Impeachment: the right thing to do.

T.A. Barnhart

I just don't get it.

If George W Bush got drunk in a bar, went out driving, and then hit and killed a family of four from Baltimore, he'd be impeached, convicted and thrown in prison in the blink of an eye. Even his staunchest supporters and the most hardened ideologues of the right would toss him out of office and into the arms of the prosecutor. Deliberate actions of that kind that kill people are be tolerated by no one.

And what was Bush's declaration of war but a reckless and deliberate act that has resulted in the deaths of over 3,000 Americans and tens of thousands of non-combatant Iraqis?

"Hey bartender, get me a glass and a bottle of Jack. I'm the damn King of the World, and I'm gonna celebrate my owndamnself like a real man! And then I'm gonna drive my motherhumping Humvee right up someone's sorry ass if they even think of getting in my way!"

This wasn't a matter of "Oops, I guess I had a bit more to drink than I thought." He meant to kill people. Lots of people. That's what happens when you start a war: You make decide to kill as many people as possible. You call them enemies to make it tolerable to the weak-willed and weak-minded who don't like to think about that part of war. And as Commander-in-Chief, another decision gets made: To kill your own troops. There's no getting around that one, either. The person who declares war decides that lots of people are going to die. Bush claimed he didn't want "unneccesary" deaths but death is indeed what he ordered when he sent American troops into Iraq.

"Kill someone? Hell, yea, now that ya mention it, I guess I could. Heh heh, too bad for them I guess. Heh heh. Woops! They wanna be safe, people ought to stay home and watch Fox News instead of driving around at night."

Bush sat down with the rest of his gang, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the other warmongers who cheerfully aligned themselves with his decision to kill people (including poor sorry Tony Blair). They did have one initial problem to overcome at first, and that was that they had nothing substantial on which to base the war. But by God (literally), they were going to start their war regardless of facts or need.

And the facts, even at that time, were crystal clear: Saddam Hussein posed no immediate, or even near-term, threat to the United States, our allies or the region. There was no need for war; there was, rather, a need to demonstrate we wanted to hold back from aggression in favor of diplomacy and "aggressive" arms inspections, to use Obama's term.

"Need? Damn, what I need is another whiskey. Gimme a double!"

To get his war going, the President of the United States lied to the Congress and to the world. He pushed a once-honorable man, Colin Powell, to sell his snake oil at the U.N. (and God have mercy on Powell for the role he played: "Sure, George, I can lend you $20. You swear it's not for booze, right?"). Bush knew what he was doing, and just because he thought he could get away with it does not make any part of it right.

"Hey man, don't sweat it. I'm a helluva driver, a regular Dale frikkin' Earnhardt. I'll get home just fine."

The horrible part is that as much as he knew he was lying and that Hussein was no threat, as much as he knew every death and injury was entirely unnecessary; he believed he was still in the right. That's the problem with drunk drivers: being drunk, they're no longer able to recognize how incapable of driving they are. So off they go, full of booze and self:

"Goddammit, I'm a free born white American male! If I wanna get a load on and go drivin', them hellfire that's what I'm gonna do!"

And he did. To George W Bush, the President who has stayed away from the funerals of every American killed in his horror show; who lets his troops die and become maimed because it was cheaper than supplying them properly — or even sending enough of them to do the bad job right; who ignored the misery of the suffering wounded at Walter Reed and other military hospitals until exposed by the Washington Post; to this killer of thousands, every death and every drop of blood is sanctified and blessed because he is doing God's holy work.

"You don't have to worry about me none anyhow, ya know. God guides my hand at all times. I know that Jesus will keep me safe."

And thanks to the political cowards in the Congress, so-called "realists" both supportive and opposed to Bush, he is getting away with it. Getting away with murder. A few Dems have called for his impeachment, but they lack either the clout or support to do much about it. House and Senate leaders, terrified that the mere use of the I-word will cost them the Congress next year after so many years of being a subjugated, humiliating minority, no longer understand what it means to be courageous and bold.

The sad part is that it's hard to argue with their reasoning: While most Americans now (finally) oppose the war, they might see impeachment as carrying opposition to the President too far, and that could engender a backlash that might cost them not only the Congress but the White House in 2008. It's hard to argue against a long-term strategy, of the huge value in wresting control back from neocons and religionists. Why pursue impeachment if the cost is that great?

