I think that Mr. deLespinasse makes some interesting points, but the only real take-aways to me are:

*The initiative shouldn't come from Ms. Pelosi herself.

I agree with this. I should come from Mr. Conyers. But not only is Madam Speaker not initiating impeachment, she's actively trying to squelch it. And I think this is part of the reason why John Conyers, who was very pro-impeachment before the election, has completely changed course. This is totally unacceptable.

*Republicans need to be pressed on this issue too.

You bet. But that doesn't mean the pressure should be taken off the Dems one iota. Anyone in Congress with even a molecule of ethics needs to get behind impeachment. This isn't (merely) about booting the Cheney/Bush regime. It's about restoring constitutional government in this country. That's why it's never too late until inauguration day 2009.

Bla bla bla...."I'm a pro-impeachment Rethuglican who's against impeachment." Huh? They really do think we're all idiots out here. Too bad about 50% or more Murkans truly are and believe this shit.

Wrong. We want the Bush administration held accountable from soup to nuts -not just on Iraq and it is the job of Congress. We witnessed Clinton impeached for a joke by comparison. Republicans will act because their own necks are on the line. Democrats better improve their persuasive powers and strategy fast or there won't be any choir to sing to.

Bull

Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi promised in 2006 to make sure there would be no impeachment. They made this promise during the run up to the 2006 elections.

They've kept that promise. They've kept the House from starting any investigation or proceedings toward impeachment.

It has to start somewhere. The first step is a congressional committee investigating the charges that might lead to counts of impeachment. There are multiple possible charges out there that have been well documented. We can add this week's refusal of President Bush to even allow his staff to be questioned in a congressional investigation to the very long list.

The Nixon impeachment from Watergate did not begin with Republican support. If the Democrats then had waited for Republican support before even beginning, then Nixon would have completed his term. It was the revelations of Nixon's criminal behavior that emerged during the hearings that forced many Republicans to the position Nixon must leave.

Besides which, this has nothing to do with politics. Each member of Congress takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. This has nothing to do with political parties, and all members of Congress should take this oath very serioualy.

Given the long list of possible impeachment charges against Bush and Cheney, and given the increasinly arrogant and unconstitutional behavior of both, it is incumbent on Congress to honor that oath and begin at least an investigation of impeachment.

Right now, it is Nancy Pelosi who is blocking that from occurring. So of course she should feel the heat for this.

It's great to hear from a pro-impeachment Republican, but you are wrong about Pelosi. She is simply playing cynical politics, at the price of the destruction of the Constitution and the lives of young amereicans in Iraq and of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Pelosi, a year ago, concluded (wrongly I believe), that Republicans were self-destructing, and that if Democrats just avoided any controversial actions, like defunding the war or impeachment hearings, they would be handed the White House and the Congress in '08. The slump in polls for the Democratic Congress and for Pelosi in her own home state prove the fallacy of this thinking, but Pelosi's sticking with it.

The truth is, as polls also show, a majority of Americans, and even one in six Republicans (like yourself) favor impeachment--a far higher figure than ever favored Clinton's impeachment, and close to the number that wanted Nixon impeached after the hearings, and we haven't even HAD hearings on Bush!
For that matter, we have a hostile press that doesn't even talk about impeachment this time around, and still have of Americans know in their gut that we have a criminal and usurper in the white House.

So keep up your support for impeachment, and tell Republicans in Congress that they too should be defending the Constitution.

By the way, how many institutions can you name that have willingly allowed their authority to be usurped and trampled, without raising a peep? That's what Congress, under both Republican and Democratic leadership, has been doing with respect to Bush's bogus and wholly unconstitutional claim of "unitary executive" power to simply ignore laws passed by the Congress.

Shouldn't he be impeached today for that abuse of power? It should be a unanimous vote--no hearings needed!

Dave Lindorff
author: "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now out in paperback)
www.thiscantbehappening.net

Point is, the Republicans must be aware of the cries for her head and would rather deal with Pelosi than Sheehan. That should tell you something.

Sounds like this guy watches FOX NEWS. Wouldn't want to pay for his class.

John Coyners is spineless. Maybe Pelosi can loan him some vagisil.

NONSENSE.

