To Correctivelens:

"My point is that Congress shouldn't actually undertake this without legitimate legal basis"

There is and has been legitimate legal basis. Of course, the founding fathers deliberately left "high crimes and midemeanors" open to our discernment. But, if you want legalities:

After it was leaked, Bush admitted to Warrantless Wiretapping which was made a FELONY after the Nixon administration. There was no valid reason for him having ammassed billions of American's phone and electronic messages, not even time urgency as you can apply for a warrant 72 hours after starting a wiretap. It is also a violation of the Constitution in that it was established that we should be free in our homes of government surveillance.

Torture and illegal rendition. The Geneva Conventions has become law of the land here, but more importantly it is a violatio of our Constitution as well in that those held in the custody of our government should not be treated cruelly or unusually.

Lying to the Congress for the reasons to going to war (these lies are well-documented, it was not that they had bad information). This undermines the checks and balances that are established - again - in the Constitution.

So, there are three solid legal, constitutional reasons. Oh, did I mention the over 1000 signing statements wherein the President has attached to bills that he signed into law stating that he can choose whether or not he follows that law?

Remember, we only need 1 article to be passed. The bottom line is a precedent needs to be set now that the executive branch (and whatever branch Cheney is in) is not superior to the other two. Whether the Senate finds him guilty is irrelevant. It needs to be established through impeachment which is an indictment that speaks volumes.

Oh, and great article, Mary Ellen, you laid it out beautifully - your impeachment colleaugue in S. Jersey, Cheryl

CherylBW

Well-stated.

Impaech and jail them.

If we do not impeach this war criminals then we remain complicit. My American fellow, this is our path to redemption, for allowing this criminals to commit war crimes.

Ms. Pelosy:
Why is impeachment off the table? You were elected to uphold the constitution. It is not up to you to decide what is on the table and what not.

Impeachment is probably the only thing Bu$h the inferior has ever earned in his life.

It is immoral to deny him what he has so richly earned.

Thanks. We all need to be doing this. As you have established, the movement is growing. Citizens in New England will be convening on July 29th in Worcester, Massachusetts to strategize as to how we can, together, overcome the resistance of mainstream media and spineless politicians.

Activists across the country can learn of the results of this collaboration at maineimpeach.org.

Below is the text of a letter I sent today to the editor of my local newspaper. It may be relevant that I live in a conservative town with a large military-industrial presence; as such I chose not to address the war but those other issues that are cause for impeachment and that might also appeal to conservatives who still value the Constitution. Jeff, as you can see, you are far from alone.

I never thought I would say that I'm embarrassed to be an American. I love my country, but I am appalled at what it is becoming. In our relatively short history, we have survived economic depressions, surprise attacks, and wars. Our capital has been invaded, and the White House burned. We have successfully faced the existential threats of Nazism and Communism complete with their armies and weapons of mass destruction, their concentration camps and gulags to house opponents. During the Great Depression, when 25% of the American workforce was unemployed, we gained hope and courage from the president's pronouncement, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Winston Churchill spoke of the trials that faced the British people and inspired them. Rather than quake in fear, the British people sent their children out of London so they would be safe, and then they endured nightly German bombing raids for month upon month. Since 9/11, our current president has chosen a different path, whereby he has used fear as a political tool to keep the American people quiet while he took unto himself powers that are contrary to the Constitutional rule of law except in time of national emergency. And if, as he claims, the current war is one that will last well beyond the present generation, we can only assume that these powers will become virtually permanent.

Last Friday, on Bill Moyers' Journal, I watched in amazement as conservative Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein and the very liberal John Nichols agreed that impeaching both the president and vice president is needed to restore the rule of law and protect the Constitution. What was equally stunning was that a majority of Americans polled support the impeachment of the vice president and that those for and opposed to impeaching the president were deadlocked. Yet impeachment remains "off the table." To be sure, impeachment is not something to be taken lightly, and it is proper that we have a clear understanding before proceeding of why we should undertake such action.

Do we want America to be a country in which the government can, without a warrant, enter our homes, open our mail, and tap our telephones on the sole order of the President? Do we want America to be a country that kidnaps people off the streets and then sends them off to be tortured and imprisoned without due process? Do we want this to be a country that holds secret trials or uses secret evidence obtained by torture? Do we want a president to be able to claim exemption from laws or to interpret them, taking over the authority of the Judicial branch in such matters? Do we want the President to be able to withhold information from Congress, thereby obstructing their oversight responsibility?

