Just wait until a Democrat gets into the White House, the Republicans will show there true colors again.

The question is, will the Democrats stand up or will they act "nice" and lose in 2012?

Corey Mondello
Boston, Massachusetts
cpmondello@yahoo.com
www.CoreyMondello.com
11-27-07

I am the veteran quoted in this story. I wish I had known this was out there sooner but I generally do not log on to progressive websites.

What I learned that day is what I've suspected all along, that is, we don't have a prayer. I sat and watched Congressman Olver tell us that he agrees with us, that he is aware that the majority of his constituents want impeachment, that he feels that the administration is out of control, that in all his years in Washington he has never seen an administration exhibit such disregard for the rule of law, that he is very afraid that the Bush Administration might try and institute martial law before their time in office is over. MARTIAL LAW!!! Yet he was still resolute in telling us that he would not sign on to impeachment.

I had prepared an entire statement that I was going to present to Olver sharing with him my experience in Afghanistan and Iraq in hopes of appealling to his softer side, but after sitting almost an hour listening to the pleading of my neighbors and his counter to all of there justifiable reasoning I changed my mind. I told him so as well. I told him that I had planned on sharing my experiences with him but after watching him for almost an hour I didn't think it would matter much. So I said to him that I wasn't sure what else we could do to make him listen to us. So I asked what we could do and he gave his answer, at which point the entire room errupted to simultaneous reaction of disbelief in his statement and pleadings, and arguments that leaving Bush in the whitehouse would be counterproductive.

I am not a democrat but I voted for them in 06, pinning my last hope of regaining sanity for our republic on them. We have seen what that has done for us; nothing. I wonder how many more elections my progressive brothers and sisters will vote in before they realize that they are voting for one half of the same party. Both parties are invested in one goal; control. Maintaining their country club life style.
I don't know what the answer is. Maybe I haven't lived long enough to have any real perspective yet. However, I do know that all of the so-called frontrunners in any of the upcoming elections are not talking about the constitution and the sooner we adhere to the ideas laid out by our founders in writings like the federalist papers, the sooner we will wake up to the hoodwinking we have become victim to.

In Liberty!
Cory Bazinet

I totally agree with the central point of this piece that the issue of impeachment should have nothing to do with political calculation - in principle. The problem is, it obviously won't work, except, perhaps, as Barn Burner suggests, in paralysing the Bush Whitehouse.

It's not the idea that's wrong, it's the system in place for putting it into practice. Democrats and Republicans voting on whether to prosecute an elected official who is either Democrat or Republican? Come off it. This is always going to be a matter of political calculation. If Bush and Cheney's crimes aren't enough to transcend partisanship, we're not going to see impeachment until a serving president is shown robbing a bank at gunpoint on national TV.

In what other area of law is the fate of criminals voted on by groups of people with known biases for or against them? It makes no sense.

All that said and given that the current system is unlikely to change for the moment, Pelosi's attitude is a disgrace. Even if there's no real process to guarantee accountability, she should be willing to call a spade a spade using the means available.

Here's an idea: how about arresting Bush and Cheney as enemy combatants?

The best way to get the effects of an impeachment without actually going through the excruciating procedures is to do it in the voting booth and kick all the Republicans out of office that we the people can. Every congressman, every senator, and the president cannot be a Republican, and we have to get rid of that petrified-brain pseudo Republican, Lieberman as well. Nader's best act for this nation would be to keep going after the corporations as therein lies the deepest evil.

marymongret says it best, except we can bring down the king. And we had better heed Settgast's view of the supreme court. That alone ought to give anyone pause who would vote Republican, Independent, or otherwise not Democratic.

Daniel David is the most rational of all.

It is ironic that the Democrats in office attempt to justify their failure to commence impeachment on the grounds that they need instead to spend their time passing their legislative agenda. Frankly, I don't see them doing much of anything of value in that regard. Their "accomplishments" are penny ante at best especially on critical matters like health care, conservation and genuine alternative energy. Moreover, they have proven to be utterly incompetent when it comes to even slowing down the escalation of the war and our loss of freedoms, let alone getting us out of Iraq.

The Democrats in "charge" already look like jokes. So, why not at least distract the Bush/Cheney skullduggers from other mischief by forcing them to spend time defending themselves from impeachment? I have no illusion that the Keystone Koppers in Kongress will actually be successful in the critically important task of removing the worst and most dangerous administration possibly of all time. But, we might at least uncover some things in the process to convince future voters to be embarrassed that they ever voted Republican in the 21st Century.

Nader is astute and concise. This is a great article. Nevertheless, these things have been intuitively obvious to the most casual observer for years - denial notwithstanding.

Knowledge of the truth is evident by the very deftness with which it is avoided by both the right and the left. I am still not convinced that Hillary will be any better than Bush, and I highly doubt she'll give up those powers Bush took unto himself. I don't see any restoration of the Constitution coming from that direction.

All the candidates that are speaking real sense are 'unelectable' and are damned threatening to the status quo, that is, IF once elected they could get ANY cooperation from the democrat and republican incumbents from the congress, senate, judiciary, justice dept., military, and intelligence community after they were elected. I remember how Carter was ousted.

Anyone to the left of John Ashcroft must assuredly have some questions about the events of the last seven years which, if so much as asked in this climate of McCarthy-ish witch hunting of any skeptics of the religious/mythologic foundations of current policy, will either end your career, freedom to travel, or standing as a constitutionally protected citizen.

Skepticism of the whole mythos should have been global when, within two days of the attacks of 911, Police Commissioner Kerick (yes, the same Guillianioid who's on trial for corruption even now) of NYC produced the passport of one of the hijackers in pristine condition - allegedly discovered amongst acres of paper debris, and dust, and the ruins of melted skyscrapers.

None of the shredding of the Bill of Rights following 9/11 could have been accomplished without a passive congress, and especially those of the democratic aisle. It is now revealed that the illegal wiretapping started the day Bush was appointed president, and not with the passage of the Patriot Act following the attacks. What a surprise.

It is a matter of course that the leadership of both parties have the same interests. They know who butters their bread, and who keeps their skeletons in their closets for them. I have no doubt that the sorts of scandals coming out on the right side of the aisle will bleed over to the left in short order if things get too nasty. This is the reason not a single head has rolled after any of the fiascos of the last seven years.

We had incompetent homeland defense on 9/11, utterly ridiculous Katrina response, and fabrication of all justifications for the invasion of Iraq. Now we have the current intrigue surrounding the mistaken shipment of six live nuclear warheads aboard a bomber in which about a thousand 'accidents' had to happen just right to allow so many protocols to be broken without being noticed. Combine this with the current saber rattling against Iran. This should strike terror in the hearts of nations and individuals alike.

I'm sure there is plenty of incentive for the old-timers in the house in senate from BOTH sides of that aisle to keep quiet and comply, increasing the powers of the executive beyond control. If they don't, the whole house of cards is going to come down around their heads when people discover just how deep the corruption goes throughout the democratic and republican parties. We have seen license beyond anything we could have imagined less than a decade ago.

If the United States had the amending clause of the State of Montana, we as a nation could get 10 percent of our voters, including 10 percent from half the states; propose an amendment via petition to the Constitution allowing a popular vote of the people to recall the president or other high officials from office; vote on it as a populace; make it an amendment; and then have a second national referendum to use that power to recall Bush, Cheney *and* Pelosi. The Constitution doesn't give us this option in Article V. But the Preamble and Amendments Nine and 10 give the people the ultimate power. The people are the trunk of the tree of government, whose overlapping branches serve and over whom the people have the ultimate power. After all, the people created the branches. We are sovereign. Just like in Montana and nearly half of the other 50 states.