There is no legal reason a move for impeachment must come from RepubliKKKans. In fact, to want such a thing is akin to believing the earth is flat and only 6000 years old: RepubliKKKans will come to the impeachment debate kicking and screaming and only if their pig asses are about to be kicked off the government teat because their constituents have had enough of them.

And the only way they ever will be threatened with losing elections is if they are on the record NOT doing what their constituents want. And the only way that will occur is if there is an impeachment in process.

Which brings us back to Shillosi. The reason she must be involved is because, unfortunately, she is Speaker of the House, and she MUST be pushing it for it to be taken seriously.

However, I was pleased to hear him say he didn't think Sheehan has a chance. Since he is a RepubliKKKan, that means he is a liar by definition; and his saying that means he must be scared shitless that Sheehan will run. Good omen for her success...

Not only should Bush CHeney be impeached, they should be imprisoned for crimes against humanity for life. The only reason I don't call for the death penalty for the Americans and Iraqis that died because of them, is that I don't believe in the death penalty.

First of all Pelosi needs to start the process regardless of whether or not it is a winnable venture because it is the right thing to do. Secondly, if the hearings start and enough information were to come out in public, the house republicans would have no choice but to act because letting crimes that are so heinous go unpunished would be certain political suicide.

BS

As said, it wasn't Republicans that started
impeachment against Nixon and I saw no comment above
saying Democrats started the inane impeachment of
Clinton.

We don't need 2/3's to impeach, only a majority.
The 2/3's is needed in the Senate and if a proper
investigation is done it might not be too hard to
get the Republican support needed when the facts
are finally brought to the light of day. And if
nothing else, it should be done to force these
people to stand up and be counted for what they
believe and what they really think of the
constitution and their responsibility to it, to
the American people, and the world.

As someone said, Pelosi shouldn't be the leader of
the impeachment process, but she shouldn't be the
obstacle she appears to be either.

If the Demicans and Pelosi don't do something,
there is no reason Cindy can't win against Pelosi.

Pelosi has on at least two occasions made comments that have weakened her party and the will of the American people. position; the first when she responded to Hugo Chavez' jabs at Bush by calling Chavez "a thug", and second, when she said "impeachment was off the table".

She was not obligated to respond to Chavez and would have served her party well by not responding. If she could not hold back a response, she should have alluded to a the fact that extreme right wing U.S. politics are enabling and empowering extreme left wing politics in Latin America. Calling Chavez a thug further alienated Chavez by making his hat look blacker and Bush's hat look whiter.

By voting to invade Iraq the Democrats gave Bush a license to steal and murder. By verbally taking "impeachment off the table" Pelosi gave Bush a license to steal and murder with no expiration date. Lets hope she didn't raise her kids that way.

Irrespective of her ultimate actions, lets hope Pelosi keeps her mouth shut.

It isn't obvious that Pelosi would be president if Bush is impeached. Part of the way Republicans might be brought into the fold is by offering the presidency to one of them. Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo both want the job and aren't greatly loved by Bush. The idea here is to get Cheney out first-and give W the choice of appointing an acceptable alternative and resigning or impeachment.

But ALL their oaths of office require them to IMPEACH Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, et al, for the Constitutional criminals THAT THEY ARE! In fact, their oaths of office require the Bushists TO RESIGN themselves!!

