Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 26, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!






Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

A Case for Impeachment

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jan 30, 2007
Tenet and Bush
AP Photo / Lawrence Jackson

President Bush presents former CIA Director George Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

By Robert Scheer

Not all lies are created equal. It is understood that there is a chasm of importance between little white lies and big black ones. Most would agree that lying about a consensual sexual affair, even by the president, is of significantly lesser concern than lying about the proliferation of nuclear weapons as an excuse to take the nation to war.

How then is it possible that a Republican-controlled Congress impeached President Bill Clinton over his attempt to conceal marital infidelity but that a Democratic-led Congress will not even consider impeaching this president for far more serious transgressions against the public trust? That is the question that arises from early revelations in the trial of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

This case’s importance lies not in the narrow charge that Libby committed perjury in testifying about his role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Wilson; that was merely one facet of a far-ranging plot to deceive Congress and the public about perhaps the most important issue of our time: the prospect of terrorists obtaining a weapon of mass destruction.

The infamous 16-word State of the Union claim by President Bush that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had sought to obtain enriched uranium from the African country of Niger was known to be based on fraudulent documents at the time Bush used this and other false evidence to make his case for war.

The Libby case testimony, centered on the chicanery of the vice president, certainly suggests that impeachable offenses occurred at the highest level of the White House. Just how conscious the president was of the deceits conducted under his authority, what he knew and when he knew it, is precisely what an impeachment trial would determine.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Consider the testimony concerning White House use of former CIA Director George Tenet in the cover-up of the president’s distortions. The record is unmistakably clear that the CIA and other intelligence sources warned the White House before the president’s speech not to make the bogus Niger claim, and that the reference had been voided out in a previous speech. Yet, after Ambassador Joseph Wilson exposed this fact more than a year after the invasion, Cheney orchestrated a new deception to shift the blame to Tenet.

That is the smoking-gun revelation in the testimony of Cheney’s former spokeswoman, Cathie Martin, a Harvard-educated lawyer who still works in the White House. Her word is that of a sophisticated and top-level White House insider and, as described by the Washington Post, one that offers a devastating glimpse into the moral depravity of this administration:

“At length, Martin explained how she, Libby and Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley worked late into the night writing a statement to be issued by George Tenet in 2004 in which the CIA boss would take blame for the bogus claim in Bush’s State of the Union address that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Africa. After ‘delicate’ talks, Tenet agreed to say the CIA ‘approved’ the claim and ‘I am responsible’—but even that disappointed Martin, who had wanted Tenet to say that ‘we did not express any doubts about Niger.’ ” Tenet later was awarded the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Certainly this deliberate corruption of the integrity of the CIA, the nation’s premier source of national security information, rises to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which the Constitution holds out as the standard for impeachment. And can there be any more egregious example of betraying the oath of office of the president to uphold the Constitution than his deceiving Congress from the very well of the House on the reasons for going to war? The Constitution clearly delegates to Congress, and not to the president, the exclusive power to declare war, and deceiving our representatives in making the case for war is a far more important crime than the perjury charge against Libby.

Testimony already has established that Libby was nothing more than a pawn used by Cheney in the vice president’s constant and ferocious campaign to trick the nation into war—not a totally surprising quest for a man who had served as CEO for a corporation that has profited so obscenely from the Iraq agony.

Cheney, like some Daddy Warbucks cartoon character of old, has been so blatant in his corruption of the nation’s second highest office that we seem to have become inured to further revelations of his evil influence. Instead of being shocked, we are more likely jaded by even more examples of the man’s use of his office to persistently undermine our democratic heritage. Too bad he wasn’t cursed by an overactive libido.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Leaving Children Behind

Next item: A Tribute to Molly



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Richard, October 20, 2007 at 10:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Highline Transport was very helpful up until the point that they got my credit card information. They told me that they needed the number to secure the reservation and that my card would not be charged until the vehicle was picked up. The next day my card had been charged for 100% of the transport fee ($1195). Less than 24 hours later, after having read other horror story reviews about Highline Transport and other car transport agents, I decided to drive my own car cross country to avoid the headache. When I contacted Paul to cancel said that cancelling was no problem but that he was “very busy” and transferred me to customer service, Deana. Deana was very nice; each of the dozen plus times I spoke with her she assured me that it had been a mistake that my card had been charged and that she would credit my account immediately. It has now been over a month since they have promised to credit my account (after they promised that it would never be charged in the first place) and still no credit. I have contacted my bank to contest the charges and can only hope that you don’t have to go through the same headache that I have with this company. Do NOT use Highline Transport. They are unscrupulous and will take your money without providing any service and hold it for as long as the law allows forcing you to spend your valuable time taking legal recourse to recover your money. If you do an internet search you will find that there is plenty of spam advertising but not a single good review of this company. Take a look at the Houston Better Business Bureau website and you will find numerous complaints about Highline Transport with no sort of attempt by Paul to ameliorate:

http://www.data.bbb.org/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=houston/houston/showrpt.html?language=english&bis=n&zid=22010532

Save your hard earned money and go somewhere else. Do NOT use this company, they are a scam!!!

Report this

By car transport, auto transport Highline Transport, May 31, 2007 at 6:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

car transport, auto transport, car shipping, vehicle shipping, car shipper, vehicle shipper
Houston car transport, Houston Texas auto transport, Houston vehicles transport, Texas car shipping, Houston vehicle shipping, Houston auto shipping

Report this

By cartransport-cartransport, April 9, 2007 at 10:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

car transport, auto transport, auto moving, car moving, car shipping

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, February 8, 2007 at 10:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: •    Comment #52281 by Blueboy1938  on  2/07  at  12:34 pm — “...a little more clear, for those who have trouble with plain English…resources where they will do the most good in that counter-terrorism effort…supported a monster like Saddam, fully aware of his “transgressions,” because it was deemed by them to be useful.”

>>>> now some clarity for those who need a hand with plain reason…

Saddam was not just “supported,” he was literally “created” — a CIA asset since he seized power in a US instigated coup. As for “counter-terrorism,” it’s no different. In order to wage a Global War of Terror, there has been created an onslaught of Global Terror, for which CIA/MI-6-directed al Queda is usually fingered. In most cases al Queda doesn’t do the terrorism. They’re too inept, but they make great patsies, especially with the cooperation of the Main Stream Media and, believe it or not, al Jazeera.

To end Global Terror, what must be put to an end are the black-ops/psy-ops instigated by rogue operatives and their network of moles which subverts investigations by agents genuinely dedicated to their mission of defending the constitution or the crown. The rogue network of private contracted professional executioners and their paymasters (agents of the New World Oligarchy) are your enemy — an ultra-elite class which holds no allegiance to any nation or its citizens.

As for impeachment, if the less-than Strangelove faction of the Oligarch class cannot turn aside the neocon juggernaut before it launches on Iran, they may simply take them out. It’s understood that Gangsters shoot one another under the table from time to time, but if one threatens to overturn the whole game, he’s taken out but quick.

As for Reagan…well, that little assassination attempt, coincidentally on the day there was being run within the cabinet a command continuity exercise and Neal Bush’s dinner engagement with Hinkley’s brother…don’t give it a second thought…I think Nancy’s astrologer explained it all away; up, up and away…for those who need help connecting the dots.

Report this

By Blueboy1938, February 7, 2007 at 1:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let me see if I can make this a little more clear, for those who have trouble with plain English:  I am not anti-war.  I was a commissioned officer in the United States Army who did not join any anti-war movement in any period, sixties or otherwise.  I am not opposed to the war in Afghanistan, as I plainly stated, and neither are most of the posters who have a problem with our unprovoked invasion of Iraq.  Saddam was a monster, but he was not a direct threat to us, nor did he support the terrorists that Mr. Bush declared war upon.  I support that “war,” even though I personally believe that was overkill and that launching a police and international interdict program against terrorists would have sufficed.  That’s why we have to get out of Iraq and start devoting resources where they will do the most good in that counter-terrorism effort, some of which I outlined prior.  Furthermore, I support the troops and decry the inadequate steps that have been taken to deal with their terrible wounds and the sacrifice they and their families have made.  We owe them that.

Now, as to Mr. Rumsfeld’s handshake with Saddam:  He was not acting out of any personal motivation.  He was, as I plainly pointed out, a Special Envoy from President Ronald Reagan.  Remember him?  He and his administration were quintessential “Right Wing,” “Conservative” idealogues, who nevertheless supported Saddam materially if not idealogically, because it appeared to them to be in the “national interest” at the time.  It doesn’t make him a “good guy” any more than Stalin was a good guy for fighting Hitler along with us.  He was a monster, too, but “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” when necessary in pragmatic geopolitics.  My point is that those from the “Right” have supported a monster like Saddam, fully aware of his “transgressions,” because it was deemed by them to be useful.

But, if we are ever going to actually address the issues raised by Mr. Scheer in his piece regarding impeachment, that action would be way off the mark.  It all boils down to one thing:  There are not enough votes in the Senate for conviction, as presently constituted; and there are not enough votes in the House to support Articles of Impeachment for either the president or vice president.  If there were, all that would accomplish would be to allow an electable Republican to be appointed president who would then inevitably win reelection in 2008.  How does that improve things?  At least now there is a 100% certainty that the Bush administration will cease to exist on a date certain in January 2009.  Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi has a chance to help make sure that the administration that replaces it will not be Republican.  Let her have that chance!

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, February 7, 2007 at 5:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: Comment #51877 by Richard Alexander  on  2/06  at  3:14 am — ”...extreme paranoid conspiracy theory…inhuman behavior of Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or many other despicable national leaders? Why does the Left make friendly visits to North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and even volunteer to be human shields for Saddam, while marching in angry protests in the U.S.? Well, obviously, because the Left is evil and an enemy of the United States..”

>>>>>> WRONG! The NWO (New World Oligarchy) is the enemy of everyone!

The Official Conspiracy Theory is the “paranoid” conspiracy theory, as in “they hate us for our freedom,” how paranoid can you get? So, here’s the straight shot, Mr. A., Saddam was a CIA asset from the day he took power. He got a big smack down for overreaching in ‘91, but then was OK until he priced his oil in Euros. Now the same fate awaits Iran and Venezuela. Moreover, the US/UK hegemonic alliance has propped up despots to match everyone you cite: Park and his cronies in South Korea, countless butchers in Central America, the Shaw in Iran, and that’s just the short list. Kissinger’s Real Politik had the US supporting Pol Pot, whilst he was the “enemy of our enemy,” Vietnam…Pol Pot, for God’s sakes.

