I was struck, as I listened to Bush provide his typical mealymouthed and shallow interpretation of the Intelligence report to a (finally) backboned media, at how easily he ignores and twists fact.

While the NIE report noted that Iran had ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 Bush continued to say that they were still a nuclear threat, could still learn how to enrich uranium and might restart their program  any second now. This is a President who needs enemies, needs to scare a far too docile public with nonexistent danger from paper tigers. The threat of world wide terrorism keeps us focussed on one hand while the other hand picks our pockets.

Your call for impeachment is absolutely on the mark, not only to save us from what Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/Blackwater etal might do in the next year or so, but to make absolute the rule of law and the consequences of violating those laws. The Congress of these United States owes a debt to history that can only be paid by immediately instituting impeachment proceedings against Richard Cheney, followeed immediately by one against George Walker Bush. Only then can we ensure that this stain on our nation has been cleansed.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007 at 6:50:26 AM

  (0+)

Don't for a minute think that Bush/Cheney don't still intend to attack Iran. We are dealing with war-mongers in search of an excuse to undermine, punish or destroy any country that acts independently of these  egomaniacs' dictates.

In fact, as I have pointed out before, we are already in a low level war with Iran, utlizing the Jundullah from Pakistan and the MEK and PJAK from safe havens in Iraq to carry out terrorist attacks and intelligence gathering inside Iran. I am seeing reports that there are American Special Forces inside Iraq as well.

Make no mistake about it, Iran is still at the top of the Neocon hit list and the White House will try to come up with new excuses and propaganda campaigns to rationalize an outright attack by the American military. So we must continue to confront and expose their lies and agendas relentlessly.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007 at 8:02:17 AM

  (0+)

are so off base.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007 at 8:04:59 AM

  (0+)

The fact is that impeachment proceedings can be implemented even after a president or other 'executive officer' has left office.

Few seem to realize that the reasons to impeach have little to do with 'getting back' at a political figure and evrything to do with lessons to future presidents. 

The country and the Constitution simply cannot be allowed to carry forward these presidential treasons as precedent. 

by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 386 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007 at 4:57:05 PM

  (0+)

but I'd add if Americans forgive Bush because he is an American that has offended the sense of decency of the rest of world by breaking his word on the worlds most serious treaties why should the rest of the world forgive Americans.

Another reason to impeach Bush is so that American accents and American passports don't remain evidence that the person possessing them may be deserving of some degree of condemnation.  Of course there are many exceptions many Americans have tried very hard to bring the rule of law and respect for upholding oaths once taken back. But the results speak for themselves. Bush has not yet been impeached and that is an indictment on the American system as comprised of Americans - in the opinion of this foreigner for one, and I suspect in the opinion of many others. Anti-American sentiment has a rational justification now. It makes mathematical sense to generalise and generalisations are appropriate if democracies get the governments they deserve.  

Whats at issue isn't Bush, whats at issue is confidence in the rule of law and preservation of the constitution as fundamental contract between the people and their elected representatives. What is also at issue is how widely culpability for the misdeeds and dishonors of the Bush administration are to be.

Jim, how would you see impeachment after the President leaves office as working, that is an idea I've heard of but not seen detailed. As I understand it the point of impeachment with a President is to remove the incumbent from the powers of the office of President - when the person is no longer President they no longer have Presidential powers and can be prosecuted for any crimes that they are not given political cover (in the form of immunities) for. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Dec 6, 2007 at 4:06:45 PM

  (0+)

So far none of the Dem candidates had been asked about Impeachment directly.  Biden said something on that on his own but it was not distributed.   And folks,  I think you should worry on how are WE oppressed. Those Patriot Acts, they will be forever?

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [130 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007 at 8:34:51 AM

  (0+)

The reason our mental defective in chief claimed during his press conference that "nothing has changed" is that he and Dick have an understanding that the committing of proscribed actions is simply another phase of offense. In addition to that there are other phases. In descending order they are preparing for action,  the thoughts of the potential perpetrator to commit the offense and imaginings of the president/enforcer that an offense may someday take place in this or possibly a parallel universe. With this in mind, enforcement is always in order.

