very poignant article.

for me impeachment and subsequent convictions are imperative.

for so many reasons, but none as important as this.
The Bush Crime Family that goes by so many names (NWO, Illuminati) have been the "shadow" forces behind our governmental policies since the early 1900's. Its bona fide fact. It was the Bush business consortium that placed an ad in a California newspaper for a viable political candidate that was answered by none other than "Tricky Dick Nixon" yeah, Nixon was a Bush employee. but I digress. The force that they have had on our policies have been for their own monitary benefit and those like them around the world. And starting this war in Iraq is no exception. Impeachment and Conviction is imperative for restitution.

Restitution for the American people whose sons and daughters have been murdererd under the guise of legitimate confrontation. And back to my original digression the restitution of our collective American conscience over all the evil reigned down upon the world by the Bush Crime family. Who are by the way not satan as Dick Cheney would like you to believe in order to fear them, but nothing more than common organized crime punks and gutless cowardly thugs.

This coming from Ralph Nader? If he hadn't run for president in 2000 we wouldn't even be having this discussion!

Just in from Yahoo news: Rice worried by Putin's broad power.
Well I guess the bitch should know all about "broad Executive powers and what could happen as she has seen and been complicit in George Bush's overextended Executive powers and the spin that keeps Congress from impeaching him.
If impeachment fails so what? At least we have shown the World that We the people do not approve of George Bush and perhaps it would "come to the point of paralyzing President Bush" which aint all that bad.

The Republicans were willing to go to any length to impeach and discredit a liberal, Bill Clinton. They did a terrible disservice to America by distracting nearly our entire country with Monica-gate at a time we all should have been focused on anti-terrorism. Then, they also failed to get a conviction. The whole darn thing failed.

I can't prove it, but I've always believed we might have struck back much sooner at Al Qaida, and monitored more effectively, possibly even preventing 9/11, had the Republicans not insisted on grandstanding to the point of paralyzing President Clinton.

Although there is no doubt that a more meritorious case could be brought against George Bush and Dick Cheney, the Senate WILL NOT vote in a 2/3 majority to convict. They WILL NOT. The end result would be wasted time, and failure.

The "impeachment" needed and the one that can succeed is at the ballot box in November, 2008. There, it is possible for Republicans to be blown so far out of Washington control that they do not recover politically anytime this century. Every American can vote in that "impeachment", not just the Senators. And it's our privilege and duty to get it done. We can not only impeach men, we can impeach an entire philosophy of overpowered "executives".

Thank you, Ralph, for great, common sense perspective on the impeachment issue. Political calculation is work that goes into developing a position. It PRECEDES the position taken. In this case, the position arose from fear, and what has been called political calculation is in fact nothing more than a weak attempt to justify the position. We did not elect representatives to Congress to engage in political calculation. We elected them to do the people's work. People's Job 1 is repudiating this rogue administration and holding it accountable for its crimes.

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

"You have to prove to me that impeachment will not be counterproductive."

This is a demand to prove a negative.

How about the argument that if Bush/Cheney are busy defending themselves they won't have the opportunity to do more damage around the world?

Ask the Congressman, with all due respect, to prove that keeping them in office won't be counterproductive.
As if the last six years haven't been proof enough.

Barn, just replace US for Russia, Congress for Duma and Vlad for George.

Do you think that Condi has any sense of irony?

MOSCOW - The Russian (US) government under Vladimir Putin (George W Bush) has amassed so much central authority that the power-grab may undermine Moscow's(Washington's) commitment to democracy, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday.

"In any country, if you don't have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development," Rice told reporters after meeting with human-rights activists.

"I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin(White House). I have told the Russians(Americans) that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma(Congress)," said Rice, referring to the Russian parliament(Us congress).

What exactly does Rep. Olver mean by "counterproductive"? You won't change his mind until you can draw him out and deal with his fears. There is a lot of stuff the Dem. leadership is not owning up to.

I think the Republicans got what they wanted with the Clinton Impeachment proceedings. Clinton was discredited. He became a negative for the Gore campaign when he should instead have helped Gore to a landslide. Even now, the prospect of Bill Clinton anywhere near the Whitehouse will cost Hillary votes.