Now the collapsing petro-arms-drugs dollar is driving the hegemonic Clash of Civilizations (Huntington), the Myth of Islamofascism (Brzezinski) and the Global War of Terror (PNAC: Cheny, Perl, Wolfowitz, et al). These Starussian, neocon Strangeloves, driven by Nietzchien craving for endless war and bent on fabricating monolithic myths, ultimately dance to the New World Oligarchs’ — their puppet masters’ — every whim, while the totally-bought-and-sold Main Stream Media feeds you BS, drivel and pap, which you lap up like a pathetic sod, then dare to stick your nose in here and red-bait the lot of us with the tired old Left/Right crap — politics ain’t Left/Right, Dear Sir, it’s Up/Down…so forget it, amateur hour’s over!

Report this

By Ga, February 6, 2007 at 7:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Saddam was an inhuman monster.”

The point is, Mr. Alexander, is that Saddam was our “friend” when Rumsfled was shaking hands with him, and to whom we were selling weapons and supplying support at the time when he was “gassing his own people.”

What was that you said… oh yeah…

You on the Left dropped the ball in the worst possible way by not ever opposing Saddam.

You on the right, it can be said, SUPPORTED AND ARMED SADDAM.

Report this

By Richard Alexander, February 6, 2007 at 4:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Many of the comments posted on this thread fall into the extreme paranoid conspiracy theory end of the scale. I am more used to dealing with people like Blueboy1938, specifically Comment #51450. His is a typical anti-war argument; in fact, I was had already decided what my reply would be to it when I posted my last comment. My only surprise is that more people did not make the same point he did.

Blueboy1938, most of the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd have a low opinion of Donald Rumsfeld. So, why would you attempt to excuse your behavior by claiming that Donald Rumsfeld supported Saddam? How does that make Saddam a good guy? It doesn’t, of course; Saddam was an inhuman monster. Regardless of what Rumsfeld did, you on the Left dropped the ball in the worst possible way by not ever opposing Saddam.

So, be honest with yourself. You did not keep quiet about Saddam’s monstrosities because you saw a photo or a video of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. Why did you keep quiet? Why is it that world-wide protests are organized by the Left against the United States and her Coalition, but not one word is ever raised by the Left against the inhuman behavior of Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or many other despicable national leaders? Why does the Left make friendly visits to North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and even volunteer to be human shields for Saddam, while marching in angry protests in the U.S.? Well, obviously, because the Left is evil and an enemy of the United States.

BTW, Donald Rumsfeld would not have thought that the things I mentioned about Saddam were excessive when he and Saddam shook hands, because the things that I mentioned took place several years after Rumsfeld’s visit.

Report this

By Joan Mencher, February 5, 2007 at 10:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is clear how bad Chenney has been and continues to be.  It makes much more sense to go after him first because the evidence is really damming. Furtheermore, we certainly do not want to get rid of Bush and end up with Channey.

Thus, this is truly the most prudent approach.

Report this

By Ga, February 5, 2007 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“You have no basis for these “Bush Lied” rants and if you do, please share them but don’t bore us with the same old crap.”

The legacy of George W. Bush’s presidency in his own words.

1. January 21, 2000
“When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were. It was us versus them, and it was clear who them was. Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they’re there.”

2. February 16, 2000
“If you’re sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign.”

3. August 13, 2002
“There may be some tough times here in America. But this country has gone through tough times before, and we’re going to do it again.”

4. September 12, 2002
“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”

5. January 28, 2002
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

6. October 7, 2002
“We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.”

7. February 8, 2003
“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons—the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”

8. February 25, 2003
“It is important for the Iraqi leadership and Iraqi generals to clearly understand that if they take innocent life, if they destroy infrastructure, they will be held to account as war criminals.”

9. March 17, 2003
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

10. April 24, 2003
“We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.”

11. May 3, 2003
“We’ll find them. And it’s just going to be a matter of time to do so.”

12. May 6, 2003
“I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein—because he had a weapons program.”

13. June 9, 2003
“Iraq had a weapons program…Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we’ll find out they did have a weapons program.”

14. July 2, 2003
“There are some who feel like, that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on.”

15. July 17, 2003
“We won’t be proven wrong. I believe that we will find the truth. And the truth is, he was developing a program for weapons of mass destruction.”

16. October 9, 2003
“I was not about to leave the security of the American people in the hands of a madman.”

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, February 5, 2007 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: •    Comment #51592 by Kwagmyre  on  2/04  at  1:17 pm — “...our policies in the mid east that virtually guarantee a repeat of 9/11 right here in the “enemy” country.”

RE: •    Comment #51590 by Blueboy1938  on  2/04  at  1:12 pm — “...invasion of Afghanistan.  That was clearly supportable as an appropriate response to the state sponsorship of Al Quaeda terrorists by its brutalistic Taliban theocracy…”

>>>> Please, gentlemen…enough already with the “blow back”

The Bush Admin. gave the Taliban $40 million less than a year before 9/11, then they dumped out of the pipeline deal. The PNAC stated up front, that without a New Pearl Harbor, they would not be able to marshal domestic support for an expeditionary war of enterprise in the Middle East.

Please invest just 10 min. of your time and get informed on False Flag Terrror.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_84-PT-REc4

Report this

By Kwagmyre, February 4, 2007 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

# 51572 by MM:

“It’s because of people like you that will cause us to be attacked again because you want to believe that America is the enemy.”

Oh, so just because we’re holding Bush, Cheney, et al FULLY accountable for the debacle in Iraq(and Katrina while we’re at it) thereby turns us into an “enemy?” 

But you know you’re actually right with this statement because it’s our policies in the mid east that virtually guarantee a repeat of 9/11 right here in the “enemy” country.

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, February 4, 2007 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: •    Comment #51572 by MM  on  2/04  at  10:55 am — “America is the enemy.  The Muslims who cut off our peoples heads slowly and send their children in to kill themselves and others are to be praised I guess.  Liberals are a bunch of idiots and Michael Savage is right-“Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”

>>>>> Savage is a two-bit shill

The only mentally weak liberals are the sort who leave the room when a fight breaks out. Impeachment is off the table, replaced by Treason — Misprision of treason to be exact.

America is not the enemy. The enemy is the New World Oligarchy. NWO planned and executed the 911 coup. NWO operatives (CIA/MI-5/6/alQueda/Hamas/Islamic Jihad) have been running countless black-ops/psy-ops to synthesize the global War of Terror and cultivate the Myth of Islamofascism — beheadings, assassinations, bombings, kidknappings, you name it; chaos, mayhem designed to totally fail every state whose despot resists NWO demands.

Savage shills to hold the regime’s dwindling, heartland, die-hard support — now only about 10% for the war in Iraq. He shills for the War of Terror and the Myth of Islamofascism. But, in DC. the 911 coup is an open secret. The scramble is on to rein in the madmen without blowing the coverup, exploding a constitutional crisis and precipitating a global financial meltdown, all of which is inevitable.

The madmen must be stopped before the start WWIII.

Support 911Truth - End War of Terror
Investigae, indict, prosecute and execute!

Report this

By Blueboy1938, February 4, 2007 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just a side note, Pat, although I mostly agree with your rather poetic post, wasps and hornets generally don’t die after they sting, only bees whose barbed stinger and venom sack are ripped from their abdomens in the process.

Now, MM, if you had paid attention to prior posts, no one is taking the administration to task for the invasion of Afghanistan.  That was clearly supportable as an appropriate response to the state sponsorship of Al Quaeda terrorists by its brutalistic Taliban theocracy.  So those not blindly regurgitating the poisonous platitudes of the “Right Wing” talk show hosts are not actually opposed to war, appropriately waged.  Furthermore, we didn’t go in to save women from subjugation, bring democracy, pursue a vendetta (“That wuz th’ guy th’t trah’d t’keel mah dad!” said Mr. Bush), or shore up our oil prospects.  We went in to wreck the al Quaeda infrastructure and take out its leaders and their Taliban sponsors.  Since you are apparently a devotee of “Ranter in Chief” Michael Savage, I guess we can’t expect you to be objective about these facts.

Iraq is a detour from the “War on Terror” that should be decried (that means “protested” for the vocabulary-challenged) by everyone, left, right, and center.  It is a waste of lives and treasure and a distraction from securing “The Homeland” (as President George W. Bush is so fond of saying) and properly prosecuting the search for and destruction of terrorist cells, logistics, support, and finances.  We aren’t allocating sufficient resources to securing our borders, points of entry, and ports.  We aren’t providing sufficient troops and equipment and training to secure Afghanistan from the resurgent Taliban.  We aren’t mobilizing the regimes, Saudi Arabia in particular, with the most to loose and the wherewithal to provide funding to attack the causes of terrorism at its roots.  And we aren’t making enough progress in resolving the Palestinian and Lebanese issues.  Now, those who can’t see those facts clearly need to take another look, unclouded by partisan bias.

We need to get out of Iraq and get on with these other, legitimate goals.  It is not “supporting our troops” to place them in an un-winnable sectarian civil war with no end game and no pressure on the Iraq government to step up to the plate.  It’s time to set realistic benchmarks, tied to incremental withdrawal of U. S. troops, with a “no excuses” ultimatum to Prime Minister Maliki.  That’s not “Leftist” thinking, that’s reality.