Since we do not have a no confidence vote as in a parliamentary democracy, our Founders provided impeachment as the remedy to restrain any Federal official who claimed extra-Constitutional powers or that he or she was above the law. There are some readers who will claim that I am advocating impeachment for political reasons. But for those of you who are uncomfortable with the idea of a unitary executive or who are opposed to impeaching our current president and vice president, you might consider those same extra-Constitutional powers passing to any of the current candidates, Democrat or Republican.

Impeachment or not-impeachment
What a question . . .

Whether 'tis nobler to allow the criminals
to continue their nefarious deeds
or to stand up and repudiate the darkness
they represent, we cannot say.
Aye, there indeed be a Right
that cannot be denied, an honest way
of dealing with this World
and one's fellow man;

And then there is the way of the bush,
filled with a thousand crows
pecking at the leaves;
pecking at the bark;
pecking, pecking, always pecking,
bleeding those who can neither defend
nor dispute the tragedy of what's been done.

Oh, the pain to face such decisions:
To defend the People and the Constitution,
or continue making excuses
for the sociopaths in charge,
letting them slide by with nary a
tweedle-dee nor tweedle-dum.
Ah, there's the rub!

For if we, in Congress, were to take a stand
for Truth and Justice, and uphold our sacred oaths
given when we took upon ourselves
the burdens of our respective offices . . .

Well, to do so would be to risk the wrath
of our corporate backers,
those who put us here;
those who require of us
our treason to continue
to protect their profits
and outlandish bonuses.

And so, let us give lip service
to the concerns voiced by the People,
by decrying the futility of taking
any action to redress their greivance.
But in the halls of power, let us pretend
to continue with business as usual,
while our soldiers bleed
and our country goes to hell.

We can chat all we want on public forums--and this can be useful for the exchange of information and mobilizing opinion--but i feel that unless our feet hit the pavement, and hard, these words will be mostly wasted. Why? Because the Bush administration has made it plain that nothing will alter their course, not even the Constitution; and because Democrats in Congress, bottlenecked by "leaders" like representatives Pelosi and Conyers, have traitorously removed impeachment from the table.

On Monday, Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern and others will attempt to take a strong message into the Washington, D. C., office of Rep. Conyers. This will be a prelude to a major Occupation Project starting August 6, involving a broad coalition of organizations including Voices for Creative Nonviolence, Declration of Peace, United for Peace and Justice, Veterans for Peace, and many more.

I urge everyone to consider becoming a part of this project so that our words will be better heard by the men and women who so far have done so little to represent our interests in government, or humanity in the Middle East.

Please have a look at the Occupation Project home page for more information:

http://vcnv.org/project/the-occupation-project

Thank you.

Impeach them. Not because we can, but because we must. The cowards in Congress have to stand up to this illegal, immoral executive branch; or, we might as well save our tax dollars and send them home.

Here's yesterday's Keith Olberman's clip:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-SC-Scapegoat.mov

And here is an article regarding Olberman's comments:

New Executive Order Stomps on the Fifth Amendment
"...any (citizen) person who undermines efforts to promote
economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq."

Gambling911.com
7-18-7

The Secretary may make his determination in secret and after the fact. Click here to read this new little gem out of the Bush Administration.

What's it say, you ask? The White House will decide if you are in any way "undermining efforts" in Iraq, or related to Iraq or pretty much anything else, the Treasury Department is authorized to seize your money, property, stocks, etc

Although good in overall notion (stop terrorist funding), the ridiculously broad language in this order takes the 5th amendment, and flushes it down the toilet. As an example, if it appears that if you, say, donate to a charity that the Bush administration determines, without any proof, is trying to undermine the Iraqi government, all of your assets can be frozen. No due process, do not pass go.

The order permits the targeting of those who aid someone else whose assets have been blocked under the order -- wittingly or not. And under Section Five, the government does not have to disclose which organizations are subject to having their assets frozen:

For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

The scope of the order has raised civil-liberties concerns. "Certainly it is highly constitutionally questionable to empower the government to destroy someone economically without giving notice," says Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration.

"This is so sweeping it's staggering. I've never seen anything so broad that it expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population. This covers stabilization in Iraq.