As Jefferson said (long but worth reading):

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. [We had not yet penetrated to the mother principle, that 'governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it.' Hence, our first constitutions had really no leading principles in them... Though we may say with confidence that the worst of the American constitutions is better than the best which ever existed before in any other country, and that they are wonderfully perfect for a first essay, yet every human essay must have defects. It will remain, therefore, to those now coming on the stage of public affairs to perfect what has been so well begun by those going off it.] [note] I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with, because when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. It is this preposterous idea which has lately deluged Europe in blood. Their monarchs, instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits, and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself and of ordering its own affairs. Let us... avail ourselves of our reason and experience to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced, although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils.
And lastly, let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be, nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has, then, like them a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure. It is now forty years since the constitution of Virginia was formed. The same tables inform us that within that period, two-thirds of the adults then living are now dead. Have then the remaining third, even if they had the wish, the right to hold in obedience to their will and to laws heretofore made by them, the other two-thirds who, with themselves compose the present mass of adults? If they have not, who has? The dead? But the dead have no rights. They are nothing; and nothing cannot own something. Where there is no substance, there can be no accident. This corporeal globe and everything upon it belong to its present corporeal inhabitants during their generation. They alone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone and to declare the law of that direction; and this declaration can only be made by their majority. That majority, then, has a right to depute representatives to a convention and to make the constitution what they think will be the best for themselves... If this avenue be shut to the call of sufferance, it will make itself heard through that of force, and we shall go on as other nations are doing in the endless circle of oppression, rebellion, reformation; and oppression, rebellion, reformation, again; and so on forever." (to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816. ME 15:40)
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/biog/lj34.htm

Come on guys anyone knows that fellatio is a more serious crime than genocide, infanticide and mass murder and the end of the world in the City_of_Mahagonny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_and_Fall_of_the_City_of_Mahagonny

I agree, the poster that suggested that impeachment would overrun the MSM, that then and only then the word would get out to all Americans about the crimes that have been committed in our name. And they have been committed in our name, make no mistake about that. Impeachment would show to the world that the current state of affairs will not stand.

Down the road, let today's action be your balm. If you do nothing about the state of affairs, you forever lose the right to complain and you will be condemned to stew about what could have been.

Send money to your candidate of choice, speak up to friends, relatives, and anyone who will listen. Then and only then will you be able to say to yourself lying there in bed in the early hours of a sleepless morning, I tried, I did the best I could do. Some of course can do better than others, its natural. Some support, some do everything in their power, some actually run for office.

Vote for the person that will make you proud, ask friends and neighbors to vote likewise, slap a bumper sticker on your car. I'm still amazed that when discussing my candidate, people often say who?. Unfortunately, we Americans don't all read CD and the myriad of other fine indy media outlets available to all with net access.

Remember, it is our job to get the word out.

ed

In 2000, Ralph said there's "not a dime's worth of difference" between George W. Bush and Al Gore.

I wonder if he still believes that. I wonder if he'd say that to the mothers and fathers of the soldiers lost in Iraq. I wonder if he'd say that to the Canadian citizen "rendered" overseas for torture, then denied a day in court here in the USA. I wonder if he'd say that to the face of a 9/11 widow, whose husband might still be alive if Al Gore had been the president and had actually read his PDB's instead of dismissing the briefer with, "Okay, now you've covered your ass."

"Not a dime's worth of difference." I guess that's true. It's about half a trillion dollars worth of difference at this point. And counting.

I'm sorry, but I can't forgive Ralph for 2000. I can see many of you Naderites here trying to rationalize and justify your votes in 2000, but you all know, deep in your hearts, that every vote for Nader would have otherwise been a vote for Gore. You knew it then and you know it now. But what I knew then -- no, I *feared* then -- was that Dubya and his cabal might ruin our country. Remains to be seen whether the damage can be repaired.

Not a dime's worth of difference? You'll never be able to convince me.

By the way, I now *advocate* third party campaigns, but targeted against the spineless DINOs in Congress. Run not as Greens, but as Independents who promise to caucus with the Democrats. We have a two party system; get used to it. The only winning strategy is to take back the party. One seat at a time.

Let's make it more like a dollar's worth of difference. Then $10, then a hundred bucks. It might be harder than running as a Green, but it will be worth it.

-- ARG

To impeach or not to impeach? This is not a "yes but" or "maybe not" situation; there is no room for debate; it is a black and white issue. When a citizen breaks the law they must face the consequences. Period. George Bush and Dick Cheney have broken several laws. Not to move forward with impeachment is to look the other way; it is making the decision about which laws to obey and which to ignore. All the arguments about whether it is "best" for our country all boil down to opinion. The rigid bottom line is that the law is the law. We're burning daylight on this issue. Throw the bums out.

Your points are well taken and I do agree with you. In fact the other day I saw an interview with a voter that said he was going to vote for Hillary because he wanted to vote for the winner.

Unfortunately those types, including the ones that won't vote for Kucinich because of his appearance, have always been with us and probably always will be. I remember a woman in the sixties that said she was going to vote for Kennedy because he had good hair.

The only thing that I know to do is to keep trying to inform those around me and those who I come into contact with about what is going on and hope that it persuades a few. The internet has been an absolute boon to mankind in that respect. I think that to an extent it already has and will continue to change the face of politics for the better. I also feel that there is a groundswell, supported by the polls, for real change right now. Hopefully that will translate into turning out quite a few of entrenched recalcitrants from both major parties in 2008. I don't see a third party president getting elected, but if we start to get some representatives with some backbone and the message to others that they need to grow one, mabe we can still see some real change in the next election cycle.

Lobo Gris

I am glad to hear about people who have carefully thought out their actions and have reasons for the things they do. Most people probably haven't thought out why they aren't voting. They are too busy enjoying the high quality of life we are fighting so hard to preserve. Maybe if election day was a holiday,
or we could pay people to vote.

We really don't have much of a democracy. Let's just ask for a dictatorship, the heck with voting! So many people got fooled into voting for Bush/Cheny in 2000 and 2004. Many started out thinking they would be moderates.

What we really need is a clever, and very progressive politician to again fool the people in 2008. That is the only way we would get what we want. It won't be Hillary. What you see is what you get.

Lobo Gris said:

"Personally, I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils and I refuse to not vote."

I see your point and respect it.

I too have tried to remain true to my beliefs - voting for Nader, admittedly only after checking to make sure my state was not a battleground state between Gore and Bush.

Recently, I decided rather than just rage I would champion Kuninich (the candidate that best reflects my beliefs) every chance I had.

I am completely stunned by the reaction I've received face to face as well as in print. What I get back is just more of the same drivel the traditional media gives us and to be fair we get some of this nonsense from the new media as well. The shocking part is that I'm getting this horseshit about how Kuninich looks or how tall he is from people who frankly I expected better of.

I am completely at a lost of how to think about any of this. Nader tells us of a Congressman faced with the reality of the wishes of his constiuency and still bold face tells them - forgetaboutit.

We have Pelosi telling us the same.

We have the administration continuing to lie to us.

We have a press that continues to claim they are doing their job and I can only assume they believe what they say.

And yet, with all my outrage, all our collective outrage, all our pleading, all our earnest efforts, everything is posed to just continue on as before as if none of it matters.

I often think about Bush's response to all the millions of people across the world who unprecedently protested a war that had not started - "I do't listen to focus groups." What a stunning outrage! Of course what wasn't said was - "unless they further my agenda."

Again, the people be dammed - full speed ahead.

29bluesguy offers that "not voting is a poor option."

This may be true, but it may also be true that not voting may be the best option in a sea of worse options.

In a microcosm here is how I see the political arena working.

In 1968 I was a long-haired student protesting against the American involvement in Viet Nam. To those that supported the war effort I was seen as a pinko hippy who was anti-American.

I was drafted right out of college and after much soul-searching and introspection I allowed myself to be inducted into the military.

I went to Viet Nam and became to what was my brethern just a few months earlier a baby killer. I was even spat upon.

My war experience simply verified my anti-war beliefs and particularly my views against American military involvement in Viet Nam. This political experience verified my suspicion that people can be blind to their own failings.

