This from the world wide web via Yahoo...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush is ranked only slightly above the rulers of Pakistan and Iran as one of the least-trusted leaders in the world, a survey released on Monday showed.

The survey, carried out by WorldPublicOpinion.org in 20 countries around the world, found that no national leaders inspired wide confidence outside their own countries. But Bush, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ranked at the bottom, the polling showed.

And on and on it goes with that idiot in the White House...

And on and on it goes with that idiot in the White House...

and a nation of hypocritical sheep let him and his administration get away with raping the Constitution and sending young men and women off to war to be sacrificed on an altar built on lies.

Anyone who stands with with his hand over his heart and mumbles, "I pledge allegiance to ... the REPUBLIC" and goes along with Maurer's or similar excuses is a hypocrite in my book. The Constitution is what defines this nation as a republic. If it is shredded and the people go along with its desecration, then the United States is no longer a republic and all those pledges are as worthless as politicians' oaths to uphold the Constitution.

If the people in the United States allow this to happen, then all of those lives lost and destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan will be lives sacrificed in vain.

Re: the "purity of thought" nonsense on the Tim Russert thread. It's a good bet there were "good Germans" who told people alarmed about Hitler's activities that they were getting carried away with "purity of thought."

"McClellan, and the Kucinich litany, may put tinder to the dried haystack of impeachable offenses, and buck up the courage of Congressional Democrats to exercise our constitutional remedy."

A generation ago, the question was, "where's the beef?"

If we have a stack of dried hay, and tinder, then I have to ask, "Where's the spark?"

1. The Rule of Law.

2. The pardons will be a flying, on the night before Barack's Inauguration.

3. Dave Frohnmayer told me, on the evening Monica Lewinsky was identified in the Press, that the President may pardon himself.

4. Empty Bag For Prosecution, See Above.

Steven Maurer said: "...no matter how intensely a small group of people want it to"

Seventy-five percent of the membership of YOUR party is "a small group of people"? This is contempt for democracy, even if the charges were baseless (which they are not).

Your check list of talking points confirms the fact that the DP is dominated by right-wing hacksterism.

Tom Civilletti on another thread:

"The belief that electing a Democratic president is more important than preserving constitutional government is naive, petty, and dangerous. The presidency is an office created by the Constitution, and it has no legitimacy outside of the Constitution. Or we just playing at politics here to pass the time?

I fear that the real reason Democratic leadership in Congress oppose impeachment is their own culpability in lying to the people and subverting constitutional governance and international treaty. If true, I have no more desire to protect them than I do to protect Bush and Cheney."

Our representative here in the third district refuses to call for impeachment of the war criminals in the White House. He mocks Dennis Kucinich whenever he can. Blumenauer, during an interview for the Willamette Weekly with John Sweeney and myself, said that Kucinich only got about 2% of the vote for President and based on that, said impeachment was not an issue. This is our representative in the most progressive district in the state, if not the country. He got over 85% of the vote in the primary on May 20th of this year. This was one of the reasons I finally left the democratic party and became an independent. I cannot stand the cocktail democrats who call themselves progressives and their constituents buy into it----it boggles the mind!

We, Individuals for Justice, have been protesting outside of Blumenauer’s office for almost a year now, holding him accountable for his actions. We have been arrested, threatened, ignored and frozen during the cold months but we will remain until bush and his dick are out of office or Blumenauer calls for impeachment.

Blumenauer is an opportunist and people in his district are being fooled by his statements on how hard he is trying to stop this war in Iraq. He is a liar, there is no war in Iraq, only occupation and genocide of the people of this destroyed nation. He must be replaced by a peacemaker.

Bottom line---Blumenauer, Pelosi, Reid are punks, Kucinich is a hero!

Joe Walsh-lone vet

In the 93rd Congress -- during which impeachment hearings were held on Richard Nixon, with an active war going on in Vietnam -- more than 17,000 bills were introduced in the House. The current Congress has introduced 5,500 bills into the House, with only a few months left to go. Impeachment hearings are held in the Judiciary committee, they wouldn't tie up the entire House for the month or two that the past couple of impeachment hearings have taken.

There were also Republicans that supported the impeachment of Richard Nixon. It was back when there were Republicans that you could respect even if you didn't agree like Barry Goldwater who also cared about the rule of law. So I'd say I was a realist and a progressive but I think I'd be very happy if we tabled this until after the election. There isn't a Republican out there that would consider impeachment regardless of the current political climate. Plus once they organized everything to impeach Bush would already be on the way out of office. So suck it up and vote Democrat so we actually continue to have civil rights and women's rights.

Steve Maurer,

Perhaps you would help my understanding of the statements you put in bullet points above. It seems to me that:

• The public may or may not think Congress has better things to do with its time. How would this make the impeachment process worthless, since the issue is integrity of constitutional rule, which is not a matter of public opinion, but a rule of constitutional responsibility. One of the reason for republican governance is to temper the temporary passions of democratic opinion, is it not?

• Hearings could start in the House next week. Congress might miss some of its summer recess. Poor babies! It is NOT necessary for the process to end in removal from office in order for the Constitution to be restored. The point is demonstrate to this and future administrations what sort of behavior will not be tolerated.

• Republicans cannot stop impeachment hearings, which are most important in making public the information relevant to Kucinich's 35 counts.

• Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow-job, while Shrub would be impeached for subverting Congress and the Constitution in ways that lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths and wasting of trillions of dollars. Do these seem like similar cases to you?

• Nothing that happens in Congress would make Shrub or Cheney immune from international war crimes prosecution.

Garrett,

The crimes of the Shrubbery are far more serious and far more numerous than Nixon's crimes. Either stonewalling or release of administration documents that confirm Kucinich's charges will hurt Republicans who continue to support the administration. That would help Democrats in the fall elections, if partisanship is your first concern.