The Impeachment of Cheney and/or Bush will bring into question and discussion every dirty deed the two have conspired on the country. This is a chance to pound nails into coffins for the far-right, the neo-cons, the war profiteers, etc.

But even if not for that; do it for the Constitution.

Daniel David,

Elections are NOT IMPEACHMENT. They are the orderly product of political business as usual in a would-be democratic state. Impeachment was written into the Constitution to address precisely the extreme circumstances we now face - a runaway Executive, consolidating and abusing power and amassing disasterous results faster than the American people and their Congressional reps can track it. We ignore the consequences of leaving stand the Bush administration's usurpation of power at our own and the world's tremendous peril. We are far, far beyond the point where elections alone can solve the constitutional crisis we face. It's not a bad dream from which Election 08 will awaken us, Daniel.

It's a shame that the next question to Congressman Olver wasn't "How could the public tell if an action was counter-productive?"

The Democratic Congress isn't very productive now, with Republicans still propping up Bush's policies and Bush vetoing worthwhile legislation?"

Why not impeach congressman olver? There must be some kind of action the constituents can take to remove him from office for not carrying out his sworn duties in office.

I would argue not that Clinton's "crimes" were any more or less valorous than the current regime's, but that Bush and Cheney's crimes put us in immediate or continuing peril, and that's the essential differentiation.

If you debate Clinton you will find yourself embroiled in endless arguments over morality and so forth, some of them having a sort of validity not worth really getting into here. In short, those arguments go nowhere.

We the people deserve this impeachment because without it we face the imminent possibility expressed here at Common Dreams and elsewhere, of being plunged into darker times than any of us have ever seen in our lifetimes. And that possibility is dreary.

The future is not about what the next president will do about the precedent being established at this moment in time, the future is about what is going on behind the scenes preparing us for the next few months. Impeachment is the only way to stop that, otherwise we are being rushed headlong to the slaughter. Of whom still remains somewhat obscure.

I do admire Mr. Nader!

Not only Bush and Cheney, but also Pelosy should be impeached. Actually almost the entire Congress should be impeached for having destroyed our democracy for ever.

(yes, I sound very pessimistic. But the only way out would be a revolution, which I not only not see coming. Even if it came that might destroy the entire world).

it was indeed strange how easily,barely a whimper over impeachment of clinton.all i can say is..keep on..keeping on..trying to hold the cloven hooves of bush and cheney,to the fire...the real problem is the'brotherhood'and their behemoth blueline.ordinary people are justifiably terrified of them....i hear that now the criteria for declaring any genocide as actual'genocide'will also be extemely daunting as to 'semantics' it is a shame,but not surprising..when it comes to bush and cheney..impeachment would have been the one SANE act in a freak show.....i agree wholeheartedly with daniel david,elections are not impeachment !we still need to impeach and then some,now OR later..the status quo seems to be leaning in the direction of labling al gore the superhero..who will sweep in,clean up the mess the american people have made and wipe their butts,for them...truly pathetic..

There is no way the current players are going to try and impeach Bush. They know the political fallout will destroy their political futures. Even though it's the right thing for America, it's not the right thing for their political careers so they won't do the right thing. Listen to what Secretary Rice had to say about the Armenian genocide resolution recently passed by Congress. "The Turkish government, I think, is trying to react responsibly. They recognize how hard we worked to prevent that vote from taking place". This attitude shows complete contempt for the Democratic process.
Hoa binh

namvet,i beg to differ, their fallout would SECURE a political future.

dolkar,

Tell me where you'll get the votes to convict in the Senate, and I'll happily agree with you. I do know that elections are not the same as impeachment. I also know we can get a Democratic blowout in 2008 that can be progress, or we can lose both the trial and the election. Putting on a trial that has no chance of success--in the middle of a war---ain't gonna fly.
The utter futility of it would likely cause defections of centrist (yes, there are such people) Democrats on the "patriotism" theme alone.

I don't like Bush/Cheney either. But reality is reality. Where are those 67 votes?