But in America, everything stands, or falls, on obedience to the rule of law. We are here today in part because presidents have been breaking the law and getting away with it. LBJ paid politically for the fakery of Tonkin, just as Nixon did for his many violations of the law. Yet neither was held accountable before the law for what they did. Ronald Reagan oversaw massive violations of American and international law, and yet he died revered and honored. The one president who was punished for "law-breaking" did not lie about war, did not subvert governments (in fact, helped bring peace to Northern Ireland and to the former Yugoslavia), did nothing worse than lie about having sex.

And now George W Bush stands to be the latest president to commit gross violations of the law and manage to ride off into the sunset bearing no responsibility for his criminal acts. This is unconscionable. People wonder why our country seems to be slipping further each day from the ideals we once, and sometimes still, held so high. Perhaps if we ensured that every person in this country was held responsible for their deeds ("...mistakes were made..."; I've heard this refered to as the "third-person exhonorative"), we might set an example that means something. Slapping Clinton's hand for lying about sex was a joke, and most Americans know that.

Letting Bush get away with murder is no joke, but it does make a joke of our laws, our traditions and our history. And most Americans know that too.

"Ah look at the Georgie go. Damn that boy can drive." "And drink!" "Boy howdy, can he." "Well, I'm just glad I'm in here and not out there!" "Haw haw!"

I want to win the Congress and White House in 2008, but I wonder: Is the price too high? What are we sacrificing, and what do we gain? To my mind, down here on the ground and far from the high, hallowed halls of power, the issue is simple and clear: George W Bush is a cold-blooded killer. We have laws for such people, and it's time to apply them.

Impeach Bush. It may be costly politically, but it's the right thing to do. It's too late to bring back the dead, to remove the hurt from the injured. Those who let Bush send our people to war have their own guilt to bear, but his responsibility is the ultimate. We would not let a hit-and-run drunk driver get away his crime, nor for any reason. The extent of the lies used to create this war are crystal clear; there is no doubt he knew the war was wrong. He knew he was lying when he bamboozled the Congress into giving him his war. He knew what he was doing, and now he must pay for his crime.

Impeach George W Bush for his many criminal acts. Forget 2008. "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?" The same is true for political gain. The right thing, the only right thing to do is to impeach Bush and place law, not political expediency or the hope of power, at the pinnacle of our way of life.

Without the rule of law, the American way of life is lost — along with over 3,200 American lives, and counting.

  • lin qiao (unverified)

    Forget 2008. "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?" The same is true for political gain.

    Here's a thought. First, does anyone think that the Bushites are going to pull out of Iraq? No, I didn't think you did. So suppose we then stagger into the 2008 campaign with (almost certainly) a pro-war Republican presidential candidate. Suppose the Congressional Democrats pursue impeachment and this alienates so many voters that that pro-war Republican wins. How many more lives will be flushed away?

    That's of course just a speculative scenario that I sketched out. But it surely isn't wildly speculative.

    I respect Mr. Barnhart's passion. My problem with what he wrote here (and frankly every piece he writes) is that it's a starkly black-and-white view of the world. I wonder if he has enough self-awareness to realize that he is emulating Dubya in this regard. Good or bad. With us or against us.

  • (Show?)

    It's that " Manichaean paranoia" Zbigniew Brzezinski was talking about on the Daily Show the other night! Only of course he was talking about Dubya.

    Hey, from a purely emotional point of view, I would hugely enjoy the spectacle of a GWB impeachment. But I think it would be a huge distraction from the real work we have to do, which is to get our country back on the rails.

  • baffled (unverified)

    That was so unbelievably incoherent and pointless. Did you just get drunk and start typing? It's absolutely mind-numbing how you can just trivialize away the accomplishments of people like Rice, Rumsfeld and Cheney and call them "warmongers." Let me see your resume Mr. Barnhart. I'm fairly certain it does not qualify you to impugn the integrity and patriotism of men and women who have spent their entire lives serving the United States while they could be making millions more in the private sector. Where are your diatribes against Berger, Albright, and Gore? Are they not responsible for deaths in Eastern Europe, Iraq and Somalia?

    As for lying to get us into a war.......why are you not writing mindless diatribes against Bill Clinton, the UN and the intelligence agencies of countless other states who all came to the same conclusion........That Iraq was indeed a threat that was seeking WMD's. Try as you might to ignore the facts, but you know full well that the policy of regime change preceded George W. Bush. You know full well that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and countless others of your allies are all on record declaring the threat posed by Iraq.