Some Republicans turned against Nixon because the Republicans of the late 1960's were not the rabid bunch in office now. I think this should be pointed out to voters, not used as an excuse for inaction.

Pat,

The president cannot stop impeachment of anyone with a pardon. Impeachment is not a criminal process.

35 ways to leave your president.

I along with other members of my VFP chapter signed our own Declaration of Independence:

Ends with; We, therefore…do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People…solemnly publish and declare, That these…Free and Independent (People)…are Absolved from all Allegiance to the (Bush Administration), and that all political connection between them and (this Administration), is and ought to be totally dissolved…

If its good enough for John Hancock, its good enough for me.

He is not my President.

Folks you may not like the views expressed by Posted by: Steve Maurer | Jun 16, 2008 4:05:11 PM

However, there is the possibility that no matter how much you believe impeachment is the right thing to do, it will bring out the lunatic fringe and disrupt serious conversation about issues in this election year.

Just now found one such example. A comment about an online article:

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june162008/exler_are.php#comments

Wexler is big on taking out Iran. He has dual citizenship with Israel, as do all Jews. Maybe it's time to revisit this dual citizenship thing, especially for elected officals, regardless of their elected office level. I think anyone who swears to defend the U.S. Constitution cannot have two masters.

LT,

Does that seem to you a compelling reason not to protect constitutional government from a rogue administration?

Someone once said that the difference between a gamble and a longshot is that with a longshot one knows the odds. What makes something a gamble is not knowing the odds.

I am convinced that impeachment is a gamble. I am not convinced that 5 years after an impeachment effort in an election year, it would have been found to "protect constitutional government from a rogue administration".

I am not convinced that impeachment would lead to Obama easily elected as President and 60 Democratic US Senators elected.

I base that on multiple readings about Nixon's impeachment, esp. a wonderful Jimmy Breslin book HOW THE GOOD GUYS FINALLY WON.

Nixon was not brought down by people saying publicly that he should be impeached, but by a slow process which took years.

If seeing things from a different point of view than some on a blog, and if thinking hearings short of impeachment (unless there is some smoking gun evidence which convinces members of groups like Rotary, non political folk like the local folks who work in jobs like retail and food service) means I am not a "progressive" or some such, so be it.

I look forward to the McClellan hearings in upcoming days, am glad that a House committee has subpoened the AG, and other such measures. I think impeachment would be disruptive, and not necessarily make this country a better place.

Ordinary folks supported Clinton as he was being impeached. Can anyone here advocating impeachment really claim that everyone they meet in ordinary life (friends, salespeople, people they call on while canvassing for candidates) sees impeachment as the top priority in June 2008? And if you live in Portland, can you really know what folks in the rest of the state/country are thinking?

LT said: "Wexler is big on taking out Iran. He has dual citizenship with Israel, as do all Jews. Maybe it's time to revisit this dual citizenship thing, especially for elected officals, regardless of their elected office level. I think anyone who swears to defend the U.S. Constitution cannot have two masters."

There are two issues here:

(1.) This is blatant anti-Semitism of the Jewish kind. And shame on you, Tom C, for not pointing it out in your response. All Jews are not citizens of Israel, nor do all of us have "dual loyalties". It is your non-representatives in Congress and in industry who have "dual loyalties"; they are loyal to power and to wealth.

(2.) This is being presented as a reason not to impeach war criminals: Because all Jews have "dual loyalties", therefore the traitor Wexler cannot be trusted, and therefore impeachment cannot be an option. If only you could get rid of those devious, cabalistic Jews, everything would be 1956 all over again. You are pathetic.

Garrett,

Some Republicans turned against Nixon because the Republicans of the late 1960's were not the rabid bunch in office now. I think this should be pointed out to voters, not used as an excuse for inaction.

You're right that Bush's crimes are worse than Nixon's. I'm fairly certain they're currently in the process of making the administration stonewall. In fact I'm sure of it with the constant picking at it we've had since the Dems took back both houses. It's been slow but steady and the effect is evident the President's poll numbers.

Inaction? You're attacking the wrong idea. Republicans in the 1970s were willing to attack Nixon because he was in the wrong. The 1970s were a far different place than now. In either party if you attack the party line you're an outcast. Look at what happened to Joe Lieberman. It's all in the money. Republicans won't side against their guy anymore and neither will Dems. Attack that and realize we're in a changed political climate. There is a lot of grey and we operate in it.

Why is it that there are always these idealists out there who are willing to sacrifice the common good to make some stinking point? Dude, everyone knows Bush sucks. Look at his approval rating. His legacy is shot before he's even left office. Nobody is going to write good things about him in a history book. It won't happen. He's going down as an idiot and terrible President who committed crimes that we're probably going to find more about in a few years. Clinton was impeached and the man did lie to a grand jury. It was about a BJ but he still lied to a grand jury. Look at how he's been remembered. He's viewed as a man who survived a witch hunt from the Republican right who was a pretty stinking good President. Why would we give that to Bush? He's gone. Wash your hands of him now and be happy we have the option to vote for someone else very soon. Trying to pursue an impeachment at this point makes you look as stupid as Newt Gingrich salivating over impeaching Clinton over a BJ.

Impeachment need not take more than a few weeks of the judiciary committee's time. Kucinich already has done the homework and lined up the evidence. Their main job would be to sort through and determine which of his 35 counts is an impeachable offense. I have my doubts about a fair number of them.

The judiciary committee might trim the list and send is left to the floor of the house. Voting whether or not to impeach on each specific charge is the important part. If Democrats vote to impeach Bush for authorizing torture, they are setting a precedent that will echo through history and reign in every future President. Congress will say that not only is torture illegal and un-American, but that a President may be removed from office for authorizing it. Same goes for denying habeas corpus, illegal wiretapping, and a number of other acts.

