The Odd Lack of Congressional Enthusiasm for Impeaching the Most Lawless President in U.S. History

I think that what the President is saying is that if you don’t impeach him now you’re a bunch of pussies – Stephen Colbert to Congress, March 22, 2007


When Stephen Colbert called Congress “a bunch of pussies” he did so putatively as part of a comedy routine. But though it was indeed funny, in actuality it was meant as a challenge to Congress. And I was very pleased to hear him offer that challenge. After all, if war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the shredding to pieces of our Constitution are not impeachable offenses …. then what is?

Of all the actions of our Democratic Congress so far, their NON-action on impeachment has been the most disappointing to me. I believe that the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney is the single most important issue facing our nation today, for several reasons, including two that stand out above the others: 1) It seems that impeachment and removal from office is by far the best way to prevent another war – a war that could very well lead to World War III; and 2) The precedent that failure to impeach would set would be terrible. It would implicitly send a message to all future Presidents that it is ok to ignore our laws and our Constitution. In essence, it would be a condoning of tyranny.

I’ve discussed impeachment numerous times on DU: I’ve discussed the extensive evidence for impeachable crimes; I’ve rebutted the numerous arguments against impeachment; and I’ve asked how much evidence Congress needs in order to begin impeachment hearings. I won’t do much more of that here. Rather, I want here to discuss why Congress has so little enthusiasm for impeachment.

Yes, we’ve all heard that Congress has to conduct their investigations first. And indeed they are conducting investigations, and perhaps those investigations will lead to impeachment. But so far it doesn’t look promising to me: Why did Nancy Pelosi have to take impeachment “off the table”? Why hasn’t John Conyers yet subpoenaed a single Bush administration official? And most important of all, of all the things that Democrats are investigating, why aren’t they investigating how the Bush administration lied our country into a disastrous war? It most often seems to me, as Stephen Colbert implied, that our Democratic Congress simply does not want to pursue impeachment.


The stance of 2008 Democratic presidential candidates towards impeachment

Most people would probably be surprised to know that of ten Democratic 2008 Presidential candidates, four of them have taken at least somewhat of a pro-impeachment point of view. Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich have actually taken reasonably strong positions on that: Kucinich recently said “impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran”; and Gravel recently had this to say about impeachment and the Iraq War:


So we have two fairly strong voices for impeachment among the 2008 Democratic candidates. Unfortunately, their voices are not very widely heard, perhaps because neither Kucinich nor Gravel (a former leading voice in the U.S. Senate against the Vietnam War) have yet established themselves as viable candidates.

The other two candidates who seem reasonably predisposed to impeachment are the two who haven’t yet declared their candidacy – Wesley Clark and Al Gore. Though Gore has not specifically called for impeachment he did acknowledge in response to a question that Bush’s warrantless spying program may constitute an impeachable offense, and his aggressive criticisms of the Bush administration’s abuse of power would seem to imply that impeachment is a reasonable or even a necessary path to follow:


Wes Clark has not specifically advocated for impeachment. But he has called for something that may be just as good. Here’s what he had to say in response to Amy Goodman asking him whether or not Bush should be impeached:


The Congressional study that Clark was referring to here was the whitewash investigation conducted by the Republican Senate in 2003. In that investigation, the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman, Pat Roberts, made sure that there would be no investigation of the Bush administration’s role in lying to the American people and to Congress in order to get them to support his Iraq War.

As far as I can tell, there has been no visible enthusiasm for impeachment at all on the part of the other six Democratic candidates – Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, and Richardson. Please let me know if I’m wrong about any of that.


Chuck Hagel on impeachment

It is almost mystifying that the strongest voice in the U.S. Senate for impeachment has come from a Republican. Hagel recently had this to say:


What is even more surprising about this is that Hagel has virtually acted as a rubber stamp for almost everything that George Bush has proposed over a six year period, including that terrible threat to our Constitution and our international reputation, the Military Commissions Act. So his turnaround on this particular issue is almost incomprensable. But I do have to say that this is not the first time I’ve been impressed with Hagel: During the 36 day period of fighting over the 2000 Presidential election in Florida (which I watched more closely than any political event in my life) Hagel was about the only Republican whom I saw interviwed on the issue who acted human. I don’t remember exactly what he said, but unlike virtually every other Republican I heard, he did not add his voice to the clamor for stealing the election for George Bush. So go figure.


Shouldn’t Bush and Cheney’s role in perpetrating a fraudulent case for war be a “slam dunk” for impeachment?

The rationale that the Bush administration used to justify the Iraq war was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ties to al Qaeda that posed a vital threat to our country. Foremost among the WMD threats was Iraq’s alleged nuclear capability, based on their alleged attempt to purchase yellow cake (natural uranium) from Africa and their possession of aluminum tubes alleged for use in the construction of a nuclear weapon. Though these claims were frequently repeated by the Bush administration to Congress and to the American people, it is quite evident that George Bush and Dick Cheney knew all of these claims to be false.

Regarding the yellow cake claims: In March 2002, Joe Wilson, the man who was sent to Niger by Dick Cheney’s office to verify the yellow cake claim, reported that there was no evidence for that claim; our own government’s National Intelligence Estimate stated that “claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are highly dubious”; and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told our government on March 3, 2003, that the Niger uranium documents were forgeries.

Regarding the aluminum tube claims: On September 7, 2002 Bush claimed that a new IAEA report stated Iraq was 6 months away from developing a nuclear weapon – though no such report existed; later that same month the Institute for Science and International Security released a report calling the aluminum tube intelligence ambiguous and warning that “U.S. nuclear experts who dissent from the Administration’s position are expected to remain silent…”; and on January 24, 2003, the Washington Post reported that the IAEA stated “It may be technically possible that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium, but you’d have to believe that Iraq…”

And to top it all off, on March 7, 2003, just a few days before Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, the IAEA reported “We have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.”

George Bush and Dick Cheney had to have known all of this. Yet they uttered not a word of it to Congress or the American people as they tried to sell their war, as George Bush repeated both claims, and more, in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union speech.

Why should it take any more than a single week (or day) for Congress to “investigate” all this? The information noted above is already a matter of public record.

Actually there have already been attempts to “investigate” the origins of the Iraq War. However:

The first attempt to investigate this monumental fraud was accomplished by a commission appointed by George W. Bush himself. The problem was that Bush specifically inserted words into the commission’s mandate that prevented them from investigating the role of the Bush administration in lying to the American people and Congress about the reasons for the war.