Perhaps that is why Nancy Pelosi has demurred from the impeachment process. Dubya may have pointed out to her that she is vulnerable to prosecution for actions that will someday be outlawed and that she will commit fifteen years from now in universe 12 Alpha. I know it would scare the hell out of me.

On the other hand, maybe they're all just a bunch of anti-Constitutional crooks.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007 at 8:35:28 AM

  (0+)

While all this is fresh in people's minds.

 Personally I am not giddily celebrating the "brave" intel crowd - they had over a year to :leak" this while the Iran people were aware of the breaches in INTERNATIONAL LAW going on with torture, rendition, detention and all the other WAR CRIMES -- but they remained locked like deer in the headlights and stayed MUM. And as the mother of two sons who have to inherit this planet, I say to that - FOR SHAME - actually.

 But to show that the RULE OF LAW is a much better solution, impeachment is the only solution.

 First off, as long as America does NOT pursue impeachment, it can legally be attacked.  Any nation has just cause under the Geneva Conventions for doing so, as the US continues to break international covenants signed into law.  But people are not insisting that these be enforced.

So there is a three-pronged attack: 

(1) remove Pelosi - and we cannot wait for Cindy S. to unseat her as that is not a LEGAL solution.  She, Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Harry Reid all continue to impend the enforcement of the Constitution. 

I am VERY Annoyed at Ron Paul, too, who professes to LOVE THE CONSTITUTION but is mealy mouthed and opportunist - it is only an investigation NOT removal, afterall.  What possible reason can he have to want a coverup and the paper shredders activated?   Why is he not really advocating his supporters get on with this? HE is not upholding his Constitutional duty and his oath of office, EITHER.

Here is the magic word: STONEWALL  - they are stonewalling impeachment, make no mistake about that. 

Pelosi can be recalled by actions in State legislatures .. I have posted some things about how to do that on my blog.  However, once this happens, a state must completely shut down business.  They take an oath of office, also, to uphold the Constitution.

3, Prepare for a thorough grand jury investigation and a WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL.  Dennis Kucinich says he has a 3" binder on things all committed and that is a good start . the "trick" is to show how CONgress colluded and continue to fund an illegal war.

We have all been so blinded by the tricks, killing, corruption, hypocrasy, the cointel pro, the psyops and all the rest, we've last sight of just how to return to the RULE OF LAW. But the whole world is waiting to see it happen.

 There has already been an international tribunal in Japan about Afghanistan whereby Bush was convicted of war crimes.

 In the US, it seems like the environmental, antinuke, labor, antiwar forces just cannot seem to get their act together and act globally.

By pushing for impeachment, in the interest of holding a war crimes tribunal the whole action becomes global. There will be alot support; mark my words on that.  Lots of people know international law and wonder at what is going on in the US. Today's beginning of the Center for Consitutional Rights will mark a great shift on refoccusing on LAW, international LAW. 

I've called for Pelosi's outster for what seems like forever.  She is SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION which she is not doing.  People think I am a crank, esp. about her and JOhn Conyers, but people may now be beginning to "catch on".  The problem is, and has been, the policticking in the democratic party and not because they are afraid of looking weak, nor because they don't want to appear to be attacking a so-called war president, but because they have NO CLEAR SENSE OF VALUES.

The  most important value a sane adult can hold is to want to turn over a livable planet to our children.  That's not what's happening here: it's a damned bleak future and getting worse by the DAY, the hour, the minute.

If you talk to any sane Canadian on the topic of America they ask "why do they not impeach them?"  I have no answer to this.  Maybe people here can recall the lessons of NUREMBERG more easily?