After that, it doesn't matter whether there are enough votes in the Senate to remove Bush. Getting Bush out of office isn't the point. Charging him with various impeachable offenses is what counts. And it isn't about Bush, it's about every single President who comes after him. If Congress impeaches Bush, Congress creates a precedent about the kind of abuses of power that can get a President impeached. Want to keep future presidents from abusing signing statements, setting up a legal no-man's-land in Guantanamo, condoning torture, using extraordinary renditions, refusing Congressional subpoenas... Congress can preemptively cut off ALL of it by impeaching Bush right now. Impeachment tells every future President "You do NOT have this power."

This isn't about partisan politics or getting rid of Bush. This is about keeping the Presidency within the bounds of the Constitution,

A final point: impeachment won't make Bush more popular among voters. Voters were pissed off at Republicans because the impeachment of Bill Clinton was a blatantly partisan "gotcha" attack about something genuinely trivial. Democrats reluctantly impeaching Bush for massive abuses of power is a much different story. Most voters can tell the different between messing around with an intern and authorizing the torture of innocent people. Comparing this to the Clinton impeachment is apples and cantaloupes.

Harry,

LT did not say that, he referenced a message board posting. I did not comment because it should be clear to all that it is an anti-Semitic remark - at least I am sure LT, you, and I think so. Lt's point, I am pretty sure, was that impeachment might stir-up such folks.

My belief is that something important to governance should not be avoided because it would lead some unbalanced folks to post hateful remarks on the internet.

Douglas K wrote;

Getting Bush out of office isn't the point. Charging him with various impeachable offenses is what counts. And it isn't about Bush, it's about every single President who comes after him. If Congress impeaches Bush, Congress creates a precedent about the kind of abuses of power that can get a President impeached.

This is what what those who dismiss impeachment do not get or do not want to discuss. Which, I am not sure. Although impeachment hearings may constrain the administration for the rest of its term, the more important matter is the behavior of future administrations, all of which will not be Democratic - as if Democratic presidents can be trusted to never abuse power.

LT, Steve Maurer and others are worried that impeachment hearings will lead to bad things. They present a rotating list of these bad possibilities, all of which sound to me like arguing against leaving a burning building because a tree may fall on us as we flee, or a mean dog may bite us, or we might be run over by a firetruck.

Garrett argues that impeachment is no longer applicable because the partisan climate is changed since the Nixon years. That is more than a little like arguing that prosecuting gang members for murder is passé because jurists may fear the gangs.

It all sounds to me like excuses for not doing what the Constitution demands. Nancy Pelosi is a nice person, but she is not behaving in a responsible manner. If she cannot do her duty because of promises made in the process of becoming speaker, she should resign that post.

LT made a comment on the Russert thread that essentially said we shouldn't waste energy on impeachment but put it into the 2008 election.

As for the election, Bush and his administration have shredded so much of the Constitution, what's to stop them from ripping out that part that says we are supposed to have a presidential election every four years? Certainly not the spineless and corrupt Congress that we have. Certainly not this nation of sheep that goes around bleating, "What Constitution? What Constitution? What's the big deal? What's the big deal?"

And, what's the big deal about the next election that makes it more important than impeachment? If Merkley replaces Smith in the senate but he does the bidding of the corrupt and spineless Democratic leadership what advantage would he be over Smith? Will he replace Dianne Feinstein and help Upchuck Schumer install another Mukasey in the justice (?) department?

Garrett argues that impeachment is no longer applicable because the partisan climate is changed since the Nixon years. That is more than a little like arguing that prosecuting gang members for murder is passé because jurists may fear the gangs.

Not what I'm arguing at all. These are the facts. We have a Democratic majority due to Blue Dog Democrats. If you don't know who that particular group is you should figure it out real quick because they hold a lot of power. Most of these Dems represent Republican leaning or heavily Republican districts. Their constituents would view an impeachment trial as a witch hunt against a President that many of them feel is a good man.

I have a pretty good line on this group due to some friends I've had that work on the hill and I can pretty much guarantee you that an impeachment isn't going to happen. In many cases voting along with an impeachment would cost these Dems their jobs along with the majority in Congress. What they do support is investigations where they can expose what the President was doing behind closed doors and make it clear that crimes were committed. I know crimes were committed as well as you do. They need a smoking gun. Hell, they need a smoking nuclear crater to convince people in their districts. It's not going to happen while this administration is in office. They're too good at stonewalling and changing the topic. If an investigation started they'd probably bomb Iran and claim Iran shot first just so they could take the attention off of themselves and fire up some nationalist pride in their "base."

It's all speculation here because that's what we do. I agree with you in every sense that Bush should be impeached. I don't want it brushed under the carpet and I think Senator Obama has made it clear that it won't be forgotten when he becomes President. I realize an impeachment isn't going to happen and I understand why it isn't going to happen. I'm happy to take my second option which is work on a way that's probably going to end up with a lot of Bush/Cheney cronies in jail and a distaste for Republican rule so strong they have to change the ways of their party seismically to ever gain the majority again.

Right on Stephanie!

The Yahoo Group I belong to includes someone who lives in a rural town. She sent the text of the letter to the editor she sent to the local small town newspaper in favor of impeachment. It is a well reasoned letter which hopefully gets printed and sparks a debate. That is more constructive than the debate on this or any other blog. Much of the general public (the folks who have to agree for impeachment to be a success) don't blog.

How many of you like Tom and Bill who want all of us on the blog to say what amounts to "yes, by all means go forward with impeachment because it will bring good things and anyone who worries it will bring bad things is a worrywort" (that's how you sound) has written a letter to the editor of a small town newspaper? How many of you have discussed this topic with folks who are not actively involved in politics?

