Mr. Ritter's veneration of the constitution ought to have led him to just the opposite conclusion regarding impeachment.

Fact: Impeachment is the constitutionally sanctioned remedy for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Fact: In launching a war against Iraq without just cause as recognized by international law, the Bush administration committed a crime against the peace -- a clearly developed act that was held at Nuremberg to be the cause of all the other war crimes considered there.

Fact: The Constitution clearly notes that international laws and treaties are the law of the land.

Conclusion, there is a case for impeaching the president for having committed a crime against the peace (a severe and criminal violation of international law for which precedent exists). As such, there is a coherent argument to be made that says he has violated American law in a very serious manner and should stand trial in the Senate (and possibly the Hague).

Mr. Ritter,

I can appreciate what you are saying and agree with you. At the risk of sounding intellectually shallow, the solution you are offering at this time seems distant, or you apparently have a lot more faith in our politicians than we do. Aside from seeking the real reason why her son had to die in this senseless war, Cindy Sheehan is proactive because we need a solution to stop this war NOW, not five years down the road to let the system correct itself, as you seem to suggest. The problem with your recommendation, if I am understanding it, is that we have to wait and watch more Iraqi civilians die, and more of our troops get killed until the war ends, if it ever does. To me, this is a serious flaw in your article: you have no sense of urgency or time. Do you have any suggestions for trying to stop this war now?

I have nothing but respect for Scott Ritter.
He is a true hero to me.
But I think he is wrong on this one. Here's why:

1) He ain't doing anything himself.
2) We ain't got time for his solution.
3) Cindy Sheehan IS doing something.

all the best

We need to galvanize the movement into the system. Progressives should be flooding the precinct caucuses of both the DP and RP parties in their districts, getting elected as state delegates, running for office, and changing the makeup of the corporate parties. If they achieve a legitimate, procedural, and mainstream numerical majority in either of the DP or RP, they can effectively boot the mob out of the RP, and the DLC out of the DP. Only deep public engagement before Nov. 4, 2008, can make it happen. We cannot let the corporate media and PAC's pick the front-runners of the corporate parties. The country can't afford another 4 or 8 years of that.

We've got enough focus groups, blogs, professional protesters, etc. What we really need to do is simple: rally as many progressives and ordinary Americans as possible to attend their caucuses -- rather than the of head-banging of protests, statement-making, martyrdom, etc.

And if this fails, and we must compromise with a Hillary-Lieberman ticket in the DP or the most corrupt pairing imaginable in the RP, then they should either vote third party or not vote at all. We have every reason to get engaged, and no reason to sell out.

More conservative nationalist trash.

Scott Ritter possesses the ability to critique the unconstitutional state of affairs pursued by the Bush administration but is unable to divorce himself from the political system itself that generates immoral wars. He has built for himself a fantasy of a virtuous America which once stood for law, justice, equality, freedom and liberty. This fantasy does not exist, and people like Cindy Sheehan and other anti war "radicals" of low intellectual ability, as he puts it, are unable to grasp the greatness contained in his fantasy world.

Mr. Ritter, when was the USA such a benevolent and virtuous nation state? Was it during the Vietnam era? Was it in the support of Suharto in Indonesia and the blessed support for the massacre in East Timor? Was it during the dirty wars of the 70s- and 80s in Latin America? Maybe it was when the CIA was engineering its many coups in nation states that would not bow to American power (i.e. Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Panama,Congo, etc).

In short Mr Ritter, the "anti-intellectual" impeach now crowd wants the structure of this system to change. We do not accept liberal interventionists who use war to make peace. This is all fallacy, as I am sure you realize by the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis made possible through the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq as you searched out WMD sites in the 1990s. A good soldier does not question the system he/she takes oaths to protect, even if this means limiting ones cognitive ability to perceive the injustices perpetuated by the very system the soldier defends.

While I do not object to public service, I think what might be more productive concerning Ritter's criticisms of the peace movement would be worksops in constitutional application. It is vital that we work within the system and know how do do so effectively. It is just as vital that we work outside of the system in ways that educate and create a movement for change.

What Ritter calls "radical fringe ideology" is sanity compared to the insanity of the mainstream ideology that runs this country. Where I agree with him is that we have to be able to present what we believe in a way that "mainstream" Americans can hear. This requires us to listen to and be able to communicate effectively with others including relatively conservative and non-politicised folks who've bought what the embedded media has fed them. Therein lies our real challenge.

Because of Mr. Ritter's proven integrity, I have to read this one over a few times and let the ideas sink in. He always has something worthwhile to consider. My first reaction is negative. How can he attack Cindy Sheehan? But, a diverse movement is a strong movement. Unfortunately, in a narrow sense, we don't operate as much like the right, and we tend to question authority more often. So, our unity suffers. But, if better tactics can save more GI lives (and Iraqi lives!) it is necessary to consider what Mr. Ritter says.