Report this

By Dale Headley, February 4, 2007 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Whether it be interminable lying, gross incompetence, mass killing of innocents, systematic degradation of the environment, illegal dismantling of the Constitution, fiscal mismanagement, callous disregard of hurricane victims, or any number of other “high crimes and misdemeanors”, no national leaders in U.S. history more clearly deserve impeachment (and conviction) than George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Report this

By MM, February 4, 2007 at 11:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You Libs wouldn’t know the truth is it was to bite you in the butt because you think(and I use that term loosely)with your hearts and not with your heads.  You have no basis for these “Bush Lied” rants and if you do, please share them but don’t bore us with the same old crap. You people want to live in a world without war but it’s not going to happen.  It’s because of people like you that will cause us to be attacked again because you want to believe that America is the enemy.  The Muslims who cut off our peoples heads slowly and send their children in to kill themselves and others are to be praised I guess.  Liberals are a bunch of idiots and Michael Savage is right-“Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”

Report this

By Lefty, February 4, 2007 at 9:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: Comment #50691 by Marvin Wagner on 1/31 at 6:34 am

“Assessing blame for our involvement in the Iraq war

“Religious faiths compel followers to use their intellect and voice to speak and act against injustice. In the military one may be court marshaled for following an unlawful order. Morally, one is bound to speak and act to expose injustice.

“Yes, their should be impeachments, but many others failed, including Bush supporters. Our institutions failed, especially Christian churches by deliberately remaining silent and deliberately repeating the lies. Worst of all, the cowardly democrats merit blame for choosing career over responsibility.”

Mr. Wagner, you are badly confused. 

Faith, especially Christian faith, prays upon the ignorance, superstition and primitive, tribalistic instincts of the weak and stupid, and urges others to ignore their intellect and common sense and have “blind faith” in the rightness of a false religion.

Christianity has never been anything other than a political party in a perpetual venture for money and power.  Notions of morality (and ethics) is the products of a rational, reasonable, educated human mind.  Christianity has nothing to do with it.  Rather, Christianity is the invention and tool of demagogues, crooks and liars of the most despicable kind.  “Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.”  - George Santayana.  And the disgraceful Bush administration is yet another example of the followers of this false religion to remember the past.

As for the failures of the Christian church, you correctly point out that, once again, not only did the Christian church fail to speak out against the crimes of Bush & Co. IT ACTIVELY, PURPOSELY, PROMOTED BUSH AND HIS CORPORATE-FASCIST POLICIES, AND STILL DOES!

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, February 3, 2007 at 10:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE:    •    Comment #51405 by Richard Alexander  on  2/03  at  12:36 am — ” Whether Saddam actually possessed WMD or not is beside the point. Whether he had any plans to aid in attacks against the U.S. is irrelevant. The fact that Saddam was hostile and uncooperative meant that he had to be removed from power. The United States could not afford to be so careless about such uncertainties, as proved by the events of September 11, 2001.”

>>>>>>>BS - The same gang that took out Saddam did 911.

As for “...hostile and uncooperative…,” the decision was handed down to take him out, only after he priced his oil in Euros — same fate now for Iran, and the impetus for the coup in Venezuela, a theatre that may not yet be closed. Your red-baiting is pretty out of date. If you want to talk about setting up red straw men, look at GLADIO, the NATO black-ops/psy-ops war of terror (Strategy of Tension) run on Western Europe at the height of the Cold War, to provoke hatred towar labor parties… come on, amateur hour’s over.

RE: Venezuelan oil and the Euro http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-27b-04.asp
RE: Galdio http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4900756773650110959&q=Gladio&hl=en

Report this

By Pat, February 3, 2007 at 9:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

bush said he was’nt gonna waste time swatting flys (chasing terrorist) pre 9/11. If a fly/flys lands on your baby would you take the time to shoo the fly or at least swat at it? Or would you allow the fly to bite/vomit/spread disease on your child?  Bush turned his back on repeated warning prior to 9/11 and now for us Americans to allow our soldiers to be thrown into a wasp honets nest unprotected is what’s gonna happen with bush’s “surge”. Wasp, bee & hornet die after they sting. They are on a suicide mission to protect the queen bee at any cost, Much like the muslim trying/dying to protect Allah’s corner of the planet. American democracy just is not gonna happen there right now…............ I have faith in God but to base this whole occupation on a pack of unfounded WMD lies is not gonna restore any middle easterners trust in our president. If less than 30% of Americans beleive in this occupation, is it really gonna be higher in Iraq?

Report this

By John Legry, February 3, 2007 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Getting rid of both Bush and Cheney is vital, but only the tip of the iceberg.  During the past several republican (and democratic) administrations, the United States Constitution, and American civil society have been consciously dismantled by a bunch of greedy, power-obsessed sociopaths.  These are the same guys who bring us “down-sizing” and “hostile takeovers” in the workplace. From Eisenhower on, the republicans have sought to dismantle the New Deal, and to put what they call the “over-inflated” Middle Class back into poverty “where they belong.”  I’ve heard them say, “Most of history is rich and poor; the post-WWII middle class democratic bulge is an aberration.”  They’re robber barons cum fascists, who think that money and power are more important than peace and life.  Equality and justice, what are those?  (Just a few reasons why the rhetoric in Washington rings as hollow as the Holland Tunnel). We have every reason to fear these guys, and to impeach them, and to unravel their twisted cabal clear back into their corporate boardrooms, and the high places in Kennebunkport.  They’ve attacked universal education, health and welfare, job safety, environmental and resource conservation, started a self-serving family war, and threaten to topple the critical institutions of our government.  If they don’t qualify for impeachment, who does?  These guys may next arrange for a Reichstag fire.  And, what was it Pat Robertson said about nuclear terrorism in 2007?  Bush has his finger on the button.

Report this

By Michael, February 3, 2007 at 8:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

YES, yes. How many cases are there now?

I just had a thought. Maybe when world affairs resemble a DNA strand, life on Earth will end.

We must be much closer now than in the nineties.

Report this

By Kwagmyre, February 3, 2007 at 5:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

# 51405 by Richard Alexander:

But, most troubling is that at a time when national security was greatly threatened, the Left could not see the need to remove from power that dictator, despite the billions of illegal dollars he possessed and his calls for the destruction of Americans.

WHAT?  You gotta be kidding.  What “national security?”  Where’s the evidence? 

But get serious now.  Is Iraq REALLY better off these days as compared to life under Sadaam?(AS you seem to imply).  Was there such an internecine sectarian conflict(AKA civil war)such as we’ve seen raging day after day destroying life so needlessly?

And lest you forget those “billions of dollars” were generously furnished to ‘ol Sadaam compliments the U.S. government which you conveniently have left out in your argument.

Report this

By c currey, February 3, 2007 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Despite any right wing comments mindlessly following and approving of what [re]publicans do, the facts remain that George Bush Jr. and Richard Cheney intentionally and knowingly lied the U.S. into war.  As one who was drafted and served during Vietnam IMO the George Bush Jr. and Richard Cheney draft dodgers (and in George Bush Jr.‘s case AWOL from the Guard) s/b both be in jail for murder, anything less is to not support the rule of law, i.e. being un-American.

Report this

By Blueboy1938, February 3, 2007 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It wasn’t just the “Left” that didn’t think Saddam’s excesses rose to the level of a cause for invasion and “regime change.”  Please see President Ronal Reagan’s special envoy Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with him in Baghdad:  http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/  I don’t think you could accuse either Reagan or Rumsfeld of being members of the “Left.”  They were just practicing pragmatic politics.  What’s the old saying, “Well, he is a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.”  Now, with Saddam gone, the lid is off the Iraq ethnic pot, and, just as with Yugoslavia after Tito, it’s boiling over into civil war.  And now we’re upset that Iran is angling for regional hegemony when it was Mr. Bush’s ideological and vengeful adventure, invading a sovereign nation that was no real threat to us that gave them the leeway to do so.  Now we have an Iran-leaning Iraq government of Shiites, a civil war that we can’t stop, according to the National Intelligence Estimate just released, and the surrounding Sunni powers itching to aid the Sunni insurgence, as if they aren’t already.  Furthermore, Secretary of Preemptive Invasions, Robert Gates, admits that they can’t even make a case for Iran’s interference in Iraq, after Ambassador “Big Mouth” Khalilzad stated flatly that he had proof.  The U. S. is quickly finding out that it does not have the power to rid the world of “bad guys” as Mr. Bush so quaintly puts it, short of nuclear war, and just makes hash out of regional dynamics when it tries.

Report this

By Richard Alexander, February 3, 2007 at 1:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Saddam demonstrated two things particularly well during his life. One was his willingness to kill anyone who opposed him. The other was his greed for power and wealth. His rise to power came through assassination and treachery. His hold on power succeeded through brutal torture and mass murder. His international relations consisted of hosting numerous terrorist groups and waging war on other countries. But, mass graves of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis; video of prisoners thrown from rooftops; the presence of Abu Nidal Organization; and attacks on Kuwait, Israel and Saudi Arabia were not sufficient for the Left to seek an end of the monster. Few now mention the calls made over the years preceeding Saddam’s overthrow for an end to sanctions against Iraq, on the grounds that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children died every year from those sanctions. But, most troubling is that at a time when national security was greatly threatened, the Left could not see the need to remove from power that dictator, despite the billions of illegal dollars he possessed and his calls for the destruction of Americans. Was it Saddam’s advocacy for Palestinians that caused the Left to turn a blind eye to Saddam’s monstrosities? Or, were the war protesters unable to focus their outrage beyond the calls of their Communist leaders?

(Oh, let’s not forget that the world-wide, mass war protest against the war in Iraq was co-ordinated by several Communist organizations.)

Whether Saddam actually possessed WMD or not is beside the point. Whether he had any plans to aid in attacks against the U.S. is irrelevant. The fact that Saddam was hostile and uncooperative meant that he had to be removed from power. The United States could not afford to be so careless about such uncertainties, as proved by the events of September 11, 2001.

Report this

By Geoff Hagopian, February 2, 2007 at 6:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

‘W’ is ‘we’ without the everyone else
It’s precept without concept
It’s crown without collective pronoun
Kick him out of government
noW

Report this

By Monish Chatterjee, February 2, 2007 at 2:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As far as I am concerned, when the despicable executioner from Texas arranged for the killing of the leader of a sovereign nation in January (an episode that only brought back to me memories of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto being hanged by the brutal connivance and trickery of General Zia of Pakistan in 1977- at the time, I recall placing a Brahmin’s curse upon that vicious zealot that some day he would meet an appropriately violent end.  In the late 1980s, it finally happened.), the wrong person was made a public example of for major crimes.

In my judgment, while I have little reason to admire either Bhutto or Hussein (ultimately, with scant exceptions, no politician really deserves admiration)- the crimes of Bushco, the Bush Family Evil Empire (BFEE) are far, far greater than anything Hussein or other dictators worldwide (all BFEE pals) can ever dream of committing.