Garrett is right about the Blue Dog Democrats. If someone won by a narrow margin as a challenger defeating a Republican incumbent (how Democrats took control), do you know that such a freshman would vote for impeachment just because you say so? If so, how do you know? Would it be better for those freshmen to support impeachment and lose? Where does Al Franken stand on this? One of those freshmen is in Minn. Wouldn't Coleman just love an issue like this to help his failing re-election campaign?

Bill, in regard to this quote,

"If Merkley replaces Smith in the senate but he does the bidding of the corrupt and spineless Democratic leadership ".

all I can say is "Oh ye of little faith"!

Everyone is spineless because they don't do what you want them to do?

We have an excellent US Senate candidate as well as Obama running for President. We are supposed to believe that they are spineless unless they act the way you want them to act?

Yes, mistakes were made early in this century. Yes, we haven't had crusading Senate leadership. But it was a Senate Democrat who introduced the updated GI Bill which McCain won't sign onto as co-sponsor, and it was the Supreme Court which said Guantanamo detainees have rights.

For all the times Stephanie and I argued during the Senate primary, we agree on this. These concluding words of her comment are why some of us don't buy the argument that impeachment trumps everything else (that and the knowledge that the Nixon impeachment--the one which was done intelligently--took years not only for process but for building public support).

And this year, in my mind, practical politics trumps everything else. We have to win this election. We have to avoid distractions that could cause us to lose focus on the main event. Because impeachment will not succeed, and if we're not careful here, we'll get four more years with John McCain. And that's the only thing worse than what we've got now.

Garrett,

You argue, in essence, that nothing should be done about the crimes of the Shrubbery while they are in office because they are too dangerous and evil. That is a scary surrender of power; the kind that emboldens bullies. Do you really think there will be the kind of investigations in 2009 that would lead to the repair of our constitutional process? So many people [Stephanie above, for example] claim that our attention and energy are needed elsewhere. There will always be pressing concerns that demand our attention - concerns I believe cannot be properly dealt with while our constitutional underpinning are so damaged. History suggests that out of office presidents are ignored "for the good of the nation."

I believe this country is behaving like a dysfunctional family, refusing to confront the abuse that is undermining its foundation. Burying and denying the pain and damage does not make it go away, though. The children and their children will suffer until the abuse is confronted and relationships repaired. Confronting abuse takes courage, though, especially when the whole family is bound in co-dependence, as the Democratic leadership now seems to be.

darrell,

You say, "There weren't that many when the process began. And even after the impeachment committee hearings, most of the Republicans on the Judiciary committee voted against sending all three articles of impeachment to the full House."

You're right. 10 out 17 voted against all articles of impeachment which is a majority of Republicans on the House Judiciary committee. If you take that as a study group that means about 42% of Republicans supported impeachment. Do you think 42% of Republicans in the House would support impeachment now? Do you really or are you just that deluded?

Fortunately, election year logistics won't be a problem for air strikes on Iran.

Realistically that's about the only thing that would probably get anyone moving towards Bush's impeachment.

Chris Lowe: Obama has committed himself to rolling back significant elements of the power grabs that form much of the basis of Kucinich's articles. McCain has not, and given his level and form of militarism and its basis as a central column holding up his campaign, it is unlikely that he will abandon Bush's expansive and unconstitutional "commander-in-chief is above the law" doctrine.

Jeff Alworth: Executive authority. The Bush administration has made a practice of collecting power and "rights" that remain unchallenged. We can expect them to roll over to the next administration, whether or not it's an Obama or McCain White House (axiom: Presidents never cede power; this is a fully nonpartisan issue). What does Congress plan to do about that?

This is my point. It doesn't matter whether impeachment "succeeds" or not. What matters is that Congress sets a political precedent limiting executive power. If President Obama chooses to "roll back" some of Bush's abuses, that's irrelevant ... the power will still be there even if he (and various presidents) decline to exercise it.

This isn't a mere philosophical question. This is about whether the balance of power envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution survives, or whether we shift to a monarchical presidency where the only real check on the executive is the executive's own self-restraint.

And by the way, there certainly is time to do it. Two months of hearings in the judiciary committee , a week of debate on the House floor, and then vote. Two months of hearings will finally get various polling companies to ask the questions they've been avoiding for the past few years: Should the President be impeached?

Right now, the news media won't cover the question, because Congress won't act. But once the issue gets into the news (and there will need to be hearings for that to happen), the polls will come. And then we'll all be able to see whether there really is support for impeachment, both generally and for specific charges.

Get poll numbers that show majority support, or at least more in favor of impeachment than opposed, and the charges that the American people find most egregious can be sent to the House floor for a vote. If there's popular support for impeachment, most Democrats can vote "yes" with impunity (and Republicans from swing districts will vote "no" at their peril.)

On the other hand, if polling shows the majority of the American people really don't want Bush impeached, the process can remain bottled up in committee.

But there's no reason -- NONE -- not to move aggressively on this in the Judiciary committee.

"And this year, in my mind, practical politics trumps everything else. We have to win this election."

Unfortunately, that's the prevailing attitude (excuse) EVERY election cycle.

Here's a novel idea that some brave politician will finally figure out:

Stand up for what you believe in and stop worrying about how the GOP will spin it.

It's that magic "authenticity" thing that everyone aims for.

We've got to weed out the politicians whose attitude is "I don't know If what I'm doing is right or wrong, I just want to win."

That's the problem, not the solution.

LT wrote,

Wouldn't Coleman just love an issue like this to help his failing re-election campaign?