My first thought has to do with Mr. Ritter's first line of the article. "I have always had an immense appreciation for my country and the ideals and values it aspires to embrace." I too share this sentiment. Sadly, presidential prerogatives over our entire history are too contrary to those ideals for me to let it slide. To quote a Brit with experience in international military operations, T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) when being interviewed by an American in 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference after WWI... "There was no scandal, was there, over your Indian policy?... "And you never ceased to think that what you did was right? You have conquered part of Mexico, you have occupied Hawaii, taken the Philippines and Puerto Rico by force of arms from Spain; freed Cuba and kept a mortgage on it; and you have put your Marines ashore in Central America and forgotten them . . . And yet . . . you are still for self-determination for small nations. You are a small empire, and you have warned us in your Monroe Doctrine that you are going, when you get ready, to be a great empire. And yet you are anti-imperialists..." To quote another former Marine and one of only 19 two-time Medal of Honor winners, Gen. Smedley Butler in 1935 said, "...I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket all the time. Now I am sure of it." U.S. Army Col. David Hackworth, who sadly passed away recently and was one of America's most highly-decorated soldiers said once in 1994, "War and Preparing for War is a Racket."
This has been going on for a long time. One has to ask whether the Constitution is flawed to begin with if our ideals are manipulated so disastrously from the start (Chomsky names John Quincy Adams as the trendsetter). Remember, if it's human-derived, it's flawed. Or were the "founding fathers" writing a long-lost chapter for the Bible? Then, one has to ask, "Are normal avenues for redress sufficient?" Can one criticize Cindy Sheehan so harshly given the options available to the citizen?
As far as the case for impeachment, I am not an expert, but Elizabeth Holtzmann, who played a major role in Richard Nixon's impeachment, makes a thorough case for impeachment. John Dean has called the bush administration "Worse than Watergate."

Why is Cindy Sheehan going after Conyers? Because she understands the Constitution and the way Congress operates. Any legal move toward impeachment has to start in the committee Conyers chairs. In fact, in the past he was a chief advocate for starting that process, and he is just the expert, ruthless investigator we would want running it. Yet now he is blocking impeachment, as his party leadership has called on him to do. He is personally responsible for Congress's dereliction of duty, as described by Scott Ritter, and is therefore a proper target for demonstrations.

Something went badly wrong with the constitutional machinery Ritter respects so much, but he doesn't seem to have noticed. In fact, we're seeing evidence of the utter corruption of the Democratic Party. They've made a decision not to impeach this president, no matter how bad he is. That isn't just dereliction of duty; it's a positive policy, and we need to ask what the reasons could be.

I see two: First, their corporate sponsors aren't through looting the country, and they need the Bushies in charge to do that. That also takes some of the blame off the Democrats, although they have increasingly bought Bush's war and are paying the price in the polls. (14% - lower than Bush!) It's important to remember that the Dems run on essentially the same money the Republicans do. It's mostly corporate, and it's dictating their actions.

Second, they figure that if Bush is still in office and the war is still going in 2008, they will have a free ride in the elections. That is unspeakably immoral, since thousands of people will die for their political advantage, but it is probably correct. Republicans will be essentially unelectable in 2008. I'm not sure why anyone is running for the Republican presidential nomination.

(Contradiction? I don't think so. The parties collude to serve the big money and keep their stranglehold on politics, but they compete for the money and jobs that come with it.)

There is a price to be paid, of course. There are those poll numbers, which reflect total non-performance. Plus, A free ride for the Dems is a free ride for alternative parties, especially when they've put themselves in the toilet along with the Republicans. Next year, there won't BE any spoilers, because there will be so many contenders and the Republicans will be way down there.

It's the Year of the Third Party. It's a nasty situation for the country, but if you're political it's going to be a lot of fun.

Dear Mr. Ritter, Your arguments are very well framed and quite logical; however, I think you have missed the point. As the politicians politic, and the greedy corrupt, and the insane become more psychotic, good people are dying and more will die if something isn't done soon.

Our government has become shamelessly corrupt.
Our "leaders" little more than whacky ideologues with no apparent appreciation for the value of human life.

Now is the time for change. No amount of education can make a person smart. I think Cindy, use "use native intelligence" if you must, has just as much right to run as anyone else.

In our name an insane and morally corrupt regime has murdered hundreds of thousands of people and they show every sign of continuing with their perverted wars against freedom and justice.

Please apply your admirable intellect to bringing a halt to this disaster.

Paul Bramscher:

Good luck. In principle, you're right: the party is a democratic institution that can be taken over from below.

BUT: I've been hearing this talk since the Viet Nam War. Much more intensively in the last six years. Do you see the slightest result? What I see, from this Democratic Congress, is a giant thumb in the eye of the left. Twisted, for good measure. They're a little subtle about it, they keep talking the talk, but they're very careful to fail. It's deliberate, it's obviously deliberate, and it's a message:

Not. A. Chance.

I don't know how they do it, since I'm not an insider; it's probably mostly the money. They've been bought, and they like it that way.

You have a better chance if you jump ship right away. AFTER Hilary is nominated is much too late. Put all that energy into building a real alternative. Especially considering what a wild political year 2008 is going to be. It's the year third parties have a shot, so we might as well take it. At the very least, we can return the Democrats' message with interest.

To be specific: there is only one national peace party. It is also the only one promoting single-payer health care, real sustainability, and all those other progressive issues. I mean the Green Party. With the kind of energy you're talking about putting into a lost cause, we would have a real chance. We certainly need your help.

GPUS.org.

Impeachment is a "within the system" approach, and if you are already limiting yourself by such factors, you may as well limit yourself to the obtainable. The culpability is much more clear for: war of aggression, torture, use of chemical weapons, targeting of civilians, collective punishment than it is for their other more numerous crimes. Tacking on the other stuff makes a "difficult to sell"* approach even harder to sell. (*to the currently elected politicians, anyway)

Another two cents:

If Clinton was not impeached for war crimes in Yugoslavia, what gives us the right to ask for Bush's impeachment? ... gotta start somewhere I guess... and why not with a Republican?? sounds like party politics, but maybe not.