Now looking back, those who still feel that the war was right think of me as an ally because I'm a veteran and those who oppossed that war think of me as the enemy for the same reason. Neither are correct. Both are dangerously simplistic views.

Things are much more complicated than that and require a much more sophisticated and nuanced perspective then this seemingly simplistic reasoning.

Now we have someone like Krauthammer (another simpleton who really isn't and is more dangerous because he is actually manipulative) essentially calling Gore and past President Carter anti-American because it serves his agenda (this being part of his outrage over Gore's Nobel Prize).

We have Congress telling us inanities and insulting and outraging their constiuences because it furthers their agenda - whatever that may be.

Unfortunately these people don't differ greatly from most every other politician from either party (acknowledging notable exceptions).

Confronted with someone as authentic as Carter, or Kuninich, or Jerry Brown, or John Anderson, or McGovern, or Howard Dean, or even Ross Perot the system will discredit them and render them irrelevent and simply move on. And the result is that the people are left standing in the wind trying to make sense of it all as the wheels of power steamroll them into acquiesence.

Why would any sane person want to participate what such scoundrels in such a co-opted, corrupted system?

ej October 15th, 2007 10:55 am

"Lobo Gris said
"The ruling elite want power whether they get it with your vote or not. If they get it without your vote they could care less whether you voted or not."

I totally agree. What I don't see is how our vote changes anything."

In many cases it doesn't, but most especially for those who continue to be cajoled by the ruling duopoly into believing that voting for the lesser of two evils will produce change. It doesn't and the 2006 election is only the latest proof of it.

Personally, I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils and I refuse to not vote. I recognize that I may not change things, by myself I certainly won't. But one thing is absolutely for sure, it won't if people don't vote.

Lobo Gris

By the Corporations for the Corporations!

Screw the people.
The people have only two roles
in this ownership society,
consumers and cannon fodder.

Now go shopping or go to war!!
--------------------------------
Revolution is the Solution!!!

I have to say this is an interesting discussion and this is the first time I am contributing here at this website.
I agree, that there should be impeachment, and that our Congress and current crop of presidential candidates are disappointing to say the least. But we should realize, of course, that this is why the population is so apathetic. It really is just more politics as usual. Take a look at our past wars, were they really much different? There isn't much hope for anything different, in my opinion. But I try to do what little I can.
Not voting is a poor option. Go ahead and vote for candidates who at least stand the right way on some of your issues. Otherwise you will just join the apathetic majority. Those are the people who are justifiably concentrating on their own lives. It really is hard to save the world. But at least go out and vote. The Bushies are carrying out their program, at our expense, by using the people who are scared of all foreigners as terrorists, and who think we have to protect what is so wonderful about our country at all costs. Of course, it has never been that wonderful, just another myth.
To those people talking gloom and doom here; it's true that it is pretty bad. But I would point out that it is pretty much the same we've been getting throughout our history. There isn't anything new here.
There are some leaders a little better, some a little worse. They are mostly all the same.
As examples, president Truman was arguably a mass murderer, our own cival war was brutal and avoidable etc. There are just so many myths needing to be destroyed. The people need to learn our "real" history, not the one taught.
But I would still prefer someone just a little better as a leader, if I can't get my choice. The average poitician, unfortunately, has to lie, cheat, and sell his soul, to get into office and advance.

Lobo Gris said
"The ruling elite want power whether they get it with your vote or not. If they get it without your vote they could care less whether you voted or not."

I totally agree. What I don't see is how our vote changes anything.

I'm trying not to be cynical, but it is getting increasingly more difficult not to.

We vote and one side cheats their way into office - twice.

We vote for change and we get nothing changed.

We seek change through a new election and it seems that we will be given choices that don't represent significant or profound change and may, in fact, be more of the same kind of politics than what we want.

Attacking the constitution to strip away the system of checks and balances, getting rid of habeas corpus, compromising the Bill of Rights, lying this country into war, and threantening the world by breaking International law are not partisan issues.

How many in Congress have signed (just signed - no other action asked for) the Kucinich resolution in the House for impeachment? I may be mistaken, but I think the number is 12.

Where in all of this has our vote mattered?

This is an outrage and an embarressment and leads to the question - why bother to vote?

This cliche comes to mind - "lie down with dogs and wake up with fleas."

No matter how pure our motives and hearts may be, everytime we try to affect change with our vote for the betterment of the world the dogs give us fleas and we just end up with more of the same crap (sometimes even more).

There was a lobbyist who when asked if he voted (I believe under oath and I'm sorry I don't recall the name or circumstances) answered no, it was more effective to give money.

I think he was spot on.

Our votes don't really count, it's the big money that is listened to.

#
whitewatersally October 14th, 2007 8:39 pm

"LOBOGRIS..I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH VOTING,IF BUSH IS NOT IMPEACHED–FIRST..I THINK ALOT OF PEOPLE WOULD FEEL THE SAME…I AM AGAINST GIVING THE RULING ELITE WHAT THEY DESIRE (OUR VOTES)"

I have to disagree with you. The ruling elite want power whether they get it with your vote or not. If they get it without your vote they could care less whether you voted or not. The only way your method would work is if every voter refused to vote and zero votes were cast. That isn't going to happen. Some votes would be cast even if it was only family and friends of the candidate, and there is no threshold number of minimum votes required to elect a candidate.

BTW as a matter of net etiquette just in case you didn't know, using all caps is considered yelling. I haven't yelled at you so I would appreciate it if you didn't yell at me.

Lobo Gris

I haven't read every comment and there are a lot. I've been thinking about the Impeachment question for some time and I feel the reason no one is willing to impeach, and we all know this rogue government needs more than impeachment is this: an impeachment trial will show that the Bush government and consequently the Congress is guilty of war crimes and I feel that realization is just too much for America at this point to face. We would be a country like Germany was after WW 2. A country of war criminals. No one wants this especially the ones who are war criminals...which is most of our representatives in Washington D.C.

Thank you Ralph Nader for saying it as it is. Given a chance I would vote for you again. You were right even then to run independent of the two parties. We now have the absolute proof that the spineless Dems were part of the problem. Our only remaining option is a massive voter protest that votes both parties out. People, the way to do that is to vote for the LEAST LIKELY TO WIN candidate, say Dennis Kucinich, or Cindy Sheehan in California. Both are heroic and smart candidates, by the way. Applying this 'conspiracy of hearts' theory we may just get lucky and turn out this two-party den of thieves. (See the 1960 movie 'Conspiracy of Hearts' to learn how a convent of nuns actually triumphed over the brutal treatment they received from Nazi thugs). And Generals, THINK before you blindly follow orders to pull the trigger on Iran. Remember that the enlightened mind is mightier than the sword. Take that Machiavelli!

Sorry " CLOUD "

Again, the word "cowardly" comes up in what should be a principled discussion of Democrats and Impeachment.

I don't believe for a moment that the refusal of Pelosi, Conyers, and the Democratic Congress to impeach is based on cowardice. I don't even buy the line that it's political expediency--although, if political expediency were the reason for shirking constitutional duties, that alone would be beneath contempt.

I believe, based on the timing of Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" comment and Conyers' 180-degree turnaround on the issue that, to put it plainly, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark." This is a case of corruption, not cowardice.

Impeach or not to impeach. No way would this happen with our current setting in Congress. Too many Bush Democrats siding with the GOP for one thing. ANother thing is if the Dems can't even get enough votes to override a veto how in the world do you think they would even have enough votes to get Impeachment proceedings through the House?
They are doing the best they can with what they've got. We need to support those who are sticking out their necks for us and Replace any Bush Democrat with a progressive and for sure get better control of both Houses come next election.

Gore won the 2000 election. Read all about it. Stop blaming Ralph.

I totally agree with "COMarc", the Dems have no legislative agenda. If they pass anything good, it gets vetoed by Bush. Otherwise they pass Bush's agenda. It doesn't help anyone to expose the Republicans on for instance the Children's Health Care bill. Most of their constituents probably agree with their vote and probably agree with Bush's vote. Nothing to be gained running into that brick wall.