I admit my mind is boggled by such thinking. LT and others seem to believe that exposing the crimes of Bush and Cheney will help Republicans in the next election. Are you totally cynical toward the values and judgment of the American people? Or do you believe that the administration has not done much wrong?

Perhaps there is no hope for this republic. Perhaps choosing the next Caesar is the best we can do.

Long live the empire!

Everyone is spineless because they don't do what you want them to do?

The politicians in Congress who are spineless are those who didn't do what they should have done, especially from October 2002 and since whenever they reneged on their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

There is a group opposed to impeachment on the grounds that the important thing is for the Democrats to win in November. There are two problems with this argument. The first is that they are buying into conventional wisdom which is not always that wise. If a valid case is made for impeachment there is a good chance that enough sheep will be persuaded to make a majority - just as was the case with Nixon's impeachment. Where there was a majority in favor of the war on Iraq, there is now a majority opposed to the war now that they have their facts straight. If Bush's ratings and down in the ditch just above the ratings for politicians in Congress, why should their be a problem persuading a majority of the people that impeachment is the right thing? Oh, I forgot a couple of kooks came out of the woodwork on some blog few of us ever heard of.

The other problem, and probably the greater, is that Democrats are again making a Faustian bargain selling what's left of their soul to gain the presidency and the majority. In the process they are prepared to add a few more nails in the American republic's coffin.

Take a look at how John McCain has been selling his integrity and soul since 2000 to satiate his ambition to become president. He has rendered himself into a pathetic creature. Is that what Democrats want for their party and the nation?

I admit my mind is boggled by such thinking. LT and others seem to believe that exposing the crimes of Bush and Cheney will help Republicans in the next election. Are you totally cynical toward the values and judgment of the American people? Or do you believe that the administration has not done much wrong?

You're not getting it Tom. Of course the administration has committed impeachable offenses. However there is no freaking way you're going to get enough evidence out of this White House while they're still in power. What about this White House has given you the idea they won't slap executive priviledge on EVERYTHING the Judiciary Committee asks for and then take it on long dragged out court battles that last up until Bush's term is done? They will cry liberal witch hunt and accuse us of McCarthyism and pardon me for being an elitist but the uneducated idiots that don't pay attention will believe it. They have proven time and time again that they will buy the crap this administration spews.

You are arguing nothing but wild speculation that the House Judiciary Committee can bring up articles of impeachment and then the American public is going to suddenly get on board. Last poll I could find was ARG's and it was 45% pro and 46% anti. That looks suspiciously just like the partisan split we've had in this country for the last few years.

It is wonderful to know that this election is going to right all wrongs. Tiptoeing up to the opposition is a fine strategy, wouldn't want to waste the time on informing the public on the crimes of these people when we can slip in behind them an pick power from their pockets. The uninformed masses will welcome Obama with sweets and roses...tell them we are liberators. There are a lot of people out here with no sense of what they are being liberated from. If the democrats are not in sincere opposition to this bullshit, you will see a dangerous number of vote chasing heartfelt desires elsewhere.

However there is no freaking way you're going to get enough evidence out of this White House while they're still in power.

There are already loads of evidence over which the White House has no control to justify impeachment. How about the war on Iraq which was illegal and based on lies that we all know about? How about the thousands of young men and women who have died and been maimed physically and mentally because of that war? How about the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been squandered? And the trillions of dollars in accounts payable? How about the abuses of human rights in contravention of the Geneva Conventions? How about the degradation of America's reputation around the world.

Pardon my delay, but thank you very much JB for this post.

My apologies to LT and Tom C. for misunderstanding the anti-Semitic quote. I recommend that in the future, LT, you place quotation marks around bigoted remarks that you lift from some other place. I agree with Tom that the possibility of anti-Semitism in response to impeachment attempts is a ridiculous reason not to do it.

That having been said, I want to agree with all the anti-impeachment posters on one condition: if I commit mass murder in the future, I want to be given an equal chance to have the charges dismissed as you want to give Bush and Cheney.

Several of you continue to mislead and obfuscate on the crimes of the Clinton Administration. Just as the most heinous crimes of the Nixon Administration, e.g., the slaughter of millions in Indo-china in a war of aggression, the supreme international crime under the Nuremberg findings, were never part of Nixon's impeachment process (because, once again, Democrats were equally implicated), the most abominable of Clinton's crimes (including 500,000 Iraqi children killed, the 78 days of bombing of Yugoslavia, and other crimes against humanity) were ignored in his impeachment proceedings.

If an international court were to try Clinton and Bush under the same rules that Saddam were tried under, they both would be hung, and the videos would be available on your favorite website.

The point of this is that we need, even more than impeachment, a truth and reconciliation movement that will force Democrats and Republicans to testify truthfully to their own crimes. As long as both parties only recognize the truth of the crimes of the other, we will be doomed to repeat the same.

I agree with Harry. Unfortunately, the US news media is so jingoistic that lives lost to US military [war] or economic [sanction] force are not considered human for moral or legal purposes. I doubt an American president will ever be held accountable for killing foreigners until we make great strides in national moral maturity.

Americans do care about our own citizens and our money, though. The Shrubbery squandered a lot of both, using lies and extra-constitutional action.

Garrett believes Shrub will stonewall impeachment hearings. We have ample precedenct on that matter: there is no executive privilege concerning possible criminal activity [United States v. Richard Nixon(1974)]. Shrub is not very popular. I doubt that the news media, snivelling corporate lapdogs that they are, would protect him if he defies Congress on this. Republicans who back the administration will suffer at the polls. If documents are made public and witnesses testify, the revelations will have the same effect.