Thank you, Ralph. I think you nailed this one. It may well be that a true democratic revolution lies ahead --- but not yet.

I could imagine a new constitutional convention in 5-10 years. But first American's would need to have a greater sense of moral revulsion and alarm regarding the weaknesses in the constitution. The weaknesses that actually allowed for a coup d'état to occur via the workings of our alleged democratic process.

This level of intensity of awareness and outrage could conceivably occur following further revelations of what actually took place under the umbrella of the current administration. Further revelations would likely include the deeds of previous administrations, both democrat and republican.

It may well be that, for the sake of our country and the world, it is necessary that impeachment not occur. More time must pass if the people are to gain greater sense of:

the vulnerabilities of our current system,

the potentially disastrous consequences of these loopholes,

And, the dangers of offering political power to individuals whose primary tools are deception and mendacity.

Perhaps, our "see no evil" illness must get worse before it gets better.

Impeachment is absolutely necessary in order to affirm the meaning, the legitimacy, and the potency of the Constitution. The logic behind seeing "impeachment" as "counter-productive" is terrifying. It demonstrates that this Congressman, and most of Congress, thinks that governance is about expediency, about "what is convenient for the moment," rather than being founded on any enduring principles. This Congressman's logic shows that he is as far from respecting the rule of law as Bush and Cheney.

I heard the author of a new book on the "Imperial Presidency" the other day on CSPAN (sorry, forgot the author, a reporter, I think, for the Boston Globe), who said he was surprised to hear so much talk about impeachment on the road on his book tour, because he barely ever heard it discussed within the beltway.

We are in the strange situation in this country where the "people" have more cognizance of the law than the supposed representatives running the government, who claim they are being "efficient." Claims of efficiency and expediency scare me. They usually cloak dodging the law in the name of securing power. The Democratic party no longer has any identity other than as the "mini me" of Bush and Cheney. How shameful.

"Cong. Olver's response, after several seconds of silence, was "You have to prove to me that impeachment will not be counterproductive."

What is proof behond a doubt, is that their occupying the White House has been not only counterproductive to carry out their elected offices, but disasterous as well!

Daniel David,

"Tell me where you'll get the votes to convict in the Senate, and I'll happily agree with you."

The Repugs have operated in secrecy in order to avoid evidence of crimes being brought to light. A public, televised trial in the Senate would either (a) change the votes of those determined to survive politically and (b) concentrate the political will in the citizens to remove from power all who do not vote to convict.

The reverse -- waiting for votes to magically materialize BEFORE YOU ACT -- is the absolute antithesis of political action. Act, and you change the balance of forces.

Once again, this is why Liberalism is a worthless philosophy of civic inertia.

pleasethink,

"he logic behind seeing "impeachment" as "counter-productive" is terrifying. It demonstrates that this Congressman, and most of Congress, thinks that governance is about expediency, about "what is convenient for the moment," rather than being founded on any enduring principles. This Congressman's logic shows that he is as far from respecting the rule of law as Bush and Cheney."

An article elsewhere on CD brought to mind comparisons with the colonies' attempt to seek redress from the Parliament. The ministers & MPs saw themselves as subject & instruments of royal power, though; and in the same way, our "Representatives", without sayings so, share the belief that power stems from the presidency, and that convicting the holder of the office destroys their own power, and their own dream of holding the office itself in 16 months.

The Democrats started this nonsense back when they started pleading for "civility" towards Clinton SOLELY on the basis that he was president; and they continued it during the impeachment proceedings. Their aim throughout Clinton's term was not to protect the Constitution, but to protect the person they had elected, and through that, their own positions in the cabinet & elsewhere in the government.

We are all proud that Ralph Nader told it like it is. However Ralph forgot to tell the people about snake in the puloit Jerry Farwell,Pat Robertson and Pat Pukecannon all supported him to pull votes away from Al Gore so that the nasty five on the axis court could make it easier to STEAL the election. Bushieboy and Darth Vader has never been elected to anything.

Actually, impeachment is the far more practical course, the one that will do the least damage.

If a Democratic candidate wins the presidency (and doesn't have it stolen) and a Democratic House & Senate are seated, the international community needs to know that the new administration regards international laws & treaties as binding, and not as things subject to the whim of the chief executive.