Next came the thoroughly fraudulent effort of the Republican Senate to investigate the reasons for the Iraq war. That investigation put all the blame on the CIA for supplying misleading intelligence to the Bush administration, while completely ignoring the role of the Bush administration in repeatedly pressuring the CIA to provide it with false intelligence.


Why aren’t the Democrats investigating the Bush administration’s role in lying us into the Iraq War?

Of all the things that would constitute grounds for impeachment, what could be more important than a President lying his country into a disastrous war against a country that posed no threat to us whatsoever ? Not only have the Democrats taken impeachment “off the table”; they are also neglecting to investigate the one issue which, it seems to me, should result in a “slam dunk” for impeachment.

How could an honest investigation into the origins of the Iraq War fail to “uncover” the above noted facts? And once those facts are “uncovered”, what excuse could Congress have for not proceeding to impeach and convict?

Perhaps there is a feeling that impeaching a President for war related issues is too politically controversial a subject for Congress to get involved in. The same issue was at stake when impeachment proceedings were initiated against Richard Nixon. It seems to me that his secret bombing of Cambodia, with no Congressional authorization whatsoever, was a much more serious and impeachable offense than the Watergate burglary and accompanying obstruction of justice which brought him down. Yet Congress didn’t even include that among its articles of impeachment. Just as with Iraq, war related issues were considered too politically hot. And it’s really too bad that war related charges weren’t included in the impeachment charges against Nixon. If they had been, perhaps future U.S. Presidents would be less likely to drag their countries into unjustified wars.


So why are Democrats so hesitant to pursue impeachment?

It is probably no coincidence that of the four Democratic candidates for President, three are currently out of office, two have shown no evidence of being viable candidates, and the other two haven’t declared their candidacy (yet). Nor is it a coincidence that of the four candidates who are currently U.S. Senators, none has voiced any enthusiasm for impeachment. This is obviously considered to be a very hot political issue.

It’s not as if the political atmosphere in our country isn’t ripe for impeachment. Bush’s approval ratings have been stagnating in the 30s for as long as most of us can remember. And the majority of Americans even favor impeachment. So what’s the hold-up?

I believe that the answer can be found in the fear of how powerful interests might react to an impeachment of a Republican U.S. President. Many powerful interests in our country, most importantly including those who own our corporate news media, aggressively react against any major upset to the status quo. What could upset the status quo more than the impeachment and removal from office of both a President and a Vice President?

One of many examples on this issue is provided by the fate of President Clinton’s national health care proposal. Universal health care is an immensely popular subject with the American people, and it has been so for a very long time. Yet, Clinton’s health care plan was judged to be threatening to some very powerful interests in our country, and those interests threw tons of money into defeating it.

Democrats feel that they have a good chance to gain control of both the Presidency and Congress simultaneously in 2008, and they are probably very much afraid of blowing their chance. I can’t blame them for this. It is tremendously important that a Democrat be elected President in 2008. So I will not join in Stephen Colbert’s insult of Congressional Democrats (though I have to admit I’m glad that he issued that challenge).

But I do believe that Democrats are very wrong not to be actively pursuing impeachment at this time. Not only is it tremendously important to the future of our nation (and the world) that Bush and Cheney be removed from office, as I explained above; I also feel quite certain that politically it is the best course of action for Democrats, as I’ve explained before. Impeachment proceedings will expose to the American people the corruption of the Bush administration as it’s never been exposed to them before. And then Congressional Republicans will be forced to either join the Democrats in their impeachment (and conviction) efforts or risk their political future. Such a scenario can only be good for Democrats and for our country.

Now we have a Republican Senator apparently poised to lead the effort. And not only that, but our corporate news media has reacted reasonably favorably to his efforts to bring up the subject. Congressional Democrats better jump on the boat real quick, before they have this issue pulled from under their feet.

Joel Pritchard called out for impeachment and we the people swamped his office with telegrams. Hand delivered. Quite a spectacle.

Just not through Western Union anymore.

https://secure.24hrwireservice.com/at/formtwodaytelegra...
http://www.telegramgateway.com/st /

It ain't cheap, but apparently it *can* be done.

...in which two Congressmen discuss impeachment:

"If only he'd knock over a bank or something."
"By George, we'd have him then!"

Repugs are starting to speak up just to save their sorry enabling butts from being voted out. I'll be furious if the Dems let them take this issue and the credit for ousting the regime they themselves have aided & abetted.

Impeach the whole gang of thugs!

I'd venture to say that 90% of DUers favor impeachment... maybe more. Has anyone ever done a poll?

But who thinks that real American people are actually being represented
in government?

I know I'm not.

... most polling last year shows only minority support for impeachment.

Once polling shows substantial public support Washington rhetoric will shift in a heartbeat.

"The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error."

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2


"Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003."

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-1

I'm just saying that they are making a very wrong decision IMO, and I hope very much that they think twice about it and reverse that decision (if their current decision is to avoid impeachment, which I'm not 100% sure is the case).

Some congressionals were beaten down too hard and too often by the republicons last congress.
They're afraid they'll get it again. These need to be cashiered for cowardice.
Others are heavily invested in War Profiteers. They need to be sewn into bags with Republicon child molesters and thrown into the Potomac.

If investigations develop enough evidence that there is a good chance for CONVICTION in the Senate -- which requires a two-thirds majority -- then it will make sense to impeach him in the House.

Otherwise, it's just a chance for him to claim vindication when the Senate votes him "not guilty."

If we can't take out Chimp or Cheney,
we can take out anyone lower with a simple majority.
After the way the repbulicons p*ssed on them I can't understand the lack of agression among our legislators.

to demand impeachment from Congress.

If people decide impeachment needs to be done, then if Congress fails to proceed to impeach Bush/Cheney, the people will proceed to elect someone else.

I'm in a blue area, and I still don't see that.

... except in the heads of the impeachment hawks.

http://pollingreport.com/bush.htm

In fact, I am indeed paying attention. The polls that show minority support for impeachment last year well outnumber the polls that show majority support.

I already showed you the more recent data:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15357623/site/newsweek/page...

23% think impeachment is high priority
28% think impeachment is a lower priority
44% don't think that impeachment should be done

Talk about cherry picking.

Why do you use an old poll when you know that a more recent one exists?

... for all we can tell now, that poll is an outlier.