Proponents of placing politics (winning the next election) over doing what is right (impeachment in accordance with the U.S. Constitution) seem to be overlooking an important point. While they are concerned about losing the votes of the kooks and other forms of ignorance, they don't seem to care about losing the votes of more responsible people who are tired of this form of ethical bankruptcy. If polls that place respect for Congress down in the teens (below Bush and Cheney) are accurate then it seems the obvious conclusion to draw is that there is a sizable demand for upgrading ethical standards. Of course, the problem there is that the party oligarchs, Republican and Democrat, are so ethically and morally bankrupt they would find it difficult breathing in a system where the air is not befouled by corruption.

I'm reminded of an article at the time JFK was elected and there was some concern about dead people having voted for him in the Chicago area. Someone asked a local Chicagoan how people could vote for such crooks who were alleged to be part of the Daley machine. He answered, "Because they are our crooks."

So there's your slogan for re-usable signs. "Vote for our crook."

Jeff Alworth wrote:

And you'd seriously screw yourself in November.

I'm trying to understand this opinion. After impeaching Clinton for oral sex in the Oval Office, the Republicans won the presidency and control of both houses of Congress in the next election. Why would impeachment hearing on Bush's exponentially more serious crimes "seriously screw" the Democrats?

And then there is the matter of the Constitution. It is not a self-healing document. Or, Jeff, are you not concerned with the balance of powers, individual rights, due process, and international law?

It is my experience, and the expectation of our legal system, that people under oath most often tell the truth. The delay in getting the people who know the truth before the Judiciary Committee is scandalous, in its own right. But, now we get Scotty. Will he be the modern day Alexander Butterfield, or will his appearance encourage some other witness of up-to-now faint heart to step forward? We can only hope.

I don't think the investigative process will detract from the Obama Campaign or from the electoral prospects of other Democrats. It will not mature to a full blown impeachment, until the facts to justify it are out. But, I believe that will certainly occur, once there are hearings.

Jeff,

My jab is meant to prompt you to discuss how you think Constitutional rule can be repaired.

Then there is the electoral question. Why, given Republican successes after the Clinton impeachment, do you predict serious screwing of the Democrats if impeachment hearing are held now?

Bill B., just so you know, some of us regard it as an ethical problem to generalize about our fellow citizens as "sheep," and therefore view with some jaundice ethical self-congratulation by people who make such generalizations.

James Lederer wrote a respected book that was published in 1961. It was titled "A Nation of Sheep." Blurb: Discusses the effects of the apathy and ignorance of the American people on United States foreign policy, relations with other nations, and use of foreign aid funds. It has been some time since I read that book, but I don't recall the author having any sense of ethical superiority. If I recall correctly he was more saddened and concerned.

Clearly, the author and, perhaps less clearly, I did not mean everyone in the nation is a sheep or sheep-like. But if you consider the comment in the blurb above indicating this terminology was intended to apply where apathy and ignorance existed then it is a fair characterization. As elections show, there is a lot of apathy and a fair amount of ignorance. I suggest as evidence of the latter the number of people (sheep?) who bought into the pre-war propaganda despite contradictory evidence that was available to the non-apathetic and those concerned about not being ignorant.

Why is there so much apathy? Because so many corporations persuade people to their commercial enterprises and away from paying attention to the nation's business and thinking for themselves. From this point of view it is tempting to invoke the story about the Pied Piper of Hamelin with this charmer standing as a metaphor for advertising agencies, but that would imply the charmed were rats or children.

As I mentioned above regarding the opinions on the war on Iraq a majority approved of the war. Now much of that majority has moved (been shepherded?) to opposing the war. Then again, there is that 25-30 percent who still believe the neocon-O'LIElly-Limbaugh-Coulter lies that Saddam Hussein was in league with al-Qa'ida and that he had weapons of mass destruction. Would "sheep" be appropriate in this case, or would that be unfair to real sheep? I have to admit I would find it difficult to consider them fellow citizens, even if that is technically so.

As for the point about "ethical self-congratulation" I'm aware of too many instances of my own failures to permit any vanity in this regard. However, having experienced the consequences of these shortcomings and learned from them, I think it is important to encourage others to have higher standards when standards appear to be too low and with hazardous potentials. Kind of like alcoholics and other addicts trying to dissuade others from making the same mistakes.

It appears to me and, apparently, others that the failure of politicians in Congress to uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution and get this nation into an illegal war was unethical. In lieu of such candor would someone suggest some benign adjective that would get the point across? Goof? Unintended error? Slip of the tongue?

We might also note the popularity of heaping all the blame for the war and abuse of human rights on Bush and his administration, but we would be very much remiss if we failed to recognize the complicity of Congress and the American people (with a notable and exceptional minority). Legally the last group are citizens but not if we reserve the term "citizens" for those who practice, or at least try to practice, the duties of citizenship.

Try a Google for "nation of sheep" Interesting results.

I like this one from Edward R. Murrow: "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_R._Murrow and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edward_R._Murrow

Tom Civiletti Wrote:

My jab is meant to prompt you to discuss how you think Constitutional rule can be repaired.

Jeff Alworth wrote:

Tom, I haven't put a lot of thought into it lately, but if you want radical, how about war crimes investigations into members of the White House? That's really what's at issue, and there's something rather elegant about the solution--Bush has tried to weaken the war crimes act to protect his administration.

This seems the heart of the difference in our views. My main concern is rehabilitating constitutional government, which has been badly damaged by Bush and Cheney's machinations. It seems to me that impeachment hearings are the most likely to succeed at this. You "haven't put a lot of thought into it lately" and suggest that war crimes investigations might be the way to go.

Come now. How likely would it be for Americans to try a past American president for war crimes? War crimes tribunals are almost always international affairs, and would be of little use in mending our Constitution.

And I will ask again: Then there is the electoral question. Why, given Republican successes after the Clinton impeachment, do you predict serious screwing of the Democrats if impeachment hearing are held now?

