This is no victory, this is a sham. Cheap political theater to fool the idiots on Democratic Underground. Democrats have no intention of impeaching Bush, since they helped him commit 90% of his crimes. Who are they kidding? And shame on all of you, Dem Party Apologists.

Uh, have to agree this was no victory. The Dem leadership successfully defended Bush and Cheney and insured that they would serve out their full terms. They did this by running out the clock.

Now that its so late, they allow Kucinich to play his little impeachment games on the floor, and they let Conyers have this sham hearing. Neither is going to lead to real impeachment even at this very late date. But they do generate a few cheap headlines against the Republicans to aid the Dems Republican-wanna-be campaigns. And they apparently fool at least some of the people on the left into the mistaken belief that the Dems are doing something.

So, the hearings were allowed. But they were not a victory. At least not for us.

On the other hand, we could get head start on the 'Impeach Obama' movement.

Even so-called "progressive" representatives--like Betty McCollum of Minnesota--are cowards in this issue. In fact, the idiots who answer McCollum's phones will not even give out any information about her position on the issue. Some "democracy"!

they laughed about the hearings on cnn

thank you corporate media - we couldn't control the population without you

praise god, the nazis among us are still safe

List of co-sponsors to H.RES.1258
Title: Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

http://tinyurl.com/5msy3v

It is all very sad - with the exception of a few - the Dems are awful -

I hate to keep being picky, but Nancy Pelosi declared impeachment was "off the table" BEFORE the November, 2006 Congressional election votes were counted up.

Pelosi made this announcement (speaking as the likely House Speaker) in direct response to a rabid, well-orchestrated propaganda campaign incessantly broadcast out there in Limbaughland which sought to fire up the GOP base by accusing the Dems of plotting a "coup" that would deprive George Bush of his last two years in office.

The claim was that if the Democrats seized control of the House, they would vote lockstep to impeach, and remove both Bush and Cheney so that Nancy Pelosi would become President, with Harry Reid the new Vice President. This evil plot would lead to Hillary in 2008, gay marriage ceremonies in the Rose Garden, and God knows what all else.

This piece of Karl Rove inspired hysteria was of course sheer and utter nonsense. But those real smart DC beltway political advisors concluded it was best to staunch the right wing media bullshit campaign anyway. Thus, impeachment was taken "off the table" before the November balloting, a promise that Pelosi then reiterated after becoming speaker of the House.

I belabor this chronology because Mr. Lindorff's otherwise fine piece of reporting (the news blackout is shameful) implies this fateful decision of the Democratic leadership originated "since taking control of the House in November 2006....." But Give credit where credit is due.

The beltway Democratic insiders swallowed the Republican bait hook, line and sinker, thus giving away for nothing the primary tool embraced in our Constitution for restraining the criminal misbehavior of a tyrant.

Too smart by half.

Bill from Saginaw

Holding these sham hearings was worse than continuing to remain silent on the issue. It shows that the Democrats think we're stupid enough to fall a sham trick. I'll vote with my pocketbook by sending what I can to Cindy Sheehan's campaign and with my vote against Democrats come November.

Lobo Gris

we have to take our victories where we find them. the fact that this much was accomplished at all gives weight to the argument in favor of raising the stakes---specifically by supporting cindy sheehan's campaign, but also generally by switching our voter registrations to green, contacting our reps, marching, writing letters to the editor---you know, "holding their feet to the fire."

on a related note, is it just me or has norm coleman started making noises like an actual small-d democrat? might that be due to the insurgent candidacy of al franken?

william street July 30th, 2008 1:11 pm

"I hate to keep being picky, but Nancy Pelosi declared impeachment was "off the table" BEFORE the November, 2006 Congressional election votes were counted up."

The Dems could have done like they did on their promise to end the war to the public that voted them in office and broken their campaign pledge not to impeach.

They could have declared that Bush's crimes were so serious that they had no choice but to impeach regardless of their promise not to.

Lobo Gris

I too believe the Nazi Facists have taken over our government and the White House. Read this little article that appeared back Saturday September 25 2004 in the Guardian out of the uk. It is amazing to me how many people walk the walk, and talk the talk for a Bush family with Nazi connections. How does AIPAC justify their support of a current President of a Nazi loving descendent? The media never once mentioned the Bush family Nazi connection or the fact..Grandpappie Bush wanted to take over our American government and turn it into a Fascist Government. I guess Dubya, gave his grandpappie this success.

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Nazism...and the Bush family..profiteers from WAR! The NAZIS are HERE!!

