"Congress continues to refuse to exercise its Constitutional responsibility, which is oversight of the executive branch of our government. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi long ago said 'Impeachment is off the table.' This is a joke. We have a president who has abused the power of his office over and over and over again. It's what got the Democrats elected to the majority in Congress in 2006. Now it's election time again, and every member of the House is up for reelection in November. The Democrats are no doubt worried what it will look like to many voters if they spend their time on impeachment. To hell with what's right or wrong. What will it look like? . . . What does it mean when Congress refuses to even consider 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush?"
Chairman? Chairman Conyers? You can stop cowering now. It's safe to come out from under the table. Sure, there were a few grumpy and screaming voices out there, but mostly there was silence. The corporate media does not want to take on this issue and will not be able to handle its actual existence the way it handles the threat of impeachment proceedings. If impeachment hearings get underway, the corporate media will have to deal with the substance of the charges. It will be impossible to simply avoid the matter or treat it dismissively. You know the substance of the charges as well as anyone, but apparently you have not considered what all that information could accomplish.
Seriously, the best the Washington Post could come up with this week was certified ass Dana Milbank ranting about his fear of a President Cheney, which didn't stop him from ranting about some other fear last year when Congressman Kucinich introduced articles to impeach Cheney. And, do you recall the year 2005, in which you sent the Post a letter in response to Milbank's stupid and inaccuracy-packed report on your Downing Street Minutes hearings? You came out looking better than ever, and you did so by crawling out, standing up, and speaking. That might be worth trying again.
I know you want to blame Barack Obama for your cowardice, but Congressman Robert Wexler is part of his campaign and is out there publicly lobbying you to fulfill your oath of office. Can you explain any possible scenario in which John McCain has to answer questions about Bush's impeachable offenses for months and is subsequently elected president? I don't see any way that's possible. You could guarantee victory in your piddly little beloved election by acting to preserve our democratic republic for future generations.
Benito Mussolini said "The function of a citizen and a soldier are inseparable." The US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Posse Comitatus Act all say otherwise. Are you on the side of fascism or the side of our ongoing revolution? Do you understand how clearly and appropriately fascism is an impeachable offense?
Please read this one article, from Kucinich's collection of 35. Then please study the other 34.
VIOLATION OF THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed", has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, repeatedly and illegally established programs to appropriate the power of the military for use in law enforcement. Specifically, he has contravened U.S.C. Title 18. Section 1385, originally enacted in 1878, subsequently amended as "Use of Army and Air Force as Posse Comitatus" and commonly known as the Posse Comitatus Act.
The Act states:
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
The Declaration of Independence states as a specific grievance against the British that the King had "kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures," had "affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the civil power," and had "quarter[ed] large bodies of armed troops among us . . . protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these States."
Despite the Posse Comitatus Act's intent, and in contravention of the law, President Bush