You pointed earlier to an earlier Newsweek poll that you contend supports your point of view, quoting from them something to the effect that only one quarter of Americans support impeachment. But that article didn't even tell us what the alternative questions were in that poll. Newsweek obviously tries to spin things to make impeachment sound unpopular.

In the latest poll -- which I referenced above, Newsweek again tries to make it sound unpopular, by saying that ONLY 23% consider impeachment to be a high priority. But if you actually look at the poll, it also says that another 28% consider impeachment to be a lower priority. In other words, 51% consider it a priority and only 44% are against it, and yet Newsweek tries to spin it to make it sound unpopular.

Show me some evidence that the latest poll, which I referred to above, is an "outlier".

None of those polls asked the questions I posted above...

They were slanted polls...by CNN and FOX "news"

not very good "data"...



I'd trust the polls that asked the right questions...

in local Democratic politics. The fact that you perceive a clamoring for impeachment in your area, however, doesn't mean that it's happening everywhere.

The impeachment hearings, which will generate much more public exposure than any other investigation, will expose the crimes of the Bush/Cheney regime in ways that nothing else will.

Anyhow, it would be a terrible deriliction of their duty not to bring impeachment charges in the House. Prosecutors don't get to "count the votes" before bringing charges to a criminal - they do it based on the evidence. There is no reason why the House has to count the votes in the Senate before bringing impeachment charges.

The votes may not be there when they start. But after the American people see what has transpired they will be outraged. Then Republicans will be forced to either support conviction in the Senate or risk losing their seat.

And if the Dems fail in the effort, Bush will NOT be able to claim vindication. He can "claim" whatever he wants, but the American people will not buy it after having intensively been exposed to his crimes. Rather than feel that he has been vindicated, I believe it is much more likely that they will be outraged at those who let him off the hook, and they will throw them out of office in 08.

... the media will make sure of that.

> Prosecutors don't get to "count the votes"
> before bringing charges to a criminal

Thank god congress operated differently. We CAN count the votes ahead of time and increase the odds of conviction.

> The votes may not be there when they start. But after
> the American people see what has transpired

They will not be told what has transpired. All they'll be told is why what has transpired is not true or is not important.

Once the corporate president is threatened, the media will become very tight with their message.

If we can't convince the people now, impeachment will only make it harder to be heard.

The impeachers do not own TV networks.

to cower in the corner - afraid of the almighty bush???

of investigations that could bring Bush and all his loyal Bushies down.

They've been in office for less than three months. It's interesting how quick some people are to condemn them.

yet, or at least not for the pace of the pre-impeachment proceedings which I'm enjoying immensely

I also believe that if the Dems keep up the pressure they can accomplish Impeachment and possibly Removal of bush and cheney in MUCH less time than nixon took.

A huge difference between nixon's Impeachment and theirs will be that nixon's crimes only started coming out into the public consciousness when the hearings started. bush/cheney's crimes are in the public record NOW. They only need to keep the hearings on their crimes going and push the MSM to publicize them and the people's disgust will do the rest.

If this is what is holding up the enforcement of the Constitution, then DEMS need to fight it, and I need to hear them talk about it.

Sorry- "the media will be mean to us" is a tired, worn out excuse here at DU. If that is really our excuse for not fighting Bush, then I need to hear that from DEMS.

"The media will mean to us if we do that" is an excuse. I'm not buying it- if that the case, then DEMS need to fight the fucking media too. You cant just throw up your hands.

The corporate media will do everything they can to defeat liberal candidates in 08, no matter what Dems do. If they just sit back and take it, nothing will ever change, and we will lose our Democracy for sure. The corporate media is against us, and we need to deal with that by fighting back, not by sucking up to those jerks.

"Nor is it a coincidence that of the four candidates who are currently U.S. Senators, none has voiced any enthusiasm for impeachment. This is obviously considered to be a very hot political issue."

You've hit the heart of the issue IMO. Not doing anything I bet is all about them or at least some of them. And I'm mad as heck.

about what Hagel said about impeachment--Dodd basically responded that "he's not ready to go there" and "let's not get ahead of ourselves" and "we've got a lot of other work to do to worry about that right now". So there you go--the Dem candidates will continue to act castrated for political safety, and the guy with the biggest balls in Congress, and the most to lose politically (including his shot at the white house), will be the first to show political courage and lead the way--a Republican. Sad.

for this.

Hagel may simply be being politically astute. This may actually position himself for the Presidency IMO.

running for president who's ready to Impeach:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/28/133...

I'm in his corner.

seems gutsier coming from a Republican Senator, so it's easy to forget the Dems who call for it.

posting this so succinctly! I've said for a long time that with subpoena power the democrats should be able to bring out enough of the lies, corruption, etc., that the people will be gearing up with torches and pitchforks and demanding impeachment!

and rec'd also!

Wasn't he supposed to be the shining star in the new Congress?

And he's not issued ONE subpoena to a sitting official?

What gives?

John Conyers has done a great deal of good for our country over his many years in the House. As a matter of fact, he conducted some damn good investigations even prior to the Democrats taking over Congress. His great report, "The Constitution in Crisis", has plenty enough evidence in it, even without subpoenas, to impeach Bush and Cheney many times over.

So what gives? My only explanation that I can think of is that Conyers is just trying to show loyalty to the new House Speaker. Nothing else could account for such an about face on impeachment IMO.

Pelosi somehow got the idea that the Dems must stay away from impeachment in order to continue their hold on power. I believe that she's badly mistaken. She's a good person, and I wouldn't call her a coward for this. But I think that she's very badly mistaken. Hopefully that will become obvious before very long.

at the polls. This is a talking point from Pelosi because Conyers knows the state of our federal elections better than just about anyone in Congress.

I emailed his office to ask him about this statement but have received no response.

K&R

Hope you can talk Pelosi into "setting the table" back up.

Let's see how we do.

instead of proposing what the "right" answer is.

In this age of witches (per Jefferson), answers are easily shot down, while questions do their quiet unceasing work towards the unending restoration of the natural order.

I wish I knew and understood more than I do. Sometimes I think I have the answers and sometimes I don't.

They have to build a case, a STRONG case, because the people in this country have been successfully manipulated by the 'extremists' into a severely divided state. The Democrats just got the power to build that case a few months ago and they are working it, big time, as far as I can tell.