People who say this hearing was not a victory simply don't understand politics and don't want to play. These are people who want to sit on the sidelines, act superior to the rest of the population, and say the system is all rigged, so there's no point in doing anything.

In fact, the last thing Pelosi & Co wanted was to hold a hearing, any hearing, at which the likes of Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman or Bruce Fein would lay out in a public forum both the crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration, and the rank cowardice and complicity of the Democrats controlling the House. That they did so after two years of abject resistance to calls for a hearing is a clear result of the pressure that has been and is being brought at the grass roots both across the country and in Pelosi's home district by people who actually go out and work at making change and at defending what democracy we have, and what constitution we have left.

There are way too many smug "lefties" out there who think that they're better than politics, and that all they have to do is sit around and fire off their few lines of condecending pap.

The same kind of stuff was done during the early days of the Nixon impeachment, but anyone who doesn't think that impeachment effort wasn't important is an idiot. It led to exposure of Cointelpro, and to the only roll back in the progress of the National Security State since the end of WWII.

We need more pressure now to make impeachment happen, not do-nothing critics who say this was all a trick. Sure it was meant to buy off the impeachment movement, but the people who are pushing for impeachment aren't bought off. They're not stupid or sell-outs. And unlike the above naysayers, they're still hard at work.

The latest plan is hounding Pelosi on her book tour. If you want to do something, go to Afterdowningstreet.org, and get a challenging question to pose to her. she has said Bush has "not committed a crime," but that if he did, she'd support impeachment. Confront her with a few of those crimes.

Dave Lindorff
www.thiscantbehappening.net

I just saw Pelosi on the "view" saying the Democrats voted "over and over" to end the war but were not successful.

She also says she knows of no evidence that Government officials have committed any crimes.

The only answer is with the people and I have stressed this in another posting, the story on Mr. Rove being found in contempt.

Impeachment is a minor imposition on the Bush administration. Primarily because they could manipulate the system if the needed to and avoid any real legal action against them.
There are statute of limitations on these charges and if they could not outlast those, they could always expect "pardons" from the future presidents; even years down the line.

The Democrats could hardly be expected to participate, since they might enjoy having the same power when the "pendulum swings in the other direction" and they are in control. Which is the reason the "hearings" on Fri were not much more than a "dog and pony show".

When the people en mass, move to make the difference and have this administration brought to trial for International Crimes against humanity and other War Crimes, only then will justice truly be served.

Then the people could move to clean up the political system that allows people like the Bush administration to come to power in the first place.

Today I received an email from Codepink urging me to sign a petition pushing for impeachment; supposedly, Dennis Kucinich himself will deliver the list of names, which will be added to the Congressional record, on Friday.
I have honestly lost track of how many petitions I've signed over the past several months. Are they doing any good at all?

The Endless Smearing of Joe Wilson

By Robert Parry
July 26, 2008

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee reminded everyone that rules barred personal attacks on George W. Bush during Friday's hearing on his presidential abuses, but they didn't feel obliged to forego the lashing of a favorite whipping boy, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

In a continuation of what has amounted to a five-year campaign to destroy Wilson's reputation, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, flourished two pieces of evidence that supposedly showed that Wilson was a perjurer and that President Bush was right all along when he accused Iraq of seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger.

King cited the CIA's now-declassified report on its debriefing of Wilson after he returned from a fact-finding trip to Niger in early 2002 in which he checked out a bogus claim that Iraq had been trying to buy yellowcake uranium from the African nation.

King also noted recent press reports about the current Iraqi government selling 550 metric tons of leftover yellowcake uranium to Canada. The linkage presumably was to show that Bush had been vindicated about the yellowcake and that Wilson was a liar.

However, what King failed to note – and no Democrat on the committee bothered to challenge him on – was that neither piece of information was revelatory and neither supported King's conclusions about Bush's vindication or Wilson's dishonesty.

If people had given this "evidence" even a cursory review, they would have realized that King was behaving like some dimwitted Inspector Clouseau, who adds two and two to get five.

Though King treated a section of the CIA debriefing report like some smoking gun – that former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki had suspected that an Iraqi commercial delegation to Niger in 1999 might have been interested in buying yellowcake – this inconsequential fact had long been known, indeed from Wilson's own public accounts.

As it turned out, Mayaki's suspicions about the Iraqi delegation's intent were unfounded. The Iraqis never mentioned nor sought to purchase yellowcake uranium – and indeed no yellowcake uranium was sold to them – as Wilson also told the CIA back in 2002. [For details, see our book, Neck Deep.]

