,and denounces all secular Arab countries. Saddam Hussein takes back the 1975 agreement of the Shatt al Arab waterway, and another War begins with Iran. Good old Uncle Sam comes to the rescue with Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. Who is the protector of human rights there? When has the United Nations been able to do anything for Iraq? If we do or did nothing and allowed Saddam free reign to assert his authority we would be as guilty and complicit in his crimes, wouldn't we? And as far as pulling out, to leave Iraq to its own vices is certainly a status quo play in the history book of Iraq. It would solve nothing. How is it right that we allow terrorists to control a vast amount of natural oil resources? I think it is beyond comprehension to let that happen; because they would sell the oil, to buy more, and more sophisticated weapons; maybe not from us; but from China, Russia, or whomever. My point is that inaction is just as evil as what people claim the Bush administration as doing; claiming they are lying, murdering, and spreading their corrupt agenda, in order to take over a sovereign country. I find that to be a pretty weak assumption, because really Iraq has never been a sovereign country. Iraq has always been a hotbed of warring sect's and religious fanatics. Saddam being the latest and one of the most uncompromising; I think in all fairness didn't we give him a chance to come around? We tried to be the good guy to him. We supported him, even provided him weapon's, on a war we didn't want to get involved with in Iran. Instead he went quite overboard and started mass murders throughout Iraq, invaded Kuwait, and refused to cooperate with weapon's inspectors for 12 horrendous years. The people suffered. I could go off and start saying we should have been fighting against Britain for their bungling through the year's in Iraq...but I don't think that would be a remedy either. They had their agenda for the era and times they were in Iraq. They simply fumbled the ball by trying to appoint Prince Faisal, instead of educating them about Democracy. The more obvious thing to point out is how does a nation know how to govern when the people in charge never had a good education. Iraq has had no educational institution's that could actually teach about governmental responsibilities. The only education they have learned is fighting and terror activities. How much more can we stand by and allow this to continue? Then 911 happened in the United States. George Bush admitted Iraq had nothing to do with 911. And the Democrat's say he lied to take us into Iraq. Is that really a lie? Come on think about it! He did not say he was invading Iraq because of 911, but we invaded to stop all terrorists in the World. Saddam was a terrorist. All terrorist do not work together, or have the same ambition's, or make claim's to the same target's; but they still all want to commit terror and push their envelope of political dominance. Whatever the case is in concern to sexing up intelligence to make the case for war; I think those allegation's can easily be born on the side of anti Bush people. The fact is the crisis in Iraq already has been looming over the world for centuries, and to think Scooter Libby or some forged yellow cake document is going to be the last straw to take us into battle; is about as foolish as thinking Santa Claus will be crashing his reindeer sleigh into the new Freedom Tower. The frequent lie that has brought the most attention is where are the Weapon's of Mass Destruction? Where did they go? Do we really know? I remember the first invasion in kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. I recall a number of Iraqi jets flew into Iran and landed. They were never destroyed or targeted by the US, since they were in Iran. Seems to me a similar thing could have happened with the WMD's. Now that Saddam was taken from power, Iran suddenly publicly announces it's nuclear development. Is it possible that Saddam's scientific technology and equipment could have crossed into Iran? That is a viable question to consider! I think we need to be real about these political attacks against President Bush, because the possibility exists. I really don't think any American wants to take the US into a false war; including George Bush. I think it was necessary for the US to invade Iraq. The only thing I don't agree is in the planning. We failed miserably. But that does not mean we should give up. On the contrary if we gave up, Iraq would return to it's pre Saddam condition with other Saddam wannabe's grabbing for power, and asserting their wills on the people. It is as plain as it is today, with the numerous car bombings, suicide hit's, roadside bombing's and sniper's, attacking at will to push their respective cause. It would become worse if we left, and it would not solve one single thing. After all the effort's we have made in nursing this to a reasonable conclusion and the