In my belief, it is imperative that I recognize the fact,...I am far more knowledgeable than the average American who feeds off the media box in their living room. The average American struggling to accomplish the impossible dream gets sound bites and pieces, here and there. Hence, the populist political will necessary for impeachment will not become reality until those bites and pieces become spoons of truth about the abuse by this administration.

In spite of the authoritarianism asserted by this ugly administration, the people's support and approval is necessary to the survival of their political 'capital' because, whether these arrogant profiteers like it or not, the American people ARE their 'capital'. In spite of this deceptive administration's assumption that, it could sustain a calculated betrayal of Americans' ideals via perpetual PR management (e.g. 'total bullshit'), once Americans are FINALLY provided more tidbits of facts/truth than bullshit, they get/will get pretty damned mad.

Have you noticed the numbers of Americans,...getting pretty damned mad, lately?

.

Yet I'm not convinced, as you seem to be, that Congressional Democrats are planning on following up their investigations with impeachment. I sure hope that you're right, but I'm a long way from convinced.

Why aren't they investigating the Bush administration lies that they used to get us into a needless war? How much investigation would it take to prove that -- it's all a matter of public record. Why hasn't Conyers issued subpoenas to the Bush administration? Why does Pelosi say that "impeachment is off the table"? All of these things bother me a great deal.

But I sure hope you're right.

... the majority of polls show only minority support for impeachment. There's been no polls on the subject that I know of in 2007 (afraid to ask the question maybe?) but until there is large majority support Bush would be acquitted in the Senate.

Having been told his destructive actions are do not merit removal from office he will be free to push the envelope farther as will his successor.

If you want impeachment there's a right way and a fast way - but there is no right and fast way.

Supposing that you're right that there is not currently large majority support for impeachment (and I don't buy that -- look at the poll in the OP), don't you think that holding impeachment hearings, which would expose large numbers of people to the crimes of the Bush administration as they've never been exposed before, would create that support?

... but it's not. Impeachment works equally well for the pro-Bush crowd which includes the main stream media. The facts will be drowned out by all the witch-hunt messaging.

If you want the public to rally behind impeachment rather than rally behind the president they have to think it was their idea. If they don't already support impeachment, they are already prejudiced against the evidence that will presented. The data will not get a fair hearing.

If the data is presented without the trappings of impeachment, as it is with purge-gate, it is more likely that people will be open to it. And polls are showing that large majorities support the democrats in purge-gate.

On public support - I understand you've found a poll that supports your contention that a majority supports impeachment by showing a tiny majority that supports making impeachment at least a low priority. Is there something about that poll's methodology that makes it superior to all the other polls that came out last year that show only a minority support? Or did you just choose the poll that comes closest to supporting your position?

Cherry picking poll results might look good on message boards but it's a poor basis for political strategizing.

By a far margin, the bulk of polling last year showed only minority support for impeachment. Unless you have a good argument that every other poll was invalid but this one, I think a reasonable person should consider your poll just one data point among many - and the consensus among those polls is that the public is against impeachment.

Certainly you can argue that enough bad stuff has happened this year that support for impeachment has increased but your argument is not data. I hope public support has increased but I do know know if it has increased.

if there's some better way to expose the crimes of the Bush administration, prior to impeachment, then fine. I don't know what that way is. I think that holding an impeachment hearing is a fine way to do that. We have every reason in the world to believe that such hearings will increase support for impeachment and conviction as they proceed.

The main problem with waiting is that it sends the message that the known crimes of the Bush administration are not really that bad. Do we really have to have extensive investigations to know that he lied us into war? It's a matter of public record.

But I don't really care if it's postponed for a little while, while Dems gather some more evidence. My main point, however, is that extensive evidence already exists on the public record. They should just put that together and then proceed with impeachment. But they're not even investigating the way the Bush administration lied us into war. It's as if they don't consider that to be an impeachable offense. That's one thing that really bothers me.

... I don't have a more recent poll available, but it's very close to a September poll which showed even larger majorities against impeachment.

They seem to have stopped asking the question. It's almost April and I've yet to see one impeachment poll. I suspect there may be numerous private polls conducted by the Dems that ask about impeachment. I think it's high time for another public poll though.

> We have every reason in the world to believe that such
> hearings will increase support for impeachment and
> conviction as they proceed.

I guess we're just not going to see eye to eye on that point. We have different mental models of normal human behavior here. Instead of having "every reason" I see no reason the spectacle of impeachment, with all the partisan screaming around it should convince people who were not convinced before the impeachment.

> My main point, however, is that extensive evidence
> already exists on the public record.

And we've seen it. And too many people don't care.

> They should just put that together and then proceed with impeachment.

They don't because right now, too many people do not care.

> but they're not even investigating the way the Bush administration
> lied us into war. It's as if they don't consider that to be an
> impeachable offense. That's one thing that really bothers me.

I suspect they do in fact believe it's impeachable but they see things the way I do. That is, that there's no upside to pursuing an impeachment the people are not behind. That step one, is find enough dirt to get the people behind you. I think they believe as I do that there's enough dirt to find that eventually people will tune in and will care.

The worst thing Bush has done is lied us into a war. He's gotten more innocent Americans killed than Osama Bin Laden. But, if like Al Capone, we get him on something else, like purge-gate.... at least we got him.

(which is a year old) seems to indicate that only one in four support impeachment. I recall another poll (or possibly another analysis of this same poll) that produces a somehwat higher number, but I've yet to see any poll showing that a majority favor impeachment right now.

the ones you posted are "whitewash" polls.

They don't ask the right questions. In the rare cases where they mention the "I" word, they are designed to get a negative response...

------------

The Process for Impeachment is already happening. The House (dog love 'em) are beginning the investigation. There are a number of Congressfolk ready to enter Articles as soon as the public learns more of the truth about the bush crimes. Just like nixon, this gang can also be counted on to do the WRONG thing when it comes to defending themselves since they seem predisposed to commit MORE impeachable offenses.

You can put your head in the sand and deny the truth all you want but that still won't stop the process...

... there are several polls from several organizations.

For example here was one of the questions:

"Based on what you have read or heard, do you believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office, or don't you feel that way?"

How is that leading? It seems you can hardly ask a more straightforward question.

course of utter destruction....

Impeach Bush and Cheney!!