Regarding the yellowcake uranium that Iraq has just sold to Canada – a factlet that's been bouncing around the right-wing media as supposed vindication of President Bush – Iraq's possession of that ore dated back almost three decades, as was well-documented by the CIA's post-invasion WMD report issued in September 2004.

"Between 1979 and 1982, Iraq bought large quantities of uranium in various forms including yellowcake and uranium dioxide from several countries," according to the CIA's so-called Duelfer Report, named after chief investigator Charles Duelfer.

Duelfer's investigation concluded that the U.S. bombing campaign during Operation Desert Storm in 1990-91 destroyed Iraq's ability to process uranium and that there was no evidence that Iraq subsequently sought to reconstitute its nuclear program or buy more yellowcake uranium ore.

The CIA investigators interviewed key figures in the Iraqi nuclear program, such as Ja'far Diya' Ja'far, who said the Iraqis last acquired yellowcake uranium from Niger in 1981 and that the later commercial contacts with Niger had nothing to do with uranium.

"Ja'far acknowledged that Iraq's Ambassador to the Holy See traveled to Niamey [the capital of Niger] to invite the President of Niger to visit Iraq," the Duelfer report said. "He indicated that Baghdad hoped that the Nigerian President would agree to the visit as he had visited Libya despite sanctions being levied on Tripoli. Former Iraqi Ambassador to the Holy See Wissam Zahawie has publicly provided a similar account.

"Ja'far claims a second contact between Iraq and Niger occurred when a Nigerian minister visited Baghdad around 2001 to request assistance in obtaining petroleum products to alleviate Niger's economic problems. During the negotiations for this contract, the Nigerians did not offer any kind of payment or other quid pro quo, including offering to provide Iraq with uranium ore, other than cash in exchange for petroleum."

Smearing Wilson

So, although the evidence is clear that Wilson accurately recounted the facts from Niger in 2002 and that Iraq's old stockpiles of yellowcake had nothing to do with Bush's false claims about Iraq seeking new uranium supplies in the early part of this decade, Rep. King still denounced Wilson's honesty.

"Joe Wilson," King began, his voice dripping in disgust, "whose integrity … was the least impressive of any that I have seen before this committee in six years … testified before this committee and before the world that he had been debriefed within two hours of his return from two weeks in Niger by two CIA agents. …

"That report, I think he thought would remain secret in perpetuity, but that report is now a public document."

King's gotcha moment, however, merely corroborated what Wilson had long ago revealed in his book, The Politics of Truth, and what had been reported by many journalists.

For instance, in Neck Deep, a 2007 book which I co-authored with two of my sons, we write:

"In his oral report to the CIA, Wilson said he found no evidence that Iraq had sought yellowcake and – considering the international controls governing shipments of uranium – most of his sources doubted that a sale would even be possible.

"Wilson did add a caveat, that one senior Nigerien, former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, said he had suspected that an Iraqi commercial delegation to Niger in 1999 might have been interested in buying yellowcake, but the uranium topic never came up at the meeting and nothing was sold to Iraq."

By now, however, the Republican bashing of former Ambassador Wilson has become so routine – almost ritualized – that it doesn't even draw a reaction from Democrats, as it didn't during the Judiciary Committee's review of Bush's abuses of power.

Yet, if one were to step back and look at the ugly Republican treatment of Wilson and his wife, former CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson, it would be a case study of how the Bush administration has abused its power by targeting American citizens who criticized Bush's invasion of Iraq under false pretenses.

Since spring 2003, when Wilson began challenging Bush's use of the Niger-yellowcake claims as a justification for invading Iraq, the Bush administration and its many allies have disparaged Wilson's credibility and – in doing so – destroyed his wife's career by exposing her work as a covert CIA officer investigating the spread of dangerous weapons.

Besides blowing Plame's cover, Bush's supporters – both in Republican circles and within the Washington press corps – have spread so much false propaganda about the Wilsons that many Americans now must assume that the lies are true.

From right-wing blogs to the Washington Post's neoconservative editorial pages, Wilson is regularly dismissed as a liar and his wife's covert status is denied, even though the evidence is that Wilson told the truth, that Plame indeed was a covert officer, and that there thus was an "underlying crime" in the administration's willful exposure of Plame's identity.

The false "conventional wisdom" about Bush's innocence in the "Plame-gate" scandal seems almost like a throwback to the days when any questioning of the President's honesty was met with fierce resistance. [For details on the anti-Wilson lies, see Consortiumnews.com's "Time to Apologize to Plame/Wilson."]