However the impeachment proceedings are another matter. As far as I understand there is a discovery phase to the proceedings during which Bush and Cheney could answer questions or alternatively could expose their contempt for the law. This would be valuable to swing "law and order" voters. The prosecution case for impeachment would go on record and could possibly be reviewed by many people who don't have the information to believe they lied about Iraq and the gravity of the authoritarian powers they have accumulated. This would be of benefit for the swing "morality" voters. These revelations could have been of benefit during the primaries to oust Democratic accomplices to the impeachment crimes.

The latter might be one of the main reasons why the Dems don't want to proceed as they are required to by the constitution.

Impeach Pelosi... vote Sheehan.

The problem with the impeachment issue is it lets the fish off the hook and it will allow the propoganda machine to clowd the Iraq issue.

What the democrats are doing is paying back the voters for voting the criminals in in the first place. Over 50% voted for the Bush gang now the shit has hit the fan you want Pelosi and company to shield you from it. Citizens in most countries are political idiots, they'll vote for anybody who promises the earth or glory. I watched in horror as Americans went into a frenzy over the 9/11 crime without a second thought who was behind that attack. It never occured to the morons that the USA has the largest military in the world yet 19 incompetent arabs overcame it with box cutters.

I've lived in many countries but I've never come across a nation which is as dozy as the Americans, they'll believe any shit if you wrap it in Red, White and Blue.

Obama doesn't have a made in China lapel flag in his jacket so according to the other candidates he's a traitor.

The USA is the only country which has permanent elections, doesn't tell you something. The odd thing is the voters have a choice between extreme right wing or right wing but they think they live in a democracy.

When will Dems discover that the Right has declared war? The dems are scared of the right, simple as that, remember these are different wings of the same bird. As long as the privileged dems view anything but capitulation to the right they run the risk of losing their favor with the same funding class.

i have said many times that we have allowed our elected representatives' jobs to become 'careers' instead of a 'public service'. this fact has been cemented into the national psyche for at least the last 30 years. the democratic leadership's response to impeachment reminds me of an historical event of the late 1930's. chamberlain and others reacted the same way to hitler's nazism. we have been inundated with the same form of propagandism by the bush/cheney administration for the last five and half years. we need to educate the voter better. there are many ways to do this. it seems to me an educated voter can implement 'term limits' on any elected official who doesn't do 'the peoples' business'. i have never known this country to be so fearful! after the 'terrorist' attack on pearl harbor, we, the people, wanted to 'kick butt'! after the mccarthy era, we raised our heads and defended ourselves. now we cower at every conceivable shadow! as a result of this administrations actions, there have never been the numbers of 'terrorists'(using the administration's definition)that we have today! and we are continually told how much safer we are! worse yet, we believe it! a third party, a people's party, isn't such a bad idea! a third party would actually give us two different parties to choose from in an election. no difference between democrats and republicans now. god help our children and grandchildren! peace,

The purpose of impeachment hearings is to expose the criminal acts & conspiracy of members in the govorporation. Indy media may play a part in the dispersal of information regarding the facts of criminal intention & criminal acts. We need to know what the govorporation has done & what it has planned for the future.
Regarding the 2008 presidential election & the rumors about canceling the elections, well, I think I'll buy a gun. We all should declare that we are buying guns to protect the country. How could the Nat'l Guard intervene when they are deployed in Iraq? Do companies like Blackwater have enough personnel to police the entire country? First, we make it very clear to the governors of each state that any talk or action about canceling the elections will not be tolerated. We make it clear to the local boards of elections that any preparations for the cancellation will not be tolerated. This time we must be prepared for election fraud AND election cancellation. We should not only be in the streets, but we may have to attend some protests armed, armed w/ the 2nd Amendment.

A bunch of sniveling progressives whining about their candidate that took money from the RNC to run for the presidency, and took votes from gore, is it any wonder that the mainstream democrats look upon as you [pariahs] of the electorat? Your votes for this disgusting piece of shiet put Bush in the White House, and yet you don't accept the responsibility for your ignorance, not surprising considering your rants are just as bad as Nader's op ed peice.

I hate Ralph Nader, I consider him the reason Bush is president (FL - 2000, remember ??). I NEVER read anything Nader writes, because I absolutely hate him. Look what he has saddled us with, just look -- Bush.

I HATE BUSH !!!!!!

Nader is the reason we have George W, -- please someone, tell me why I should read anything Nader writes. Seriously, I'm looking for a reason not to be so angry at Nader. HELP ????

Ralph is right. He always is.

Just remember, folks: Gore lost Florida, not Nader; 200,000 registered Dems voted for Bush in FLA and Gore also lost his home state.

Most of you believe that Bush & Cheney should be impeached.

But you haven't confronted the question that most critics will ask, which is "what is the purpose if you don't have the votes to convict?".

If we want to push impeachment, we absolutely must answer this question.

The correct response, IMHO, is to challenge the premise that everything hinges on a conviction and that the lack of a conviction is a fore-gone conclusion. Clearly this is false-- there was no conviction of Clinton, nor of Nixon. So, its NOT all about conviction.

In my view, the key is that an impeachment is an official investigation, with official witnesses, of Bush's crimes.

Our public discourse in the US about torture, aggressive war, spying, etc, will utterly change when it is taken out of the hands of the corporate media and turned into a formal investigation that culminates in a *trial*, held in the austere environs of the Senate, where there are rules of evidence and witnesses that testify under oath and are cross-examined.

In the mass media circus, Bush can be made to seem like a war hero while his opponent Kerry, who had 3 purple hearts, can be made to seem as an effete poser. This could never happen in a trial.

This is the glory of impeachment. Those of us who read commondreams know about Bush's crimes. We have heard from rendition-torture victims like Maher Arar. We have heard from constitutional scholars. People, you have to understand that most of America has NOT heard this. To them it all seems like "he said, she said", it all sounds like "politics", because that is the way the MSM plays it.

That is all going to change when the impeachment trial starts.

Republicans are going to have a hard choice. They can choose to stand behind Bush, stand behind someone who will have been exposed to all the world as a villain, torturer, liar and sneak, and they will have to say he's their president and they support him. Or they can vote to impeach.

The true absurdity is the assumption of pundits that there will NOT be a 2/3 majority. After all this is a slam-dunk case.

The military has far more powerful weaponry than guns and rifles. You better believe that Blackwater does too. Impeachment is essential. First, an open trial would make evidence public and undeniable. Note that Nixon never got to the trial part. The Republican leaders went to Nixon and told him the jig was up. We've never had a vice president who was the power behind the throne as it were. Cheney needs to be picked off first. Kucinich is right, as usual. The evidence against Cheney is public. Of course, like an iceberg, there is far more evidence still hidden. This would be a way to get at some of it. And with that, Bush could be impeached. Second, we must re-establish constitutional law and restore a balance of powers if our government is to survive.

view the video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA

The article fails to mention Olver's volunteered opinion at the meeting:"That the current autocratic executive (the White House)would attack Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, institute Martial Law and call off the 2008 election."
And he's still unwilling to vote for impeachment. What does he really know?

After being an activist in my youth, for may years I simply went away from the fray and tried to lead my life in a way that would produce the reality I seeked through politics. I even stopped voting.

Recently I have gotten involved again - this time simply informing myself and an occassional march or conversation. I have begun to vote again but am rapidly losing heart (once again).

We really don't have representation. The two dominant parties basically share a constituency that is something other than "the people."

The Democrats and the Republicans don't represent two sides of the same coin, they are simply two different sections (with some common areas) of the same side of the same coin.

Nader's story serves to illustrate this. Even when a majority of Americans favor impeachment, Congress still refuses to act. Why? The will of the people be dammed, there are others who need to be listened to. The Democrats where given control of Congress to end the Iraq occupation. Not only are we still in Iraq, we are even more mired there than before with more troops than before.