Though I'm sure also that Democrats are hearing from those regimes which harbor 'black sites' in Europe -- impeachment would draw those countries' elected leaders into the Hague as well . . .

We may need to experience not just revulsion at the behavior of our "fearless leaders," but disgust with ourselves as well.

As Americans (citizens of the U.S.A.) we don't seem to be anywhere near the moment at which the people Demand Impeachment. If we, as citizens, were there -- congress would, like it or not, have no choice but to move on it.

Welcome hman,
We routinely solve problems here at Common Dreams that Congress will never solve; keep your seatbelt on while you read and don't have any fluids in your mouth.

An impeachment would be limited to Constitutional issues and highly politicized. What America and the world needs is a full (non-politicized) vetting of the truth. An international inquiry into the facts which are international in their scope can only be accomplished by an inappropriately charged international body, at an appropriate time, under appropriate circumstances. Impediments (legal impediments, etceteras) to the truth, have been created and continue to be created in United States and internationally; action is needed to prevent disruption and disbarment of the truth. We need to see beyond ourselves, beyond the moment, beyond punishment, beyond empowerment; we need to see the truth; then we will have a chance of preventing a recurrence or worse; then we'll be able to see and act on our responsibilities to the rest of the world; then and only then will we recover the friendship of the world that we had after 9/11 and lost shortly thereafter.

"In short, the Democrats may be viewing Bush and Cheney as being so defiantly, aggressively impeachable on so many counts as to be unimpeachable. That is, with the White House harboring so much political nitroglycerine, don't even try to remove it."

Or, rather, if the Democrats want to inherit this cache of nitroglycerine, the best plan is to let the clock run out on Cheneybush and win the White House themselves next year.

This is the familiar one-two punch of the one-party, Republicrat USA.

Hello;
I am a frequent reader of the webpage but a first-time participant. I would like to offer this as an explanation of the rationale of the Dem's actions. It seems as though the Democratic reaction to the public's questions about the "Price of Power" is to offer a position as the "Other of the two parties", who have a plan to fix this mess. I don't agree with this position and I don't see any plan with which they would fight the war on terror or fix the economy or increse our security from within or without. I haven't seen much of any National discussion on the MSM dealing with the What if's ? except for those fringe politicians who would be willing to say or do anything to increase their positions at the polls come primary time.
You can bet that if any Congressman (or Woman), wanted to inform the public about their interest in accusing or making charges they would be in commitee right now for the very same reasons that we as a public have expressed recently.
I feel that the political process that holds elections instead of solving our political problems IS NOT dealing with us fairly. I Read and Write my elected National Representatives frequently about these political problems and I get the "Thank You for your Response" answer, No other response. I am not expecting a response , all I'm saying is that the participatory level of exchange within the community has taken on more expensive avenues for discussion, (Contributions to Political Parties), in order to be heard at all. MY point is that it seems as though we have already reached an overstaed point of our conversation. Words no longer mean anything to the political opposition. They, (The Exexcutive Branch) do not believe in the participatory nature of the political process "The art of compromise", they are using more subtle methods than discussion to make their point and for those of us who engage in these discussions to hope for a response to these and other questions from "them" either by political policy objectives or just by friendly converstion are going to be continually frustrated and hung up.

ROFLOL!!!!!!!

The Democrats are saying they don't want impeachment to distract from their legislative agenda? What agenda? They ain't doing squat. So far their 'legislative agenda' consists of 1)protecting big pharma from overseas sales, 2) protecting the money that funds the war and making sure it gets through uncut, 3)protecting Bush tax cuts and making sure there are no attempts to reverse them, and 4)protecting Bush ability to spy on Americans and expanding it upon request.

If you read the Democrats 'legislative agenda' as the fact that they really defend and push the Republican agenda, then yeah ... I guess I can see where impeachment might detract from that.

zoya,

"Or, rather, if the Democrats want to inherit this cache of nitroglycerine, the best plan is to let the clock run out on Cheneybush and win the White House themselves next year."