No Good Deed…

Yet what is most remarkable about the abusive treatment of Wilson is that he performed honorably on behalf of the U.S. government and its people, both as a diplomat who served in Iraq and Africa and as a citizen.

In February 2002, at the CIA's request, he undertook a difficult assignment for no pay – traveling to Niger to check out the erroneous yellowcake reports.

Upon returning, he gave an accurate and nuanced account of his trip to the CIA. Though he concluded that the yellowcake allegations were almost surely false, he didn't shy away from mentioning Mayaki's suspicions, even though they turned out to be baseless.

When Bush nevertheless used the false yellowcake information in his 2003 State of the Union Address – declaring "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" – Wilson performed another patriotic duty, informing the American people that they had been misled.

Wilson's whistle-blowing then prompted a coordinated effort by the White House to destroy his reputation, an operation that exposed his wife's CIA identity and endangered her international spy network.

Even after that damage had been done, instead of apologizing and trying to lessen the harm on these two Americans and their children, the White House continued its ugly campaign, aided and abetted by much of the pro-war Washington press corps.

Now, with these latest smears from Rep. King, it has become clear that Republican leaders of this generation are heirs to Joe McCarthy's tradition of using the government's power to destroy American citizens who get in the way.

As Joseph Welch, the Army's chief legal counsel, said in 1954 when Sen. McCarthy attacked the patriotism of a young Boston lawyer who had worked for Welch:

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

From the insiders around George W. Bush to the likes of Rep. King, it is increasingly obvious that the answer is no.

http://www.consortiumblog.com

Dave Lindorff July 30th, 2008 1:36 pm

"People who say this hearing was not a victory simply don't understand politics and don't want to play. These are people who want to sit on the sidelines, act superior to the rest of the population, and say the system is all rigged, so there's no point in doing anything."

The system is rigged, if it wasn't we would have had impeachment hearings, an impeachment vote, and a Senate trial two years ago.

As for not doing anything, that isn't true either. I for one am working hard to get people to break the duopoly that runs this country by voting third party rather than voting for Democrats that have once again betrayed us on multiple issues.

You yourself admit the hearings on whether or not to hold impeachment hearings was meant to buy off the impeachment movement and yet then castigate those of us who called it for what it is.

Lobo Gris

It amazes me that people do not understand why Pelosi took impeachment off the table.

Duh - It is because impeachment hearings would show her CRIMINAL actions in not stopping the administration's use of torture when they first told her about it.

She knew about the torture and went along with it!

I have to give it to the CRIMINALS in the administration for their smarts in telling a few Democratic members of Congress about their crimes and swearing them to secrecy.

They knew those Democratic members like Pelosi, Harmon, Rockefeller would not have the balls to say the hell with secrecy and expose their CRIMINAL actions.

Which in turn meant that they would never be charged since the ONLY people who could bring charges would be implicated themselves!

I commend you and the other impeachment activists for all your work, Dave. Looking at the last 60 or so years of American politics does not offer much assurance that anything meaningful will happen here, or perhaps ever again.

The case against Bush and Co. by any normal societal standards would be a slam dunk. Yet it goes absolutely nowhere, and the clock is nearly run out. And Clinton was very nearly removed from office for virtually nothing in comparison.

Many (myself included) believed electing a Democratic majority to Congress in 2006 would make a difference, in relation to the current war and Mr. Bush's abhorrent and flagrant abuses of power. We were surprised and extremely chagrinned that the only difference it made has been in exposing the Democrats as inexplicably weak, and in fact as colluders with the ruling party in this kabuki dance in D.C. Now Congress has the lowest approval ratings in its history.

Some of us are looking for a deeper explanation of the American catastrophe now unfolding. We reexamine the political assassinations of the post-war era. We read books on the real effects of American foreign policy and the strategic undermining of grassroots democracy movements in countries around the world. We still have no adequate explanation of why 58000 US servicemen and millions of Vietnamese had to die in another recent war.

And now Obama does not appear to offer any real challenge to the prevailing corruption. How else to explain the events of the past 7+ years than as the total domination of the organized criminals in power? What makes you think anything will change (for the better) with the impeachment movement? Or come November?

I understand your rationale, Dave, but pardon me if I have trouble buying into a "baby steps" philosophy in this case.

Because the kid is six years old, and has been stubbornly, even lovingly, carried around by the very same doting patrons upon whom you are relying to make the kid walk.