- We got to impeach Cheney.
- How're you going to impeach Cheney?
- Like they got Spiro Agnew. You charge him with something. Something illegal.
- Like what?
- I don't know. anything. Just so it's illegal.
- What's he done that's illegal?
- A very large number of things. That doesn't matter. You charge him with something - you know, something spectacular. Heavy emotional. Make a big stink. Everybody'd believe it.
- So that's a valid basis for impeachment?
- Sure. It's the Republican way. Pure Karl Rove. I still don't know why in 2000 2004 somebody didn't plant a rumor about the twins both had abortions. It would have changed history.
- All right. So you impeach Cheney. Then what?
- I would love to have that problem.
- So you would just float around enjoying it.
- Sure. Just having him gone. Being rid of him. You could float around for a while just on that.
- You're already floating around.
- Yeah. It's great.
- Yeah. Okay. But at some point you got to do something.
- See, you always get Democrats with sex. Sometimes you get a Republican with sex but with them mostly it's money. You try to get Cheney with sex it's got no ring of truth to it.
- You can say tha again.
- So what do you do? How about this?--You reveal that in the course of his career in public service he's socked away two billion dollars in a secret Swiss bank account.
- That would have the ring of truth?
- You bet. You got to have something with the ring of truth -- like the twins had abortions.
- Did they have abortions?
- How would I know? But to get Cheney with secrecy you got to go in deep.
- Wouldn't the Swiss say it's nonsense?
- I don't know. Maybe. It wouldn't matter. You just keep saying it. You know, like Saddam had WMDs. The Swiss have these secret bank accounts, see, they can't say anything about them. Their lawyers would probably tell them they could neither confirm or deny.
- Okay, okay. You impeach Cheney. You float around. Then what do you do?
- Well, after a while you appoint a new vice president. Like Gerald Ford. Then you impeach Bush.
- Impeach Bush?
- Sure. Why not? You got to cut down on the pardons. Plus which, you impeach Gonzalez.
- Why?
- Appointing a successor to Gonzalez there's confirmation hearings. Confirmation hearings you can investigate all over the place. That feeds the 2008 campaign.
- You think you can stop floating around long enough to do any of that?
- Got to.

Sheehan's got my vote.

Pelosi hasn't done enough.

There is no democratic party, and that's what Sheehan is pointing out.

There is a Republican party, and it is evil. That much is clear.

A new party or movement has to spring up to rid the US of this scourge.

How to get FREE solar panels and stop the Republican war machine:

Incidentally, Sheehan is not doing her job as well as she could either.

She should be doing what Caesar Chavez did: Boycotting.

She should call for immediate boycotts on gasoline purchases, car purchases, air travel, and selected media outlets, and selected corporate driven food brands. Basically, she should start leading economic warfare against the interests pushing for the war.

Let's remember, if 50% of the country cut it's consumption of certain products by 60%, that would represent a 30% drop in revenue for key industries.

That would save people money on the one hand, which could be invested in for instance solar panels for home use.

I agree with you Drex.

But I am really saddened by the lack of movement by everyone--repubs, democrats, the press, everyone. This prez and his veep are making a mockery of everything. They don't have to be accountable; they don't have to put up with oversight; they can lie to Grand Juries; they can lie to go to war if they want to; they can hire and fire who they want to; they can subvert the justice dept for political purposes.

I think it's take your pick--impeach or trial by the international criminal court. The latter has some real advantages.

What a bunch of bull.

einstein: you're spot on. We vote with our dollars, but I think the boycott tactic needs to be more explicit: buy all your gas via Citgo ($$ goes to Venezuela. That money in turn goes to any citizen in the entire world for health care in Cuba. I doubt Michael Moore reported who funds Cuba's health care, which is a real shame).

Buy locally grown organic food only. They will most definitely starve the beast, clean the air, land and water. And it cuts down on gas consumption as well.

Step 1: Impeach Cheney.

Step 2: Bush Appoints some clown as VP (Rove? Gonzo? McCain? Addington?)

Step 3: Impeach Bush

Step 4: Clown becomes POTUS, appoints Court Jester as VP

By the time a step 5 is needed, the White House will have been stripped of most of its power, and a 60-vote majority in the Senate will be easy to achieve on nearly anything to be undertaken.

(My suggestion for Step 5: War Crimes Trials for Bush, Cheney, and Rummy)

Mr. deLespinasse has some good points regardless of what the reactionary mob here at Common Dreams thinks. There was one comment above that I agree with and that was the one that "even if we fail to impeach an attempt to impeach must happen otherwise all the constitutional shredding, all the loss of civil rights, all the power assumed by the White house become law forever". Now I admit I paraphrased a bit but thats the idea. Also, how can the world respect a Country that impeaches a President for a sexual liason with a consenting adult and not impeach an administration that is guilty of every crime they attribute to al-Queida and others-well not many others as al Queida administrations devil incarnate and responsible for everything including Katrina.

RichM is correct. Impeachment is necessary for at least two reasons:

1. For principle. The Bush record must be repudiated for the lies, the war, the authoritarianism, the illegal wire-tapping etc.