A few years ago, when a football team trying to protect a lead went into a defensive pattern call the "prevent defense", the commentator said, "The only thing the Prevent Defense does for its team is prevent you from winning."

The polls show the Democrats are proving this true in politics, by strategies that have made the Congress even less popular than the war criminals they refuse to impeach.

Impeach the Democrats too!

As some comedian on TV put it .... There are more people out there who believe Elvis is alive than who think the Democrats are doing a good job.

Hello;
I want to ask if anyone in the CD blogsphere if you would like to ask the elected leaders to speak for us. My Question to my two Senators and my U.S. Congress Rep. were intended to query the response as Would you initiate the impeachment process we are asking for? or do I have to come down there and do it myself?

The activists should have been ready for the congressman's response. They should have said to Olver, "We thought you might say that. In response, we are withdrawing our support from the Democratic Party until it grows a spine. We will work for, support, and vote for only third party candidates from now on. Now go along, little feller, and f*** yourself. This meeting is over."

The impeachment of Clinton was over a 'safe' subject. A BJ = personal morality (I know he lied under oath but it was about a BJ).

Our politicians do not want to set a precedent by initiating impeachment of fellow politicians over something so 'unsafe' as a politician's performance while in office or for corruption, malfeasance and lying us into war of his choice, warrantless wiretaps and other unconstitutional offenses.

As I say, such proceedings could set a precedent which could see our politicians held to such standards themselves. At present, our Congress (most) apparently believes that their malfeasance, corruption and incompetence should not be a bar to their reelection. An impeachment fight would cause the fossilized semi-permanent elite who believe this is their government (if not ours) and only they should be in it... to break ranks. The status quo does not break ranks.

We need to boot out as many of this old guard do nothing enablers of Bush in the 08 elections as possible. That is if we would save our democracy. They do what they wish (instead of what their constituents wish) because they have rigged the game in favor of themselves and do not fear losing their positions except to possibly another approved insider to the other side. That is the game. Breaking ranks? Them? Seems not.

We need to elect as many new people to Congress in 08 as possible to break this fossilized buddy buddy clique if we want them to represent us instead of themselves. New people would have less interest in keeping the seniority system of chairs etc. intact. They'd owe less and could do more. We need NEW people in government. Heck Nader may not have made it to the oval office but why doesn't he run for Congress? Sombody who has America's best interest at heart should. To many in thois old guard Congress have only their interests in heart... just like it always has been. Does somebody else notice we have a semi-permanent group running things? Even when they aren't elected they appoint each other to high positions. Cheney has been around since Nixon/ford days. So was Rumsfeld and others in different appointed positions.

We better get new people in 08 or it'll be too late to undo so much of what Bush has done. Save our democracy in 08. Get rid of as many of those who have failed it and us.

Hello;
I would like to offer a response to
pleasethink October 13th, 2007 3:25 pm
who mentions John Dean when he refers to an interview on Cspan he saw and credited him with the authorship of the upcoming "Imperial Presidency".

hman,

"I feel that the political process that holds elections instead of solving our political problems IS NOT dealing with us fairly. I Read and Write my elected National Representatives frequently about these political problems and I get the "Thank You for your Response" answer, No other response. I am not expecting a response , all I'm saying is that the participatory level of exchange within the community has taken on more expensive avenues for discussion, (Contributions to Political Parties), in order to be heard at all. MY point is that it seems as though we have already reached an overstaed point of our conversation. Words no longer mean anything to the political opposition"

Yes -- words, in an elective context, have become nothing but advertisements. Break out of the ad-box, and what you say, no matter how substantive, is indecipherable. As Rachel Maddow pointed out a few days ago, the journalists & political consultants script everything; step outside the script, and the interviewer or the interviewee have no idea what to say or where to go.

If your representive or senator doesn't do as the voters requested and voted for, then they themselves are in violation of the constitution. whether the votes are there or not is not the question, the politician does as his constiuancy wants or he's not re-elected and he's nothing more than a traitor to his country. If every crime was judged by a few people who think because they won't get a conviction that the criminal shouldn't be subject to a trial and his peers decide if he's guilty or not then that politician should resign if he has any honor or integrity inside his body. but we already know the answer. all politicians are crooks and have no honor integrity and certainly don't deserve respect.