CRITICAL THINKER - You are correct. If an impeachment investigation went through it would reveal Pelosi's apathy to do anything to stop the torture when she learned about it. Her pitiful career would be ruined --- and that's all the frick these people (except for a few) care about. To hell with the people being tortured and the millions in pain, they only care about their own political career butts.

That's why Pelosi is blocking impeachment.

Dave Lindorff - I thought you wrote after the mid-terms that you'd just had it with these sold out Dems! Why would you think they're now any more willing to turn their backs on their bosses than they were in 2006? They've been even more empowered than before. They see all the PDA work, Obama, they love it! And you! And Nichols, Hayden, Soloman! Come one and all! Work withing the Democratic Party to "TAKE IT OVER!" And when that's done, go to the Haliburton corporate offices and get a low level job so that someday .... Yes! Someday you can take over this giant corporation from the "grassroots." This is a great strategy!

Another way: Arundhati Roy advocates creating our own movement, not connected to the ruling parties. I agree with her. Why should we play a game with a powerful, rather fascist entity that makes all the rules against us, that prevents real democracy from taking place? This is the way they distract and control us.

Don't you think it's time - while we still have the chance - to design our own game plan, independent of the Democrats and Republicans? Otherwise, we'll be playing footsie forever with a brutal, powerful giant who could step on us at any given moment - and does! It won't be long before we won't have the option of an independent movement at all --- USE IT OR LOSE IT!

Why doesn't the progressive peace movement have any teeth? They stood by while the Democrat Party kicked them all out.

Sure there's been some crying and pleading but that just makes it more fun for the fascists (cruel as they are). They're not worried about a free movement, they have all of that under control. I gotta give 'em credit - smart manipulators all.

Authority: 30% of all people will side with whomever is seen as the "authority." How do you set up "hearings" so that you can control the appearance of who is in control? How do you marginalize independent thinkers? Watch these hearings and find out: no buttons, no voices, no "impeachment," no democracy, yet everyone I know is fixated on this.

Might I recommend supporting Cindy Sheehan for Congress?

criticalthinker July 30th, 2008 2:30 pm

"It amazes me that people do not understand why Pelosi took impeachment off the table.

Duh - It is because impeachment hearings would show her CRIMINAL actions in not stopping the administration's use of torture when they first told her about it."

You are absolutely correct. It bolsters my argument that the system is rigged, it matters not how it was rigged, and that the only real solution is to vote against the duopoly that have rigged it.

Lobo Gris

i am no longer able to comprehend why these discussions about the behaviors of this administration always begin with what was done AFTER 911...why isn't anybody talking about what happened before and on 911? While I feel terrible about the deaths that have occurred in Iraq since America's soldiers and their hired attendants invaded, I feel really bad for those poor souls who were sacrificed by this administration on 911 to get buy-in into the current outrage...as for not getting involved, I have worked via caucuses and gone door to door to encourage democratic voting, and have petitioned my senators, Murray and Cantwell with multiple emails regarding my strong desire for impeachment, only to be told that it would be a counter-productive DISTRACTION...can you imagine? Pelosi and Conyers aren't hiding complicity in the torture of prisoners, they're hiding pre-meditated complicity in the murder of Americans on 911...

Good article Dave!

Here is something else to consider since Bush is already a War Criminal ... what might be his response to impeachment?
Would he push the button on Iran?

"Shirley Jackson Lee (D-CA) suggesting that the president may have committed treason in invading Iraq, and that he appeared to be preparing to do it again with an unprovoked invasion of Iran."

I want Bush/Cheney to be impeached of course but this is a complicated world and so many 3rd party voters want us to think only in terms of black and white, Evil or Good as if they are the only pure people.

If you thought that Bush was evil enough to escape justice by starting a possible nuclear war would you be so positive about getting your wish?

Maybe Impeachment is the reason Bush has not bombed Iran so far.

Everyone who cares is walking the line cause there is no black and white only varying shades of grey and we all share some Grey.

If you want to bomb Iran, let McSame win and you will deserve everything he gives us.

Impeachment yes, but it might be better with a nut criminal with his finger on the button to try him when he can no longer threaten to kill us all.

Mr. Lindorff, I know how upset the folks in the impeachment movement must be, but please don't insult us by asking us to call congress, write letters (or articles for CommonDreams), organize protest at their offices, etc. These are USELESS and incredibly naive. The only thing they might accomplish is perhaps a fake, phony, fraudulent hearing just like the one you called 'victory'.

And calling the ones who disagree with you "idiots" does little to advance your point of view. Also, you don't know who's behind the keyboard so don't assume all they do "is sit around and fire off their few lines of condecending (sic) pap."