    My advice to you is to stop ignoring facts and the obvious hypocrisies that plague your thoughts.

  • Zarathustra (unverified)

    The calculus of life makes no sense at all, period.

    In your initial graf you actually state the real equation. In your example of outrageous behavior, you use alcohol to stand for crossing a socially unacceptable line. You state that that kind of behavior would not be tolerated.

    Unfortunately, it is. Every day people talking on cell phones strike and kill jay walkers and are let off totally without consequence, usually because "drugs and alcohol were not involved". It's a reward for being found to tow the party line after a surprise inspection. The life is not a factor in the punishment.

    Perry Mason is dead. Today, ignorance is a damned good excuse of the law. Think about where the equation would be between what you can do in ignorance and get away with, versus what you can't get away with because you weren't ignorant. I propose the degree to which a society is progressive is indirectly proportional to the difference between the two.

    Obviously, logic has nothing to do with it and we're talking about the excercise of raw social control. Which brings me to your, point, Iraq.

    What I don't get is why people talk about it like it is Shrub's policy. It was a great joke during Iran Contra when Saturday Night Live did a gag about how funny it would be to imagine if Reagan was the architect of the strategy. They had him acting like a doddering old fool with some head of State, then when he was alone, he whipped out a map and started strategizing. Is it any more reasonable to think that this self confessed, untreated, dry-drunk, that only thought about politics when he saw how easy it was to finagle his father's race, is actually planning anything?

    Cheney gave a talk, back in his Halliburton days, to one of those Houston business lunch clubs that the good old boys love to frequent. I was attending for a free lunch as a guest and didn't know Cheney at the time. He did whip out a map, and it was of the Middle East. And of course it was about oil. Bottom line, the powers that be are right on track with what they want to accomplish in the Gulf. A lot of little screwed up states and not a few big troublesome egos to secure mineral rights as things get really interesting in the next 50 years. All this talk about how we're not accomplishing a host of things that were only mentioned as distractions- regime change, WMD, democracy in the ME, Axis of Evil, sanctions, Israel- are only considered to the extent that they enhance the story line. They are not strategic interests, in their own right, of the US.

    Bottom line, I think that when you debate any of those distractions, you endulge the distractors. Yeah, we don't debate what we all know is the situation, because we all know it's the situation. Beating on something else is not a solution. Do we accept that there's nothing to be done about a major US, corporate domination of foreign policy towards narrow self interest? Want the US out of Iraq, Iran and the ME in general? Have the Congress debate and pass a law that, purely for purposes of restoring our damaged international reputation, forbid any US coroporation from holding mineral leases in countries where we are or have been engaged in military action in the last 10 years. Very reasonable. A kind of conflict of interest law. Pass that and we'll return to the "good old days" when Americans couldn't find Iraq on a map.

  • (Show?)

    And there, TA, in a nutshell, is why impeachement is a dangerous idea. Baffled isn't alone in being baffled. Even many people who have figured out the war isn't working are still pretty baffled about what is and isn't real.

    Consider that what we may need is hearings and testimony and a careful pursuit of the truth until even baffled at least has an inkling about what has really happened.

    What we almost certainly don't need is a big spectacle that plays into the Fox News mentality.

  • (Show?)

    Did you just get drunk and start typing?

    "Like I did?"

    For a minute, I thought I was reading the comedy stylings of Bill McDonald.

    It's absolutely mind-numbing how you can just trivialize away the accomplishments of people like Rice, Rumsfeld and Cheney

    You're right. They really were the most incompetent cabinet ever.

  • Rebel Dog (unverified)

    It's absolutely mind-numbing how you can just trivialize >> away the accomplishments of people like Rice, Rumsfeld >> >> and Cheney

    You're right. They really were the most incompetent >> >> > cabinet ever

    Speaking of distractions, Z- ITS HOPELESS. Just read the above. Nixon resigned. We won, right. All those losers walked and we're still dealing with them. The bag man (#41) walked because a bi-partisan committee thougth the coutnry had had enough. So we had to live with his god damed son Neal and the S&L debacle!

    Woodward, you listening? Why didn't you do what you've always preached you did, i.e., "follow the money"? What happened to all the stuff you had on #41 and his Houston bank cronies hosting the slush fund? Did you save us from Nixon or indulge the cover-up? In the long run, who mattered more?