I suppose you could issue an executive order about stabilization in Afghanistan as well. And it goes beyond even attempting violence, to cover those who pose 'a significant risk' of violence. Suppose Congress passed a law saying you've committed a crime if there's significant risk that you might commit a crime."

How does the Secretary of the Treasury feel about a t-shirt that says, 'Stop the War?' Is such a T-shirt considered destabilizing?

http://www.gambling911.com/Executive-Order-Fifth-Ammendment-071907.html

http://www.rense.com/general77/asset.htm

Here is the Olberman clip:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-SC-Scapegoat.mov

VFTW: Your letter carries such a powerful non-confrontational tone, added to well thought out arguments, and concise, keen judgment. Thank you for sharing it with the CD forum, and more importantly sending it off. I think it may hit a nerve.
ROBERTM: I enjoyed your poem... alas, the ways we vent and try to find crevices in the Bush rock to splinter it!

Given the circumstances and information at hand, there is no other course of action save impeachment of bush* and cheney. If Congress does not impeach, they are either cowards or collaborators. Or both.

The majority of the citizens of this country now favor impeachment. If Congress does not bow to the will of the people, our democracy, as we knew it, is no more.

Impeach Now! Wake up America!

I just placed a carefully worded scathing indictment of the Bush Administration calling for impeachment and indictment on one of the MSM message boards, and got a sizeable response from people who are of a similar mindset! In fact, some mentioned marches taking place within their own communities. There was not one opposition voice that joined the discussion. Many people are afraid to post for fear that they will not be heard! When I put up my thread, the responses seemed endless. Go to the MSM message boards and share your message - people will listen!

Ok, a few Bush supporters just showed up and demonstrated much as expected, their lack of intelligence. It is fun arguing with them!

Ah, warpigs. How appropriate. How about impeaching a sitting pResident for starting an illegal war based on lies? You conservative fucknuts are beyond the pale. Had this been a democrat instead of the Texas village idiot you would be wetting your panties shrieking for due constitutional course. By the way, asshole, why aren't you in Iraq fighting the "great leader's" war?

Impeachment is wishful thinking at this point. Three months on, and Kucinich's resolution has only 15 co-sponsors. Let's look at the big picture, folks. Sixteen representatives is only about 3.5 percent of the House, and only about 7 percent of the Democratic House. We've got an awful long way to go to even get to impeachment, let alone conviction in the Senate. It's simply not going to happen, much as I wish otherwise. They're simply not listening to us.

I'm not as concerned about impeachment as I am of stopping the damned war. The Democrats have the power to do that and I'm sick and tired of their excuses. It's like Kucinich said, don't send them a bill. When the Republican's base wanted to stop Bush's immigration bill they got their representatives to do it, in spite of being in the minority, yet the Dems don't have the balls to stop Bush's war and they're in the majority.

let's face it, this is very very long overdue, but we can do it NOW!

some very good comments. would only like to add that about the only way we as a people can hope to regain the respect and confidence of other nations is if we impeach, try and hang the bastards. about time. their crimes merit the same treatment they gave Saddam.

The Democrats absolutely should be pursuing impeachment and to the degree they are not seems to me to not be a matter of political calculation but some sort of complicity, as in being owned by the same people.
I disagree with the outlook that if we don't impeach now we can never do so again and can only expect to have crooked governments in America for the rest of time. Just because it might happen now does not necessarily bar the chance of having a government which chooses to follow the constitution. As it is it looks like the Pelosi led house is going to blow it, we might be best to drop the hyperbole and look ahead to a U.S. legislative body which chooses to follow the constitution.

well claudius:
think there will be no party..
spent the afternoon with an ole american wet worker..
ya know like
slide the silver shive
between the ribs
an twist a bit
an bath
in blood
that flows..

fuck
we gotta start somewhere

so
no parties
something honest
I hope..
Ken

Raster,

I will presume that since you did not mention a name with your profanity-laced message, you are talking to me. Well, it seems we have uncovered a Bush supporter who tried to fool everyone by cloaking himself in liberal anti-war clothing. Nice try, dude. To answer your question, I will not fight in a senseless, shameful, immoral, and illegal war. Since you seem to be in such a self-righteous mood, answer this question for me. How is it Scooter Libby, a convicted felon can have his prison sentence commuted, yet there are two border patrol agents sitting behind bars because they did their jobs. The prosecutor is a "good friend" of Bush's and Bush claims "he looked at the facts, and I trust his judgment." Are the border patrol agents not "good friends" of Bush's? Is that why they are in jail? Is that the message Bush wants to send to the public? I don't understand the logic behind it, do you? So here is a message to take with you to moron-central = your home planet, in the words of one of your leaders Mr. Cheney, you all can go f@#$ yourselves!