A much more vigorous movement must take place, one that doesn't involve violence but hits the elite where it hurts them the most, their pocket.

Here's the Democracy Now link with pelosi on the View.

http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2008/july/video/dnB20080730a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=22:14

She appears as goofy and as the dem equivalent of Katherine Harris.

Either that or she's just a nervous bad liar and knows the right wingers got the goods on her if she pushes too hard.

Or both.

Kucinich has an odd and somewhat good comentary afterwards, but says "I have a great deal of respect for speaker pelosi"

Don't ask me. This is all twilight zone to me

By and large, I believe we're getting about as much as we can expect from our so-called elected public servants.

Most people, it seems to me, who run for public office and make it a career are either seriously co-opted if not outright corrupted, mediocre on so many levels, and/or not very brave - with some obvious and notable exceptions.

We can't expect a quarter from those who only possess a nickel.

Pelosi, as an example, doesn't strike me as an expansive, deep thinker of courage. Rather, she is quite flawed and average. To most people who either don't pay too close of attention or just aren't too bright or informed she may seem fine. To anyone with a sophisticated and educated ability for critical thinking and analysis can see her for what she is.

It's really not her fault - she ran for office and won election. She probably told us through her words and actions who she was long before she became speaker, but nonetheless there she is.

I'm not even sure it's the voters' fault either. So often the choices we are given in the voting booth are just plain dreadful.

There's probably only one thing to change in our political system - everything. Until then we can continue to keep applying band aids to a deep profusely bleeding wound knowing what the predictable outcome will be.

I see no reasonable or workable solution to this morass. To fix what ails our body politic would take an entire house cleaning, cleansing the system of money, and a harmonic convergence of awareness, courage, and right thinking. I don't see that ever happening.

I am with David fullbore on this. I personally have signed 3 impeachment petitions. With just a bit more Democratic push this could landslide into what it should be. And, it would be accomplished by the end of the year. All it takes is individual will to coalesce into a collective will. It teeters on the precipice. Dems in Congress must yell at the media. Pelosi is already turning white from fear. It is time to pounce.

I wonder if congress knew that Bush couldn't be tried due to the fact that time is running out and THAT is why they are holding the hearing so late in the game. I still believe most of congress is afraid of bush and co. and that they don't want to risk their seats impeaching the crooks. They are still getting a paycheck either way.. right?

I hope this all isn't a farce.

Bread and circuses

Oh, I've been watching politics for a long time, and I regularly participate.

The key is I know the difference between sham hearings that are just for show and a real process. I know the difference between playing in a rigged game where I have no chance of winning, and a real game where I have at least a fighting chance.

As was pointed out above, Pelosi and Reid promised well before the last election that there would be no impeachment. They have since followed through on those promises. At this time, they have rather successfully run out the clock, as there is little or no time for this process to continue.

A year ago, I would have been a strong supporter of any REAL impeachment hearings (ie, one's where both the chair of the committee and the speaker of the house have not expressly stated that they will not generate impeachment charges).

One thing to note very, very carefully is that Rep Kucinich wouldn't even raise the issue on the floor back when it would make a difference. Most of the details of his charges go back several years, so what's different now? My guess would be that now the Dem leadership is willing to let this go forward.

To really understand the Dems, you have to understand this. Everything revolves around whether it helps their chance to win the next election and grab power. That is the only thing that seems to matter to them.

So, yes they are getting a little heat from their base. And, they are sure to get some cheap headlines from these hearings, in the lefty press if not CNN. For instance, this is not the first article or news item on CD about these hearings. And, they have successfully run out the clock such that a real impeachment simply can not happen by now. Surely its obvious that even if the Dems were taken over by aliens and started to push this hard that the Republicans could tie the process up in knots and run out the remainder of Bush's term.

The real harm is that it creates the illusion that the Dems oppose Bush. Instead, they've supported almost all of these policies. On the Iraq War, they've voted to give Bush authorization to start it and they continually fight to keep it fully funded. On FISA they worked with the Republicans to give first administration officials and now the telecoms immunity from charges. On torture, the leading Dems like Pelosi were all breifed by the White House and have never done anything to oppose the policy. And like with FISA they gave Bush and his minions retroactive immunity for what they had done.

So, what this little dog and pony show does is to try to fool people on the left that the Democrats really do represent an opposition party. But, any REAL look at what's happening politically makes it clear that they don't. That takes something that was otherwise harmless and makes it harmful to the causes we support. It would lead to the election of yet more Democrats, who will of course continue to support this agenda because that's what the money behind the party wants.