The very premise of America (I mean the U.S.) invading nation after nation with impunity, and murdering thousands (and millions) of innocent human beings, and decade after decade, century after century, getting away with such atrocities-this is RAPE, PILLAGE, MASS-MURDER that far surpass the crimes of petty criminals such as the Ted Bundys and Jeffrey Dahmers.  Shrub is a deadly psychotic exactly in the mold of Dahmer and Bundy, except with unimaginably greater power.  And we are all paying the price of handing such power to a psychotic killer.

Impeachment, imprisonment, and accountability are the very least that absolutely must be applied to these crazed hoodlums for the sanity of the human race.

Monish Chatterjee

Report this

By Margaret Currey, February 2, 2007 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If this Libby trial brings out all the lies for going to war, I would think that outing an agent would be illegal, probablyBushie Boy declassified that information but he still took the nation to a war that cannot be won in the long run because after the “Surge” then what?

I believe the brains behind Bushie Boy is Dick “Shorgun” Chaney, so that when impeachment is started the “decider” and “shotgun” will be removed from office.

The honorable thing would be for Bush to resign because a war that cannot be won is murder for the man and women who waisted their lives for his mad power or is that mad power really Dick “shotgun” Chaney’s?

Margaret from Vancouver Washington

Report this

By MrG, February 2, 2007 at 9:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Clinton was not being investigated by any court for marital infidelity; he was being investigated for sexual harassment, including a rape accusation.”

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Clinton was being “investigated” for the Whitewater land deal. The only people running their mouths off about ‘rape’ were a handful of lunatic evangelical AM radio hosts. There was no investigation of any sort of that nature.

Report this

By chuey, February 2, 2007 at 9:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hmmm… with Bush impeached who takes over? Cheney?
That could be your answer.

Report this

By seargent pepper usar ret. vietnam vet., February 2, 2007 at 8:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have lived too long,your whining makes me sick. Do you really think ,by your indignation and words here, someone will wave a magic wand and all will be right.I’ve marched and protested,been sprayed by water cannons of the riot police and guess what all i got was wet and even more pissed off! People,we have to do more than write,email,protest,etc to change the world. I dont profess to have the answers but i know when i’m “pissing into the wind” my dads favorite analogy for futile behaviors!A boston teaparty wont work anylonger,what are we to to do? The internet is the best forum we have to be heard and gather forces to crush these sniveling idiots! Let’d get serious and take out the garbage now.Email me if you’ve got some innovative ideas,no illegal stuff be creative we need you!Our existence is at stake!

Report this

By Judy, February 2, 2007 at 4:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In all the years I have been following politics, I have never seen anything like what is unfolding now under the covert leadership of Dick Cheney who has clearly gone to the Dark Side.  It’s like a comic book drama with very defined characters, only this story is not the usual good guys vs. bad guys. And that’s because the U.S. is now seen as an imperial aggressor by our allies and enemies alike.  Meanwhile, the Administration continues to dedicate itself to its not-so-hidden agenda at the expense of everyone else.  What’s worse is that WE are all to blame because we have enabled them to do whatever they wanted, unchecked, for the last six years, and we have also continued to accept their convoluted excuses for their profound incompetence.  I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am drawing a line in the sand right here. I refuse to give the Bush Administration any more chances; I don’t believe they will (or can) do the right thing.  I can also no longer sit by and allow these psychopaths to run our country into the ground, first with the Iraq fiasco and next, with Iran perhaps.  The Scooter Libby trial is giving me hope that when the dust settles, the buck will stop at Cheney’s door, and he will be forced to resign in disgrace.  Then the coast will be clear to remove Bush asap. I think it’s time to take to the streets en masse like we did during the Vietnam War. Let’s make it so that the crowds of protesters across the country escalate weekly and don’t stop until our collected voice is heard and acted on by our elected servants.

Report this

By Chaseme, February 1, 2007 at 11:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Not all lies are created equal. It is understood that there is a chasm of importance between little white lies and big black ones.” “A big black one?” I have never heard that term in reference to a lie before.

I have said this time and time again that bush and cheney will never be impeached because they are white men. Yeah, Clinton got impeached but Clinton was believed to be the “first” Black president by many White Americans as well as many Black Americans.

Race is not a card to be played people it is an issue to be explored. Now let’s take few seconds to explore why Robert Scheer could use the term, “Big black ones” to add emphasis to his story? And, let’s explore why he would contrast Clinton’s “consensual sexual affair” as “little white lies” to bush’s and cheney’s theft of the presidential election, 9/11 atrocities, death and destruction in Iraq, death of Ken Lay, outing of Valerie Wilson, etc, etc, etc, and call it “Big black ones.” Why would the word “black” be used to describe people as damaging and destructive as bush and cheney?

Maybe we should think of another word to describe people of African descent in America if we are going to use the word “black” to describe what bush and cheney has done to the American people. Or, maybe we can simply use the term “Big White Lies” to describe what bush and cheney has done to the American people considering bush and cheney are “white” men? And, use the term “Little Black Lies” to describe what Colin Powell did before the UN?

You see people, Robert Scheer is writing for a liberal media source. He undoubtedly considers himself a liberal. He has a wealth of knowledge in his field as well as experience. In his article, his message is very clear: Impeach, the “Big black ones.”

Report this

By mark mywords, February 1, 2007 at 10:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So we are trying to get a million letters to the senate to tell them to STOP THE ESCALATION OF TROOPS IN IRAQ

If you go to
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/
you can choose a senator who needs to hear from you…
I suggest sending one to each of your state’s senators and possibly a spare couple to a senator in a state near you

They usually request a name, address, and leave room for your topic and statement… I prefer to use different topics so they get the notes from different of their staff readers… for example; ETHICS is one of my favorites

If you don’t know a zip code from that state picks one from
http://www.paweb2.com/zip.htm
Which is a list of states and zip codes?

And of course, who really wants to hear from these guys with their standard blah blah form letter… I usually use a “random” address such as
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

I HOPE YOU WILL JOIN ME IN THIS HUGE ENDEVOR TO EDUCATE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ON WHAT WE ARE REALLY THINKING

Thank you all for your support, and should you wish to contact me…
Just send your note to   .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
8^)

Report this

By Angel Gabriel, February 1, 2007 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In response to #51090 - Carl, I wholeheartedly agree. I would add just one thing. This needs to be done with all haste in order to cut short the time that we might arrive at fair conclusions for going forward, in the interest of sparing any additional suffering and loss of innocent lives.

Report this

By David Rice, February 1, 2007 at 8:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think that what has become increasingly clear is that The phony Saddam story of yellow cake from Africa was a lie from the beginning. Cheney, with the help from neo’s in the CIA planted it. The whole thing was simply supposed to play out as proof of a need to invade Iraq, but there remained a few patriots within the organisation who were determined to expose the ruse. One can imagine the desparation that the neocons must have experienced knowing that ‘someone’ ( and they didn’t know ‘WHO’)was onto their game. This is the only true thread that can be followed that makes any sense of this whole awful affare and it is no more complex than that. This is the word that needs to be filtered down. No big phrases. . no complex great international conspiracies. We thought we had dismembered Nixon’s cabal. . but they arose again from the dead.

Report this

By BroadwayCarl, February 1, 2007 at 7:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comment #51098 by Richard Alexander on 2/01 at 11:32 am

Scheer’s first paragraph discredited his entire column. Clinton was not being investigated by any court for marital infidelity; he was being investigated for sexual harassment, including a rape accusation.
*******************
And how did that go, Richard?  After TWO YEARS of investigations and millions of dollars spent, Clinton was ultimately he was impeached for perjury regarding the “marital infidelity”.

And you trying to dismiss the entire article based on the first paragrpah shows how “impartial” you are.

What excuse are you going to use after the facts come out in the Libby trial?  And didn’t Bush break the law by ignoring the FISA Laws?  Be honest with yourself, Richard, and put the shoe on the other foot: If Clinton had lied us into a botched war, would you be having the same reaction?

Report this

By Blueboy1938, February 1, 2007 at 7:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let’s get real about impeachment, folks:  It ain’t going to happen.  Even if the slow drip of negative investigation findings further damages the credibility of the administration generally, and that of Mr. “Nigerian Yellowcake” Bush and Mr. “Mobile gas-making labs” Cheney in particular, there will be nothing that rises to the level of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  At least not in the eyes of a sufficient number of Republican Senators to convict, nor even enough from both parties to get Articles of Impeachment out of the House.  Besides, Speaker Pelosi has quashed it.  There’s no way she’s going to allow some wing nuts to generate an impeachment vote in the House.  She has to ride herd on a spectrum of Democrats that runs all the way from near pink to staunch conservative.  She knows there’s no way she can get the newest members, mostly very conservative and the ones that gave her the majority, to go along with an impeachment, even if she wanted to.  She doesn’t want to, though, because she knows that it would scuttle any chance the Democrats have of retaking the White House in 2008.  Let’s give her some credit for smarts, moxie, and virtually congenital political pragmatism.

Oh, and Broadway Carl, thanks for going along with my analysis, at least in part.  I would hope that you are right, and enough comes out to convince the Republicans to oust both Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush, in that order.  But you can be assured that their Republican replacements, appointed and not elected, would be chosen specifically for their ability to run successfully in 2008.  They all know what happened to President Ford, and they will not make the “Edsel” mistake of a pardon again.

Report this

By A knesal, February 1, 2007 at 7:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

TAKE AWAY HIS BULLY PULPIT!!!
BY Starting -IMPEACHMENT- proccedings we take away “Shrub’s” (Rest in Peace Molly) Bully Pulpit, ending now the effective Presidency of George Bush.
Come on Democrats it’s the solution to quiet all the Pro-War rhetoric and effectively diminish the last vestige of the Neo-Con agenda.

..............  A KNESAL…. “Little Beirut”

Report this

By Reg, February 1, 2007 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There will be no impeachment, despite the mounds of evidence of impeachable offenses by both Bush and Cheney.  If 9/11 did not provide cause for impeachment…. no matter what you believe about the causes…. nothing will.