2. For politics. The Bush legacy must be permanently bruised. All politicians associated with Bush, and all who pundits and politicians who publicly supported him on major issues, must suffer a political black eye, their credibility on future policies shot. (This second reason is why the Republ. impeached Clinton, only the public did not really buy it. It is also why Reagan should have been impeached, e.g. for allowing the illegal Iran-Contra scandal (he either knew or reasonable as president should have known), so that his name could not be cited as "the great communicator President.")

We would be wise to recognize that impeachment is the best guarantee of electoral success for Democrats and Republicans alike. Voters appreciate efforts to push for a cause. When the Democrats held back from impeachment during Iran Contra, they lost the next elections. When the Democrats led the effort to nvestigate and impeach Nixon, they won big in the next election.

Parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election. In fact, they frequently improve their position -- as evidenced all the way back to the Whigs of last century. In every election back to 1842 where House members of an opposition party to a sitting president have proposed impeachment of the president, that opposition party retained or
improved its position in the House at the following election. There is no instance of voters responding to a significant impeachment effort
by sweeping its advocates out of office. In fact, history points in a
different direction, suggesting that voters frequently reward parties for taking the Constitution and the rule of law seriously.

The Democrats would be wise to begin impeachment proceeding to be certain of winning the next election.

Bush and Cheney have used unlawful detentions and torture. The Supreme Court in Rosul v. George W. Bush ruled detainees were being wrongfully imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in Cuba. The Bush
Administration's detainment policies and actions were ruled unconstitutional and illegal - in violation of Amendments V, VI & VII of the US Constitution.
The use of torture, legally justified by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, is an additional violation to the 8th Amendment.

The Supreme Court again in Hamdan v. Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, et al. ruled that the Military Commissions instituted by the Bush Administration violate the Universal Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions to which we are bound by American law. Again, the Bush Administration's
actions were found by the highest court of the land to be illegal and
unconstitutional - violating Amendments V, VI, VII of the US Constitution. Bush and Cheney and their staffs have defended these policies on video and in writing. The practice of detaining without charge and the numerous victims of it are undisputed public knowledge. Evidence of torture is voluminous and indisputable and includes public photographs.

If we do not impeach when the case is as compelling as it is now, we are effectively removing impeachment from the Constitution. The duty for the US Congress is morally compelling, imperative, and necessary.

Is it possible that Bush has not knowingly violated the law? That is, has Bush authorized spying programs not knowing they violated the law and the Bill of Rights? He's on videotape lying about it for years. He's on videotape confessing to it. A federal court has already ruled what he's done is a felony, finding in NSA vs. ACLU that the NSA program of broad data-mining and warrantless wire-tapping of U.S. citizens is illegal and unconstitutional, violating the Fourth Amendment. Yet, he continues.

Have Bush and Cheney threatened an aggressive war on Iran? They're both on
videotape doing so. A pre-emptive strike on Iran, as on Iraq, would be a violation of international law, against the principles of the United Nations and a violation of Article VI of the US. Constitution.

Was Bush criminally negligent during Hurricane Katrina? He's on videotape
being warned of the danger. He's on videotape claiming he was never warned.

This is only a small part of the evidence for impeachment. The US House of Representatives needs only the will to begin.

I am afraid that by now we are a democracy in name only. Bush/Cheney have declared themselves above the law and the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

Nancy Pslosi is willing to let them get away with whatever they want, firmly keeping impeachment "off the table", and protecting them from any outside efforts to be accountable. I have read criticism of John Conyers for not ignoring her orders, but I have also read that she threatened his chairmanship of the Judiciary committee if he opens impeachment proceedings. I can see she wields her power where she wants to and then claims "the votes aren't there" when it suits her ends. We all know she can cut off the funding for the killing fields but chooses not to. But that is explicitly the job of Congress.

The American people are afraid of their government which sounds to me like we're already a dictatorship but don't realize it yet. We may realize it with Bush's next step. Every step he takes grabs more power for himself and makes a mockery of law and our Constitution. The latest insult was when he said he would talk about the CIA leak case after the investigation, and now he's saying it's over, it's old news, time to move on. I feel like I'm hearing a rerun of Hitler here.