The point that the Democrats clearly said impeachment was off the table well BEFORE the last election is an important point. What this means is that if anyone wanted to see impeachment, then voting Democrat was a wasted vote. A vote for the Democrats in 2006 was clearly a vote for NO impeachment. A vote for the Green Party would have been the correct choice for people who wanted to see impeachment.

This is important because we face the same situation today. The same Democrats that have protected the Bush's minions from charges and Bush himself from impeachment are promising to do the same after Obama is elected.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34929

"Here are the words of Barack Obama's advisor, Cass Sunstein, at the netroots convention and an outstanding reply from Mikal Hutto

an adviser to Barack Obama from the University of Chicago Law School, cautioned against prosecuting criminal conduct from the current Administration. Prosecuting government officials risks a "cycle" of criminalizing public service, he argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton--or even the "slight appearance" of it. "

----------
So, we are in the same position. If you think that officials of this administration should be prosecuted, then voting Democrat in November is a waste of a vote. Voting Green is the correct answer. Probably voting Libertarian would be better than voting Democrat.

Most of the people here get it. The Democrats are all a part of the same team in DC. They don't really oppose Bush. They pretend to because they'd never win an election without it. But when you look at their actions, they don't oppose these policies. They were firmly on board at the time the policies were made, and they are very consistent in trying to protect Bush and the officials in this administration from any charges.
----------------
One last note: Impeachment is simply removal from office. From the various comments I see on the web, I don't think that is very clear. Even if Bush was impeached, he would not go to jail unless convicted separately of criminal charges. In a real society of laws, impeachment of Bush would have been the first step towards this. IE, you'd get him out of office where he can't do any more harm and to remove his control over the Justice Dept. Then any crimes are prosecuted separately against then-private-citizen Bush.

"I wonder if congress knew that Bush couldn't be tried due to the fact that time is running out and THAT is why they are holding the hearing so late in the game. I still believe most of congress is afraid of bush and co. and that they don't want to risk their seats impeaching the crooks. They are still getting a paycheck either way.. right?"
------------------
They are very aware of it. That's why Kucinich wasn't even allowed to bring this to the floor earlier. And its certainly why they allowed this hearing.
------------------
The last bit I disagree with. Its hard to see anyone quaking in their boots in fear of a President with an approval rating in the low to mid 20% range. If we really had an opposition party, they'd view that low of an approval rating as blood in the water and the sharks would be attacking.

Nope, the key lies in the money. The Dems are now supported by the same class of wealthy people that have always supported the Republicans. So, you are right in the last bit, they are very well-paid to make sure they protect the Republicans. But its key to realize that they aren't 'afraid' of them. The key is to realize that they are really on the same team, and they just create phony differences to present an illusion of opposition.

PS ... support Cindyforcongress.org (Cindy Sheehan's campaign)

Impeachment is NOT removal. Clinton wasn't removed was he?

It's an indictment by the House, removal is the conviction, which happens in the Senate.

"The dramatic hearing on presidential crimes and abuses of power held on Friday by the House Judiciary Committee was both a staged farce, and at the same time, a powerful demonstration of the power of a grassroots movement in defense of the Constitution."

Why was it a farce? Because impeachment is off the table, and the proceeding weren't impeachment hearings.

Why was it a "a powerful demonstration of the power of a grassroots movement in defense of the Constitution."? It wasn't. See above. Some of us are not delusional.

Impeachment is just that. We know that the Republicans along with however many "Bush Dog Democrats" or just plain gutless Democrats would block Bush and Cheney's actual removal from office. But it is the impeachment that's the important step, and getting on the record (as Elizabeth Holtzman did best last Friday)what has been done by this administration to subvert our Constitution. It is making the American public face the truth about what many of them have supported for the past eight years.

One more nail in the coffin for these sold out bastards called Democrats to anyone with reason and one more cowardly capitulation to Republicans for DPAs (Democratic Party apologists) to defend.

Dave Lindorff writes: "...was nonetheless a major victory for the impeachment movement."
-actually it was a victory for Democratic public relations and propoganda for DPAs. because nothing is really going to happen as a result of this stunt

Vincent Bugliosi, a former Los Angeles deputy district attorney, accusing Bush of being guilty of the murder of over 4000 American
-Vincent is the man, I plan to go to a bookstore tomorrow night where I can have him sign me a copy of his latest book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder."