The part of Mr. Ritter's article I think progressive activists need to take home with them is the idea that we have to work on ways to get our anti-war messages and our leftist analyses of the world into the 'mainstream,' the not-involved folks who live down the street from us.

But this isn't news: this has been a major problem with the US left for my entire activist life, starting with the draft resistance in the 60s. As our laundry list of must-address interconnected issues has grown and our understandng that unfettered capitalism and corporate control of the US's political institutions has sharpened, we've left a trail of bodies behind us -- our uncomprehending neighbors. The US population as a whole has been taught to leave policy to the experts, stay out of trouble, give the benefit of the doubt to politicians (with the small proviso that they're all crooks and always, everywhere have been), and generally not think too much.

So we need to go back to basics: If we focused more on local actions (forums, demos, teach-ins) and local door-to-door involvement techniques, and explaining to local kids how selling your body to the state as a weapon of war in return for three-squares-a-day or college tuition, the left would be able to build the kind of national/international force we need to throw the elite out and save the planet.

Byt the way, when Cindy Sheehan spoke at a forum we had on Cape Cod, she helped advance understanding at a local level and put a human face on the costs of the Iraq war. And she continues to do what she thinks best; for that, I have to applaud her.

I find this piece both profoundly disturbing and hopeful at the same time.

One of the things that mosts disturbs me is the generalization that Ritter makes about the Cindy Sheehan and the "impeach now crowd."

Generalizations are just that, and to simply write Sheehan off as a narcissist or the lump everybody who supports impeachment into a category of intellectual laziness and/or political hubris and stupidity is nothing less than a smear, something which you seldom see in Ritter's carefully crafted, thoughtful and usually spot-on writings.

Not to mention the generally arrogant voice that permeates this piece projects (narcissism is a mirror, Mr. Ritter). Others mention the nationalism and militarism that accompany most of Ritter's writings, but he has never pretended to be anything other than he is: a Republican and proud military veteran. But arrogance is always disturbing and never useful.

It also profoundly disturbs me to the marrow of my bones that Ritter is essentially correct, maybe absolutely correct, in his critique of the "left" and our on-going inability to connect with the US public in any significant ways (other than, in my opinion, offering accurate critiques of US history, society and politics).

As an activist and organizer, this most fundamental failure enrages and confuses me every day of my life. We haven't developed (or learned) a colloquial language (and I am talking about a language of thought, feeling and ACTION here) that captures the imaginations of our fellow citizens, neighbors and families. And so we are left in roles (which are useful, but extremely limited)of being critics or martyrs throwing ourselves at the barricades and achieving few positive results.

Which brings up two more points: It is my belief that Cindy Sheehan's challenge to Nancy Pelosi and the actions of the "impeach now crowd" are exactly what Ritter calls for when he stands on the foundations of constitutionalism and the rule of law.

Whether Sheehan can actually defeat Pelosi (and I think it is possible, though not probable), whether the Cheney/Bush gang can ever be brought to justice (highly improbable), the ACTS of mounting an election campaign and impeachment campaign educate both activists and the general public like nothing else can. Ritter somehow seems to miss this.

I am certainly not anti-intellectual, but it seems to me that the training needed to create and effect power comes both through study and action together. Since very few people in the US study much of anything, as Ritter points out in attempting to use sports metaphors, we must start with ACTION and work to express action in an idiom that connects through the heart, mind and body.

Finally, Ritter's call for universal national service is an absolutely important issue that is seldom discussed. The program he lays out and the rationales for it are exactly correct and would contribute greatly to teaching people in the US how to equally bear burdens, and work responsibly together to make this piece of ground that we mis-call the United States a place worth living in.

To my mind, it is an extremely socialistic (from each according to his/her ability) program. It's OK that it comes from a Republican :-]

The national service idea is a really good one. The two weeks of military basic training should include war prevention strategies and nonviolent tactics as well. This is so important - war has cost our country so much. This would be a prime work for a cabinet-level Department of Peace. I remember Scott Ritter saying before the Iraq invasion that he was trying to prevent a war by what he was coming out with because he knew that wars are always dirty business.

To simplify what Ritter says:

1) We are all corrupt (president, congress, American people), so impeachment can only come after we all devote ourselves to a purification process of national service.

2) Cindy Sheehan is not articulating mainstream, 'safe' anti-war rhetoric and therefore doing no good.

I, too, have found Ritter's arguments generally compelling when he addresses the illegality of the war launched against Iraq.

However this article is frail in terms of an argument for how proceed toward impeachment. Perhaps the system is too corrupt to begin impeachment proceedings? But certainly, the grounds for impeachment are solid and have been well-articulated elsewhere. It is the responsibility of Congress to impeach; they may have been 'complicit'--but they can also claim they were 'lied to' with trumped up 'evidence' of WMD.

Nowhere does the massive corruption of our media factor into Ritter's analysis. Nevertheless, it is the media that has ALSO said, in so many ways, that impeachment is off the table.

It's up to people to SHOW UP in numbers to upset the apple cart here. In a sense, Sheehan and others did just that in presenting ONE MILLION signatures for impeachment!

How many public signatures were submitted to begin the impeachment process against Clinton? NONE.

Are we getting the picture? This is NOT a level playing field here Mr. Ritter. This is not a war as you imagine it, but is more of a guerrilla war; it is not clear any more what is effective battling this monster of the media-military-industrial complex.

I'm with Cindy!

http://www.awakeninthedream.com

It appears that many of us view the fate and role of the United States may be a left vs right issue. It shouldn't be. These are polarizing and no unified country can be all left or all right. I hate these labels and I don't respect the people who clutch to extreme ideologies.