year's that have added up toward this moment in time would all be done for what? Believing Michael Moores film? Believing that fellow American's such as the Bush's are murderers and liars? I beg to differ! We can go on claiming it is about Oil. OK it certainly does have to do with oil. Keeping it out of the hands of terrorist's. Would you think George Bush to be more of a smart President if he invaded North Korea because they have a nuclear weapon, and no oil? I mean at least he is smart enough to realize that our troop's are dying for something, that has value which is Oil, and keeping it out of the hand's of terrorist's. Whereas N. Korea has nothing, except a possible Chinese mini nuke going off, luring us into another War on the Korean Peninsula, while the Chinese secretly and silently standby watching a war unfold. Then they will demand aid from America to help solve the issue. Chinese are like that. They are ready to do anything to expand their commie agenda...even flooding other countries market's with their cheap export's. Now think about Michael Moore's film, which called Bush a traitor to the US, because he appears to be making more money from the Saudi's than from the American taxpayer's. Well would you want him to be an enemy to Saudi Arabia? I mean after all; they sure have more Oil than Iraq, and probably a stronger army than Saddam's. Would that be smart to not have good relations with Saudi Arabia? I think not. I think George HW Bush Senior has done the right thing in befriending the Saudi's, and his interest's are truly for the United State's. The more we think we have the Bush's pegged and nailed, the more we should start thinking the other way about it, and hopefully we will see that what is at stake is; America. We need to have a unified America. The entire negative thing about George Bush is essentially in my opinion not really the truth. Let's consider the impeachment objective. Who in their right mind thinks GW Bush is going to be impeached? I certainly think it hasn't a dog's chance in the zoo. When we consider impeachment we look at our past and situation's that would bring comparisons. I am reminded of Vietnam. We had 58,000 soldiers die in Vietnam. We are nowhere near that number; that has died in Iraq. And Bush has only 2 more years to serve. We did not impeach Johnson; and Nixon was not prosecuted. In fact impeachment hearing's would bring these fact's to the table, and charge's would be leveled that the impeachment of GW Bush is really about the missed opportunity in impeaching Johnson and Nixon. It would become a historical witch-hunt to bring some sort of justice to the War hawk's who have taken us to war in the past. I just don't think GW Bush is anywhere near the comparison's of the Vietnam Era. With our sanctimonious quest to bring him down; it will divide the country further, as we have an unsettled Iraq, with looming political debris haunting us from Iran, N. Korea, and China's friendly sneaking tactics around the globe planting seeds of communism. Not to mention the troubles unfolding in Africa's Darfur region, Ethiopia, and Somalia genocide's. We need to come together as a country, and say hey perhaps George has not been able to tell us exactly like I have tried to today, but he is right that terrorism need's to be stopped, and it is a world problem. Being in China, I agree we need to strengthen our military, and expand it. And China is not at War. I only see the trouble that China cause's internally to it's people, as it entices the West with it's cooperation bs to help them become stronger. The United State's should always have a strong and mighty military. Also I just think we need to join the President, even if we think they stole the election. Al Gore certainly did not have landslide number's to support his win, so I think either candidate would have complained if they were on the short end of the count. Why is it popular President's don't have voter fraud, but suddenly the end to 8 year's of the Clinton year's, lawsuit's enter the court's to remedy election count's? We have become over dramatic to the theft of Democracy. Thinking about it from another point of view only strengthens our hand in the long run, in assuring we have the dignified and honorable democracy that American's strive and live for. If we do not think about it from all perspectives, we might as be like the people in Iraq always at war, with no hope in sight. God Bless America... May we take the resolve to love thy enemies even at home, and be broad enough in mind and stature to know which side of the law we; support. If we go off in accusing our local police of killing innocent people to stop a gang war, while gang's wipe out the neighborhood, and then we want our police to do nothing but leave the neighborhood, it tells me that people really know nothing about the rule of law.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Friday, Jan 5, 2007 at 4:50:12 AM

  (0+)