I know the Democrats do not have the two thirds needed to counter a filabuster or veto. No one said this is going to be easy and not require courage. For God's sake, I only see a handful of people showing any gumption and courage and the rest playing politics as if we don't matter. They don't even try to justify their cowardice because they know there is nothing we can do to them. Both the Democrats and Republicans could care less what "the people" think or want.

How different could these two parties be when they both show contempt for the people, comtempt for the constitution, and contempt for their duties?

I am fast coming to the conclusion that not voting makes more sense than voting. Why bother? Why do you think that we don't get a better class of individuals running for office? The system is set up for the mediocre manipulative self-serving individual devoid of any kind of self-awareness or even self-examination.

As an example, by all rights in a sane and healthy political system, someone like Kucinich should be a front runner for a progressive platform. Instead he is treated as a joke and even the so-called "enlightened" progressives buy into this hogwash nonsense of how he looks or how tall he is or any of a number of other equally stultifying ignorant bullshit nonsense.

By the standards we allow to be the parameters of who gets taken seriously - Mitt Romney should be our leader since he looks straight out of central casting for the role of President (another startling empty shirt like Reagan).

The idiots are running the asylum and we lsten to them, encourage them, take them seriously, and then ask them to be our leaders. As if this wasn't insane enough, then we are truly disappointed and frustrated when we look around and see just how insane everything is.

With this cast of characters we choose, of course someone like Bill Clinton looks good. How low must our standards be when an individual who lies and cheats looks good in comparison to our other choices. So all of this wrangling and outcry these last few years has given us a Congress where everything keeps going on (albeit with more contention) as before and we get front runner cnadidates who only seem to promise more of the same kind of BS we've grown accustomed to and I guess expect.

We have to ask ourselves - this must be what we want?

I think we all should call our senators and reps tomorrow and demand impeachment of Bush AND Cheney! There are many grounds and to NOT do it is to invite the same lawlessness from the next administration and if you're a Repub., I can guarantee that you're going to be upset to see a Dem doing half the things Bush has done....signing statements, preemptive war, war without declaration, spying on US citizens without warrants, suspension of habeaus corpus, do you need more? If they won't impeach, then we should hold referundums and get rid of THEM TOO!

Life in the United States must become so uncomfortable that the populace realizes what has gone missing, what has been stolen from under their noses. September 11th did not affect the necessary amount of people; the hurricane Katrina did not affect the necessary amount of people. Only when the govorporation cuts into the freedom of consumption will the populace become uncomfortable and act. Keep your rifles clean. Protect the 2nd Amendment because KBR prisons & Blackwater are now in the position to arrest & detain the thinkers. Teach your sons & daughters about guns & rifles because the day may arrive when they are needed--sons & daughters with guns & rifles.
First, we vote out the fossilized members of the govorporation, the Feinsteins, Pelosi's, the Clintons, the entire GOP, and then we improve the local & state govorporations w/ people interested in and committed to the transition from govorporation to positive government. It could take a couple of decades.

Dainel David.I think impeachment would be worth the try but I agree with you that we can get rid of the republicans in 08 by voteing them out of office. What I hope will happen is that Bush/Cheney have destroyed the republican party.Facts mean nothing to a republican making it impossible to reason with them.The republican's stand for nothing that is moral or honest they are the party of perverts,adulters and molesters.The 30 percent who defend Bush/Cheney are fools as are those who listen to Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and watch the Fox Liework

"The Democrats do not want to distract attention from their legislative agenda, and need Republican votes for passage."
That is simply crapola! They are not getting Republican cooperation anyway!

"Moreover, they do not have the votes to obtain the requisite two-thirds of the members present for conviction in the Senate."
So what? What if our court system took that approach and let proven felons walk. The Democrats do not know what the Senate will do in advance, and once in the Senate it's up to the Democrats to present such a strong case that enough Republicans will sign on.

If there are not Articles of Impeachment drawn against this criminal crew, Bush & Co. it will set the precedent for all future presidents and cause the public to lose all respect for law.

The problem with those who say impeachment is a waste of time and to focus on 2008 is the Democratic frontrunners, confident that progressives can be Nader-baited into voting for Xena, the Warrior Princess, have decided to give progressives, and the American electorate, the finger. Progressives have deluded themselves to such a degree, that they are willing to vote for one of three Democratic frontrunners all of whom refuse to even commit to having our troops out of Iraq by 2013. (2013????????????????)

The Democrats have been bi-partisan in their support of assaulting civil liberties and authorizing and funding Bush's war in the manner Bush requests. It is foolhardy to say they do this because they fear being seen as weak or because of the dishonest 67/60 talking point. The reason they have given bi-partisan support to authorizing the war and funding the murder of young American and Iraqis is they are on the same payroll as the Reps. and want to talk against the war while supporting it. If you analyze the 67/60 argument, it would require at least 80 Democratic Senators, as at least 13 of them would defect and not vote to override a Bush veto. It is Bush who needs 60 votes to get his funding as he wants it, not the Dems, who can simply put forward nearly identical Bills that support troop protection and rapid withdrawal of all US forces and contractors.

But the Dems joined the Reps in a 94-1 vote just last week in the Senate to give Bush the exact funding he wants. What good was it to vote in McCaskill, Cardin, Casey, Tester, Webb, Whitehouse and Brown to end the war if all of them voted to fund the war in the exact manner Bush requested and as those whom they defeated would have voted? That's not fear, that's support.

So they manufacture the 67/60 talking point and the progressives just mouth it, just ignoring the truth -- they have the power not to present the Bush bill, even if he vetos it. Also, by putting forward a Bill over and over again that funds troop protection and rapid, complete withdrawal, the Reps. would end up voting for it, as it would be they who are voting against protecting the troops.

Simultaneous impeachment/removal has a good chance of working. Once the American people hear a competently presented, uninterrupted case about impeachment, which Articles of Impeachment would require, they would overwhelmingly support impeaching these two lawless, murderous thugs who current occupy the Presidency and Vice Presidency. And the rest of the 67 votes to remove would come from incumbent Republicans running for the 22 Senate seats up for election in 2008. Those incumbent Republicans would have the choice of voting to remove or being removed by the voters in their state.

But this won't happen and progressives will coronate Xena, the Warrior Princess to continue the war in Iraq and take military action in Iran, just as the Republican would do.

SCIENTIFIC BETRAYAL March, 06

Never before have Americans experienced such dangerous manipulation of essential scientific data, as used by this administration to derail vital environmental reforms, conservation, family planning-- and the list goes on. The resulting long term environmental and social damage are beyond measure, and can only worsen if not curtailed.

Despite their clandestine cloak, or environmental friendly disguise, these sellouts have been evident since Bush first was handed the presidency. They have been exposed by defectors from the EPA, health & human services, etc; and have been documented and chronicled by numerous dedicated environmental organizations including The Union of Concerned Scientists.

The gravity of these unprecedented betrayals eclipses the Monica Lewinski scandal which led to an impeachment, and pose greater dangers than Watergate which terminated a presidency. Blame falls mainly on the populace and our legislators for tolerating this reckless and arrogant occupant of the White House.

Blame for these dreadful consequences falls mainly on the five supreme court justices who placed politics ahead of the law and put him in office against the voters choice; our legislators for allowing such reckless and dangerous behavior from this unlearned president guided by his financial and radical supporters; and especially the apathetic populace for tolerating this unprecedented outrage

We didn't protest vigorously when the likes of Rupert Murdoch, gained control of the media, and any pretense of fair, balanced, or accurate reporting of information was exchanged for manipulation and propaganda. That represented the lose of one of the "checks and balances." We don't know what to believe.