MUST READ:  Attention, Impeachment Supporters:

http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=556

Report this

By Robert Broderick, February 1, 2007 at 4:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Impeach this liar,Bush, and his top henchmen Cheney and Rove and Rumsfeld NOW!!!!

Report this

By Ga, February 1, 2007 at 4:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Scheer wrote:

“Most would agree that lying about a consensual sexual affair, even by the president, is of significantly lesser concern than lying about the proliferation of nuclear weapons as an excuse to take the nation to war.”

Comment #51098 by Richard Alexander wrote:

“Scheer’s first paragraph discredited his entire column. Clinton was not being investigated by any court for marital infidelity[...]  As for the reason that Clinton was impeached but Bush is not, Clinton broke the law—committed purjery in a court of law—but Bush did not.”

The Clinton impeachment was a sham and a travesty.
http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070116_susan_mcdougal_the_woman_who_wouldnt_talk/

And as you end up saying, was (ultimately) for “lying about a consensual sexual affair.”

Oh sure, Bush has not yet perjured himself as in “lying under oath.” But Bush certainly has—given the vast amounts of evidence that just simply can no longer be denied by any Bush supporter—“breached his oath of office.” (The two basic definitions of ‘perjury’.)

Now, you may, defend what Bush has done, but that does not erase the fact that Bush (and Cheney) lied to the American people over and over again.

The media has generally given Bush (and Cheney) a pass, haven’t they? And during Clinton’s time in office the media ganged up on him continually, didn’t they?

What is different between Clinton’s lying and Bush’s lying is that Clinton was investigated for sexual harassment, and a rape accusation—and ulimately found only to have lied about something absolutely trivial; where as Bush has yet to be investigated for something absolutely devastaing to Iraq and the U.S.

Report this

By slb, February 1, 2007 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Richard Alexander:

Bill Clinton was not, in fact, being “investigated” for anything at all concerning the incident in question.  And he did not lie in court, as you have claimed.  He was being deposed in a civil suit brought by Paula Jones (whose legal fees were being paid by Richard Sciafe).

I’m not a lawyer, so I won’t attempt to get into an explanation for why a charge of perjury was way over the top for the answer he gave to the question of whether or not he had had sex with Monica Lewinsky, but there is a very solid legal argument that the answer was not material to the outcome of the case and therefore should not have resulted in a perjury charge.

For sure it did not rise to the level (“high crimes and misdemeanors”) of impeachable offense.

And yes, George Bush has by his own admission broken the law as president.  He deserves impeachment, and it’s unfortunate for all of us that he probably will not get it.

Report this

By Angel Gabriel, February 1, 2007 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In response to - #51011 - Scot Gress. “It’s not that simple”. Actually Scot it is that simple. And, sorry to question you here but maybe you could post a link to the information that the Brit’s still refer to as valid in the case of Iraq / Saddam attempting to buy Uranium?
I find this little story line, and the many die-hard’s who continue to cling to it disturbing. The fact that Saddam was soliciting Uranium has not been proven or even had any credibility attached to it as far as my extensive research into it has turned up. Certainly there are mentions of this “Rumour” spread all over the place, but nothing credible and concrete to base a case of going to war around.
American’s have been fed a totally fabricated group of calculated lies Scott, and this has been one of the most incredible Social Sales Job’s ever successfully pulled off in the history of the country - period.
I think that coming to the realization that you have so gullibly fallen for this hype has caused a lot of grief for not only you, but a huge number of people who still cling to the story as if it had a truthful base. After all, we American’s respect the office of the Presidency, and should have no reason to doubt the word of the man that we all elected and support to run the country right? 

That is a hard one to get your head around certainly, but the truth is - we have all been purposefully led down the garden path by this man and his administration. That Scott, is a crime! When people commit crimes under our system, they have to be fairly held to account!

Coming to grips with being deceived on such a grand scale is an admittedly hard task, but there comes a point in time where you have to stare the facts in the eye on this matter, and do what is right in order to preserve your sanity and the sanity of the nation.

During this President’s time in office he has continually hidden facts, or altered the truth in order to serve his ideological agenda. He has acted against the Constitution and bullied his way into a position of authoritarian rule clearly outside of America’s rule of law.

If this president is allowed to continue in this manner, I’m convinced that the American People have a hell of a lot to be terribly afraid of in the future course of our country.

The choice is ours. We can continue to waste time and look the other way or we can do the hard thing and follow the mandate sent down from our forefather’s with regard to dealing with a President who disregards the will of the people and sidesteps his responsibility of sharing war time powers with our Congress’s oversight.

Can America afford to not act?

Report this

By Louise, February 1, 2007 at 3:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Another Reason to Call for impeachment:
Double the Troops in “Surge”
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003239.html

And, The Crime Of The Century:
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10432

“Armed with a powerful moral case against Bush, whose lies are responsible for a war that has caused thousands of U.S. casualties and killed vast numbers of Iraqi civilians, Democratic leaders are damning Bush’s war because it did not succeed!”

“The invasion of Iraq under false pretenses comprises solid grounds for impeaching both Bush and Cheney and for turning them over to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague. Under the Nuremberg standard, to commit unprovoked aggression is a war crime.”
Paul Craig Roberts

We need to demand Congress look again at the “facts” presented and get damn mad because they were lied to! And while they’re at it, they can get damned mad at themselves for being suckered!

And then there’s 9/11 ...

Do you chose to believe a bunch of inexperienced pilots who didn’t know how to fly flew jumbo jets with a precision most seasoned pilots would find difficult, or do you believe someone or something else flew those planes?

Do you believe the best prepared, best armed, most highly sophisticated Air Force in the world couldn’t respond to hijackings, or do you believe they were given improper orders?

Do you believe all the intelligence in all the agencies in all the world failed to pick up on a planned attack, or do you believe the administration chose to ignore warnings?

Doesn’t matter what you believe, because either way, the administration is culpable. Intelligence warnings came from everywhere, including from within the administration. Bush has acknowledged that.

Proper response was thwarted by a deliberate “stand down” order. Confusing and contradictory orders and that damnable “new directive” requiring everything had to be approved by Rumsfeld, who by his own admission never left his meeting until the Pentagon was attacked.

Bush, carefully reading a book upside down while those buildings burned,  went on to make up a thoroughly discredited story about having seen the first plane on a TV in the school.

The Secret Service, willing to take a bullet for Reagan when he was under threat did nothing, absolutely nothing, following I suppose, Bush’s complete non-response and non-order.

So, who was in charge?
Everyone and no-one.
Great!

[This would be the perfect place to mention Katrina, but that story of gross incompetence and mismanagement is still being written!]

Do we want or need a president who by his very absence of action both before, during and after the attack of 9/11 and the destruction of Katrina demonstrated complete indifference?

Or, was it incompetence?

More important, is his behavior the obvious reaction to a foreknowledge of events approved then moved beyond his control, or the sleepwalking of someone unqualified to lead?

Doesn’t matter, because either way the man by admission and omission has to share in the responsibility for what happened.

For that reason alone, he should be removed from the White House.

Congress and we the people had a clear picture of this administrations inability to manage disaster almost from the beginning. What in the name of reason could possibly lead anyone to think they could manage a war any better?

And, what on earth could possibly lead any sane person to believe they would do any better if allowed to continue ... at anything ... let alone another war?

There is only one clear, obvious and sane course of action. IMPEACH!

And that photo! A perfect example of Molly’s advise to “Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous”

Thanks Robert Scheer
Thanks truthdig!

Report this

By Teddy-O, February 1, 2007 at 2:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nice choice of graphics. The picture of the two Georges captures perfectly the arrogance and cynicism.

Has it occurred to anyone that Bush/Cheney might just ignore an impeachment process? And if (when?) they are found “guilty”, who would evict them from the White House? The military? Bush is the Commander-in-Chief and would have to give the order. Not likely.

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, February 1, 2007 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: • Comment #50930 by Molly Malone  on  1/31  at  7:49 pm — “I suspect that the Dems have an even larger goal than impeaching Bush and Cheney, something more along the lines of burying the GOP for years to come.”

>>>>>> That would assume they’re not all controlled by the same New World Oligarchy (International Monetary Fund, Council on Foreign Relations, World Bank, Wall Street, City of London financiers — think Bilderberg) — We, the people, must demand the most open free-of-compromise investigations that can possibly be arranged.

RE: • Comment #50929 by Jeanne  on  1/31  at  7:43 pm — “I think if we are going to be serious about this we need to look at a new approach. The entire Bush administration should be removed. Their power should be stripped from them now. The congress should be looking seriously at how to stop this administration cold and do it immediately. Impeachment takes forever. We don’t have the luxury of forever.”

>>>>>> Absolutely right — Misprisions of Treason for the 911 crimes fits perfectly — it’s been proven beyond any doubt that many within the Bush administration knew the attacks were coming and did nothing to stop them; moreover, in an unbiased hearing complicity will certainly be proven as well, in particular how a rogue-network of moles (treasonous agents serving the neocon cabal and NWO) actually subverted honest agents sincerely investigating the planned attacks — not an intelligence “failure,” a stunning intelligence “success” for the puppet masters selling us all into perdition — indict the entire administration (and the rats who’ve already jumped ship) immediately before the planned attack is launched on Iran. Grill them all (agents included), grill them till the truth drips from their flesh, only cut deals for those who give up their coconspirators.

They must be stopped. They must be stopped immediately. All elements of the Anti-War Movement, must close ranks and call upon our best legal minds to find the way to do this, before it’s too late.

Report this

By Sylvia Barksdale Morovitz, February 1, 2007 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Someone commented that a lie is a lie.  True.  But Clinton’s lie cannot be compared with the Bush/Cheney lie.  Only a fool would do so.  Clinton was not the cause of 3,000 [and counting] American youth deaths and God only knows how many innocent Iraqis.  I’ve read as many as 40,000.  Not only did these two worthless asses lie to Congress, they brainwashed the people, which, in my opinion, is the worst crime of all.
Bush and Cheney are murdering, lying, deceitful, avaricious cowards who should be tried, convicted and face the death penalty just like any common murderer in the nation.
They’ve disregarded and spat on our constitution as if it never existed, making their own laws as they went and they’ve all been destructive to our country.  Because of them, we are the most hated country on the planet and we shall be targets of terrorism for generations becaue of them.  There is no punishment too harsh for this pair of sons of bitches!