  • krishna (unverified)


  • krishna (unverified)


  • GT (unverified)

    Hey, I hear your buddy Ted Kennedy got drunk back in the 60's and proceeded to drive his car off a bridge. He left his girlfriend in the car to drown to death while he stammered off looking for another drink.

  • BOHICA (unverified)

    He pushed a once-honorable man, Colin Powell... The men who help cover up the My Lai massacre?

    But I digress. Bush and his cabal violated their oath of office. U.S. Constitution Article VI par. 2: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    Laws violated by President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, public officials under their authority, and members of the U.S. military under their command, sufficient for impeachment · The U. S. Constitution, Art. VI, para. 2, makes treaties adopted by the U.S. part of the “law of the land.” Thus, a violation of the U. N. Charter, Hague IV, Geneva Conventions, etc. is also a violation of U.S. federal law. · U.S. Federal Law 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (War Crimes Act of 1996) makes committing a war crime, defined as: “…a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party…” punishable by fine, imprisonment, or death. · The following treaties and charters which define: wars of aggression, war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV) Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator…of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. U.N. Gen. Assembly Res. 3314 Defines the crime of aggression as “... the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State…or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations…” Nuremberg Tribunal Charter Principle VI: “The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace: Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties; (b) War crimes: …murder, ill-treatment…of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war,…plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages… (c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination…and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population…when such acts are done…in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.” Geneva Conventions A) Protocol I, Article 75: “(1)…persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict…shall be treated humanely in all circumstances…(2) The following acts are and shall remain prohibited…whether committed by civilian or by military agents: (a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons…(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault…and threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.” B) Protocol I, Art. 51: “The civilian population…shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.” Art. 57: (parties shall) “do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects…an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one…” C) Protocol I, Art. 70: “The Parties to the conflict…shall allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief consignments, equipment and personnel…even if such assistance is destined for the civilian population of the adverse Party.” D) Protocol I, Art. 35: “In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties…to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited…It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment.” E) Convention I, Art. 3: “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms… shall in all circumstances be treated humanely...To this end, the following acts (in addition to those listed in Art. 75, above) are and shall remain prohibited:…the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” F) Convention III, Art. 5: “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy (are prisoners of war under this Convention), such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.” G) Convention IV, Art. 33: “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.”

    But when has the Constitution meant anything to these killers?

  • (Show?)

    Question: Would impeachment end the war?

  • Eric J. (unverified)

    Think about this - if we did impeach him, then Cheney would be in charge. I, for one, wouldn't care for that. Just let Bush ride out the string because he can't get elected again anyway. I dislike both men, but Cheney makes me more ill.

  • Liz McC (unverified)

    IMVHO, let's impeach Dick instead, although George does deserve it on all counts. Suddenly, it just seems that we have the opportunity to get rid of some of the riff-raff in W's inner circle much easier than by impeachment. For e.g., the Scooter Libby trial is sucking Dick into that vortex; Alberto "I don' need no stinkin' habeas corpus" Gonzalez has the Patriot Act coming back to bite him on his ass, along with Rove, and Harriet Miers. They're supposed to be getting subpoenaed by the Senate on Thursday for questioning in the matter. Georgie won't know what to do without his "mouthpieces".

    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is next in line for VP with Dick gone. She'd be the tie breaker in close Senate votes. Of course we'd still have to worry about the president's veto power. Maybe she's got some goods on him that could persuade him to forego the veto as well as any extra signing statements? And with all the aforementioned bozos gone from the administration, perhaps more Republicans won't feel the need to be so loyal any longer? The Democrats would be able to garner the 60+ votes needed to overcome a senate filibuster.

    I think that's our best and quickest route to restoring our civil liberties. Oh yeah, and ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, i.e. bringing American soldiers home ASAP.

    Like I said, just MVHO.


  • (Show?)

    >Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is next in line for VP with Dick gone. She'd be the tie breaker in close Senate votes.

    Thart's not how it works. The 25th Amendment provides as follows:

    Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

    Just because the Ds have narrow majorities in both houses, that doesn't mean Bush would be forced to choose a D (especially not Nancy Pelosi) as VP. A well-liked Republican member of Congress would be his best bet (think Jerry Ford).