We should make decisions based on the facts and compelling arguements. The fact for many people on the so-called left or right leaning ideology is that the United States of America is doing something awfully wrong at home and in the world and it is doing so for misplaced ideology and the greed that takes advantage and uses this ideology to rape the world.

We need to take our country back NOW since we certainly have allowed the misuse of our power and wealth to go on for far too long.

Mr. Ritter's approach is correct, but not now. His ideas will be better served when we have decent citizens in charge. I would no more want myself or my children to serve this nation in any manner under the current administration and congress which is clearly self-serving and whoring out their integrity for money and power.

I read every single comment and the overwhelming majority, in my view, point out that Ritter's logic is based on the existence of an elected government of intelligent leaders with integrity. This is simply not the case.

I love Scott, but the Founding Fathers gave us the ability to impeach for a reason, if the abuses of power of this administration don't call for impeachment proceedings then I really don't know what does.

Throwing stones at Cindy while sitting on your butt... Talk about bad tactics. Maybe you should read your own book Scott.

Ritters' military bias is showing, and he its trying to sell a new book, and a little controversy always sells books

However, he is a weapons expert, not a constitional expert.

The constitution says the house MUST impeach for high crimes and misdemenors, not just if you have an assured chance to win a conviction in the senate. the truth must come out.

Intentionally Lying the public into a war is a high crime
Violating the geneva convention (illegal war) is a high crime
Torture is a high crime
Illegal search and seizure is a high crime (wiretapping without FISA approval)

DO YOUR DUTY..IMPEACH

Mr. Ritter writes, "...compulsory military basic training, in which the draftee would be imbued with discipline and the necessity of adhering to a chain of command."

That is already being done by the masses who are blindly following the Commander in Chief. And that is the problem.

This shows his 'conservative' approach which got us into this, and many other wars. Following authority blindy without any critical thinking.

And he doesn't address his the issue of 'impeachment' being taken off the table. To use his fireman theory, that would be like telling fireman to go fight a fire, but they can't use the one tool that would be effective- WATER.

I agree that all avenues though be explored (congressional, media, corporate), but his attack an Cindy Sheehan, without reflecting on the failure of his own process, seems misplaced. Maybe he should consider that his thinking is what allows these injustices to occur generation after generation.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." — John F. Kennedy

Impreachment must be on the table.

www.NotOneMore.US

Is "vacuous, rambling opinions" an unreasonable assessment? I think Ritter could use help defining his thesis. I'm hardly an intellectual. I just think he could separate his remarks and form two opinion pieces. Rather than a tightly crafted message with a solution, he relies on tricks like generalizations and marginalizing to try and tie his two main points together.

First he has his argument with Sheehan's camp of "intellectually simplistic" and his irritation with the tactics of a poorly trained and executed offense. Then his love of the US Constitution and law, which ties in well with his general call to service and his personal opinion conscription is the sole solution to "strengthen the fabric of America" or some other platitude. I wonder who defines the "average American"? Ritter seems to argue that he has a firm grasp of the definition, and that we would be best served by following his decree.

Anyway, I just want to make sure I put my summary down correctly. According to Ritter, the best way for me to implement the antiwar message is through basic military training and adhering to chain of command. Afterward, i can elect to become a forest technician, perhaps an EMT, a teacher assistants, or an airborne ranger.

For an interesting argument, one would do well to challenge Ritter's ideas of instilling the virtues of the American way of life -and everything good for which this social system stands- by first tracking the current generation of post-military volunteers, and perhaps, post AmeriCorps/Vista volunteers. Perhaps after an analysis of the post-service population is constructed, then one could determine if in fact serving in the US armed forces and Americorps has bettered the individual's appreciation for the constitution and one's "sense of ownership". In turn, one could determine the level of "various" national processes the volunteer is a part.

key phrases:
intellectually simplistic
sense of ownership
average American
chain of command
white male
WASPs

Scott Ritter has learned nothing at all from being subjected to the imperial propaganda machine -- not a thing.

The American revolutionaries never had the numbers behind them, and would never have acted had they waited for the numbers to be there.

The revolutionary promise went unfulfilled in the Constitution because, in order to secure votes, the states had to approve the continuation of slavery and to grant the slave-owners greater political representation.

We remain mired with a schizophrenic charter which has largely functioned as a shield for the few against the people, while claiming sovereignty resides with the people.

An executive counter-revolution against the two branches of governement and against the people has already taken place. The people are already prepared to remove & punish the criminals, but the leaders and would-be leaders are hiding behind procedure and excuses from the more and more dangerous facts. The longer they Hamletically dawdle, the more catastrophic the resolution will be.

American History reeks of enslaved blood from around the globe and Scott Ritter dreams about an America that never was. Scott, you are just another elitist pundit who thinks the level of debate must be raised while courageous people are taking real chances and making real mistakes. Thank God that Cindy Sheehan has greater intestinal fortitude than you.

Scott, You are an American politician's greatest dream: Someone who believes in the lie of what the USA is so completely that you will kill and die defending it and call all others into the service of a corrupt empire. Your denial is hard-wired into who and what you are: You have no escape, you cannot and willfully will not recognize that you and your kind are a perfect tool for those in power: A True Believer. A True Believer who places the services of his heart and mind into service of the criminally corrupt by attempting to defuse our moral outrage.