We didn't protest vigorously when the War on drugs allowed the foundation of a police state. We thought unreasonable search and seizures, confiscation of property and the imprisonment of millions of nonviolent offenders would keep our children safe. Drug use has not declined, the police no longer serve and protect, and we lost another safe guard "check and balance"

We never bothered to question the use of our intelligence apparatus and military to destabilize sovereign governments, or ask who benefited from the carnage and exploitation. So we fear reprisals from Terrorists. You know, those folks we've been messing over, the ones with natural resources or markets.

We are too late to prevent the rise of mercenary armies, and have no way to prevent them from repressing our own population, if so ordered by a government that is no longer under our control. Another check and balance gone.

We have accepted public education for our children, that has phased out Civics, Citizenship, and Critical Thinking as subject matter. No checks and balance from that poor, largely ignorant group we have allowed to be undermined.

We have allowed vote fraud to become so rampant that the results of every election is questionable. And no "elected" official seems accountable to the populace. Checks and balance, anyone?

There is no possibility of reigning in this government, they have through long strategic planning, usurped the peoples power. There are no checks and balances remaining. Neither Bush nor Cheney has anything to worry about. They reign by Divine Right.

LOBOGRIS..I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH VOTING,IF BUSH IS NOT IMPEACHED--FIRST..I THINK ALOT OF PEOPLE WOULD FEEL THE SAME...I AM AGAINST GIVING THE RULING ELITE WHAT THEY DESIRE (OUR VOTES)

they need to be convicted, and jailed for the rest of their lives. forget impeachment, i want some REAL justice!

The way the executive fascist cancer and congressional paralysis have progressed, only organized revolutionary effort by a PEIOPLE'S MOVEMENT can stop the slide into the abyss. Nothing less will do. Only the effort to knock out and replace the tenets -economic and political- of capitalism can put the country on the road to peace, justice and harmony with the world and planet Earth. Our method will be peaceful,electoral,democratic. Usually capitalism, when it loses or thinks it is going to lose, does not respect democratic processes and strikes insiduously and violently. If that happens, then "we the people" will continue defending our Constitution by bringing down the OUTLAW government by using all appropriate means.

It is futile at this moment to discuss methods of arriving at a detailed exhaustive list of programs. It is clear by now that the masses of the people and the progressive political organizations want solutions to a few vital problems, such as PEACE, WORLD DISARMAMENT & DRASTC CUTS of MILITARY BUDGETS, NOT FOR PROFIT UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION, ELIMINATION OF POVERTY, PROTECTION OF PLANET EARTH AND SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. These demands can be expresed with fewer words, such as
PEACE, DISARMAMENT, JUSTICE, ENVIRONMENTAL SANITY.

It is not important if the local organizations of a People's Movement differ about how many and which of the key demands they want to emphasize or campaign for. They can add or substract as many as they want, if they feel that their effectiveness will be boosted at their local level. What is important is that the locals are free to develop their initiatives, but, while retaining their organizational identity, they consider themselves a local branch of the big tree of the PEOPLE'S MOVEMENT which fights for PEACE - JUSTICE - DISARMAMENT- ENVIRONMENTAL SANITY against the "two" political stooges of the merchants of war, exploitation and environmental degredation.

The big question is to have a starting spark for a People's Movement by someone who is respected in the progressive movement for his/her courage, honesty, intelligence and leadership qualities. No matter how many times I have tried to think of the right person, I always come up with the same conclusion: CINDY SHEEHAN. Her run against Pelosi can also serve the local initiatives for setting up People's Movement branches by rallying support
for her election, by adopting all or some of her PEACE-DISARMAMENT-JUSTICE-ENVIRONMENTAL programs
and organizing financial assistance for her election. Let us hope that Cindy has noticed our chattering and gives us some clue

Best wishes to you, Harold Burbank.

==The Democrats do not want to distract attention from their legislative agenda, and need Republican votes for passage.==

WHAT legislative agenda? They're supporting Bush's legislative agenda by adding their votes to those of the minority Republicans to pass critical bills for the Bush agenda, not a Democratic one.

The Republicans are running a bluff and/or there is another unstated reason the Democrats will not approach impeachment. The facts are so clear and the evidence so overwhelming that in order to protect themselves (have a chance at being ever re-elected) even the staunch Republicans would be forced to support impeachment and conviction. A properly prosecuted impeachment hearing would arouse the American people to such a state of anger at these criminals, that a vote of support for them would be political suicide.

Talk about DISGUSTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm a registed lifelong registered Democrat and I am utterly DISGUSTED with these creatures. They should be sent home packing as far as I'm concerned. Why don't they just shut the doors to their offices and go home. They're utterly useless. I guess their oath to defend and protect the Constitiution is nothing but words. It means nothing to them. All they care about is money...power...and re-election. They are reprehensible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And, if it means anything, I will no longer vote for them.

I submitted the substance of this article to Ralph's staff after it came to me from the the MA oragnizers of the Olver meeting. Ralph left out a key part: Olver said that if he pursued impeachment the Bush cabal might suspend the 2008 elections and declare martial law. Olver now denies this, claimng he raised this as a "theory" of cabal response, but the MA activists are preparing affidavits of meeting attenders to document that they heard Olver clearly say, without any theory, that Olver feared this could and perhaps would occur.
One of the lawyers is so outraged at Olver's denial he is contemplating a run for Olver's seat to set the record straight. A meeting attender called me last week to say that not only did Olver not claim this was theory, but that Olver seemed much relieved, as though confessing a great burden, after his statement sucked the air from the room.

There is a clear pattern of congressional fear, self interest, denial and complete contempt for the public by such statements, where congress does not immediatelty call for hearings in their light. Our Republic is in shambles, our Constitution hangs by a thread, and it is clearly up to the people, like those in the Stockbridge region, to try to set things right. I have decided to run for Congress to press all of these issues in CT's 5th district before matters gets worse. The hope is to pressure the present House to impeach, but failing that, to bring these issues clearly to bear in the 2009 congress. I urge like minded citizens to find as many new candidates as possible to do the same in their states.

What legislative issues are they that the Dems don't want overshadowed by impeachment? I don't remember any that really matter.

TO THE DEMS and Nader is correct. Tony

I have been meaning to write something like this for awhile because of your feckless responses and kowtowing to a president who is out to destroy this country. Why? Because you are cynical and political to an extreme. It is either that or you want to have all the stuff that is on the books now plus a war that you think will help you and without the blame. This is neither humanistic or morally defendable. Petraeus got what he deserves and cutting off funds for this war is the way to go because when it comes to priorities for this occupation it is contractors first and troops last. You can see this from any facts that you look at. So who cares for the troops? Some of you have been doing a lot of talking but nobody has thrown a rock at this glass house of an administration. Leave it to the people thru MoveOn.Org to do the heavy lifting for what you are supposed to be doing. You will not get my vote because you are no better than the repubs. Is there any difference in dictators, if one is a dem. or a repub? The way that you are acting you just want the whole pie for yourselves and forget the people again. I'm 71 and cant help but wonder what of the younger people? Because of your feckless nature it is a bleak future for them. Tony

Ralph, as usual, raises valid points.

IMO, the recreant congressman's benighted choice of "not counterproductive" as the standard for supporting impeachment is a true obscenity. It confirms, for the umpteenth time, that the US modern political process has metastasized into fatal malignancy; I doubt it can recover.

The proof of this malignancy is that impeachment is considered exclusively as a political issue, in the basest sense of the term. Political power is an end in itself, so political calculation is the only consideration. The fact that elected politicians have solemn responsibilities and constititutional duties has become, like Gonzalez's view of the Geneva Conventions, merely "quaint".

In this devolved, depraved, Bizarro-world status quo, all of the co-opted professional political elites-- from office-holders, corporate media infotainwhores, and centrist, accommodationist blog commenters-- disdain or dismiss impeachment because it's a difficult political ordeal. There is the usual self-confirming, self-sealing Mobius strip logic that rejects impeachment because of alleged insufficient political will and the daunting prospect that the risk won't be worth the potential political payoff.