 So I have set up an impeachment toolkit on my blog, I go from thread to thread telling people about it. I've found several allies - people on ICH, crooks and liars, mparent7777-2.blogspot.com, planetization.org, Daily KOS, and others, a list I continue to try to update.  I post day and night to the progressive bloggers webring.  Right now anyone can take off bits and pieces, hopefully I'll get it all rolled into one downloadable package.

 The reasons to hassle Iran are still being compiled. The Kurds just met with Dick Cheny last Wednesday .. the magicians still are working sleight of hand and the crisis is still upon us and the world regardless of the "leakage" of the NIE.

 Time for more work, not less.  Put impeachment ON THE TABLE, it was NEVER there.  The letters I posted from Waxman and Conyers prove it.

They are colluding in WAR CRIMES, time to blow the whistle on all of them. 

by ladybroadoak (39 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 394 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007 at 8:47:23 AM

  (0+)

I believe it would be accurate to say that the NIE was produced in direct opposition and disobedience to the orders that Cheney and Bush's surrogates. There are some heroes behind that NIE who one day should be awarded congressional medals of honor for bravery in the face of traitors who would have lied and deceived the public and congress to start a war-- Bush and Cheney.

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007 at 9:19:30 AM

  (0+)

please explain how the lieberman, one vote majority, threat to switch parties, congressional hearings, and chairmanships will pan out when nancy pelosi calls for impeachment.  will lieberman jump to the republican party and tip the balance so that the chairmanships, the hearings, the investigations and the majority will go to the republicans?

by david stanton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007 at 9:37:26 AM

  (0+)

There exists an agreement, possibly codified in Senate rules by now, that chairmanships will not change until the next Congress. The Republicans clearly went along with it having Jim Jeffords fresh in mind.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007 at 11:54:02 AM

  (0+)

First, Lieberman has a hardon for war, not protecting Bush. Second, he knows where his bread is buttered. If he sides with the Republicans now, he'll lose everything, any majority committee power, when, come January 2009, the Dems start the 111th congress with at least a 55 seat majority in the senate, and Lieberman with four years to go.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007 at 4:12:51 PM

  (0+)

I have been reading the collective comments after Rob's article and agree with the call fo r impeachment. I am guilty of lethargy myself, and please, this is no excuse, but I am so overwhelmed with personal health problems that I find it hard to get actively involved in a way that takes sustained commitment and effort to gathering support for impeachment by rallying  people. I may be dumb and child-like but I see the people I come into contact with have nowhere near the awareness of what is going on that I see in people who post comments to Op-Ed News. I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but how does a critical mass emerge into a groundswell for impeachment when most peoples' backs are to the wall, their political awareness is limited and they have been brainwashed by years of anti-communism never to question or disobey the government on any serious level. In fact, I see the public hunkering down into a dull impotent rage and feeling of hopelessness rather than getting off our duffs (I include myself) and getting something done about censuring and recalling  people like Pelosi and removing the congressional roadblocks to impeachment. What I'm saying is, it is well and good for us who are seeing the urgent need to get these idiots out of office, but I fear that the average person in the street is just hunkering down, resigned to wait out Bush's end of term and hope things will get better after that. They don't see the danger we are all in from these psychotic, dangerous, rogue men in the presidency and if they do see it, they don't have the mental or political wherewithall to know how to do something about it. I am not trying , again, please, to discourage or talk down what I've read on these comments. I agree totally with the need to get this done, but even I myself feel overwhelmed at the magnitude of the job of overcoming the inertia among the commonality of citizenry against taking any drastic actions...and personally I don't understand this reticence in view of the speed and facility of the Clinton attempted impeachmente proceedings that came so close to succeeding, for a relatively minor bunch of offenses compared to the major treason of the Bush-Cheney-neocon cabal. There are vast numbers of dumbed-down, whipped, even aggessively self-destructive people who still believe we must all knuckle under and view doing so as being good citizens, rather than what it is in fact: contributing to the downfall of our country by de facto countenancing of Bush et al by inaction. In other words, I guess I'm saying: I don't know why, but impeachment seems SO complicated to get going, and by rights there should be a public groundswell for it. What I fear is that while the public waits, Bush and his bunch are readying a whole host of terrible 'anti-terrorism' laws that will lock down people and criminalize them for even emitting a peep. Does anyone know about this latest attempt that Kucinich is blowing the whistle on to put in an aparatus for a further police state and criminalize dissent to a much greater degree?