Plenty of time to start a few more wars.

wondering just what in hell it will take to get Congress to act against the greatest organized crime syndicate in the history of the planet . . .

from stealing both elections, to either orchestrating or facilitating the 9/11 attacks, to illegally invading and occupying a sovereign nation, to trashing Constitutional protections, to stealing the treasury blind on behalf of their corporate cronies, to now preparing to illegally invade yet another sovereign nation, the criminality of this maladministration seemingly knows no boundries . . . and they're so fucking blatant about all of it that they're setting new records for arrogance and complete disregard for the American people and what's right for the nation . . .

and what does Congress do? . . . they sit on their hands, conduct "busines as usual," and pretend that "it's really not so bad" . . . when in fact BushCo is on the verge of destroying not only our government and our nation, but possibly even the planet itself . . . we face an emergency of historic proportions, and our elected representatives are either too stupid to recognize it or too cowardly to act . . . either way, they're enabling a crime spree the scope of which is unheard of in human history . . .

this rant has cost me a few more strands that I can ill afford . . . PLEASE, Congress, get your heads out of your asses and DO SOMETHING before I'm completely bald! . . .

I am beginning to believe that the leading Democrats, especially the candidates, don't want impeachment proceedings, not because they are afraid the proceedings will fail, but because they are afraid the proceedings will succeed.

I've written about this before as a reason I was opposed to impeachment, but I am now in favor of impeachment.

But we still have to recognize the enormous increase in political risk about 2008 that would come from a successful impeachment and removal of Bush and Cheney -- risk in the form of an incumbent Republican president going into the 2008 election, such as a President Colin Powell, President John McCain, President Chuck Hagel or President Rudolph Giuliani.

That's because a successful impeachment and removal will not lead to a President Pelosi as some DUers incorrectly believe. The Democrats do not want to appear to be changing party control of the presidency through impeachment. Therefore, they will use the same procedure that was used during the Nixon impeachment crisis.

Cheney and Bush would be impeached and removed separately. For example, if Cheney is removed (as Agnew was removed before Nixon), under the 25th Amendment, Bush would appoint a new vice president with the consent of Congress. Undboubtedly that would be a "clean" Republican, who is also popular enough to be president. The only such figures with the stature to be interim president are Powell, McCain, Hagel and Giuliani.

I am even beginning to think that Hagel's tentative support for impeachment is his maneuvering to be the interim president.

What Democrat would want to run against a President Colin Powell -- the first African American president, and perhaps the one who discloses Republican corruption, cleans house and brings the troops of his own beloved Army home, and perhaps enacts other popular programs before the 2008 election?

If this theory is true, start looking for Democratic hopefuls to be dead set against impeachment and Republican hopefuls to be for it.

I don't think this partisan analysis is sufficient to cause us to be opposed to impeachment, but it is a risk that we definitely need to understand and minimize.

Wouldn't the Senate have to approve someone? They won't put in a Prez candidate--they'd pick a grand old fart like Warner or Lugar.

Bush and the Republicans would of course put up the best person they could with an eye to the 2008 elections.

Congress then either approves or disapproves. It would be very dangerous for the Democrats to disapprove an otherwise acceptable person for partisan political reasons in the midst of a constitutional crisis -- ie "he's too good, and we want a loser old fart in office for 2008."

So although I think your idea is possible, it's not the most probable.

they can't stand him in the WH. When BushCo wanted to tap Richard Lugar for a cabinet position, they ultimately decided against choosing him because they didn't want Hagel to be the ranking Republican in the Foreign Relations Committee--how's that for spite!

Or Jeb?

We need to be prepared for the worst.

be Jeb--there would be rioting in the streets. Powell is not well-loved by 'Pugs right now.

Bush could do the same thing, if he and Cheney faced a serious threat of impeachment.

And Bush might put in someone who would have a better chance of retaining the White House for the Republicans.

Not that that is any argument against impeachment, but a risk that has to be managed.

And, it sounds very plausible to me.

impeaching them both.

Save the taxpayer some money...

Anyhow, it would be impossible to investigate the Bush crimes without implicating Cheney big time. They're both in it together.

Since I'm running out of explanations, this does seem to be as or more plausible than any other reason I can think of for Dems in Congress seeming to be against impeachment. I have to say though that I disagree with that reasoning quite a bit.

First, I don't see why they couldn't impeach Bush and Cheney close enough together that there wouldn't be time to pick a new VP prior to the President being booted out. And if it looked like it was going to be close I imagine the Dems could stall a bit, or they could simply indicate that voting on conviction was a priority over confirming the new proposed VP.

Secondly, I don't believe that incumbancy is that much of an advantage. Plenty of incumbant President have lost elections in this century (I mean last Century)-- Taft, Hoover, Carter, Ford, Bush I. And the only precedent for this sort of thing would be when Ford ran.

And lastly, this is just too important to let political calculations determine everything. I would hope that there would be more Democratic Senators who would recognize that.

Incumbency after all the scandals are disclosed probably wouldn't do a Republican much good -- just as it did not help Ford. I also agree that impeachment as a precedent for this level of criminality is more important than partisan politics.

I do, however, believe that whether Bush and Cheney can impeach simultaneously is not a problem of logistics, as it is political will. As during the Nixon impeachment crisis, the Democrats will not want to raise the impression that they are trying to change party control of the White House through impeachment. I strongly believe that even if they could do simultaneous impeachment, they won't, and as during Watergate, will allow the incumbent to choose a replacement of his own party.

Bush/Cheney saw a real threat, Cheney would step down and Bush would nominate his replacement. The Senate would have to act on it right away. And then Bush could resign.

It happened very quickly during Watergate.

Thank you

I don't know ANYONE who wouldn't support impeachment at this point.

The polling already tells a very clear story on this.

The '06 election was not merely "All About Iraq," as the beltway blabber monkeys were trained to hear/think/say. Rather as Curtis Gans reported it was: "a gestalt around George Bush."

The post-election polling demonstrated a continuing rise in support for Dems, in anticipation that the message of the public/electorate had been heard and that the departure of bushcheney could well be in the offing. After the takeover the "new majority" was given several weeks to deliver on the mantle they were awarded by default.

Sadly, they opted to display a politics-as-usual, substance-free kabuki dance. Predictably the consequences in the polls has begun to show up. The opinion of Dems/Congress has started ticking down -- roughly 5% in the past month.

Only Impeachment can reverse this trend.

This is because the public/electorate is well aware of the veto power -- and the UnAmerican reality of "rule by signing statement" that lies beyond. Yes, they even see through the nonsense of "cutting the funding."