claudius, when you suggest posting on MSM message boards what do you mean? I'm new to this posting world and despite my rantings on other CD pages I'm really trying to figure out what the hell is going on. I've come to trust your postings and discussions and have respect for what you say. I'm not sure where raster is coming from either but I wouldn't let him/her get to you.

claudius:

RE: RASTER

I like reading your posts, but i hope you have caught some sleep.

Good old RASTER was not talking to you but an asshole named "WARPIGS" above. You should apologise to Raster since he shooed away the real war supporter named WARPIGS.

peace

they won't impeach, because the truth could come out. and that could be very incriminating to a lot more people than just bush and cheney. it would make for some very nervous polititians, on both sides.

The reason Pelosi is not pursuing impeachment is simple. Next president, which without a doubt will be a Democrat, will have much easier job ruling the country . The ground for him is being prepared by Bush. Just imagine new president and Democrat and with all this power to ignore republicans in Congress. Basically Democrats want what Republicans enjoyed for so long. And next president will not have to break law - Bush is doing it now for him. Also since we know, that Democrats are as much interested in oil from Iraq as republicans, it is good that Bush continues the war - Pelosi with democrats will have someone to blame for Iraq disaster.
To change this vicious circle we need good peple in Congress and that is why I beg Cindy Sheehan to run against Pelosi in next election. Cindy, go for it !

New Mexico Rep. Steven Pearce (R)- On Impeachment of Cheney

There is no cause at this time to consider impeachment proceedings against the Vice-President. He has served this nation honorably and to the best of his ability. Furthermore, the casualness with which impeachment is thrown around simply for partisan purposes over policy differences should be a concern to all American's and the future of our politics. -IDIOT^

I like the last part, I think of impeachment for a blow job compared to impeachment for… well, you name it.

No we are not 'all complicit' in this so lay off with the guilt tripping okay? People like me have done everything these past 6 years except for armed conflict to educate people on how dangerous this bush bastard really is. The only ones 'complicit' are the right wing aholes who follow him blindly without thought.

But I can hear Pelosi saying--Let's not impeach, we may need those powers for ourselves some day.

Democrats showing mercy to George W. Bush and Richard Cheney - they should feel shameful. Did Republicans show them mercy 10 years ago when the wanted to impeach Clinton for lying about having an affair. What Bush/Cheney has done and is continuing doing is much much worse;yet, you show mercy to them? Frankly, the Democrat Party is not left-wing enough!

Several times in human History, groups of people in a nation, who conspired to ruin said nation from within, were "cleansed" as it were based on empirical evidence as punishment for doing so. This "cleansing" can be a very noble and necessary action, if warranted - although there is a relatively common idea, particularly in the USA, that the group doing the cleansing were not noble or just for this cause. Whether it was Cuba kicking out the wealthy inhabitants or France kicking out the Aristocracy once upon a time; the USA needs to do the same for right-wing ideological Christians. Indeed, right-wing ideological Christians are class A hypocrites. Obviously! Think about it, these particular Americans already put the USA in debt of billions of dollars, ruined USA prestige by portraying hypocrisy with pro-genocide ideas and who believe that everything is fine in regards to human rights INSIDE their own nation which clearly it is not! Show the Republicans how "tough" you really are Democrats. They need to know, and do so in a way that shows no mercy. Remember, GOP members called you unamerican and unpatriotic for not supporting an invasion of Iraq, a Republican/ Evangelical Christian idea.

What Democrats and other left-wing ideologues can do? Ban the GOP! Make it a crime, punishable by death, for being Republican after the 2008 election (provided that the GOP do not cheat their way to the White House, which I will not be surprised if they do as they have done this act before). If the USA can punish and executed Communist Americans, as was the case during the nineteen-fifties, so the Democrats can punish Republicans for ruining the USA over the last twenty some years at least. The Democrats should think of this as a "final solution to the Republican/Evangelical Christian problem" in the USA. I doubt this scenario will take place in the USA because the Democrat Party is not left-wing enough. Pity...

"Left wing"?