You can disconnect any potential guilt about your fealty to the corrupt from the examples of your own experience. In your service to a truly non-existent country you have the ready evidence to prove your moral stature above the criminal government of the USA and many of the citizens of the nation. What a shame that you cannot see the fool you have been played for and how full of your own brand of BS you have become. Your elegant BS makes YOU more dangerous than Cindy Sheehan and those like her because you use your BS to attempt to defuse the moral outrage that one naturally has in reaction to the Bush/Cheney juggernaut.

People seldom are able to smell their own BS, so let me make this perfectly clear: YOU ARE FULL OF GOVERNMENT APPROVED GRADE TRIPLE A PLUS BS! The kind of BS used to smother the fires of revolutionary spirit before they have the chance to ignite the ghost of a dream of freedom in the masses.

We as a nation are fragmented and atomized because of BS peddlers like Mr. Ritter. Nothing dies as hard as our own illusions. Scott, do yourself the greatest favor you ever could and kill the great dragon of BS in your own head. Considering the levels of defensive BS you have available to defend what you know is patently wrong I highly doubt that you have the moral, intellectual, or spiritual courage to kill your own illusions and join us out here in reality where governments kill for the sake of their corporate masters.

Our system has been hijacked by a "few tireless and irate men who wish to keep the brushfires of fear burning in our hearts." (Para: Sam Adams) If my house is on fire I am not calling the fire department until after I have risked my life in saving those that I love. I don't need an "expert" to do that for me. I have enough sense to do what I must.

I love freedom more than my illusions, and I know that the only place I am truly free is in the wilderness within. I love freedom enough to ask you Scott, and all people everywhere to kill your illusions and fears.

I must say that I feel terribly sorry for Scott Ritter in the fact that his self-delusion, denial, and BS is so complete as to include his vision of a better world so appealing to his values and worldview that he cannot see the dangers posed by the corrupt and morally bankrupt US government.

Peace be with you Scott: I pray that you wake up. I pray that even the worst among us may be freed from their fears so we may all be free.

Canuck: Right on!

IMPEACH NOW!!! Dick first. Support HR333 and get this ball rolling. It is our only hope as a nation and as a democracy.

I have been reading CD for two years and this is the first time I have felt motivated to respond to an article. Scott Ritter is absolutely right in his believe that mandatory public service would instill good citizenship in the population. Countries as diverse as Switzerland and Israel have some variation of this and they are stronger for it.
However, to play Devil's Advocate, there is no way a country full of fat,lazy,arrogant narcissists is ever going to go for it.

Where is my post? I guess the rantings of this senile sycophant espousing slavery for young people is more appropriate than what I have to say in response. If you want a movement against national slavery/assinine punishment of the youth/fascist shit that targets you personally, then you'll get one, anti-democratic scum.

As an internationalist, I would rather die than be a slave to any pathetic state, especially a rogue aristocratic, homophobic, racist one like america.

The days of republican scum who wish to undemocratically (and it isn't and never will be democracy unless it is ONLY voluntary - unless the 16 year olds themselves, and only the sixteen year olds who face such pathetic, disgusting slavery vote on it themselves. Not old, stupid, right-wing facist child-hating scum) enslave young people are severely numbered. You will be out of office, out of home, out of time.

Mr. Ritter, let me comment on the following sentence from your article:--indeed the most immediately relevant given some posts on this board.

"I single out the "impeach now" crowd in this category, and in particular Cindy Sheehan and the chaotic "Summer of Love 2007″ fiasco which has done more harm to the antiwar movement than many realize."

I couldn't agree with you anymore on this one. I admire your courage to bring up uncomfortable facts. Given your clarity and experience related to knowledge of WMDs, etc, the American public and certainly the progressive community might want to afford you as much praise and significance as anyone.

This isn't to say one should consider only those they disagree with the most. I offer this only to validate your points in an increasingly dissentless forum--as much as I love Common Dreams, etc.

Good work.

You know, Scott, everybody does their bit.
Do what you do well and quit elbowing the efforts of others out of the way. It is an uphill climb as it is--and you, moreso than others know what it is like to be up there alone when others attempt to smear you.

The Nation magazine, and the lot of "progressives" who jumped on Michael Lerners bandwagon complaining that ANSWER was antisemitic in editorials written in the Wall St Journal did much more to sabotage tha antiwar movement than anyone is willing to face. I won't ever forget that.

fat,lazy,arrogant narcissists- Need to get off their but and take a hike. Hope never to see them on a fire crew as a weak link; not good. But, it's what they need!

IMPEACH! Can't think of why not!

The truth needs to be told, and I think Scott believes that without public support, impeachment will be sabotaged.

The support base sits on the couch watching TV!

i've respected Ritter in the past, but I don't even know where to begin with this insulting article. Just a few salent items:

1. National service is a great idea (I'd give a non-military option though, to those consciensiously object to using firearms in anger) But what the hell does it have to do with the matter at hand?

2. Spare me this reverent fawning over the constitution, aside from the bill of rights, the rest is just a dryly written operations manual that is in need of some updating.

3. spare me this "small-town virtues" crap. What small towns? You mean those places with boarded up main streets where no one goes - the only pillars of the communities being out on the 4-lane by-pass - Wal-Mart corporation, Mcdonalds Corporation, and (if he town really hits the big time) Applebees corporation.

4. But, the real personal affront and insult, is his characterization of our movement as "hate filled", "radical", and especially "narcissistic".
Yeah, that's right - just a bunch of commie-pinko, un-american, faggots - taht's us! And, we've given up the pastimes we used to love to spend our precious nonworking hours at marches and street corner pickets because of some kind of self-love. SURE!