  • Schizzle (unverified)

    "If George W Bush got drunk in a bar, went out driving, and then hit and killed a family of four from Baltimore, he'd be impeached, convicted and thrown in prison in the blink of an eye."

    HA! Nice try Barnhart. Yeah, as GT pointed out, that sounds like a Ted Kennedy stunt - and I don't hear any calls from Dems for him to step down. Also remember recently, Patrick Kennedy and his little "pain pill" problem. Don't hear much about that do you? Kinda swept that one under the rug...

  • lin qiao (unverified)

    To GT and Schizzle: I agree with you to the extent that I think Mr. Barnhart's reasoning by analogy is a problem. But the point here is supposed to be discussing the merits of impeaching the President of the United States, not the senior senator from Massachusetts. If you want to discuss Ted Kennedy, submit a guest column on that topic. Thanks.

  • PencilNeck (unverified)
    Even his staunchest supporters and the most hardened ideologues of the right would toss him out of office and into the arms of the prosecutor.

    That's pretty funny. You ought to go into comedy.

  • Faolan (unverified)

    Boy this subject really brings out the trolls doesn't it?

    To address a few things I read upthread. Firstly, when/if we try for impeachment it should be done as a conjoined trial of Cheney and Bush. Both men are fully culpable in the crimes this administration have perpetrated on the United States.

    Obviously it wouldn't really do any good other than act as a moral victory for those of us who are purists. I count myself in that group. I would love to see these men impeached and imprisoned if not executed for Treason, but that's my own extremism. I'd be pretty ecstatic with removal from office.

    To convict in the Senate requires 67 votes. That will never ever happen. Period. End of story. We can stop that argument cold. There is no way that 16 Republican Senators would vote to convict Mr. Bush. And that's if we could even get all of the Democrats to vote for it and that's certainly not a guarantee when we consider Lieberman at the least.

    They could be impeached and I would fully support that. But we all have to be realistic and understand that they will not be removed from office, and neither of them are the kind of men who would ever resign no matter what kind of proofs were produced.

    We are stuck with these criminals for the next two years.

  • Thomas Ware (unverified)

    I'm with Kari: "Would impeachment end the war?"

    Greg Palast has an interestng take today

  • lin qiao (unverified)

    Per the last item: Greg Palast would be a lot more palatable overall if he would slow down and think things through. In his "Armed Madhouse" book, his section on war and oil includes a completely bogus criticism of what has been written during the last several decades about "peak oil" production.

  • Garlynn (unverified)

    I've posted an open letter to Speaker Pelosi calling for the impeachment of Bush here:

    I believe that every case of impeachment to date in this country has resulted in the office of the President reverting to the opposition party at the following election.

    So, historically, there is a precedent for it being a good thing for the Democrats to impeach Bush and Cheney. The impeachment process itself will show the whole world all of the nastiness that Bush has been covering up, and it will make it that much harder for any Republican to mount a campaign in 2008.

    And, if a Democrat were to come to power as a result of impeachment, they would then have a very good mandate to both end the war and do some real fence-mending and nation-building in Iraq, as well as start to fix the damage that Bush/Cheney Inc. has done around the world to the U.S. reputation.

  • (Show?)

    I'm with Kari: "Would impeachment end the war?"

    You may like the rhetorical version of the question, but I was asking it in a non-rhetorical way.

    If the problem is the war, is impeachment the solution? It's a serious question: If impeachment won't end the war, then what's it for? To prevent future presidents from engaging in wars they think are just? Will that work? Is the purpose purely to punish him for bad acts? Sounds good, but is it worth whatever might ensue next? What if "next" includes a re-elected President Cheney or a President McCain and his 100,000-troop surge?

  • Garrett (unverified)

    Why do people think this is going to happen? Of course Bush is impeachable. Will it ever happen? Not a prayer. Republican Senators won't support it and you don't have enough time to hold hearings that would sway public opinion to put enough public pressure on Republican Senators that they would vote for impeachment. By the time there was enough evidence assembled to go forth with impeachment proceedings the 2008 Presidential race would be in full swing as well as plenty of other elections. You would do better to make your neighbors aware that their Republican Senator has supported illegal things done by our President over and over again.