Why that framing again?

Impeachment is an issue of legality, ethics, rule of law, and upholding constitutional balance of power -- not of partisanship or political ideology.

Instead of hoping anyone is "left-wing" (thereby distancing about 75% of Americans who'd probably not identify with that label), how about "having a backbone", "defending rule of law", or "being a true opposition party", or "acting accordance to the mandate that got them elected, and the public will."?

My reply to Steve Pearce (R-NM)

A blowjob and being lied into occupying the Middle East via the Project for the New American Century plan has a major difference!

No one died from the blowjob.

Taboo Subjects

The Bush Administration, backed to the hilt by republican voters, republican pundits, the Republican owned Monopoly Media, Republican congressmen and Republican oligarchs, have committed far too many crimes to allow any investigations of their actions. Impeachment and War Crimes are "off the table," and will never be investigated or prosecuted because all Americans are implicated, and the whole world knows it.

Republican crimes against the American people will never be investigated or prosecuted because the Democratic leadership is complicit in most of their crimes. High ranking Democrats have very carefully selected to investigate lesser crimes in which they are not complicit, which leaves a multitude of crimes, including treason, "off the table."

This ignoring of "Taboo Subjects' is like ignoring the world is round, and that's the state of denial in our nation.

At this point, maybe our best course of action would be to start nuking other nations randomly to avoid being summoned to appear before the World Court and to maintain our dominance over the world. Perhaps that's what Cheney & Bush have in mind to escape prosecution. Just keep obliterating one country after another until we're the "Last Country left Standing." Then no one would be left to condemn us.

That may seem harsh and extreme to some, but hey, we're Americans, and we own the world. It's ours to destroy if we choose.

Or, we could impeach Cheney & bush to bail ourselves out of this shit.

Make them take the fall.

Who deserves it more?

.

impeachment of both cheney and bush are necessary and if the democrats continue to drag their feet then it might be time to gather all the grass roots organizations and take it to the streets and have series of protests to demand them to either leave office or face the consequences. We the people have to remember we have a lot more power collectively then we realize and that`s probably one of the things that scares the hell out of these criminals the most. Let`s use it to our advantage , i smell a (peaceful) revolution brewing in the air...thank you pluto.

Reactionary conservatives are toothless against liberal pacifists... as long as the bank, Wall Street, the military or their employer doesn't own the liberals.

Democrats are capitalists, that's why they won't impeach Bush. Because democrats are after $$$$. And there would be no $$$ in impeaching Bush, only in support of Bush there is plenty of $$$$ to spend it in nice cars, homes, yats, friends, relationships, nice health, nice bodies, etc. (money can buy heaven), and lack of money leads us the road to hell, that only tragic heroes can bear!!

Aymon,

Thank you.

Raster,

MY SINCEREST APOLOGIES! I DID NOT CATCH WARPIGS POST! AGAIN MY APOLOGIES!!!

malatesta,

If you go to CBS, NBC, ABC, etc., and click on specific articles, there are discussion boards much like the one here on CommonDreams. You will find the garden political variety of participants. From my discovery, there are people who monitor those posts who are too afraid to express their views because they fear others will shout them down. So when I posted my views, it was like a holy-sea. All of these people came out of the woodwork and starting posting their views. As far as Raster goes, I did not catch Warpigs post, so I thought he was responding to my posts. I apologize to Raster (Raster, just a note my friend, next time you post, please quote the person, and put his/her nom de plume in capital letters so that we can catch it, and avoid an embarassing situation such is this one for me. Again, my apologies.)

skeptical,

Thank you for the reference material. Did you just complete your comprehensive exams? (I am about to take mine here in a couple of weeks, and am nervous as all get out, that is why Aymon is right, perhaps I should get some more sleep so I stop making a fool out of myself).

Communism, government control of industries and the economic base, is the flip side of corporatism aka fascism, the merging of corporate power and government power. Either way it puts a relative handful of people in control and accruing power and wealth or the benefits thereof to themselves. Only the action of democracy and democratic processes making government power work for the public good are capable of achieving a balance. Corporations are not persons and should have no such rights. When the US was formed, the revolution against the King and his corporate monopolies and wars have convinced our founders corporatism wasn't the way. Each state had law that severely limited corporate powers and ended any corporation's existence after 40 years. The idea of a communist government sickens me just as much as this crooked privatized corporatist merge, the industrial-military (government) complex these Have Mores have going. BTW- This latest Executive Order of Bush's has been a long time in the planning. When Ashcroft was attorney general he issued an order for all libraries (save law libraries not accessible to the public) to remove from their shelves and destroy five books (sounds like book burning to me), two being books of US statutes, with one common subject in all of them, i.e. telling citizens how they might recover their property, house, car, etc. when it has been illegally confiscated by the government.