What are we going to do? Wait for Bush to declare martial law and find it's too late to object? This megalomaniac needs to be stopped. America needs to wake up and take back our country. I say take it back because we've lost it. The richest 1% have stolen it and are squeezing us dry. We're working harder for less and the government is giving the fruits of our labor not back to us like other affluent countries do but to the top 1% who control our so-called health care, the media and the government itself. Nancy Pelosi by the way is in that top 1%. Perhaps that explains her behavior. And we're just the cannon fodder. Is this what we want to bequeath to our children?

Why is impeachment of Bush and Cheney so important? The question of who wins the next election, is of very minor importance in comparison with the question of whether future administrations will be compelled to operate within the limitations of the law. Whoever is president next will have to operate under fear of being impeached next. That is the point of impeachment. If we do not impeach Cheney and Bush, we will establish that it is permitted for future presidents and vice presidents to mislead the Congress and the public into wars, spy in violation of the law, detain without charge, torture, operate in secrecy, and rewrite laws with signing statements. Those powers in the wrong hands could do serious damage as Bush and Cheney have proven. As the past has shown, impeachment takes only three or four months--it is time to begin the process.

And the professor is wrong: the House impeaches, the Senate convicts.

Cindy Sheehan loses her son in an illegal war & she is "superb at grand gestures". This reminds me of "A Man For All Seasons" when Sir Thomas is told that his "gesture" is brave.

Cindy Sheehan loses a son and tries to prevent others, American and Iraqi, from losing sons, daughters, husbands, wives, parents, grandparents in a meaningless slaughter intended only to boost earnings for petrocrats & she is belittled for making 'gestures.'

It shows how utterly amoral even 'good Republicans' have become: 'success' is their one and only criterion. Had Bush been "successful", he could still be a criminal as far as the professor is concerned; it's only his lack of his success, and the threat it poses to the Criminal Old Party, that makes him fair game for removal from office.

Considering the source, the act of attempting to disparage and demean Cindy Sheehan--a true progressive--is an indication that she is a threat to the corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats alike.

That is good.

Please fill me in. This man, Paul, tells me that they were the Democrats who initiated Clinton's impeachment. Democrats impeached a Democratic President? Is he right, or is he lying?

Let's see, if the democrats win an election promising to take action, any kind of action, and then proceed to do nothing but stall, and debate, and play political games, what does that say about the future and obama and another clinton?

The desire to protect the stature of the elected governing body at any cost, in this instance by disallowing impeachment proceedings for a total bunch of hypocritical jerk businessmen, is a method that has been used time and time again to retain power amongst the wealthy elite, and deprive anyone else for consideration. Like Sheehan.

A pro-impeachment Republican ?

Hahaha !!

These guys think of something else every time, just to try to remain relevant.

Our constitution lays out a republican form of government--government by representatives. I know that we like to think in democratic terms, but we are a Republic. Democracy is mob rule--51% telling the other 49% what to do. As a republic, those in the minority are supposed to have rights which the mob cannot infringe upon by law or otherwise--no matter what their numbers. This is what our constitution is all about. Let us strive then to remember we are a Republic and our representatives are supposed to (laugh, laugh)represent all of us. They are supposed to recognize our inherent rights given to us by our creator (or by virtue of our being human if you prefer)--not just because we are citizens of a country that has listed certain rights on paper--which the government can take away at its whim. It is to be preferred as a form of government I think, Republic vs. straight rule by numbers.

Yeah, well right now. holymoly, we have rule by less than 1/2 of 1% of the population. They own Congress, the Executive, the Supreme Court and the media. They also own a disproportionate share of our national wealth, and they won't be satisfied until they have all of it and we pay them to work for them. And we're getting there. I just read in Sunday's Eugene Register-Guard that 5% of national income is going to the top 1/100 of 1% of families which hasn't happened since 1920, and they are gloating that this is the new gilded age. They've figured out how to steal elections, wage endless war, and thoroughly dupe the public. This Republic isn't working so well, except for them and their minions. They've pushed through laws that can make any of us an enemy of the state at the President's discretion. Now what?

So at this point, rule by 51% doesn't look so bad to me. Go to www.Ni4D.us and let's take back our country. Our founding fathers made it possible for just this reason.