Perhaps LT, Pat, Garrett, Stephanie V or Steve would venture an answer if any of them agree with you on this.

I hold no hope that any impeachment process will commence before the election and I seriously doubt any will after. And that saddens me. Too many of our elected representatives have decided for various reasons to ignore their constitutional responsibilities; it remains to be seen if the republic will survive those decisions.

But sheep are stupid, not just apathetic and ignorant, and calling people sheep is an insult. You can't get around that. If someone called you a sheep, you'd take it as an insult, because it is one.

If someone called me a sheep or other similar name and explained why I would consider his or her comments to try to understand as honestly as I could whether that person had a point. If I recognized I was in the wrong I would change my ways. If not I would rebut the point made. I've had experiences like that since I was a child when friends told me I was dumb still believing in Santa Claus. So I checked for the facts, found I was wrong, admitted it and became less dumb and more skeptical in the future. Unfortunately, some people still believe in their Santa Clauses and elect them to the White House, Congress and state legislatures.

Since my choice of words has caused a diversion from the much more important topic of impeachment I'll ponder another way of phrasing while I'm away from the Internet the next few days.

Incongruously enough given your aims, looking upon people as sheep puts you in fundamentally the same attitude toward the people as Straussian neo-Platonists like Paul Wolfowitz and a number of the other neocons.

On the other hand it seems to put me on the same side of the fence as Edward R. Murrow. Kind of a nice place to be if not in the same league.

paul g,

There would have been no 18 1/2 minute gap if Congress had not been investigating Watergate vigorously, forcing the administration to hand over documents and provide testimony. Indeed, given the stonewalling of this administration, the pressure of impeachment hearing is even more necessary to pry information free. Then we will have the smoking gun to hand to the Senate for impeachment.

Bush was elected in 2000 - or, at least, did well enough to steal the election - beating Al Gore who was hobbled by his disassociation from President Clinton. That disassociation was the result of the impeachment of Clinton. This, of course, was well before 9/11/01 and could not have been effected by it.

Jeff Alworth wrote:

Shooting our wad on a single grand gesture....

You continue to characterize impeachment in such terms, but you offer no convincing argument for such characterization. My argument springs from the Constitution itself. Impeachment is the constitutional remedy for executive branch officers who refuse to play by the rules. I do not argue that impeachment is sufficient to repair all the damage done by the Shrubbery. I argue that impeachment is necessary to begin the process of repair.

Perhaps LT, Pat, Garrett, Stephanie V or Steve would venture an answer if any of them agree with you on this.

I do agree with Jeff. I just stopped caring about you because you aren't looking at things in a rational way. Trying to impeach the President right now would be a failure and it would close the book on any future investigations.

Harry Kershner said: Clinton's crimes (including 500,000 Iraqi children killed, the 78 days of bombing of Yugoslavia, and other crimes against humanity) were ignored in his impeachment proceedings.

Are you kidding? Here is justification for the 78 days of bombing? It's called genocide. If the internet is working correctly I can't really find any instances of Slobodan Milosevic realizing he was wrong to order ethnic cleansing.

There is good evidence to support 500,000 children died as a result of the sanctions imposed on Iraq after the original war by the UN. I don't think the point of the sanctions imposed by the UN was to kill children. If you do think that was the point then you'll have to prove it. That is a loaded argument and it isn't really fair to Bubba. Also let me point out one more time that the UN imposed the sanctions not President Clinton. He proposed the Oil for Food Program to help ordinary Iraqi civilians with food and medicine. I think we can all agree that at the very least this program was abused by the Iraqi govt.

Right on Garrett!

My point is that no amount of blogging can change what happens in the real world.

This, however, may just make a difference.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/06/18/BL2008061801546.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

General Accuses WH of War Crimes

By Dan Froomkin Special to washingtonpost.com Wednesday, June 18, 2008; 12:44 PM

The two-star general who led an Army investigation into the horrific detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib has accused the Bush administration of war crimes and is calling for accountability.

Garrett wrote:

I do agree with Jeff. I just stopped caring about you because you aren't looking at things in a rational way. Trying to impeach the President right now would be a failure and it would close the book on any future investigations.

Garrett, you need not care about me. It's okay with me, but you should analyze your own statements before accusing others of irrationality.

You, like Jeff, make generalized predictions that impeachment hearings would lead to bad stuff, but you present no evidence to support this. That is not rational. You claim that impeachment would be a failure, but do not define what you mean by failure. Those who have written in favor of impeachment here believe that removal from office is NOT necessary for considering impeachment hearings successful, but, rather, that putting the executive branch on notice that Congress will not allow the Constitution to be subverted is the important goal.

You suggest, as did Jeff, that impeachment hearings would foreclose later action. Neither of you tell why that would be so, you simply state it as though it were an edict from beyond.

Just who is behaving irrationally?

Thanks for the link, LT. It seems that the Physicians for Human Rights report, Broken Laws, Broken Lives would be good evidence for Article XVIII of Kucinich's articles of impeachment.

By the way, if you read Impeachment: An Overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure, and Practice, you will learn that impeachment does not foreclose later criminal prosecution. Also, impeachment may continue AFTER an officeholder leaves office. This is because one of the possible penalties of conviction is disqualification from holding future office. So, impeachment hearing would not be "shooting our wad" and the process would not need to end before Shrub and Darth leave office.

Note to Garrett: This is what rational argument looks like. You should try it sometime, rather than expecting people to accept your unsupported opinions as fact.

I agree with Chris's last statement, but approval of the UN for the sanctions likely means that Clinton et al will not be held accountable for war crimes against the Iraqi people.

In the same way, the international coalition might be enough shield Shrub et al from charges of preventative war under international law. I doubt the coalition of the willing[sic?] would help explain away the crimes of the occupation, though.