  • (Show?)

    well that's a lot of comments for no one to say that impeachment would be wrong. (Kari, i did not argue that it would end the war.)

    one day we'll need to start insisting our leaders do the right thing no matter what. impeaching a cold-blooded killer who has abused the Constitution and laws repeatedly would be a good start.

    and for lin qiao to equate my writing with Bush's actions is reprehensible. i'm stating my opinion, not demanding the Pelosi do what i say or else. my job, when i write here at BlueOregon, is to raise a bit of hell. i try to support my opinions, which varies post to post. but it is always my opnion and nothing more. how the hell that is emulating Bush is beyond me.

  • (Show?)

    I support impeachment precisely as a tool to stop the war. The President has very nearly laid down the gauntlet, saying he will not be moved by Acts of Congress. How can one not exercise their Constitutional duty in such a case?

  • Skeptic (unverified)

    "Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 20, 2007 5:55:20 PM

    I support impeachment precisely as a tool to stop the war."

    I don't think the "war" is going to end anytime soon no matter who is POTUS. The Islamic fundamentalists hate America because of our culture. America is not about to change it's culture regardless of who's in office. There will always be a fringe group of radicals trying to topple the US - it's not dependent on who's in office.

    The reaction, what do we do about this threat, will have to played out over the years. It will be interesting to see how the peace activists will react if another attack occurs.

  • Rick T (unverified)

    Until yesterday, I didnt support impeachment, for the usual reasons. It takes time, it distracts, it lowers trust in all Presidential credibility, and it might not end the war.

    Today, I changed my mind. I heard yesterday that Blackwater Corp. of North Carolina now has 100,000 Christian mercenary soldiers, three bases of operation, in California, Illinois and North Carolina, and a blank check from the US State Department at $50 billion per year and counting.

    I also heard the Secratary of the Army two days ago say the Army is approaching a "death spiral." My concern is that this administration, and their far right supporters really are planning a coup d'etat when the US military comes home, or not, completely demoralized and dismantled.

    I say, Impeach. Now. Cheney. Bush. We must start unraveling the straightjacket they have sewn in 6 short years. These events are too perfectly timed and close-fitting to be coincindental.

  • lin qiao (unverified)

    Mr.Barnhart, if you will sit down, have a beer, and read what I actually wrote, you will see nowhere did I equate anything you DID or WROTE with anything Dubya DID or SAID. What I wrote, besides stating that I respect your passion, is that you and Dubya share a black-and-white view of EVERYTHING. I regret that you misinterpreted me. Feel free to write me at my return address. It's real. As for impeachment and the Iraq war, no, obviously impeachment will not end the war.

  • (Show?)

    lq - you only know what i write. that's it. you don't know what i think in the complex reality of my life as i live it. i have to condense that all down to a few hundred words. when i write about issues i see as fairly clear (imo), it is not going to come across very -- what's that damn word everyone uses to pretend they are considering many views? sheesh, it's late.

    Bush lied. people are still dying. he's violated his oath of office. to my mind, given that these are clear facts, i think the right thing is to impeach him. and i did say i could understand why not to impeach, but i feel the long-term is better served by holding the president accountable -- as should have happend with previous presidents. that's not really b&w, and it's nothing -- nothing -- like how Bush thinks. god did not tell me to say this or that i am right because i am me. your statement is just totally wrong.

    but i do apologize for accusing you of equating me with Bush; i knew you really didn't mean that, but i sure wanted to catch your attention.

  • toolong (unverified)

    I reject the notion that an impeachment would be politically costly. I think Bush has wrecked the Republican party for decades, but by not impeaching, the Dems are letting us off the hook.

    The case is easy to make and compelling. One doesn't have to have much of an imagination to see massive election fraud behind the original plan to can all the prosecutors after 2004: Steal the election and ensure you won't be prosecuted by replacing all the prosecutors with hacks- of course this could only happen by slipping crap into the patriot act...

    The House makes the case and puts everyone on the spot by forcing them to vote on impeachment in the face of clear, blatant, and repeated illegality. How many Republican Senators are ready to fall on their sword for this clown?? Which ones are going to defend him? Remember, whoever does, it will be what he or she is remembered for.

    Either way, Republicans have to deal with a disgraced and removed President, or they have to deal with a disgraced President and defend indefensible votes- Dems win control for 10 years.