The bill would create a National Commission, who would be charged with the task making legislative recommendations on how to prevent, disrupt and mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Many activists, scholars and civil liberties experts are worried that in order to prevent an act of “homegrown terrorism,” people who have radical or “extreme belief systems” would have to be monitored before a criminal act might occur. This, they surmise, would amount to unlawful surveillance of individuals who are critical to the Bush administration and those who hold power in the current economic and political system.

http://www.indypendent.org/2007/12/02/kucinich-on-hr-1955/

by JOHN LORENZ (23 articles, 117 quicklinks, 118 diaries, 313 comments [25 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007 at 11:24:13 AM

  (0+)

As a followup to my question in my last comment post, sorry, I didn't see Kathryn Smith's article on Op Ed News about things we can do to stop HR 1955/S1959 the Radicalization and Homegrown Terror Prevention Act. That is a good place to start. I will get busy.

by JOHN LORENZ (23 articles, 117 quicklinks, 118 diaries, 313 comments [25 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007 at 12:12:36 PM

  (0+)

First of all, I'm glad the NIE thinks that Iran isn't as close to a nuke as was originally thought. I hope they're right. Clue: It's called the National Intelligence Estimate. Got that? ESTIMATE. We don't know for sure about how advanced Iran's programs were. Also, the estimate believes that Iran's nuke program stopped in 2003. That means there was one in place, folks.

There won't be military action against Iran. And there is no proof that such action was imminent.

There will no impeachment. There will be no perp walks. You think I give a hairy rat's butt that mock war crimes trials have been held in various locations? I could hold a mock war crimes trial in my computer room and convict you all of treason and sedition. Would it mean anything? Nope. Would I even do it? Nope. It's as nonsensical as the other mock trials.

by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 744 comments [30 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007 at 1:54:34 PM

  (0+)

The NIE community is apparently at war with the White House, but they still both probably consider Iran an enemy of the Empire, so you are still likely not getting 100% unfiltered and non-biased info from the NIE.

Meanwhile, Russia had this to say today, and remember, they are right near Iran and have both a sizeable work force and diplomatic infrastructure in Iran:

MOSCOW, December 5 (RIA Novosti) - Russia has no information on Iranian attempts to develop nuclear weapons before 2003, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday.

His statement came following a Monday publication by the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stating that Tehran had halted weapons production in 2003, although it was continuing to enrich uranium.

"We have no data that such work was conducted before 2003, although our American colleagues have claimed that this was the case," Lavrov told a news conference.

"During our continuous contacts over the last two or three years we exchanged assessments based on intelligence data obtained before 2003, and the information our U.S. colleagues possess does not support the statements that Iran ever had a military nuclear program," Lavrov said.

The Russian minister said the issue still needs to be clarified, a goal set by the UN nuclear watchdog.

The UN Security Council introduced two rounds of sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, and Washington has insisted on new sanctions. Lavrov said the sensible restrictions will remain in place until all enrichment issues have been clarified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"We will consider the proposal on a new UN Security Council resolution taking into account all these factors, including the public confirmation that the U.S. has no data that would corroborate that Iran had a military nuclear program," the minister said.

The U.S. report, contradicting a previous U.S. intelligence assessment in 2005 which said that Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear bomb, has pleased Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said: "That report symbolizes a victory for the Iranian nation against international forces on the issue of nuclear weapons."

But Lavrov said the U.S. position on Iran has not toned down since the publication. "I would not describe the U.S. position as softer in any way," he said.

U.S. President George W. Bush remained hawkish, despite the report, saying on Tuesday that, "Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the know how to make a nuclear weapon."