This reduction of a question of high principle and solemn duty into quotidian political strategy is pathological, and proof that the political system founded in the bright morning of the Enlightenment has decayed into a spectacle like crabs in a barrel, clambering over each other while jockeying for position-- locked into a lizard-brained philosophy that suspends virtue in the doomed belief that power must first be acquired by any means necessary in order to promote "productive" policies and political action.

Hell in Texas just recently the gov wanted to kill a young man who unwittingly drove a murderer away from the scene of a homicide.

The thugs who run the government of the USA know that their crimes are sufficient for a death penalty by the USA standards practiced at Nuremberg.

They know it and also know they can never let go of their power for fear of justice.

I suspect it will take a lot more than a vote of impeachment to get that gang removed.

The last guy I heard of who had to prove a negative was Saddam Hussein (that he had no WMD). To bad he never got a fair trial before he was hung, I don't argue he didn't need hanging, I argue WE needed a fair trial.

another reason for impeachment (if you need one): to show the world that we aren't all loyal bushies, that many of us vehemently oppose the rule of gangster capitalism through state terror, so that we might make ourselves and our families and friends less tempting targets for acts of terror on a retail scale.

Just our corporate dems covering their asses.
They don't want to be subject to any kind of accountability in their own actions...
We need new grassroot candidates, but for some reason people are terrified of change.

skien dhiu wrote: "Impeachment should of been on the table imediatlly after Bush's first election, the fact that Americans just now seem to be waking up to the idea now that his second term is allmost over is beyond belief."

when the supreme court dismayed us by stopping the counting of votes, i counted on the gravity of the office to influence the frat rat taking office. none of us expected him to become the destroyer he has become. i cannot believe how the republicans stand behind him in his criminality.

perhaps there is a world court where he can be tried for what he has done to the rest of the world. i do not understand why impeachment is off the table.

I can't wait to see what future Presidents will do now that the current Executive Branch has gotten away with treason and murder. And there's still time for these emboldened thugs to carry out their wet dream of using nukes on Iran or others.

I'm very surprised that someone hasn't attempted assassination of at least one of the major players.

PowerofLove his on a key point (though inaccurately, I think) earlier in this thread about the country not being politically "ready" for impeachment. That is, if the majority of Americans were really THERE, then Congress would have no alternative but to act.

The same set of criteria didn't apply to the Rethugian impeachment of Clinton. Impeaching Clinton was a totally non-representative political action (a key part of their ongoing takeover, like controlling the MSM and co-opting the "opposition" DLC). They impeached Clinton without any grassroots/popular political call for it whatsoever.

Sadly, the Democrats are likewise guilty of non-representative government. As Ralph's article here underscores, and any roadtrip across much of the US will tell you, there are people all over the place calling for Bush's head -- but the Democrats ignore it.

It seems we have non-representational government on both sides. And the Bush junta remains untouchable. One only wonders what the Democrats will allow next. If Bush/Cheney didn't deserve impeachment, what's the theoretical point at which they actually would do so? There seems to be no such point. By taking impeachment off the table, Pelosi gave Bush carte blanche. I can't imagine the pleasure Bush must feel to know that his opposition won't impeach him for past crimes or future ones.

They should bring their own bottled water to D.C. It's got to be tainted there or something.

Why not start with impeachment hearings? That way we could determine if there is sufficent evidence to impeach. Former Senator Lowell Weicker, R. CT didn't have enough votes to impeach Nixon when he called for hearings, but he sure as hell got them before the hearings were over, didn't he? It was much harder for Weicker to call for impeachment hearings, being a Republican, but he did it, much to his credit.

Democraps are so GD stooooopid it's beyond pathetic. Dopey and Darth are never going to leave office. Now that they've sneaked all that fine print into recent legislation, allowing them to declare martial law, cancel elections and round up every big mouth "enemy combatant" and detain them in Halliburton-built detention centers, what the hell is it Democraps have to lose besides their own freedom, along with ours?

Impeachment proceedings will give Congress authority to investigate the crimes committed by the Bush administration. The people should know of ALL the crimes committed and of ALL the people involved so they can be excised from the govorporation. Don't concentrate on the votes needed to convict; concentrate on the investigations into the crimes committed. Expunge all of them from the govorporation process.

Impeachment proceedings will give Congress authority to investigate the crimes committed by the Bush administration. The people should know of ALL the crimes committed and of ALL the people involved so they can be excised from the govorporation. Don't concentrate on the votes needed to convict; concentrate on the investigations into the crimes committed. Expunge all of them from the govorporation process.

I'm in Cong. Olver's district. Along with others, I've lobbied Cong. Olver on the Iraq war, Palestine, and Israel's invasion of Lebanon. I doubt that cowardice is the reason he refuses to support impeachment here in a district where it takes some courage to be against impeachment. He seems to really believe that it would be "counterproductive" and really wants evidence to the contrary. Cong. Olver voted against the authorization to use military force in Iraq in 2002, for a middle east "peace envoy" (meaningless, but a gesture in a positive direction), for a Palestinian unity government, and for funding assistance for Iraqi refugees. There are many in congress with worse records than Cong. Olver on a lot of issues. He has served the district well in many ways. I don't know to what extent his key donor base opposes impeachment. There's a ton of voter support for it. Fixed ideas are difficult to unfix, especially when there's a lot of polarization.

Canuckchuck, on your October 13th post about replacing US for Russia, Congress for Duma, and Vlad for George. Someone once said "Always accuse your enemies of doing exactly what you do." Condi is simply following that advice.

yeah, and i think citizens should "transcend political calculations" too, which is why i have no apologies for voting for nader over gore in 2000. so, right on ralph!

67 comments.

More than 90% of the CD's stories.

Ralph......

We need you buddy.

There's a void right now.

We know you had your nose bloodied twice.

But this is not a small league with a minor prize at stake.

What is at stake is nothing less but the freedom and liberty and survival of the planet!

I don't think, Ralph, we could come up with bigger stakes if we tried.

Please, find the stamina that Reagan had.

Find the honor that old John Adams had.

Find the noble stature that George Washington had.

Find the dogmatism that Thomas Jefferson had.

You are right.

Run

Run

Run, before it's to late, and the American Dream is all but extingished!

Please.

pacplyer

#
whitewatersally October 14th, 2007 3:18 am

"BOYCOTT !!WE DEMAND THAT BUSH BE IMPEACHED AND THE TROOPS BROUGHT HOME,OR WE WILL NOT VOTE IN THEIR STUPID PRIMARYS OR ELECTION !!"

The problem is Sally that some will vote and the politicians don't care how low the vote count is as long as they are returned to office.

A much more productive strategy if I might suggest is to unregister as Democrats, re-register as independent, and then vote third party. Only when the Democrats lose elections because of their recalcitrance to do the will of the people will they begin to start to listen.

Lobo Gris

All of the Democrats that believe that impeachment would be counterproductive should look at the recent poll numbers that show congressional approval ratings in the toilet at 11%. That is lower than Bush's approval ratings and it isn't just liberals that are putting them there. What is counterproductive is refusing to do anything about the Iraq war and the two criminals in the White House.

If the Democrats continue to refuse to do the will of the people they are the ones that will pay at the polls in 2008.

Lobo Gris

whitewatersally October 14th, 2007 3:42 am
IMAGINE THEY GAVE A VOTE AND NOBODY CAME !!

spot on Sally.
I've been saying that for nigh on 40 years now.

or - no voting booths/machines - just a show of hands.
worried about anonimity?
everyone would be required to keep their blindfolds on.

As unpleasant as it may be, it's (impeachment) a necessary first step to bringing the Constitution back to "We the People", as the Framers of that great document intended.

I've said it before in this forum, and I'll repeat it again - the authors of our great Constitution never intended impeachment to be rare or extreme. It was meant to be used forcefully, and as often as necessary, to check the excesses of power, unchecked corruption, maliciousness, and inhumane actions and behavior of the executive, legislative, or judicial bodies of the federal government.