Go to hell, Scott!

tj August: Sometimes, before it reaches critical mass, there are those most rightly on the "fringe" (not meant in a disparinging tone as Ritter echoes the negative conotation)who act like the voice in wilderness. It is important to keep up that refrain until the message seeps through. It can be a lonely and unappreciated undertaking but it matters most in the end.

Anyone who thinks the Bush Administration did not commit impeachable offenses during Katrina please remember that Max Mayfield, head of the National Hurricaine Center at that time, reported in an interview that he spoke to Bush personally 2-3 days before Katrina and warned him of the dire situation the people of New Orleans faced. Also, please watch Big Easy to Big Empty, a video by Greg Palast. It is shown periodically on Link Tv. Or, google Bill Quigley and Katrina and read any of his articles. He is a lawyer who lives in New Orleans. He and his wife, a nurse, were trapped in one of the hospitals that were not evacuated for days, trying to care for the patients. If this stuff ain't "high crimes and/or misdemeanors" then the constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Couldn't agree more about Michael Lerner. Tikkun caved in to the zionist!

If my four sons were all still in Junior and Senior High school I would prefer that they be taught the TRUTH about the history of the United States.

To Mr. Ritter: Perhaps replace all the lying textbooks and Stepford teachers with "A People's History of the United States" and lots of Howard Zinn's to 'splain it all to them.

Then perhaps some mandatory courses to teach our children "HOW" to think....for themselves.

And I think it would be grand to offer them the opportunity to work in the Peace Corp (pick your country) or stay in the United States and work for, oh, let's say about $40,000/year plus full medical/dental. Let's say if they do their 3 years then, like the members of Congress, they will have full medical/dental for life!!! And a great pension too! That should get them interested!

But it would be purely voluntary. Never mandatory. It would disgusting to force an individual to pick up a gun and learn to "kill" in your 3 month mandatory basic training for all 18 year old American's.

Just as bad as you forcing me to put a piece of dead animal tissue in my mouth, chew it and swallow it after 40 years of having no meat in my body. It is wrong, and immoral to FORCE people to do things they feel is abhorrent to them spiritually, psychically or physically.

When you had the guts to speak out on this website about the power of AIPAC and it's influence on the US Congress and the Executive, going so far as to say we might just as well raise the Israeli flag here and call it a day, I thought with your intelligence in other areas, and your anti-war stance that you might be an honorable candidate for a third party run for President.

Now that I know that you think it's okay that Bush defined the Constitution as "JUST A GODDAMNED PIECE OF PAPER!", (among all the other impeachable offenses), I withdraw my support of you.

I applaud Cindy Sheehan for what she has done and is doing and I feel your ideas of using FORCE (mandatory service) is a clear indication of the kind of man you are.

No thanks. BTW...Do you support the impeachment of Gonzalez or do you think it's okay for the nation's attorney to be a liar?

Suggestion: **Listen to KPFA out of Berkeley at 1pm Pacific/4pm Eastern this afternoon. "Guns and Butter" today with Webster Tarpley and Bonnie Faulkner. Here's the link:

http://kpfa.org/

The Nation magazine, and the lot of "progressives" who jumped on Michael Lerners bandwagon complaining that ANSWER was antisemitic in editorials written in the Wall St Journal did much more to sabotage tha antiwar movement than anyone is willing to face. I won't ever forget that.

Right on Vern. Right On.

And as for Scotty, eh, we though we knew ye. But you are just another establishmentarian American wanting to bring back an idealized America that never was and never can be under our current economic system. Everyone play nice in the big Democratic-Republican sandbox and behave yourselves.

Having spent most of an adult lifetime trying to work for change within the system, I have come to realize I was wasting my time. Its a fool's errand because this 'system' is bought, paid for and closed up tight by corporate America and its media minions. Now we need brave people on the barricades like Cindy Sheehan who has far more cajones than Mr. Ritter does right now and will go a lot farther in saving what's left of our society. And in case anyone wonders, I lost jobs in talk radio and mainstream print journalism for speaking truth to power, so I do know how it is out in the real world, where people DO lose jobs for speaking out.

And one more think - shove 'nationalist service.' Just because one happens to be born here they no more this any country or government unpaid labor than any other country demands of theirs. And I'm sure any future President in some future 'national emergency' would love to have the fealty of this large pool of conscripted labor at his/her disposal.

scott Ritter wrote:

"Hence my position that repudiation of the systemic failings of our entire system of governance, including the executive and legislative branches, but also the bedrock of American democracy, namely "We the People." We have all failed to perform within either the intent or structures set forth by the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution.

So, you finish your praise of the sacred US constituton, then say there were "systemic failings of the entire system of governance" - considering that the constitution is the manual for said failed system, didn't you just condradict yourself just a bit?

And, not to sound like one of your "narcissists' but in the run-up to the invasion, I wrote my Senators, congressman (no very useful as he opposed the war too), the president, exhorted my co-workers, picketed, marched enhorted co-workers, picked and marched some more, and can within a hair of losing my job for my activities (and certainly wound have been fired if I worked for private industry). So, I surely didn't fail my duty, and to be sure, in your attempts to get the truth out about the so-called WMD's, you did you duty too.

Also, wouldn't a respect and strict reading of the constitution make impeachment mandatory? I'm no lawyer, but surely, deliberate contempt of the constitution that the president swore to uphold (per Art. II Sec 1), and lying to Congress to advance a war for personal gain which he very well knew had nothing to do with national security, would constitute at very least perjury if not high crimes plus misdimeanors - so only thing listed in Art II Sec 4, that the president maybe didn't do was "bribery" - and I'm sure that could be dug up as well.