Report this

By Richard Alexander, February 1, 2007 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Scheer’s first paragraph discredited his entire column. Clinton was not being investigated by any court for marital infidelity; he was being investigated for sexual harassment, including a rape accusation. And, though rape and sexual harassment of several women might be less serious than a rogue nation developing nuclear weapons, that certainly is not the way a professional reporter would present the situation.

Scheer’s column is exactly the sort that has given the news media a bad reputation.

As for the reason that Clinton was impeached but Bush is not, Clinton broke the law—committed purjery in a court of law—but Bush did not.

Report this

By Carl, February 1, 2007 at 11:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

While I can understand your argument, and agree with it on one level, I still feel it is better that we not go in saying “we’re gonna impeach!”  This only makes us as bad as the GOP was when they threw their kangaroos at Clinton.

Rather, we should - nay, we MUST instead say “We’re going to look at all of the facts, without a specific goal in mind other than finding out what happened, why it happened, and who caused it to happen.”  If we do that, and the facts argue for impeachment, no one can argue (reasonably, and with facts) that we went in for purely (or impurely) political reasons.

Report this

By Lily Maskew, February 1, 2007 at 11:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I would rather Congress do nothing else at all except impeachment procedings.  That would be the top priority for the next two years.  There is still too much time left for this administration.  A thief goes to jail for stealing money; what happens to those who steal our hopes, our dreams, our young people’s lives, our country?

Report this

By fedup, February 1, 2007 at 11:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I knew from the minute bush awarded Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom that bush was using him as the fall guy.  Why would bush give the highest civilian award to someone who gave him bad and incorrect intelligence which lead to a complete embarrassment when no WMD were found?  This bad intelligence took us to war!  This deal was so transparent.  If they found WMD, Tenet and bush are heroes.  If no WMD are found Tenet takes the fall to protect bush.  If fact giving the same medal to Bremer and Franks was buying them off as well.  Impeachment now!

Report this

By Shannon, February 1, 2007 at 10:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Although the party line is NOW that impeachment is off of the table, that does not mean that it will ALWAYS be off of the table.  Give them at least some time to get the investigations started.  With the evidence we have now, an impeachment could occur, but would a conviction materialize? 

After investigations, enough evidence of the intentional action of misleading congress into authorizing this war could be raised to force even Republicans to vote for impeachment.  And impeachment charges must be brought against Mr. Bush AND Cheney or it’s simply a political show.

As we are seeing with the first real investigation, the Libby trial, there is much evidence out there, we just need people to speak on the record, under oath and before congress and the American people. 

Have faith, my friends, the pendulum is swinging back.

Report this

By ken lusk, February 1, 2007 at 10:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Even if impeachment of Cheney and Bush were being considered it would be foolish to acknowledge that strategy by the Democrats. Republican operatives scrutinize every word Pelosi says and if this strategy is made known the Republicans would develop talking points and methods to distract from the articles of impeachment. The Republicans even acknowledge this tactic and used it against Kerry in 2004. Impeachment may be useful in electing Democrats in 2008 especially in the senate where 21 or 22 Republicans are up for re-election. Based on 2006 when the Democrats had 19 or 20 senate seats up and still picked up 6 more seats. Democrats have to be tight mouthed and even deceptive so as not to telegraph their intentions about impeachment to the Republicans.

Report this

By ken lusk, February 1, 2007 at 10:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Even if impeachment of Cheney and Bush were being considered it would be foolish to acknowledge that strategy by the Democrats. Republican operatives scrutinize every word Pelosi says and if this strategy is made known the Republicans would develop talking points and methods to distract from the articles of impeachment. The Republicans even acknowledge this tactic and used it against Kerry in 2004. Impeachment may be useful in electing Democrats in 2008 especially in the senate where 21 or 22 Republicans are up for re-election. Based on 2006 when the Democrats had 19 or 20 senate seats up and still picked up 6 more seats, Democrats have to be tight mouthed and even deceptive so as not to telegraph their intentions about impeachment to the Republicans.

Report this

By Ga, February 1, 2007 at 10:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Most would agree that lying about a consensual sexual affair, even by the president, is of significantly lesser concern than lying about the proliferation of nuclear weapons as an excuse to take the nation to war.

That’s the problem though, MANY people actually think the other way around!

Most of the people on the President’s side—including many highly regarded (in their own circles and by the press) religious leaders—really do believe that adultery is much worse than killing “evil” people. Saddam was “evil” and therefore it was entirely okay to “bent the truth” to “oust” him because the ends justifies the means.

That is the problem with the U.S. Too many people think aggression against “evil” is okay.

Report this

By CLP, February 1, 2007 at 10:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Worse still is the obvious matter of how Bush and Cheney let 9/11 happen.  Warnings piled up on their desks, yet they willfully sat on their hands.  Bush stayed on vacation for a month, not even coming back to DC to give his address on stem cells.  The “20th hijacker” was in custody, and even the head of the CIA knew it.  So where were our President and Vice President?  Waiting out the attack that would provide them everything they wanted.

Report this

By mite, February 1, 2007 at 10:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Robert/Truthdig, why do you not cover a true ‘Patriot’ in the little town of ‘Plainfield, New Hampshire?

This man ‘Ed Brown’ was denied by a court of law and the judge to present his case before a ‘JURY’ and has taken a stand against the biggest ‘LIE’ ever committed against the people of this republic. There is NO law to requires the people of this nation to pay a tax on their labor.

How do you expect a Congress to Impeach anyone when the Congress has committed war against us for 93 years since creation of the Federal Reserve and IRS.

Report this

By george S Semsel, February 1, 2007 at 8:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Face it, my good friends, the Democrats lack the guts to do the job we elected them to do. By the time serious thought is given to forming a committee to look into the matter, the congress will be in the hands of a different party and Bush will probably still be president.

Report this

By Gerald Wadsworth, February 1, 2007 at 8:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Time to grow some cojones, Democrats. The threat of immediate impeachment should hang like the sword of Damocles over every action taken by the pResident and Cheney that flaunts, vitiates, mutates or otherwise is contrary to the Constitution. If you do this - impeachment. If you don’t do this - impeachment. This criminal organization will not give up power unless they are given the clear and unmistakable choice. If you even think about another war in the Middle East, if you even think about breaking another law of the land, your ass is grass, and Congress will be the lawnmower.

Report this

By scott gress, February 1, 2007 at 8:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s not that simple.  What the president said is that the Brits beleived that Saddamn was seeking Uranium. Their was several pieces of intel that indicated that.  The documents that we had turned out to be forgeries, but to this day the Brits maintain that the intel they had, completely independent from the forged documents, on this issue was valid.

And the Wilson’s report on Uranium from Niger did not confirm that the Saddam/Uranium concern was unfounded.  Far from it.  What they said is that Saddamn had approached Niger about getting some Yellow Cake, but that no deal had been made.

The whole “Bush Lied” tag line is lots of fun.  But the reality is a little more complex.  If you don’t read material from both sides of the political fence, you just become more polarized and certain. It usually takes only a moment or two to sense the political leanings of newsies. The information we get is always provide thru a filter that represents the values of someone else.  Discipline yourself to seek news and opinions from both sides of an issue before forming an opinion.

Report this

By Donald Helgerson, February 1, 2007 at 7:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is without a doubt the most corrupt admininstration in recent history. Why the peasants aren’t crashing down the gates at the White House with pitchforks in hand, I’ll never know.

Report this

By BroadwayCarl, February 1, 2007 at 12:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Blueboy1938 wrote: “It would be easy for him to pick someone that was virtually “impeachment proof” in the first place, and who would not have time to commit anything remotely resembling an “impeachable offense” in the two years remaining of the final Bush term.  That person, inevitably a Republican, would be a virtual shoo-in for president in 2008, given the unresolved Iraq conflict, should Bush be successfully impeached.”

I respectfully disagree. Should Bush be impeached, his Republican successor would most likely pardon him.  How did that fare for Ford in the 1976 Election?

Blueboy: “There is no way that a 2/3 majority in the Senate, as presently constituted, would vote to convict in either the Bush or the Cheney impeachment trial.”

I believe if their political life were on the line, there would be 9 Republican Senators who would distance themselves enough to vote for impeachment.

Blueboy: “Let’s have a reality check, now, and get on with the business of undoing the mischief of the Bush administration and his rubber stamp Republican controlled Congress in the areas of energy policy, the environment, and limiting the Iraq conflict, all of which are now possible and are under way in the Democratically controlled Congress.”

I agree with you there Blueboy, but how’s that working so far?  In just the first month, the minimum wage bill was stalled in the Senate by Republicans insisting on tax breaks for small business owners.  They’re going to take months anyway. 
Impeachment shouldn’t be a choice.  If the action is warranted after hearings and investigations, then it should be REQUIRED.  Otherwise, all bets are off and how do we even begin to trust our government ever again?

Report this

By thedeanpeople, January 31, 2007 at 11:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. Scheer

So, what you’re saying is that they Terrorized the Nation into War.

Why don’t you just say so?

In your next column.

Report this

By Bert, January 31, 2007 at 10:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

OUT with Dick n Bush!

http://www.impeachbush.org

Report this

By vet240, January 31, 2007 at 10:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Italy and now Germany have indicted some 40 CIA agents for violating their borders by using the tactic of extraordinary rendition. That’s a cute phrase someone in the upper levels of our Government invented to use in lieu of kidnapping.

How can we not respond to the International Community by Impeaching Bush/Cheney? To fail to act makes us the rogue nation.

Report this

By Brian, January 31, 2007 at 10:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The only reason for not impeaching Bush is the fact that Cheney would be president. At least we know the destruction and damage George Bush can do. Cheney is like a hand grenade… pull the pin and who knows what he will blow up.

Report this

By DennisD, January 31, 2007 at 10:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

IMPEACHMENT FOR ALL - IF NOT NOW - THEN WHEN?
What does it take, is no level of incompetence or crime worthy anymore. Are our good old boys and girls in Congress just going to hand them all medals of freedom when they go. CYA for the whole charade as usual brought to you by “our” government in name only.