It is the height of arrogance and/or ignorance for the DC Dems to continue in consultant-manipulation mode, striving to be the least-worst in their obsessive pursuit of the mythical last half percent of swing voters. Without impeachment (win or lose) as a line in the sand, the opportunity the election thieves and war criminals have handed the Dems will be squandered. Cynicism and apathy will return in force to the electorate. It will remain "close enough to steal," or worse.

The upside is that it is far more likely that we'll see a Deaniasm II resurgence (perhaps behind Rocky Anderson or even Bill Bradley) and that some the Beltwaycrats will be ousted in the primaries by truth-telling Real Democrats. But that will be small consolation when compared against what might have been achieved at this moment -- the banishment of neofascism into the wilderness for a generation.

---

I've seen pretty solid polling evidence that last November was about disgust with the republican party as a whole, not just the administration or the specific republicans voted out of office. And if that's true -- and again, the numbers seem to bear that out -- then it's fair to assume that a significant percentage of democratic voters expect congress to reain in the administration's unprecedented abuses of power, as well as its intrinsic corruption, and if that mean investigations that eventually lead to impeachment proceedings, then -- as George likes to say -- "bring 'um on."

It's also important to understand that democratic supporters turned out in sufficient numbers to overcome the traditional GOP ballot tampering, voter roll purging, vote switching, understaffing of democratic precincts resulting in hours-long waits to vote, and their precious touch screen voting machines. I've seen estimates (can't remember the source at the moment, sorry) that the GOP stole about four million votes nationwide, which means that democratic candidates started out deep in the hole and still emerged victorious. So there was much unrest in the land, and voters went at the GOP with a vengeance. This also suggests that impeachment would resonate well with the electorate.

An earlier post warned against starting the impeachment process without knowing if there were enough votes in the Senate to convict and remove from office. That's a chicken/egg problem that I think is beside the point. Someone else mentioned that not knowing if conviction is probable doesn't usually stop prosecutors from bringing charges against the alleged perp. I suppose there are instances in which prosecutors will only go with a sure thing, but I suspect those are in the minority and are probably confined to politically sensitive and/or high profile cases involving the rich and powerful, as well as anyone named Anna Nicole Smith.

Winning conviction -- as great a victory for justice and freedom as that would be -- isn't the sole purpose of impeachment. Exposing the crimes of this administration through well-publicized impeachment hearings democrats (and the rest of the planet) can win even without a guilty verdict. Saturation coverage of sworn testimony detailing this administration's "high crimes and misdemeanors" -- and what else would you call outing a covert CIA operative, among many other criminal offenses? -- is the greater prize that impeachment offers. Even corporate media would have to cover the proceedings. They will, of course, spin like dervishes, but viewers can finally see for themselves the depths to which american governance has sunk.

So I think impeachment needs to get back "on the table" where it belongs. This sociopathic executive branch has to be made to understand that government of, by and for corporate america -- with no crime too hideous in pursuit of that objective -- has serious consequences.

Personally, I hope those consequences include Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzales and Rumsfeld (retroactive impeachment?), along with the entire leadership of the PNAC and the Carlisle Group, swinging from ropes just across from the Lincoln Memorial. Since that won't happen, I'll settle for 15 years hard time in one of our fine outsourced maximum security institutions -- for all but Bush.

There needs to be a special surprise waiting for this vile little man and I can't think of anything more appropriate than life without possibility of parole at Abu Ghraib, supervised by the same administration-approved sadists who've had free rein to maim or murder anyone BushCo designates as a political prisoner or "illegal combatant." Yup. Sounds like justice to me.

wp

...with both stolen/suppressed and ghost voting. The exit polls showed Kerry up 3%, they reversed it to down 3%.

This was their second lesson from 2000. The first being dump the audit trial, leave no evidence (hence Diebold). The other one was to make sure there was a popular vote margin, to use as a PR weapon. It stops people from being interested in fishy results and is a backstop against total failure (they'd have disbanded the Electoral College if necessary).

It was the Election Reform movement that managed to plug enough holes in Rove's "The Math" Dike in order to get us over the theft line. And more progress is being made all the time. Frankly, I think these new thug US Attys may even get/have orders to resort to putting Dem candidates in jail (perjury traps) during the campaigns.

They really are that desperate. Because, as you say, impeachment should only be the beginning for this crowd. They know full well that a growing number of Americans won't rest until they're on a plane to The Hague to answer for the torture and war crimes.

And yes, we can really make that happen. All we need to do is to stop listening to the beltway baloney merchants and demand that the right things be done to Redeem Our National Soul.

---

Dems should make it clear to Mr. Bumble that one more little signing statement will immediately trigger the onset of the impeachment process. Of all the things this dangerous clown has done, I consider signing statements the ultimate flip-off to the Constitution, and to the people of this country who have lived in the third ring of hell for the past six years.

Nya, nya, nya. I don't have to do nothin' I don't wanna do. Rotten little prick.

Not that signing statements should be the only impeachment criteria, of course. There are so many other excellent reasons to rid ourselves of this national nightmare. But the signing statements must stop, even if the dems can't manage to confront BushCo for any of its other crimes. Unilaterally declaring one's self above the law and screw everybody else is, to me, the single most obvious indicator of BushCo's complete disdain for those of us not in the Rangers or whatever the hell he calls his most generous bribers. And it's been pissing me off mightily since Grand Theft 2000.

So maybe Miss Nancy can whisper in Georgie's ear and let him know there are some things even the vichy dems won't allow. I'll be the blue-faced guy in the back, holding my breath waiting for Madam Speaker to assert the power of her office.


wp

But these vichies are most likely going to have to be butt-kicked every step of the way.

I'm assuming it was these photos that inspired your whisper fantasy.

--

No, I hadn't seen them, but the second one -- Bush experiencing particularly uncomfortable gas pains in his lower intestine while trying not to fart too loudly -- now sits in a cozy place on my hard drive. Thanks for the links.

And yes, the Dems will need their collective rumps kicked to get them to take any kind of stand at all that might somehow, possibly, maybe, sorta, kinda demonstrate a previously undiscovered willingness to at least temporarily act as though they actually believe they're doing the peoples' business. Then it's back to the doc for immediate removal of the tumor we took for a spine back in November, followed by a rapid return to their normally shoddy work habits.

The only thing I can think of to counter their natural inertia is a constant and massive storm of letters, emails and phone calls by enough different people to any and all congressional democrats that it eventually dawns on them that impeachment is a very popular idea outside the beltway, not just the ravings of the electoral equivalent of one lone nut, and that they'd better get on board if they're going to stand with the majority. Polls are starting to trend in that direction, too, and that's got to help awaken them from their post-election comas.