  • gt (unverified)

    "The President has very nearly laid down the gauntlet, saying he will not be moved by Acts of Congress. "

    The Congress isn't the EXECUTIVE branch, in case you didn't notice. They don't run the military. Also, this is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY! The congress is really who should be impeached. The dems. haven't gotten a single thing accomplished except proceed with their vendetta against the Republicans for impeaching Clinton. We wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now with the terrorists had we as a nation not been so focused on all of the Bill Cliton scandals and mysterious murders for 8 years!

  • lin qiao (unverified)

    I am, like, totally thrilled that GT mentions the matter of Bill Clinton, serial murderer. It's so cool and, like, really makes this discussion thread relevant to the real world. I'm going to, like, tell all my friends at church and stuff so they'll really appreciate President Bush.

  • (Show?)

    "The Congress isn't the EXECUTIVE branch, in case you didn't notice. They don't run the military."

    Actually, they do. Without money, the military doesn't run.

  • Rick T (unverified)

    A suggested Just as some Republicans are refighting the Vietnam War, some Democrats are working to recapitulate its AntiWar Movement.

    Some Repubs, however, have gone to the next game, as have some Democrats. The next game is precisely this; Shall the US Military be a Government function or shall it be a Civilian Reserve Force contracted to Blackwater Corporation?

    In this new game, it is to the advantage of the Repubs to make Dems THINK we are arguing about the 60's and Vietnam. In that way, the Dems will reflexively be suspicious of U.S. military forces, tend to denigrate their members and tend to defund their operations, as in 1971-72. However, this is the exact thing the Repubs want, because they have already shifted massive U.S. tax resources to the Civilian Reserve Force. ( See Bush State of the Union 2007)

    If we denigrate, defund or demobilize the US Military, as is our Vietnam-era instinct, we instead will get a Christian Ultra Right Wing Force paid for and commanded by Confederate Nostalgiasts, NeoNazi operators and Christian Apocalyptics, among others.

    In this NEW game, the real game, the US Military is on the Dems side. If we allow them to be "broken," or go into a "death spiral" (US Chief's of Staff, this month) We should realize it. The US MIlitary is the only thing standing in the way of the long feared destruction of the Republic. They must come home. It may not be too late, but we can see too late from where we stand today.

  • (Show?)

    Skeptic, the war in Iraq is helping us lose the "war on terror". Our chances of stopping future attacks is much lower if we spend nearly all our resources fighting the wrong war--as we've been doing for the last four years.

  • gt (unverified)

    [Ranting deleted. -editor.]

  • (Show?)

    the Dems will reflexively be suspicious of U.S. military forces, tend to denigrate their members and tend to defund their operations,

    Excuse me? The Vietnam War was a "Dem" war started by Kennedy, and brought to the big time by Johnson. We had the imaginary Gulf of Tonkin attack long before there were non-existant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    FDR ran on a platform of keeping us out of WWII, and, well, we know how that went.

    It was Republican Ike who warned us of the military-industrial complex, while Kennedy slammed Nixon in the debates over our "missile gap" with the Russkies.

    We not only disdain history, but continually re-write it. Or I guess it wasn't a Democrat who stands as the only politician in the history of the world to use atomic weapons on civilian population centers?

    Democrats as soft on defense? C'mon...we're the coldest of the cold-warriors. It's the Republicans who've been late to that party.

  • gt (unverified)

    [Ranting deleted. -editor.]

  • (Show?)

    "The Vietnam War was a "Dem" war started by Kennedy, and brought to the big time by Johnson. "

    Actually it was started by Eisenhower, on the heels of the French defeat at Dienbienphu in 1954. We essentially took over for them (albeit slowly), choosing to help a defeated allied colonial power over an independent nation who modeled their constitution closely after our own. Whoops!

    But if you really want to trace the roots, pin it on Truman and geniuses like Dulles ignoring Ho in 1948.

  • delindaholder (unverified)

    Wow, you guys are definately excitable. Cool.

  • Sam (unverified)
    <h2>To baffled: The best that you can come up with is an ad hominem argument? If Mr. Barnhart's resume does not qualify [sic] him to question and criticize our government, I'd like you to bust out with your resume proving to us why you are so qualifed to defend them. Unless -- of course -- you've spent a lifetime 'serving in the upper echelon of the Executive Branch' of the United States government. Barnhart, just like the rest of us, has an opinion. If you have a different one, fine; however, either argue your point without resorting to character attacks on his supposedly lack of qualifications, or stfu and gtfo, newb.</h2>

connect with blueoregon