You, like Jeff, make generalized predictions that impeachment hearings would lead to bad stuff, but you present no evidence to support this. That is not rational. You claim that impeachment would be a failure, but do not define what you mean by failure. Those who have written in favor of impeachment here believe that removal from office is NOT necessary for considering impeachment hearings successful, but, rather, that putting the executive branch on notice that Congress will not allow the Constitution to be subverted is the important goal.

Just who is behaving irrationally?

This is the last thing I'm going to say about this. I lived through the Clinton impeachment. Before you say that was about a BJ...Clinton lied before a grand jury. That is called perjury and if you want to get technical about it. I'd go ahead and say that perjuring yourself, for any reason, is a high crime and misdemeanor. No I don't think he should have been impeached because it was about a BJ.

I haven't said once that Bush doesn't deserve to be impeached. I have just argued that it's pointless now because I don't think it will do anything but stir the political pot. It will look like a partisan action and I think it will do more harm than good. Why do I think that? Look what it did to the Republicans. They lost seats, Newt lost his position and it set them on the path to lose the Congress even after they spent 10 years gerrymandering their districts in Republican favor.

I think there is loads of proof to say this administration will be able to stonewall their way out until they're out of office and twist public opinion into this being a partisan action judging from their past history.

I am not willing to risk the Presidency, lose seats in the House and risk our Senate majority because people like you want to make a point. Put the right people in office, have them pursue the criminals once they're out of office and then control the bully pulpit when they can't. Obama is squeaking by McCain right now and if he loses any bit of turnout due to partisan distaste he could lose that slight edge he has now. Then we lose the Supreme Court and you can kiss your rights goodbye. There won't be a chance for impeachment ever again if that happens. At least I know you're in the minority.

Chris, please...answer the question. When those sanctions were put in place and followed by what, 97% of countries? Over time less countries followed them. Do you honestly think those sanctions were put on with the intention of leading to the death of 500,000 Iraqis?

Vigilence my rump! The A.D.D generation will get to see this all again. I hope this will be my last torment from the likes of these bastards. They don't just start acting better. Unless you chase them back into the dark they we continue to harm you.

Garrett asked, "Do you honestly think those sanctions were put on with the intention of leading to the death of 500,000 Iraqis?"

Most crimes of this sort are committed because the criminals couldn't care less about the victims. They treat them as most of us would treat the ants we step on as we walk across a field. As Madelyn Albright infamously (to most of the world) said, "It was worth the price" (to her and to the Clinton Administration). It wasn't worth the price, however, to the Iraqis. Nor would it be worth the price to you if your children died as a result of the policies of a nation that invaded yours.

Re: "Are you kidding? Here is justification for the 78 days of bombing? It's called genocide. If the internet is working correctly I can't really find any instances of Slobodan Milosevic realizing he was wrong to order ethnic cleansing."

No, I'm not kidding. Your reading of the historical record differs from mine. The slaughter in Yugoslavia increased after Clinton's attack, which has been classified as a war crime by many analysts:

"When you ask whether a certain action is or is not a case of humanitarian intervention, you should at least approach it with a sense of history and an understanding of what’s happened in the past. Then you have to evaluate the case on its own terms. You have to ask, for example, whether the bombing of Yugoslavia was a case of humanitarian intervention? When you ask that question, in this case, I think you find quite the opposite. The bombing was undertaken with the expectation that it would lead to a very sharp escalation of atrocities and had nothing to do with humanitarian goals. The opposite is very passionately claimed, but with no credible evidence or argument, to my knowledge." (Liberating the Mind from Orthodoxies)

I think that if you'll revisit the history of "humanitarian intervention", you'll discover that nation states always call their militarism "humanitarian intervention". Bush's attacks and Clinton's attacks were caused by our desire to expand democracy and human rights, just like the Nazis just wanted to save humanity from communists and Jews.

Harry,

Aren't there blogs for conspiracy theorists you could go hang out on? The Markale Massacres triggered NATO's first response. It pretty much ended the siege of Sarajevo. The second round of bombing ended the genocide occurring in Kosovo. If you want to deny those causes or results please try.

So please...if you must continue to compare Bill Clinton to the Nazis take it somewhere else.

Take a look back at this thread, Jeff. Apart from informing someone who told me I was "deluded" that I was better informed than they were, I haven't cast any aspersions on other commenters.

That was me darrelplant and I still think you are deluded. You can call me by name.

Chris Lowe, in his elegant rejoinder to Garrett, said, "So it doesn't matter what the original intention was. After 1993, at the latest, the intention was to pursue the sanctions in reckless disregard of the cost in Iraqi civilian lives."

And so it was with Yugoslavia, Garrett. U.S. policy makers were well aware of the consequences of their vicious attacks on civilian infrastructure, including an increase in violence by Milosevic, and that makes them responsible. Your "argument" that, "Aren't there blogs for conspiracy theorists you could go hang out on?", is equal to placing fingers in your ears and yelling, "Naa Naa Naa Naa". You rightwing Democrats need to divorce your political views from your religious ones. If you do not, please take it somewhere else.

Until there was a cease-fire, US/NATO never set foot in Kosovo or in Yugoslavia. They just bombed defenseless people. They killed thousands directly by violence and tens of thousands more indirectly.

MLK said, "The greatest purveyor of violence on earth is my own country", and it has been true all through my life, including during your sainted Democrats' terms of office.

As for impeachment: In a Physicians for Human Rights report published yesterday, Broken Laws, Broken Lives, two-star former General Anthony Taguba, wrote, "After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Those of you who obstruct justice for war criminals, including our non-representatives in Congress, are complicit in their crimes.

Kudos to Kucinich!! By the way... Impeachment CAN have consequences... if We The People choose to make the consequences.