The Center for Constitutional Rights has published probably the best Articles of Impeachment against GW Bush.

GOOGLE search CCR to see a summary.

Many impeachment orgs have used CCR's legal version to petition state legislatures to send impeachment advisory resolutions to Congress.

Prepared by non-partisan Constitutional scholars/attorneys, CCR's booklet also gives detailed background on the charges set forth in the Articles.

We used an adaptation of this version in Montana, to petition our state legislature to pass a pro-impeachment resolution -- though it has yet to pass......

CLAUDIUS: Thanks for the idea about posting to the MSM... i.e. not to "the choir." Have you ever tried to call into Cspan's Washington Journal, or have other CD posters had this experience? I tried MANY times on both democratic and independent lines and NEVER got in with a comment. Meanwhile I could swear the same tired Republican voices got in time after time. Anyone else notice that?

Claudius, thanks, Main Stream Media, duh. I actally was trying to google MSM. i can be slow sometimes. Keep up the good work

Siouxrose and Malatesta,

I have tried C-Span and actually got through. You are right, it is difficult to get through. Yesterday's experience was an eye-opener for me. I am wondering if many if not all of us ought to really concentrate our efforts on the mainstream media. Today was very encouraging. I am seeing more and more people calling for impeachment, sit-ins, protests, etc. I really think that if we can widen our base with many of these folks, it will make us that much stronger and really give us hope. Many people just do not know that there are so many of us out there who feel the same way. Howard Zinn was on C-Span and said that there literally are thousands of people working on protest movements, the majority of them grassroots organizations. I feel much better and empowered to see so many people who have been silent now speaking up. Obviously you will encounter Bush supporters, but a few pointed, irrefutable observations usually is enough to make them fold. They know they are outnumbered, and their arguments are weak. It is good that many of us are sharing our knowledge, and I for one am thankful to everyone for their contributions. I have learned a lot from reading the threads. I know that my contributions have nto been as eloquent and articulate as others, but hopefully they were helpful to all of you. In all honesty, I really do feel more optimistic that we actually stand a chance of taking back our country if all of us can communicate, connect, and unite. Forget about the politicians, we have numbers among the people. That to me, is where our focus should be.

As NMBill understands, it was absurd for New Mexico Rep. Steven Pearce (R) to suggest that impeaching Bush and Cheney would trivialize the impeachment concept for "partisan" and "policy" reasons. As NMBill points, out, this just begs the question of why the republicans impeached Clinton, if they think impeachment is so sacred.

But to suggest, as NMBill does, that no one died for Clinton's dalliances, is skating on thin ice, and it ignores an important point. Remember "wag the dog"? At the height of the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton bombed the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan because IT HAD TIES TO AL QAEDA AND WAS MAKING CHEMICAL WEAPONS (sound familiar?). The factory owner and the Sudanese government denied the charges and immediately called on the UN to investigate this act of international terror, a move that the US opposed. The US has never accepted Sudan's offer to investigate the bombing site, and has never produced evidence to establish its claims, though William Cohen testified to the 9-11 commission that the evidence was, to paraphrase, as good as it gets (again, doesn't this sound awfully familiar?).

The al Shifa plant was the main producer of anti-malarial and anti-TB drugs in Sudan. The destruction of the plant may have indirectly cost tens of thousands of lives of individuals deprived of medicine. The US government, of course, does not have an inherent right to bomb factories in other countries. But Clinton was not impeached for international terrorism. Nor was he impeached for his most egregious crimes, waging a war of aggression in Yugoslavia, and carrying on the sanctions-of-mass-destruction that ultimately cost the lives of perhaps 1 million Iraqis.

Who set the precedents for Bush? Was it Clinton? Yes, but it goes back further, to Bush the elder, and before him, to Reagan, and to Carter, Nixon, Johnson, and Kennedy with his egregious use of the CIA.