They all know there's safety in numbers, pack animals that they are, and if the numbers shift significantly to the pro-impeachment side -- say, high 50s for impeachment in a few "independent" polls -- they'll scramble to reposition themselves in a hurry. They'll claim they were among the early leaders of the impeachment movement, standing shoulder to shoulder with DK and Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee on the lonely frontier of high-risk politics, obeying the demands of their consciences and to hell with the consequences.

And these are all to the good, motivation notwithstanding. I don't care how or why they get rid of BushCo, as long as the murderous swine face real accountability in the form of actual jail time. That won't happen, of course; the best we're likely to get is another quasi-victorious helicopter takeoff from the white house lawn, ala Nixon, as the boy king and his court are whisked away to early retirement on full salary -- not that they need it after ripping off the entire planet -- with full benefits that include secret service protection for the perps and their families -- on my dime, for life.

Bitter? Not me. I'm too old to expect much from the political class. I'm just apoplectic that my tax dollars will, in part, support Georgie and the rest when they're finally done plundering the globe and decide it's time to stop and smell the money.

Disclaimer: None of the foregoing applies to the 20 or so representatives whose political courage is absolutely beyond question. Lee, Woolsey, Kucinich, Waters, Lewis, Stark, Conyers, Waxman and the rest of that small number who refuse the comfort of mediocrity and instead insist on acting in the best interests of their constituents and of the republic as a whole. They must feel very comfortable when they look in the mirror.


wp

Even Kucinich, who's coming closest to "talking the talk," is not standing on the floor of the House "screaming bloody impeachment" as is his sworn duty. Nothing's stopping him from dropping impeachment articles in the hopper as Cynthia McKinney did on her way out. Even sadder, the once-honorable John Conyers has become the poster boy for abandoned principle. His latest rationalization -- "there isn't time" to do the right thing.

To a person they've run to the comfort of the substance-less "battle" of the Funding Cut Hoax. They confront "rule by signing statement" with a shadow play they've convinced themselves makes them "look strong" -- while the polls are already showing it to have the opposite effect.

They've known for months that the nation wants impeachment -- that merely 44% told Newsweek last October, that it "should not be" a priority of the new congress (and that a good bit of that minority were Dems, presumedly following their "strategerist leadership"). "That word" has not appeared (cleanly) in an independent poll since. And they know that 58% recently chose from a selection of euphemisms that they "want the bush presidency...just over." There is no "new poll" coming to move them. They know they've got their finger in the leaky dike.

There is no real excuse for their inaction. But it's the only thing propping up this war criminal regime. The DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy has their ways of seeing to it that "good men do nothing." This is the nut we need to crack.

And not to single you out personally, but your post does demonstrate that at least some of our problem is "not in our stars." Too many of us are willing to give them a pass. And too many of us fall victim to the self-defeating, "That won't happen, of course" cynicism. Those are large victories for our "enemies/domestic."

But the thing about pack animals is that they can shift directions in a heartbeat -- and continue on the new path with the same speed and determination. We just need to spook them enough -- and have the corral waiting.

It can happen at any time.

---

I admit to reflexively singling out those particular congresspersons because, despite the fact that there's no impeachment articles "in the hopper," I have to assume that, if they materialize, they will come from one of those I mentioned. However, as you say, they haven't really done squat yet, not even impassioned pleas at three in the morning exclusively for the CSpan cameras.

Conyers was a moderate pain in the ass for the administration as a minority member. I'm hoping he knows what to do with his subpoena power now that he's in position to do them some real damage. I continue to be mightily pissed that Pelosi took impeachment "off the table." Why the hell would anybody do something as self-defeating as voluntarily ditching their most powerful weapon?

If the polls show majority support for impeachment, and if their inboxes fill up with angry calls to get rid of our personal curse, how can they continue to act as if it's politics as usual, that there's actually such a thing as bipartisanship these days, and that the toothless supplemental they passed last week will even slow the bastards down. They need to become just as vicious and single-minded as the GOP, and I don't think they have it in them.

I see that their approval ratings are plummeting, which may force them to reassess their "strategery." But they'll probably read it as a negative response to "tying the president's hands in wartime," and they'll crawl back into their familiar holes, take their daily whipping by corporate media and play nice with BushCo for the next couple of years.

I'm partially convinced that the Dems are suffering from collective Stockholm syndrome. They've been abused for so long that they've begun to internalize the norms of and develop sympathy for their oppressors. That would explain much.


God, what an infuriating bunch of candy asses.


wp

Or at the very least a good part of it. But another good thing about the netroots/deaniast/new left is that there's far less patience for psychoanalyzing and hand-wringing. The pattern is to simply demand what is necessary -- and if it is not forthcoming, start swarming with disgust and derision. Then planning an early "Lamonting" of the offender(s).

There is a sensitivity and instant suspicion of anything resembling top-down manipulation. Hopefully, this "democratizaton" of the political sphere can succeed in restoring sanity to our once-great nation.

--

...is that it puts the crimes of this administration front and center to the american people, irrespective of who wins any election. it is simply unfathomable to me that, were these crimes to be laid out in their entirety, that there would be enough of the republican party left standing mount a serious challenge in any race. the only caveat is that, given how obvious it will all seem when exposed, the democrats may not come off looking too good themselves.

supported it look very bad.

I think if the Dems act quickly, they still have time to avoid making themselves look bad too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11894249/site/newsweek /

"In today’s strongly polarized political climate, roughly one in four American adults (26 percent) say they think Congress should actually impeach President Bush and consider removing him from office."

and

"Overall, 69 percent do not think Congress should consider removing him from office."

and

"By comparison, the level of public support for impeachment today is below the 32 percent support for Bill Clinton’s removal in October 1998, before he was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives."

Can you explain why you used this (one year old) reference which seems to say just the opposite of what you claimed it said?

Sorry, here's the more recent one, from October of 2006:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15357623/site/newsweek/page... /

23% say impeachment should be a top priority
28% say impeachment should be a lower priority
44% say impeachment should not be done

And that's BEFORE the American public has been exposed to impeachment hearings, wherein the crimes of the Bush administration will become much more widely publicized.

