This morning, I read an article on the Huffington Post and was surprised to note that Arianna Huffington has more or less adopted the “party line” on impeachment - and it saddens me that someone as bright and articulate, and who has the traffic to influence hundreds of thousands of people, would adopt a policy that endangers our democratic way of life. This is what Arianna stated:
Second, I did not raise the question of why Pelosi has taken impeachment off the table because, as I’ve said on many occasions, while I believe that Bush and Cheney deserve to be impeached (ten times over!), I also believe that focusing on impeachment would force Congress to take its eye off the ball on the most important issue of our time — ending the war in Iraq. Putting impeachment on the table would inevitably drain resources of time, energy, and outrage better spent on bringing our troops home. And, on top of it, impeachment, even if pursued, would not lead to George Bush leaving office an hour earlier than he already will. Of course, there are many times it is worth doing something on principle, even if it is destined to fail. But not if the effort comes at the expense of taking a much more important stand on principle that actually has a chance to succeed. Many of you clearly disagree with me on this point, but it’s what I believe. MORE
She stated in the article itself that many of her readers would disagree - and on that point she was correct, and the comments are worth reading, as many people expressed their belief in impeachment, and why it was necessary. This is just two examples of the comments I read, and how can we argue with with them?
vote4kucinich- Advertisement -
This war will end eventually, but the very foundation of our country is at stake if we do not hold George Bush and Dick Cheney accountable for their lies and manipulations. They have betrayed us. This is not about revenge on them. It is about us, the American people, and demonstrating our respect for America. It is essential that ‘we the people’ separate ourselves from them and their policies, otherwise we will be complicit in the chaos that they have brought about. Even if they remain in office, we, and the rest of the world will understand that we repudiate Bush and Cheney and all they stand for and have done, and only then can we restore our democracy, and regain our self-respect, and the respect of the world.
Not next month. Not next year. NOW!- Advertisement -
The thought of paying Bush and Cheney a government pension, and providing them with office space, Secret Service protection, etc. for the rest of their lives as a reward for their performance is absolutely horrifying. Both of them, along with Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith deserve nothing better than a cell at Supermax or Pelican Bay where they can reap the reward for that which they’ve sown! War criminals all!
Now, we have conclusive evidence that Bush and Cheney began the illegal wiretapping well in advance of 9-11, which I addressed in a small article yesterday. LINK Since then, another author has written an article far more comprehensive than mine, and it is published in its entirety below, with the consent of Rowan Wolf:
October 16, 2007
The Coup Started Before September 11, 2001
By Rowan Wolf- Advertisement -
For some it is no surprise that the illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens began prior to September 2001. The Bush administration went into office with the plan to “transform” the power of the president with its attempts to implement the “unitary executive.” It was clear from the start with the refusal to release past presidential records as required by law, and then the refusal to obey a court order to release information regarding Cheney’s energy “advisors.” The statement from former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio that Qwest had denied an NSA order for calling records in February 2001 has opened a door on the lie.
President Bush and his administration have pressed continuously for “expedited” and “expanded” surveillance powers. It is clear at this point that the surveillance ordered by Bush via the NSA without FISA warrants was illegal. So too, did the companies who complied with the NSA orders break the law. That is why retrospective immunity is included in currently proposed legislation.
However, the repeated public reason for the necessity of such abridgement of existing law and Constitutional protections has been the events of September 11, 2001. Bush and company have argued repeatedly that they need these expanded powers in order to ensure national security, and as an effective tool in the “war on terrorism.” Repeated thousands of times in hundreds of appearances, we have heard September 11. If that was the impetus, then why was the administration violating the law in February 2001 - six months prior to September 11?