Like I wrote, Mr. Ritter you once were was making a lot of sense, but this piece is incoherent nonsense. You are only insulting us.

Scott Ritter has openly confided that he voted for Bush in 2000.

Through his actions, he has also had the courage and personal integrity to defy the Bush Administration by speaking out against the manipulation of intelligence which led us into this erroneous 'war', both prior to the Iraq Occupation/Oppression and afterwards.

It appears that he upholds his oath to the Constitution to defend the U.S. from all enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC, as his highest Duty.

He deserves our honor and gratitude.

From my reading of his article today, he's distanced himself from Cindy Sheehan's 'Impeach Now' movement for two reasons:

1. Apparently, that movement has extended its reach to include "Global Environment, Global Health (AIDS and Reproductive Rights) and Hurricane Katrina" as valid reasons for impeachment.

2. Ritter appears to have felt ashamed for Sheehan's criticism of Rep. John Conyers after she and her group had presented their million signature petition asking Conyers to begin impeachment proceedings. (I have to admit that when I first read of Sheehan's criticism of Conyers, I felt a little ashamed myself.)

Essentially, Ritter has stated his own position, offered criticisms, and suggested solutions.

As readers, we don't know what motivated him to write this article. Perhaps something went on behind the scenes between he and Sheehan that challenged his integrity such that he felt compelled to respond?

Given some of the opinions on this thread that might serve to alienate Scott Ritter, am I out of line in asking, when it comes to blind loyalty (to Sheehan, e.g.), if progressives/Democrats/leftists are any better than their conservative/Republican/right-wing counterparts?

If anyone has stood for Principle through this long ordeal, Scott Ritter has.

He hasn't allowed partisanship to affect his understanding of the truth.

As painful as it may be to some, his criticisms are justified.

I like the idea of national service but with a few modifications of the program espoused by Mr. Ritter.

1. No mandatory basic training/brainwashing adolescents to "adhere to a chain of command." How about mandatory lessons in the Constitution and how to think critically about politics in general.

2. How about another placement option: the Peace Corps. Working for impoverished people overseas helps us be less insular and nationalistic and puts a face on the otherwise nameless people that we may someday murder in an illegal war. It is hard to support a war on people that you have met. Perhaps placements should be made in "Axis of Evil" countries first.

3. The government must give our children something in return. Most college students graduate with tens of thousands of dollars of debt. How about 2 free years of college and interest free loans for the remainder in return for the service?

I wrote most of this elsewhere when Cindy Sheehan stepped back in May. Glad I saved a copy. (Haven't read the comments yet, FWIW.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cindy Sheehan had celebrity thrust upon her, and she has more character and virtue in her fingernail parings than all of the warmongers and hapless-warmonger-enablers compacted together.

To the extent that she was not, and did not aspire to become, an "inside politics" or "inside media" or "inside social activism" public figure, she was screwed from the get-go. I have no doubt that she's been sniped at and scorned and hassled as much by ostensibly anti-war or anti-Bush citizens as by wingnut Yahoos.

I recall even Scott Ritter, whom I respect, casually ripping Sheehan in a scathing survey of the chaotic, fragmented "anti-war movement". Military man that he is, the ultimate "inside" career man, he scorned Cindy for walking point by meandering around without an agenda or goals. This reversion to pure jarhead battlefield exasperation, a testosterone-saturated growl of displeasure at some ditsy dame getting in the way, was more of a comment on his narrow focus than a telling criticism of Sheehan.

It's always been obvious to me, Ritter's harsh attitude notwithstanding, that Cindy's public career was indeed improvisational and haphazard and unscripted, i.e. human. We're not allowed to have amateurs in our culture any more; everybody must keep up by being professional or aspiring to be professional-- or at least acknowledging that important matters of any kind are best trusted to professionals, so that the only sane course of action is to submit to professional authority and discipline instead of flying by the seat of one's pants, using one's own brains and heart and spirit and conscience as instruments.

Well, I think it's safe to surmise that Cindy didn't cipher and calculate her plans and intentions as finely as the Scott Ritters et al of the world would wish, and frankly had more pressing concerns that to give a damn about how they judged her.

Maybe the only thing really bugging Mr. Ritter is that he lost his job, wrote a book and sales could be better, and that Cindy Sheehan not only gets more publicity than him, but is actually doing more to end the war.

Ritter is concerned that the President didn't listen to him about WMDs, and we see that Ritter was right. But he doesn't seem to care about giving a voice to other people who are right, and standing up for peace and justice.

You can be an asshole and be right, and you can be an asshole and be wrong, but in either case you are an asshole.

so it goes

"The Cindy Sheehan who gracefully and effectively challenged George Bush in Crawford during the summer of 2005 had mainstream appeal."

And look how effective that was! Things are so much better now than then! Graceful kicks ass, baby! Maybe if we all said "pretty please" a little more often we would garner even more "mainstream" appeal. Wait - let's distribute knee pads and hold a "beg in" at the White House! But remember - there will be no yelling, no anger, no percolating frustration, and definitely no confronting of so-called Representatives!

"The Art of War" is winning without fighting. However, because Master Sun Tzu understood that such a thing was rare, he laid out a Plan B for winning WITH fighting. We are way, way into, as they say in the movies, TIME FOR PLAN B.