When asked if military action remained an option, the president answered, "The best diplomacy - effective diplomacy - is one in which all options are on the table."

"What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?" the president told a news conference at the White House.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007 at 2:27:38 PM

  (0+)

... I wonder if people know why the 2003 year was thrown out there? 2003 was thrown out because that is the year that the IAEA began on site inspections of Iranian nuclear sites. The IAEA found no evidence of nuclear weapons production then or after, so you cannot very well assert the existance of a program from that point forward.

HOWEVER, if you wanted to be intellectually dishonest, you could propose that one may have ended then and existed beforehand. There would be no independant proof to prove you wrong. It all is very slick.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 6, 2007 at 12:34:13 AM

  (0+)

If US foreign policy is to illegally invade then anyone that is not covertly arming up to meet potential American force with covert or overt force is crazy or is resigned to being a victum.

Anyone that is expecting others to uphold the rule of law and behave civilized whilst they are conspicuously undermining the rule of law and behaving conspicuously uncivilized is in serious denial about human nature. Terrorism is at root a political phenomenon. 

To take away the threat of force being used against Americans (both military and civilian) you have to take away the threat by Americans (through their Presidents elected by the people and held or not held accountable by the people). Force is something that we humans can all do. Dying is something that we can all do. Those things come with our monkey-like birth suits.

If we want peace we need to reason together and recognize that in game theoretical terms when we break our word others will factor that into how they treat us. Tit for tat. When American's stop (or reduce their) titting that will stop (or reduce their) being tatted. 

When there is a multilateral contract between many agents the conspicuous default of one strong agent against a weaker agent will be observed by all the other agents. America offended and concerned everyone that had a rational self interest when Bush broke America's word on the UN Charter - a treaty aimed at "maintaining international peace and security".

American's could reduce their need to protect against terrorism to virtually zip by demonstrating to the world that they are a people of laws and impeaching (which is a public thing) the President that declared the absurd war on terror in the first place and invaded a sovereign country.  How could the recruiters of terrorists characterise America as the great Satan if Americans had impeached their President for high crimes that also happen to be war crimes and crimes against humanity? Impeachment would be obvious and it would be world news.  

As individuals the rule of law applying to all, and being seen to apply to all, would give far more total security to far more Americans, than Bush's absurd war on terror. 

Crimes like 9-11 will always be crimes and will always be persued as such whilst civilization lasts and whilst enough people care about the rule of law enough.  If too few people care about the rule of law then no matter what the documents and agreements between us say, we will not have the peace that comes from having laws. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Dec 6, 2007 at 5:35:51 PM

  (0+)

Only Congress itself can remove a sitting member of Congress.

And since almost everyone in Congress voted for every high crime and misdemeanor that Bush and Cheney asked for, there will be no impeachment proceedings because every time they accused Bush and Cheney of something, they'd have to admit that they themselves voted for it.

Now, if you start to ask yourself WHY the Constitution does not allow us to directly elect or impeach a President, and WHY we have to rely on our representatives but CAN NOT remove them if they refuse to represent us, perhaps you'll begin to understand that our Constitution is a deeply flawed document that was designed to protect the rich from the poor, not a document that would be acceptable in any government of, by, and for the people. 

This is, and always has been, a government of, by, and for the rich. Perhaps you think is is just the exigencies of electoral politics or mere coincidence that everyone in Congress is rich, or that the rich govern better than the poor? A person who doesn't balance their budget or a small business that doesn't balance its books, goes broke. Our government throws money around like a Saudi sheik on a shopping spree, and it is OUR money. The people in Congress MAKE money on their defense investments, they use OUR money to make themselves more money through no-bid defense contracts.

Read Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution. Only Congress itself could remove Pelosi. There is no recall procedure for Members of Congress because Congress itself is the sole judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members. Impeaching a President is in the hands of people who cannot themselves be impeached or recalled. They are untouchable and they do precisely as they wish.