Report this

By NETTIE, January 31, 2007 at 9:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oh, there are myriad reasons to impeach both Bushie and Darth Vader.  Give the 110th some time, for heaven’s sake.  John Conyers heads the Judiciary Committee…do you really think he’s sitting on his thumbs now?  Nancy will play her cards close to her chest for now…after all, when they’re both gone, she’s up next.  Given today’s revelations in the Libby trial and the bizarre threat to bomb Iran, instead of making them sweat it out ‘till the fall, we’ll be looking at sooner than later.  Every person who cares about this, needs to jingle their rep. that you want the investigations fast-tracked and impeachment proceedings to begin asap.  And get out to the protests unless you’re comatose or similarly disabled….please do not expect others to do it for you…stand up and be counted!

Report this

By HeadlessHessian, January 31, 2007 at 8:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Amatures!  Impeach impeach impeach, that’s all you people can say.  C’mon folks use your heads. That is exactly what the republicans want!!! They would love for congress to get bogged down in another impeachment process and do nothing for the next 2 years!!!!!...Then, in 08, they can claim that Dems only wanted to impeach the Shrub.  Imagine, shrub impeached, Cheney president!!!  C’mon folks get real.  Best thing is to spend the time digging for all the dirt these Nazis did in the last 6 years…keep investigations going and bringing up new crap every month or so.  Keep the acid of corruption up front and center.  Besides an impeachment proceeding would mean that both would need to be impeached and Nancy would become president…yeah..right!!!  In your dreams.  Not this congress!!  Its way too vulnerable and divisive.  Pelosi is right not to impeach, cooler heads.  Yeah I can’t disagree bush and cheney (notice no caps) are both criminals, but eh consequences of impeachment are too vulnerable.
Folks you have to be a bit more intelligent than what I’ve read here…..
Keep the investigations going, keep the dirt coming up…that way in 08 we can point to all the crap and not a republican will be elected and will be that quite a few incumbents will wither.

Headless

Report this

By Molly Malone, January 31, 2007 at 8:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I suspect that the Dems have an even larger goal than impeaching Bush and Cheney, something more along the lines of burying the GOP for years to come. If the Dems were to rush to impeachment too soon, Cheney would retire for “health” reasons, Bush would resign, the new vp would move up to the presidency, and a new GOP vp would be appointed. Unless these replacements prove far more incompetent than our present “leaders”, they stand an excellent chance of being elected in ‘o8, since a standing president (all things being equal) is usually favored over a challenger. The Dems are in the catbird seat owing to the fact that they now chair all the comittees. If they reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and carefully play out their hearings and investigations—each more damning than the one before it—and time that crescendo to peak about six months prior to the ‘08 election, they should be unbeatable at the polls.

Report this

By Jeanne, January 31, 2007 at 8:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think if we are going to be serious about this we need to look at a new approach. The entire Bush administration should be removed. Their power should be stripped from them now. The congress should be looking seriously at how to stop this administration cold and do it immediately. Impeachment takes forever. We don’t have the luxury of forever.

Report this

By Tobi Dragert, Los Angeles, CA, January 31, 2007 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hard to add anything new to these fabulous observations; suffice to say, I urge our elected people to pursue investigations to the max!  Sadly, even some of my liberal friends are worried about the Dems “spending time” on impeachment.  I think it would be the most wonderful way imaginable to spend the next two years—having light shed on the activities of this pack of rodents over the past six years—which nobody really knows—not even the Dems - and surely not us lazy, hapless citizens.  I predict if the Dems let this group off with a scapegoat here and there, we can kiss ourselves goodbye in ‘08.  Meantime, let us vigorously and continually encourage and thank the handful of people in DC pursuing this—especially the wonderful Black Caucus, who’ve seen through this rat pack since the beginning—and let us relentlessly write, call, talk, and take to the streets until we are heard!  Thank you to my neighbor, Robert Scheer.

Report this

By tkk, January 31, 2007 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All I can conclude is that when the Supreme Court put W in the WH, it was actually a coup and there are things going on average people don’t know about. The hesitancy of the Democrats is baffling. When one looks back, the decisions of Bill Clinton are equally baffling. He should have refused the special prosecutor. Then, since he knew the rethuglians were gunning for him, he should have behaved quite differently. I know the guy had a problem and all that, but I can’t help thinking that he sold our democracy down the river for a roll in the hay. Maybe the Dems will never get their Mo back from that scandal, or maybe, Americans of all persuasions will be disgusted by the agenda of the Right and take back the democracy.

Report this

By Irwin Moss, January 31, 2007 at 7:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is so tempting to want to impeach Bush, he being the single worst President in our history; and sadly even worse: He may well be the “Huey Long” who made it to the White House.

He and his co-thugs are shredding the Constitution, destroying the Federal Judiciary system, and destroying our credibility.


Problem? Cheney becomes President:totally unacceptable, and worse as there would no doubt be some form of “rallying together” or some such “hogwash”, you know, “team effort.”

I agree about the comparative venality of the “crimes” of President Clinton viz. the crimes of the two thugs now in office. 

Still, the movement toward impeachment with all the media and political fall-out will tear this country apart in ways I envision of such trauma that I won’t speculate openly. 

The last thing we need is a knife to the heart.  Guys and Gals, understand this is the epilogue of our Civil War: never dead, only dorment.  Any doubts?  Look at a map, red and blue.  “Pay back time.”

Pelosi is smart enough to know that she hasn’t got the votes for a Bill, and even if her count is wrong, the House hearings etc. for a Bill would consume too much time and vent too much rage.  Add to that a possible Senate trial and the mind boggles at the state of our nation.

A better idea I think is for the Dems to start some serious conversations about impeachment taking it all the way “warts and all”, but with the goal of having a Senate/House delegation meet with the President and VP suggesting their resignation!!  If only Goldwater were here now!!

In that move there would be agreement that the next-in-line for Presidency become Pres. with the absolute agreement that he/she will not run for the Presidency.

Foolish idea?  Impractical?  Maybe, but a hell of lot better than another impeachment circus.

Irwin Moss, LA

Report this

By Rod Reeves, January 31, 2007 at 7:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You can color me a ‘dyed-in-the-wool’ liberal member of the Democratic party, and I think it could easily be politically counterproductive to push for impreachment of President Bush in the House of Representative and a potential trial in the Senate.

Keep the pressure on via appropriate Congressional investigations to help bring to the light of day the numerous forms of deceptions and outright corruption within the Bush/Cheney outrageous stewardship of the Executive branch for the past six years.

IF enough incontrovertible evidence of misconduct comes to light from the Congressional investigations that rises to the level of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” under Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution of the United States of America, then one of three things will happen: 1) Republican members of Congress will prevail upon the President &/or the V.P. to resign; 2) Republican members of Congress will take the lead in initiating removal of the President &/or V.P. “from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”; or 3) the evidence gathered from serious Congressional investigations (even if it does not rise to the level for many Republicans to agree to Impeachment proceedings in the House) will be in the public domain, and such uncovered evidence will surely accrue to the benefit of Democratic Party in the 2008 elections.

My proposed pragmatic bottom line for the Democratic party wielding the gavel in all the potential Congressional investigations into the Executive…is to agressively Investigate, Investigate and Investigate.

Then & only then, if evidence uncovered suggests the appropriateness to consider Impeachment in the House, insist that numerous Republicans take the lead in that action, so it cannot be represented to the public by other Republicans as being driven by nothing more than partisan Democratic politics. Otherwise, Impeachment proceedings will likely be counterproductive to the interest of the Democratic party in the 2008 Presidential & Congressional election…potentially an excessive political hubris that could result in the Democratic party shooting itself in their feet because they are not using thier collective head.

Impeachment or no impeachment, the evidence uncovered from vigorous Congressional investigations, will be in the public domain, and the public will draw their own conclusions.

I’m betting the evidence uncovered will accrue to the benefit of the Democratic party in the 2008 national election.

Report this

By Irwin Moss, January 31, 2007 at 6:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is so tempting to want to impeach Bush, he being the single worst President in our history; and sadly even worse: He is “Huey Long” who made it to the White House.

Problem? Cheney becomes President:totally unacceptable, and worse as there would no doubt be some form of “rallying together” or some such “hogwash”, you know, “team effort.”

I agree about the comparative venality of the “crimes” of President Clinton viz. the crimes of the two thugs now in office.

Still, the movement toward impeachment with all the media and political fall-out will tear this country apart in ways I envision of such trauma that I won’t speculate openly. 

The last thing we need is a knife to the heart.  Guys and Gals, understand this is the epilogue of our Civil War: never dead, only dorment.

Pelosi is smart enough to know that she hasn’t got the votes for a Bill, and even if her count is wrong, the House hearings etc. for a Bill would consume too much time and vent too much rage.  Add to that a possible Senate trial and the mind boggles at the state of our nation.

A better idea I think is for the Dems to start some serious conversations about impeachment taking it all the way “warts and all”, but with the goal of having a Senate/House delegation meet with the President and VP suggesting their resignation!!  If only Goldwater were here now!!

In that move there would be agreement that the next-in-line for Presidency become Pres. with the absolute agreement that he/she will not run for the Presidency.

Foolish idea?  Impractical?  Maybe, but a hell of lot better than another impeachment circus.

Irwin Moss, LA

Report this

By nanni, January 31, 2007 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I cannot stop thinking that impeachment is just another little trick. You guys and girls seem to have no power but complain and ask some “illuminated” Democrats to solve your problems. Solve them for you. All you have to do is sign a petition, forward an e-mail. Do you really believe that to undo corruption, greed, power-grabbing, an e-mail is enough? Do you really believe that you can get away with such a ridicolous price to pay for decades and decades of repression, oppression, and war?
Well, maybe that’s the source of the nightmare you live in (and force the rest of the world into it too). Stop the whinging and get serious about change. Take the streets now. Leave your cosy office/house. Take the streets now. Leave the computer screen and keyboard. Take the streets now. You, yes, just you. And you, and you. And I.

Report this

By FS Gilbert, January 31, 2007 at 5:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cheney is more dangerous than Bush, impeach him first, then Bush. If we get rid of Bush first, guess who fills his spot.