I heard a taped interview (Pacifica Radio) with Pelosi where she tried to claim she hadn't impeached Bush because she wasn't aware of any wrong doing, if you can believe that! When Kucinich was played the taped he said, "Good, now I can present her with my 35 articles of impeachment alleging criminality.

The part I don't get is:
1. Why is Kucinich a Democrat?
2. Why hasn't he realized the Democrats don't want to impeach Bush? Why would he need to RE-present his 35 articles of impeachment to Pelosi? It's as if he believes she was being candid when she claimed she wasn't aware of presidential criminality.

Actually I admire Kucinich for trying to do the right thing, but he's better off breaking with the traitorous Democrats, who aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.

The cowardly and compromised Democrats have done nothing to reign in Bush, perhaps Bugliosi can try him for murder.

Go to kucicnich.us

Well it is something...maybe akin to the snack table out in the back yard of the party, I don't find this a major victory, or the sit down dinner inside the House at said party. And, the fact that politics out weigh the Constitutional Oaths of Office doesn't do much for the appetite either. But it is a party here folks and we need this brought for real, not a reccomendation like Rove's arrogance has gotten.

Some interesting links have been posted check them out...and
DO TAKE THE TIME TO CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE ABOUT CO SPONSORING IMPEACHMENT...and PROSECUTION BY THE SENATE

And if you have given up don't, this might be just the start!
Look at what 4 regular citizens attempted to do
http:/www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-robinson/how-to-perform-a-citizens_b_1511
How badly do you want your country and Constitution back?
Make the phone calls...if your Rep. does nothing, then maybe he doesn't deserve your next vote.

Personally, without the Constitution, I don't believe we have a legally sitting government right now...further, maybe the list for Impeachment and Prosecution should include Pelosi and Conyers and some others. But we need to do something, the time is now Awaken, Arise and be a part of getting America Back for WE THE PEOPLE........or don't be surprised at having become SHEEOPLE and Mutton is all that's being served up at the party.
ISN"T IT TIME?

As Paul Newmman once stated in The Verdict, "THIS is the case."

No more waiting till next year; no more excuses of any kind. With the litany of violations of the highest order, not only against our nation's founding principles, but including war crimes against the world, there is NO moral justification for further inaction.

The recent crop of Republicans (despite the best efforts by Ron Paul) have forever stigmatized their party as surely as Hitler did the NSDAP. And now, the Democrats have their final chance to demonstrate whether there is any hope, whatsoever, left in our two-party system.

If the Judiciary Committee fails to bring an indictment, I'm declaring "war" on the Democratic party.

Well, well, well! There the hypocrites sat on the Judiciary Committee, and former Congresswoman Holtzman and Congressman Barr, both of whom were around when German Americans pleaded for justice for all. Neither raised a finger. And why do the Democrats and the Republicans fail to mention the crimes committed against innocent civilians in the United States during World War II. Before, during, and after the war the Department of Justice was arresting, interning, and deporting civilians, innocent victims.... they just happened to be of the ethnicity of the enemy...German.

Where is there outrage for the crimes committed by the FDR and Harry S. Truman administrations. During which an attempt was made at ethnic cleansing...an attempt, without cause, to deport German Americans.

Impeachment is off the table for the elites because they are all guilty as hell. Bush, Cheney and cronies are guilty, and would be found so by any decent hearing. Most of the republican and democrat backers of the Cheney wars are complicit in the crimes. Failure to impeach or to move for impeachment is aiding and abetting clear and obvious criminal, immoral and treasonable actions, and demonstrates a desire to continue and persue the fruits of such actions which benefit their protagonists and corporate backers, for their own benefit, to the detriment of both the US general population and the entire world. Impeachment is not an option, it is a necessity to prove that the human race is still worth saving.

Amen Thomas Anderson. And hooray to Kucinich for pushing this and to Dave for his great article.

The Republicans know that every inch they can gain is significant. The Democrats think they will win it without getting their hands dirty. Remember all the hand wringing about the "nuclear option", and how they never filibustered out of fear of losing the right to do so?

We need to impeach because we must. The fact that it might save our country, our lives, and our planet, are just fringe benefits, though important ones.

Glenn Goodman

At least the charges were enumerated and some testimony is on the record. It is still much more than has been done up to now. Nancy Pelosi is just covering her behind. It is my dearest wish that she be unseated. But, that's as likely as Kucinich's chances to be the presidential nominee were back in January.

No. Cindy is going to unseat Pelosi.

I am sick and tired of hearing the Democrats being accused of cowardice. They are not cowards, they are complicit! The Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin,......corruption, waste, and greed.