This November 13 '07 impeachment poll by the American Research Group, consisting of Democratic/Republican/Independent interviewees, indicates that 70% of the public believes Bush and Cheney have abused their powers. Of all individuals polled, 43% believe Cheney should be impeached (even this late into the game) and 34% believe Bush should be.
Further, if the common layperson properly understood the definition of "high crimes" not incorrectly as violent felonies, but instead and correctly as violations of the Constitution and against officials, then the statistics above might even be greater where support for impeachment is concerned.The opinions "Let's not divide our country" "let's have a positive agenda" "let's not get ugly" even while I agree, also could be ugliest of all for these reasons:
a) Striking Iran could invoke WW III with China and Russia getting involved
B) Citizens overseas have expressed safety concerns due to the war on terror: There must be a way for us to be safe, free AND protective
C) Absent impeachment, future Presidents could also literally get away with murder while similarly trampling the Constitution which Bush called "only a goddamned piece of paper" . Scenarios offshooting that are not to be looked forward to.
Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla has stated that he will "urge the House Judiciary Committee (of which he is a member) to schedule immediate impeachment hearings" and is asking for public input: Please call and weigh in! (202) 225-3001/fax (202) 225-5974
Please contact Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers to urge the absolute necessity of impeaching Cheney first, via HR 333 (now HR 799) as introduced by Dennis Kucinich. Conyers and Pelosi may be being arm-twisted: Public input could possibly help, said the aides at the Representatives' offices which I called.
We may not all agree about impeachment, offered one of those aides, but based on the poll above we can probably all agree that hearings are indicated. Then, we can check in later to come to a consensus (or not).
As a diplomatic suggestion, I agree with this Aide, and hope that readers will please pass this idea on.
Let me also add a ps that assumptions fuel proactivity or inactivity. This understanding is basic to effective activism: By identifying and gently rebutting assumptions made by people, activity can be generated. And where the very thick shell of human denial is to be cracked, treading gently is the best idea: Strong assertions may only generate bristling reactions and turn-offs, but questions can plant the seeds of thought and realization in the public mind. In light of that, here a few questions:
a) If you yourself were President of the United States, and had to ask Congress to declare war for the most legitimate and urgent of reasons, would you be pacing the floor in a few nights of sleepless agony? I can only imagine that the answer is "yes". Of course! And again if you were President of the USA, would you be emotionally capable of taking our kids to war based on a lie? Of course not!
B) What of the fact that Katrina victims were abandoned? Why has the Press down-played the point that Valerie Plame's life was endangered by the leak of her name? Who would endanger a life out of pure revenge? What of the "terrorists" tortured in Guantanamo (with pain levels "equal to severe organ failure and death" as specified in the Military Commissions Act, or the torture bill see www.aclu.org) who, according to the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights, have actually by overwhelming majority been proven innocent? (The Red Cross echoes with an estimate that 70% of Guantanamo detainees are innocent). Yet these poor people will never see their lawyers, be able to challenge the grounds for their detention, nor have they even been so much as charged with a single crime, say the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights. Or at least, where the 850+ innocent detainees are concerned (see the ACLU's movie "Stop the Abuse of Power"). And as an added FYI, the Military Commissions Act (torture bill) grants the Prez the unilateral power to "interpret" the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution, thus dictating the precise form which torture takes. (Alas, it also grants the Prez immunity, so he will never see jail even looming on the horizon. Perhaps that immunity also would interfere with impeachment for torturing innocents dubbed as terrorists: That would be a question to ask an attorney).
C) Who is capable of such things? Enter Bush and Cheney, "coincidentally" an oil man paired with the former head of Haliburton, who did exactly all those things which most of us couldn't even dream of doing, let alone be capable of.
This is the point I am trying to make: It would seem evident that the normal person possessing the faculties of empathy, conscience and remorse wouldn't be capable of doing any of the above. And it is a known fact in the field of psychology that murderers lack not only the feelings of remorse or compassion for their victims, but even the mental faculties thereof. Mental health professionals are not allowed to diagnose without actually seeing a client, or they will lose their licenses. Therefore, it is up to us ordinary citizens to call the shots for what they are:
D) Murderers do not belong with nuclear weapons in their hands. End of chapter, closing of the book. Will Bush live up to his threat to strike Iran? My assertion is that you can bet he will. And that never will a chronic debtor take a moment's thought about resources being stretched too thin, as many citizens argue. Certainly where oil profits and Haliburton contracts without end are concerned, Bush and Cheney will never let up.
E) I suggest we ask the questions, not make the statements, to plant seeds in the public's mind about the matters above. Again in my experience, asking the questions (could you yourself lead our kids to war based on a lie?) gets the point across, but making the statements will only generate more denial. And I suggest that in order to stir the public to action, breaking that denial is critical.