Conviction by the Senate may not be possible, given the bipartisan climate these days, but impeachment is "always on the table". It's a formal inquiry into the actions and intentions of the investigated party. By refusing to submit, to what the Constitution plainly places upon the House of Representatives of the United States, Ms. Pelosi is shirking her responsibilities to "We The People" and the oath she took to abide by, and uphold, the Constitution. Political reasons are not offered as respite from performing her Constitutional duties. Certainly Congressman Olver's lame response of "You have to prove to me that impeachment will not be counterproductive", before agreeing to sign-on to H.Res. 333 and following the will of his constituency, is not only incomprehensibly, but it's an overt disregard for the Constitution that he, too, had taken an oath to uphold.

I'm sorry, Mr. Olver, but your reasoning is jaded and unacceptable.

If we accept that we have really only one party, with two right wings, both committed to the interests and priorities of the imperialist US ruling establishment, then it becomes clear why the party cannot impeach its own. All other reason for the failure to impeach are secondary. We need a real, not bogus, opposition party that is committed to the interests of the people.

IMAGINE THEY GAVE A VOTE AND NOBODY CAME !!

BOYCOTT !!WE DEMAND THAT BUSH BE IMPEACHED AND THE TROOPS BROUGHT HOME,OR WE WILL NOT VOTE IN THEIR STUPID PRIMARYS OR ELECTION !!

Blaming Nader for Gore's losing used to piss me off, now it's just boring. Nader speaks truth and has doggedly trudged thousands of miles over many, many, years warning about political and corporate misdeeds, corruption, lying and deception.
He continues to be proven correct, and if you Nader spoiler pansies would get over your self righteous nonsense and look at what is going on at this very moment you will realize what he has been talking about for the last 40 years.

DEAR MR.RALPH NADER,WHAT IF THEY GAVE A VOTE AND NOBODY CAME ??THEN THEY COULD NOT LIE TO US ABOUT WHO WON !SHOULDNT WE BE DISCUSSING 'BOYCOTT'BOYCOTTING THE NEXT ELECTION ?INSTEAD OF DISCUSSING WHOM WE WILL VOTE FOR ??

If Gore hadn't stolen so many votes from Nader in 2000, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Nader is right once again, except that Democrats are NOT cowards, they are mobsters, they are criminals. They belong in the Hague along with Bush and Cheney. In fact, they're worse than Bush and Cheney, since they pretend to be on the side of the people while committing war crimes as horrible as the ones committed by Bush and Cheney.

DO NOT VOTE FOR A SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN 08. Vote for Sheehan, vote for the Dalai Lama, or just write your name on the ballot. BUT DO NOT VOTE DEMOCRATIC.

Impeachment should of been on the table imediatlly after Bush's first election, the fact that Americans just now seem to be waking up to the idea now that his second term is allmost over is beyond belief. The founding fathers must be rolling in there graves. This administration has taken the country for all it could since day one and only recentlly have you decided to "consider" impeachment, America is lost, and way beyond repair, as is evidenced by the fact that you cant figure out what the hell to do about the mess you are in. This administration stunk from the very begining, what happened to American revolutionists? what happened to "the land of the strong ,the free, and the brave",?.... to busy watching what Paris, and Brittaney, are up to and sallivating over the goulish details of Ana Nicole's demise, and seeing who gets kicked off Survivor next, to be concerned about the running [ruining] of there country. I would say you guys deserve whats coming at you for being so complacent. I mean just how bad does it have to get before you wake up and decide its maybe time to do something? I guess we will have to wait and see what happens to O.J. next before you get to the really mundane stuff. If the last 7 years were a movie noone would go to it and it would go right to video because its just to unbelievablly ludicrous. Democracy sounds like a good idea, it just dosent seem to work. Prove me wrong if you can, and good night America and good bye.

Right on. Let's also not forget the 250K Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush, The State of Tennessee, and all the other candidates who got several thousand votes in Florida. Also the supreme court should apologize for their part. It couldn't possibly be that the fault would lie with the campaign itself.

Nader says it best himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV8shKupf2I

also see

http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

How else can we say

"WE'RE MAD AS HELL AND WE AREN'T GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE.????

Impeach of course,We must,Sign petitions, tell your Senators and Represenatives.

As Ralph says " Start a RUMBLE they can hear."

There appears to be some travel expense errors....impeach,impeach they cry.

The Republicans will move to impeach the very next Democratic President!!

There aren't too many individuals who could have prevented the criminalization of American government during the past 7 years, but Ralph Nader is one of them.

I don't believe that he has even come close to apologizing for the gravity of his mistake in the summer of 2000 when he failed to acknowledge the danger of the extreme right and refused to stand with Americans who were aware of and working to prevent the catastrophe we now call the Bush Administration from happening. He was a key player in ushering in this darkest period of sustained government corruption and inhumanity American history.

I do agree, however, that working for Bush's impeachment is the one and only thing Ralph should be putting his considerable energy for activism into now.

I'm confused. What was being read in this clip, from two days ago?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA

It chilled me to my core, watching that. But reading this, dated today, makes me wonder what he was reading from; it doesn't appear that Olver actually said those things.

Every one of you eager beavers should be investigating your own senators and representatives to figure out how you can have them removed from office if they won't do as you want during their current term. Threatening them in the next electionw won't work because they have MSM behind them. Find out if there is any legal way in your own state to remove recalcitrant representatives, and then get organized and get going! (Look at what happened to Grey Davis) We have enough corruption in all levels of government to get rid of nearly every mother's one of them just on criminal charges alone - lean on your local lawyers. This is the only legal recourse that you now have - go for it - put up or shut up.

Personally, I'm extremely agitated and outraged at what's been done to 'our' military - regular service, reserves, and guards - but nothing is going to change until we can scare representatives more than they can be frightened or bribed by hostile forces now occupying 'our' government. This is the real 'grassroots' problem - and it's how the RightWingNuts took control in the first place. (Yeah, I'm a conservative - but not a RightWingNut.)

And for Pete's sake, support guys like Ron Paul, Gravel, Nader, and anyone else fighting for YOUR SIDE - no matter what their political affiliation! Give until it hurts - because it's going to hurt a lot more if you don't.

jack37: If no impeachment of them for this, then of whom ever for what?

that's what i want to know.

why, if clinton's office sex was an impeachable offense is bush's genocide of iraq not?

what does that say about our priorities?

if we could simply have an honest and complete accounting of the events of sept 11, 2001, we would unmask and uncover the faces of the people who caused that event to happen.

whoever and wherever they are.

be a patriot and demand an investigation.

then impeachment would be focussed on the reality of this moment.

we should be guided by the facts. we should expend the determination to do just that.

Some seem to think that if evidence was aired in a trial then Republican Senators would become ashamed and behave like newby impartial jurors---voting to convict on the evidence.

Nothing could be further from reality. Republican Senators are already quite familiar and comfortable with "the truth"--in fact they're complicit in it. They will vote their corporate constituencies in a trial just as they vote them every day in legislation.

The prospect of George Bush defending himself in a trial with "I have done my best to protect Americans from terrorism" and talk radio and FOX News defending him 24/7 from the "looney liberals" is frightening. It would be so flag-waving successful as to virtually ensure Republican successors in office for decades.

The problem with Naderites is that they've become so busy bashing Democrats that they have completely forgotten that a majority of voters are either moderate or conservative. Nancy Pelosi called impeachment off the table not because she's spineless, but because she has a head attached to the top of the spine.

Just a reminder, the Senate didn't have nearly the votes to remove Richard Nixon before impeachment hearings began either.

Of course, bringing up criminal charges only AFTER you KNOW you have a jury that will convict would be considered insanity in this culture (for good reason, innocent until PROVEN guilty) but I guess it's a valid strategy when you're dealing with crimes like megamurder (mega as in the greek root, meaning 1,000,000) torture, gross negligence leading to many deaths and billions of dollars in needed resources wasted... Yeah, for that you need a conviction before the trial begins.