Ouch. One would have thought a weapons expert would have known better than to shoot himself in the foot. If Mr. Ritter thinks there is a disconnect between Sheehan's current campaign and public opinion, I think he's at least out of touch with the current poll numbers in support of impeachment--even before any hearings have been held at all. And he should compare that to what popular support there would be for his proposal of compulsory universal military training with no deferments (nevermind that the odds our ruling classes would ever implement such a scheme without exempting themselves is somewhere south of zero out to five decimal places).
Conversely, what Sheehan is doing is 1) realistic and quite achievable 2) entirely voluntary and fully within the best of our democratic traditions, and 3) brilliant in that her chances of unseating Pelosi are inversely proportional to the degree Pelosi satisfies the will of the people.

Mr. Ritter's solution, on the other hand, is not to conform government to the will of the people, but to train the entire citizenry to be obedient within an undemocratic hierarchy of military command. If Mr. Ritter thinks the best way to protect the Constitution is to turn the U.S. into a nation of soldier drones, this sounds to me like a recipe for saving a piece of paper by utterly destroying everything it stands for. We don't need more obedience training. We need more independence, skepticism, and critical thinking, along with some personal integrity, humanity, courage, and action (qualities both Mr. Ritter and Cindy Sheehan have amply displayed, even though I think Ritter has fallen down on critical thought in this instance).

For any of the problems we face, military solutions should be our very last recourse. Not our first.

Until the US populace gets the courage to take to the streets and follow the example of Gandhi's non-violent marches and demonstrations nothing will change. The people have got to WANT the Constitution restored enough to ACT accordingly. If there is no such desire, there will will be no more US Constitution (except in name only).

What a shame to let cowardice bring down such a noble experiment of human governance!!

I think Ritter's idea of mandatory national service for all is a real winner, in that it would promote a real understanding of, and involvement in, our social responsibility in belonging to a participatory democracy. Now, Americans have shown signs that, by and large, they don't give a damn about anything but their TeeVees, trips to the Mall, Video Games, and gas availability for the SUVs, and compulsory service would certainly change that scenario. But with others here, I cannot agree with his criticism of Cindy Sheehan, even while agreeing to disagree with some of the tactics she has used along her path. She fights for what she believes, and she has paid her dues in terms of trying to mobilize people to action against the forces of evil. It is not for any of us to dis any person for trying to move the country in a certain way, unless these attempts only revolve around an attempt at self-aggrandizement in terms of wealth, power, or social status, the open aim of the likes of Falwell, Robertson and their ilk. I see some on the left, but can't think of anybody on the right, who presently is making such sacrifices toward actually causing some change in our system. The strong point of Ritter's piece is his exhortation to get off our fat butts and bloody DO something, rather than complain about the Status Quo. I personally think that we must try to get out impeachment against Bush and Cheney, because otherwise they will never cooperate with Congress, will continue to act as though the rest of the universe doesn't exist, and likely start up yet another ill-conceived war (Where? Iran? Turkey? Pakistan? Syria? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Countries of the earth are to these guys like the bare necks of young women to vampires, especially those with "assets," aka resources.)

Yes, thoughtfully composed. And presented with great dignity and sincerity. But the whole of it seems so completely wrong-headed, and that in a period of great crisis. To get an idea of where we're headed, or, at least, where this criminal cabal is trying to take us, spend a day listening to AM talk radio, preferably in a predominately democratic county like my own. These flip-flop stations flip from rabid right wing democrat bashing and war mongering to sports and back again. All day long, every day. A progressive or democratic point of view? Nowhere found on the dial. And this in a county that votes seventy percent democratic! Then spend some time with Fox News and The Weekly Standard. William Shirer, the WWII radio commentator from Paris and Berlin began his day by reading the popular French right-wing papers to better get a sense of the crisis that was brooding over there with the growth of fascism. Anyone who writes as Scott Ritter has written does not perceive the crisis that so many of us feel is consuming our country, our way of life, our constitution, and the urgency of addressing it immediately with the remedy of impeachment. I hope he's right. That it is just a problem that enlightened leadership and sober citizen participation can rectify. I don't think so. Nor does Ray McGovern. Or Ralph Nader. Or John Dean. Or Bill Moyers. Nope, I think it's a coup. And I'm with Cindy.

Although I too would like to see the war ended immediately, this feeling arises from the fact that it was wrong from the beginning. (I was going to say it was a mistake but it was no mistake, it was exactly what the neocons wanted) Ritter make some excellent points for proceeding in a constitutionally legal manner.

When you attempt something according to an established process rather than in an ad hoc manner, failure can be used as reason to alter the process itself. When you're winging it, it's difficult to pinpoint the causes of success or failure.

Like Bill above, I admire Cindy Sheehan for her sacrifice in becoming a focal point for ending the war. But I, too, don't agree with many of her methods. After the third or fourth arrest, they begin to lose impact and actually serve as ammunition for her detractors.

Although I too would like to see the war ended immediately, this feeling arises from the fact that it was wrong from the beginning. (I was going to say it was a mistake but it was no mistake, it was exactly what the neocons wanted) Ritter makes some excellent points for proceeding in a precise, constitutional manner.

When you attempt something according to an established process rather than in an ad hoc manner, failure can be used as reason to alter the process itself. When you're winging it, it's difficult to pinpoint the causes of success or failure.

Like Bill above, I admire Cindy Sheehan for her sacrifice in becoming a focal point for ending the war. But I also don't agree with many of her methods. After the third or fourth arrest, they begin to lose impact and actually serve as ammunition for her detractors.