The point is that we really *do* risk trivializing impeachment if we make it sound partisan-- even by responding to partisan attacks with a partisan defense of Clinton. Because it isn't. If we let the opponents of impeachment turn the discussion to democrats vs. republicans, or to a defense of Clinton, or to comparisons with other presidents, then we have lost. We need to stop arguing about Clinton (i.e., MOVE ON) and focus directly on the recent crimes of this administration, and to the present danger it poses to American principles, to our national security, and to the world.

The main crimes are 1) waging a war of aggression 2) systematically defrauding congress, the UN, and the American people over the causes for war 3) condoning and ultimately encouraging a policy of torture and rendition contrary to US statutory and treaty law 4) spying on Americans contrary to statutory law 5) systematically refusing to support and defend the constitution vis a vis the power of congress to enact laws, and instead, pursuing the power of a despot via signing statements and other expansive executive actions.

Finally, let me mention that Nixon was never convicted, nor even impeached. He resigned when all that had happened was that the *committee vote* had brought the issue of impeachment to the house floor. To get that far, only a few congresspersons were behind it-- no more than the 16 congresspersons supporting HR333 today. But sentiment quickly turned against Nixon.

Imagine this happening with Bush. As soon as impeachment gets to the floor, the game is over. The facade will be broken. No senator will ever defend the "unitary executive" theory. No senator will defend spying on americans. Only a few (Joe Lieberman) will defend torture. But there will be no trial. As soon as impeachment gets to the floor, the game is over. Bush is guilty as sin.

fresh1,

I agree with you. And I used to be of the mindset that impeachment will never happen. But as you cite how Nixon resigned and a committee brought impeachment to the House floor, it was enough to change public opinion. That is why I think even if impeachment does not actually happen, just introducing it could have a profound psychological effect on this country, and we could push Bush, Cheney & Co. out of the White House before the next presidential election. Also, Conyers, Leahy et al need to start invoking the "inherent contempt" to get the rock rolling.

And yet there could be something other than the theoretical extremes of capitalism (fascism) or communism. Both of these resulted in power concentrations and corruptions. The Green TKV is about decentralization of power. There's communitarianism, and other philosophies as well, which emphasize a self-determination which is a Middle Way between State or Corporation (fascism/capitalism/socialism) and every man for himself. I submit communitarianism, and the Green TKV with regard to decentralization and local economies.

Fine to talk about future states, here.

But one thing at a time.

Unless you're convinced that only violent revolution is gonna resolve the present/egregious crisis of governance in the US, focus instead on political action to get Bush&Co mega-fascists politicaly dis-empowered: Either via impeachment, or election-ousting (insisting on paper ballots, of course..).

Buy time to avoid the necessity of reform-thru-violence, because: Humans are mostly unconscious, and (despite any politically-fancy re-education)can rarely separate violent means from violent outcomes.

The US revolution, arguably, being a possibly-durable exception -- but provably not the USSR/China revolutions.

Communism-thru-violent revolution is a cognitively-defective solution to Humanity's challenges: propagated by crypto-fascist, psychologically-rigid ideologues of the 'Left:' Provenly tunnel-visioned, ultra-absolutist, and, in the end, even more presumtuously- murderous than murderousness of corporate capitalism or Monarchy, as history shows.

America's governance structure is rotten. Which means America's present public consciousnes is rotten. Yes, yes.

But, America's Constitution did get it basically right in the beginning. Viz: Nobody gets too powerful; nobody's above the law or unaccountable to self-governing citizens: Not corporations; political parties [sorry, Marxists), elected officials, religious metaphysicians, ad nauseum....

From there, Humanity might make (and has made some) progress. But human progress has never happened from any starting point where the irrepressible 'monkey' in us, is murdered by even dumber monkies who blindly presume that their Ideology has figured-out all the dimensions of Us Creatures .

Any questions? Look at what the former USSR became; look at what PR China is today.

Get rid of Bush Neocons/collusive Democrats in goverment. Elect (with paper ballots) progressives who'll move public epitemology and policy toward something truly-democratic/self-transforming via Reason, like the Scandanavian republics.

Political structures can't reform monkey/human nature: Enlightened political structures can only not-get-in-the-way of average People doing that.

Communists/compulsory Communitarianism, etc., etc., won't ever represent average peoples' capacity for cooperative transcendance anymore than corrupt oligarchies.

As the Enlightenment-inspiried US Constitution's Framers rightly knew.....