"In today’s strongly polarized political climate, roughly one in four American adults (26 percent) say they think Congress should actually impeach President Bush and consider removing him from office. There is in fact no effort to do this on the Hill, and the public mood appears to be more a reflection of the passionate sentiment against Bush in some quarters rather than considered support for actual legislative action."

This only means that the public, as usual, is seriously UNDERINFORMED, not that they're "against impeachment".

Just as it did in '73, once the process begins in the House the mass of the public who are currently UNAWARE that there IS a remedy (most don't even know what Impeachment IS) will be relieved that there IS a remedy for bush and his crimes and will climb on board.

and they had a big red stamp marked "Reality Check" that they plastered over the talk of impeachment. They said that even if the President had lied for war, that wasn't illegal and if it wasn't illegal it wasn't impeachable. End of story. Go back to your cell.

The media is a large part of the problem. They are much more interested in war with Iran than holding this administration accountable for the multiple frauds they have committed against this nation. According to CNN, it's no big deal.

... once impeachment starts, if you don't already have the people on your side, they will be lost to you for the duration. The corporate media will have a 3 ring circus to push their pro-Bush, anti-America message 24/7.

From the date impeachment becomes a certainty our ability to get a word in edgewise will cease.

If you want to convince the people, you must do it before the impeachment info-blackout.

How will they NOT get a word in edgewise. People will see it live. The media can spin it all they want and they can go to hell, but it will be too late for them to make that much of a difference.

... they will watch the reports about them. All they will see is what Big Media wants them to see.

Nixon's ratings went so low that he was forced to resign before impeachment was even voted on.

... Nixon didn't have the kind of corporate media backing him up that Bush has. Today fewer and fewer hands have control of more and more news.

But I think Nixon's support was very low before the hearings.

Also, because they counted votes, Nixon was aware that the votes for conviction in the Senate were there.

When the votes against Bush are available in the Senate, we may be the same from Bush.

Even if the President lied us into war it's not illegal or impeachable? I'll bet the idiot who said that doesn't know the first thing about Constitutional law. It's unfathomable to me how people like that are allowed in the positions of power that they are. I wonder if that was his/her own opinion or if CNN management put him/her up to it?

But the truth is so horrifyingly obvious for those of us who choose to seek it out. I could not thank you enough for the countless hours you must spend researching and sharing your discoveries about the corruption and wrongs perpetrated by the BFEE and special interest corporate thugs that now have a death grip on the U.S. and the American sheepeople people through our own political process, politicians / government.

I often wonder, because there crimes are so obvious, if all the investigations are not more than a charade to convince “We the People” that sees what’s going on, that something is being done about it (but not really). Sure it’s a grate show that gives faith to the naive voters who will invariably vote into office the same hand picked candidates acceptable to the corporate elite special interest and the BFEE.

I have to ask, what would happen if the right thing was done? What would happen if the Bushes and Chaney’s and corrupt corporations were brought to justice and justice was really served? The consequences of such actions might be devastating, as the corporations pretty much control everything now and have the power to retaliate and pull the plug on the American way of life. Are “We the People” now the sheep ripe for the slaughter? Is our government a house of cards and each card has on one side a politician and on the other, with few exceptions, a corporate logo? Maybe the big secrete is, “Thou shalt not fuck with BFEE or mother corporation, or else…

I enjoy looking into these things and writing about them.

You are speculating on the "big picture" in your above post, a picture for which it is extremely difficult to get an accurate assessment.

I tend towards more optimism. I don't believe that the BFEE or the corporations behind them are so powerful that with some strong resistance they couldn't be overcome. Look at it like this: With all of our trillions of dollars in military might we couldn't overcome either Vietname in the 70s or Iraq now. Military power is not the only thing that counts, and I believe that some conscientious opposition to the Bush regime will bring them down, and we'll all be a lot better off for it.

www.impeach07.org

I have been confused and dumbfounded by the behavior of "my" Democrats for most of my life!

They didn't really look hard into Iran-Contra either (death squads killing nuns etc.)

It's not the tactics so much as the Dems congenital lack of outrage that will puzzle me into my grave.

Where's the yelling? Get a camera on you and simply SPEAK about the lies, torture, profiteering, crony-ism and vote suppression! The people are WITH YOU ALREADY. NOW! They will respond en masse and be at your side 10 minutes later!

But that must be the secret. The deep, dark unspoken uber-fear. A room full of trust fund babies - even Democratic ones - are just as afraid of stirring up those of us on an hourly wage as anybody else. They have lived in a separate America for generations. No telling what sort grotesque imaginings they've had since childhood about what a truckdriver like me is like!!!!

Why go poking the hornet's nest?!?!

If the Congress even had 10 blue-collar workers (or IT workers or nurses or waitresses) like myself in there - impeachment would have begun years ago. But they don't. No one like us has been through the door in generations. And now we are nothing more than a possibly violent, stone-age tribe outside the walls of the city to them. Something to be managed. Not something to represent.

I've resisted putting all of this into purely class-based terms for my whole life - but I am not young anymore - and it is the only explanation left! All others have been burned away.

Comparing your reply to mine (up thread #41), I can definitely relate to you. I agree the class issue is something else, I wish more people could be less naïve about it, things would really change. I found this jewel on the net a while back ago that says it all, maybe you’ve seen it, if not, enjoy… A note of appreciation from the rich, ?http://www.namebase.org/richnote.html

It's a Class War and WE'RE LOSING.

We will continue to lose until we make like the Venezuelans, join together and take over...

If we had a national news media that reported accurately and thoroughly I think that both parties would be shifted way to the left of where they are now, so as to better reflect the American people. So I think that our national news media is also a big part of the problem.

as mentioned in the first three paragraphs of your post, is perhaps the most important issue. To allow the travesty, of strong armed arrogance to transform a 200+ year old constitution into a useless scrap of paper, without pursuing the mandated method of dealing with the tyrannical abuse of government, is to create a future that holds no limits to unbridled use of power for personal prerogative. No rules and no boundaries.

The only thing I would add to your very excellent and reasoned post, would be to include in the reasons for impeachment, the obvious ignoring and consequent destruction of international law and treaties, including the Geneva Convention. This administration's crimes against humanity weight heavy on this nation's heritage and soul, and failure to impeach the people responsible, will lend acceptance to the actions.

Thank you for your excellent post.

... which is what will happen if we do not approach impeachment carefully and methodically.

I would add, in opposition to your suggestion, that including reasons for impeachment would be redundant here. We all know he deserves to be removed from office.