I know impeachment should be done, should have been done, but wasn't done, and now with all the thumb-twiddling, won't be done. There is no time, and with Republicans and the Administration stonewalling mightily ("how dare the Democrats pull a political stunt like this--don't they know there is a war on?), it will be impossible for the House to conduct impeachment hearings, let alone a vote, before November 2008. So forget it. I hate it, but I understand why it's no longer possible to impeach.
Would that we had something as simple as a vote of no-confidence, which would force elections now instead of a year from now. Or what if we the people could have a recall election, like California did? Although I thought it was a flawed process engineered by a small group of Conservatives, why can't a small group of Progressives do the same thing?

"Rice pledges support to Russian activists"

America pledged support for Kurdish activivts...
America pledged support for Hungarian activists...
And so it goes.

JFK put missiles next to the USSR resulting in the Cuban Missile Crisis. A heartbeat away from a nuclear exchange.
Bush/Rice insist on putting missiles next to Russia... Are we 'safer' now?
And so it goes. Hidebound christians jousting at windmills. Idiots! Valhalla ends when the Ice Giants win. Read your (other) scripture George or you and Dick may be the next ones chained to the roots of Yagdrasil causing earthquakes for eternity.

from Hman;
Thank you dichterfreund for response.
I would thank Mr. Nader especially for this and many posts that have enriched myself and many other readers of these discussions. Your interest and your objectivity help us to share ideas with each other. The Purpose of discussion by nature. Thank You.

By forcing the senate republicans to vote to acquit obvious criminals, who have violated their oaths of office, the constitution, numerous federal and international laws, and in countless other ways damaged this country, all people on earth, and the environment, in ways that will take decades to recover from, the spineless democrats get to run against these busheney traitors.

Counterproductive, see this from Ralph Nader, and you will get an idea what he may have meant.

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

A congressman was quoted by Nader on his response why he would not support impeachment when that is what his constituents want.

Paraphrasing a bit, "If we were to impeach the president, he would attack Iran, declare a state of emergency, impose martial law, and suspend the 2008 elections"

I have heard of others who expressed the fears of another 9/11 attack as well should we proceed with impeachment.

Anthrax, right wing terrorism (Army of God), 9/11 (those buildings were charged people), add them all together, and you got a terrorized Congress and MSM. That in a nutshell is the only plausible explanation why there is no impeachment or any serious public debate about what really happened on 9/11.

As Ralph said in the clip, "Things are worse than I thought"

*Members of Congress should.... honor their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That Oath is supposed to transcend political calculations.*

Say it louder, Ralph!

Nader showed admirable restraint by not hitting the arrogant Cong. Volver in the face with a rotten tomato. If I were him confronted by such intransigence I'd begin right away to formulate a recall proceedure to throw the Tory bastard out.

Public "servants" do not take an oath to defend the Constitution when and if it is politically expedient, but whenever and however the Constitution is being violated.

Everybody's a political consultant these days and rarely does a representative act on principle, and just as rarely do voters vote on principle.

Except for me, of course. I voted Nader because he was saying, like he has always said, the things I like to hear. I didn't give a shit if my vote detracted from Gore's tally and I wasn't making political calculations. I voted my conscience. I felt good about it and it's too damn bad our two party system doesn't provide for the conscience-driven voter, but is designed instead for political calculators.

Our public life is populated by moral cowards, but to be fair to the cowards, they are also subjected to unprecedented political intimidation and old fashioned criminal extortion.

When and if records of NSA/CIA/DIA, etc, domestic surveillance ever come to light, we will learn the extent to which this "war on terror" is a cover for political dirty tricks and gestapo tactics. People in public life are the primary targets of domestic surveillance. Cong Volver is likely less concerned about the political consequences of acting on principle than he is about revelations of the skeletons in his closet. He'd probably like to act on principle because it would surely bolster his re-election chances, which have diminished considerably as a result of his unprincipled stand.

Take that to the bank.

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.

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.

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.

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

that's what i want to know.