Once you begin to understand that we never had a democratic form of government, or a republican form of government in which we could elect representatives TO REPRESENT US and remove them if they did not, you will begin to understand the problem.

No matter how many millions of letters and phone calls Congress gets, they do not have to respond because our only recourse if they don't is to vote in rigged elections for which they already know the predetermined outcomes.

And don't think that a Dennis Kucinich or a Ron Paul will save you. Every good con game has some shills. CONgress is one of the biggest con games every invented. To think that a con game that big wouldn't have any shills is absurd. This isn't a game to con a few suckers out of their paychecks, this is a game to con all Americans out of everything we have, everything our children will have, and everything our grandchildren will have, and that's just the current debt, which is increasing at the rate of over a million dollars a day for Iraq alone. 

Besides, Congress voted for the Military Commissions Act, which grants Bush, Cheney, everyone in their administration, everyone in Congress, and anyone else guilty, total immunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Fortunately, according to international law, war criminals may not grant themselves immunity, but until this economy collapses and the nations of the world take action to collect on their bad debts, nobody is going to be impeached or prosecuted for anything. They'll just keep on committing war crimes and crimes against humanity on a daily basis, and smiling at you and asking for your vote.

And most of you are dumb enough to vote for them. Heck, I was myself. But not any more. I'm joining the more than 50% of eligible voters in this country who already know that our government is a sham and our elections are a joke, and I'm not voting any more. They can spend all the millions of dollars they want on campaigns, but they can't force me to vote in them. But it won't bother them in the least. There's another sucker born every minute, and they'll get plenty of votes -- at least enough to make it look like it might have been a legitimate election. And that's all they need to keep the con game going.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007 at 10:21:41 PM

  (0+)

1. Members of the House can be removed every two years and members of the senate every six. 

2. Nothing stops law enforcement from arresting them if they commit crimes and nothing stops them from being convicted and serving time.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 6, 2007 at 12:39:29 AM

  (0+)

Better check what the Constitution says on point 2.

by M. Davis (63 articles, 3 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 221 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 6, 2007 at 4:02:15 AM

  (0+)

Dont you know that?

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 6, 2007 at 7:10:46 AM

  (0+)

it is , in fact, a surrender.

Someone as insightful as you are, Mark, should not need a lecture on civic responsibility. Vote Green, Vote Populist, vote Socialist but vote, dammit, be heard! While casting ones ballot every couple of years is not the be all and end all of political action, and each of us should be active in our communities year round, it is an essential part of the process.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Dec 6, 2007 at 12:34:58 PM

  (0+)

We must proceed with impeachment because of all the other rascals waiting for their turn for the key to the treasury.  If Bush / Cheney can demonstrate that they are above the law what kind of signal will this give the next batch of hoodlums that occupy the White House? Impeach because it is the right thing to do!!!

by Michael Chavers (53 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 198 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 6, 2007 at 1:14:25 PM

  (0+)

and because Americans live in a world where what they do and what they don't do at that level of politics is as visible to the rest of the world as a scoundrelling is in a village where everyone knows each others business.

If America doesn't impeach Bush when the case is there for it, people who don't give a damn about Republicans or Democrats because they don't care about domestic American politics but do care about the rule of law globally and that the rule of law is not undermined, will see, and will judge.  

Most people know what the right thing to do is. They know it is not the right thing to forgive trespassess against others - that forgiveness is for those who have been harmed - and Bush has harmed everyone in the world that had a stake in the idea and the principle that countries (especially Western democratic countries) should not launch regressive imperialistic wars of conquest against there solemn promise not to do so. 

Illegally invading countries and killing lots and lots of people is not the right thing to do.  Impeachment is the way that Americans can show the world that they are willing to do the right thing.  If Americans don't they world will see that they haven't. And hostility (overt or covert) towards Americans will quite naturally increase.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Dec 6, 2007 at 4:21:24 PM

  (0+)