Report this

By mizipi, January 31, 2007 at 5:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If this is a country that believes in JUSTICE, then George, Dick, Rummy and many others would go to a prison that is in Iraq, run by some of the Iraqis we have liberated.  That is a KNOWN KNOWN.  But, we live in a nation that is run by aristocratic politicians who protect their own, and nothing will ever happen to any of them other than drawing their government pensions.

Report this

By d.morsette@mchsi.com, January 31, 2007 at 3:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I wholeheartedly agree that BOTH Bush AND Cheney should be impeached. I think with the very small majorities the Democrats have, however, means they will need to build credibility before attacking this issue. Whether that will happen before the Administration leaved in 2008 - I don’t know.

Report this

By Jerry Piro, January 31, 2007 at 3:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

According to the LA Times Bush was on Air Force 1 when he heard of Wilson’s letter via Colin Powell.
  Now, who was made a liar, and who would be the most angry, and who was in charge, and who would give the order to get the rescal???

Report this

By Gary K, January 31, 2007 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As an American I am very frustrated and surprised that this “Democratic” congress refuses to hear the voice of the majority of the American people who, according to recent polls, want Bush and Cheney impeached if proven to have committed felonious crimes against our constitution and government.

Report this

By Jon B, January 31, 2007 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Helloooooooooooo Nancy Pelosi, are you listening or you continue the impeachment is “off the table”?

The rule of law is calling Nancy Pelosi.
Earth is calling Nancy Pelosi
Voters are telling Nancy Pelosi.

Report this

By felicity, January 31, 2007 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To this day Democrats are paralyzed by an event that occurred way back in 1972.  In that election George McGovern challenged Nixon’s war (Vietnam) policies and went on to lose to Nixon in a landslide re-election.  The Dems read and continue to read that election loss as if you challenge a president in war time, the American people will read your challenge as a threat to their national security and vote for security. Certainly Bush’s re-election in ‘04 was based on that old, but apparently alive and well security issue.

If impeachment proceedings were in progress and the Iraq mess got messier OR there were another 9/11, the American people would lay it in the laps of the Dems and exonerate the Repubs.  Illogical, true, but anything to do with politics is never logical.

So it boils down to do the Dems in Congress keep a tight rein on this maniacal president (and his perverted mate-in-power), at the same time discrediting everything he’s ever said or done as mendacious in the first degree, not to mention stupid, OR do they impeach and chance a clone of him sitting in the WH in ‘09?

If Pelosi is as wily as I think she is, by the time Bush leaves office impeachment may have been an act of kindness.

Report this

By Dan Noel, January 31, 2007 at 2:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The best thing may be for the new Congress to start to do what its predecessors failed to do: seriously audit the activities orchestrated by the executive branch over the last few years. Should they do so, they will inevitably get to the tragic 9/11 events and the very strange, and highly suspicious, activities and decisions before and after them. These findings would inevitably snowball into a huge scandal whose proportions are hard to fathom. At that time, the impeachment of the president and the vice-president would be a mere drop in the bucket of questions that would be raised from so many different corners…

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, January 31, 2007 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: •    Comment #50762 by TAO Walker  on  1/31  at  10:51 am — “Anyone visible and possibly reachable is expendable.”

>>>>>> nails it - spooks in every corner

But, who do you call, Ghostbusters? Probably not. Seems the best chance is to get as many of the expendable operatives in the doc and show them the noose, ASAP — when they start flipping to save their necks, cut bait and let out more line —  investigate, indict, prosecute and execute — Demand 911Truth - End War of Terror!

Report this

By Alice Wahl, January 31, 2007 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The sky is blue.  Well, maybe, maybe not—depends upon what the definition of “is” is.  Get with it folks, be as learned as President Clinton was when he equivocated, wasn’t given a follow-up question, and then was falsely accused of lying, an accusation
that sticks—rather than the truth which hasn’t been perceived.

Report this

By Ford for TN, January 31, 2007 at 1:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

My question: Why isn’t the Scooter Libby trial being covered in more detail? We have 24-7 news coverage, but we see very little news anymore.
For three days I listened to Hillary’s off-key singing, in hopes of hearing something about the “trial of the century” but, not gonna happen.
(sorry, couldn’t resist)

Report this

By L. Gordon, January 31, 2007 at 1:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Impeachment proceedings to discoveries:
-Election questions in Florida, Ohio
-California “energy crisis” and profeteering by Enron et.al.
-The origin of the Anthrax and why it seemed to target Democrats (Dashele receiving the deadly version, 2 versions?)?
-ALL LIES concerning going to war.
-Profeteering in Iraq by well connected contractors, the lack of oversight into billions unaccounted for.
-Only a partial list, but would satisfy this citizen to know the answers.  All impeachable and criminal…

Report this

By Vic Anderson, January 31, 2007 at 1:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All the more reason to DE-ESCALATE on these sons-of-Bushs, that they may thereby be IMPEACHED!

Report this

By David Marlow, January 31, 2007 at 12:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How long can we permit this madness to go on?
Both Bush and Cheney should be impeached,  removed from office, and then charged with war crimes.
Where is the outrage?

Report this

By Margaret Currey, January 31, 2007 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

ALL I CAN SAY IS WHAT I HAVE SAID BEFORE IMPEACH BUSH AND CHANEY, IMPEACH BUSH AND CHANEY, AND IMPEACH BUSH AND CHANEY.

Margaret from Vancouver Washington

Report this

By Dan Henderson, January 31, 2007 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For once, we may be able to do something about this if enough of us are willing to send two letters to Congress. Check out http://impeachforpeace.org to see how.

Report this

By Blueboy1938, January 31, 2007 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Clearly, Mr. Scheer makes the case for impeaching both President Bush and Vice President Cheney.  (Please note the careful avoidance of any disrespect to the offices which both of these men have succeded in denigrating.)  Unfortunately, the “Law of Unintended Consequences” would engage if that were done.  First of all, Mr. Cheney would have to be successfully impeached.  Then Mr. Bush.  One could not risk the chance of a Cheney presidency, as some have so eloquently stated prior.  Assuming the Vice President were impeached, that would give the President the opportunity to appoint someone else Vice President.  It would be easy for him to pick someone that was virtually “impeachment proof” in the first place, and who would not have time to commit anything remotely resembling an “impeachable offense” in the two years remaining of the final Bush term.  That person, inevitably a Republican, would be a virtual shoo-in for president in 2008, given the unresolved Iraq conflict, should Bush be successfully impeached.  But here’s the real “kicker”:  There is no way that a 2/3 majority in the Senate, as presently constituted, would vote to convict in either the Bush or the Cheney impeachment trial.  Furthermore, the entire business of both Houses of Congress would be suspended for months with two sequential impeachments.  Let’s have a reality check, now, and get on with the business of undoing the mischief of the Bush administration and his rubber stamp Republican controlled Congress in the areas of energy policy, the environment, and limiting the Iraq conflict, all of which are now possible and are under way in the Democratically controlled Congress.

Report this

By John Earl, January 31, 2007 at 12:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oh Mighty God, spare us from these evil men!

Strike then down.

Oh, if you have better things to do, I’ll understand.

I’m sorry I asked.

Your will, you know, be done.

But…

Report this

By TAO Walker, January 31, 2007 at 11:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Anyone visible and possibly reachable is expendable.  Neither Bush nor Cheney is in any way key to the continued depradations of the global privateering juggernaut.  No one occupying any seat of political “power” anywhere in the world gets anywhere near the “star chamber” where all the actual decisions are made. 

These useful idiots are without exception hung out to distract the gullible from the shadowy cold-blooded presences they only front-for….and even that at several removes from their owners’ place at the very tip-top of the world-wide pyramid scheme.  Going after the Bush/Cheney junta might offer some cheap thrills and transient satisfaction, but it’ll do about as much to stop the Earth-destroying monstrosity they only serve as disarming some street-thug could to prevent the looming end-times all-out war.

Better get your eye on the ball, people.

HokaHey!

Report this

By faith, January 31, 2007 at 11:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. Scheer, thank you for such a well considered article !  Excellent.
However, I do think the best actions of the new democratically led congress are yet to come.  I hope that Americans do not underestimate the Democrats.  Speaker Pelosi and Mr Reid are astute politicians. Look at what they have accomplished in such a short time. Pelosi and Reid are surely aware that if you back an animal into a corner he’s going to do everything that he can to rip you apart and tear your heart out.  A survival instinct.  Allowing the investigations to unfold in a formalized manner that meets protocol, provides Americans the opportunity to observe just what is going on with this Republican group running the White House administration. Such situs avoids dividing the nation further through innuendo and iffy facts.  Instead, the lies, the deaths, the billions, the reputation of this nation will be laid bare to the public.  At that time, impeachment will be clearer and obvious to all.

Report this

By Margaret Currey, January 31, 2007 at 11:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The fact is if Runsfeld had run this war right, there would be no talk of impeachemnt, but we will go on with this war because Chaney says so, the brains behind “The Emperor who wears no clothes” and he will want war no matter what, because if this country stays in a war like state democracy will begin to end completely, we are no longer in a democracy because to end a democracy all you have to take away is the ability to vote in a fair election, our founding fathers would be turning in their graves if they knew that the Elephant Party tries to stop people voting by such tactics as trying to interrupt telephone calls to take people to the polls, leaflets telling people the Republicians vote on one day and the Democrats the next, telling people to go to the wrong place to vote, people in Fla. were told that if they were behind in their rent they could go to jail, the theft of Kerry’s win because what was happening in Ohio, I really think the election people have lost their mind when they tell people the weight of the paper is wrong, that it might jam up the counting machines, I could go on and on but the main thing about voting for the president is the results do not have to be reported by the media the very night of voting, some states like Washington and Oregon have vote by mail only, the west does this mainly because The Government is east coast, some day maybe the center of our Federal Government should be in the center of the country, then maybe all states on election day evening will be reported equally.  Better yet there should be one vote per person, do away with the electorial college. 

ANOTHER THING THEIR SHOULD BE HEARINGS FOR IMPEACHMENT FOR THE NEOCONS BUSHIE BOY AND “SHOTGUN” CHANEY.

Report this

By Jeff Jennings, January 31, 2007 at 11:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Unfortunately, the current Iraq implosion and its very real imminent threat of regional and widespread international destruction leaves America with no time for impeachment proceedings.  God must be on Bush’s side.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook