Impeachment Matters Even More

Nearly two weeks ago, I took a deep breath and wrote out my thoughts on impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Some of my readers agreed, though equally many–particularly some who read the crossposted essay at Ezra’s–were opposed to initiating impeachment proceedings for a number of reasons, some more logical than others.

Nonetheless, I am more convinced than ever that Congress must begin impeachment proceedings immediately. I’ll discuss the rationale for this a bit later, but let me first put this out there:

We must impeach the President and Vice President of the United States, and we must begin proceedings to do so immediately, not just for the purpose of exacting a punitive remedy, but also toward enacting a vitally important preventive measure–one that may be the only available means by which to protect the country from the impending imposition of martial law at home as well as the declaration of war against Iran and possibly other countries in the Middle East.

From Raw Story:

Thom Hartmann began his program on Thursday by reading from a new Executive Order which allows the government to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies.

He then introduced old-line conservative Paul Craig Roberts — a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan who has recently become known for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War — by quoting the “strong words” which open Roberts’ latest column: “Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.”

“I don’t actually think they’re very strong,” said Roberts of his words. “I get a lot of flak that they’re understated and the situation is worse than I say. … When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order] … there’s no check to it. It doesn’t have to be ratified by Congress. The people who bear the brunt of these dictatorial police state actions have no recourse to the judiciary. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule. … The American people don’t really understand the danger that they face.” (emphasis mine)

Worried yet? You should be. That executive order Roberts references is the one George Bush issued this past Tuesday. In it, King George the President declared that he can now freeze and seize the assets of anyone he feels to be a threat to “stability in Iraq”. He gets to decide what a threat is, and he gets to carry out this order as secretly as he wishes, without so much as a shred of accountability to Congress or the courts. Nor does he have to inform us–or anyone else in government–what he has seized or frozen, or why. (For more comprehensive legal analysis of the executive order, read nightshift66’s excellent essay right here at Shakesville.)

I would ask the obvious: is this Dick Cheney’s George Bush’s reaction to the decision handed down in November 2006 in which U.S. District judge Audrey B. Collins stated that “…two provisions of an executive order signed Sept. 23, 2001, are impermissibly vague because they allow the president to unilaterally designate organizations as terrorist groups and broadly prohibit association with such groups” ? In other words, should Mr. Cheney Mr. Bush feel that obeying the law runs counter to his objectives–whatever they might be–he is somehow legally permitted to simply issue an executive order to custom-tailor that very law so it’s more to his liking, claiming “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States”? Is that it, and are you kidding me?

Furthermore, I’d ask if Judge Collins’ ruling could in fact be cited as precedent to challenge (and hopefully strike down) this outrageous executive order? (Calling all lawyers…)

In a response to queries from TPMmuckraker, the Treasury Department claimed this executive order will be limited only to the bank accounts of dangerous terrorists:

Tuesday’s broad executive order on freezing Iraq-related financial assets is solely intended to target supporters of the Iraqi insurgency, Treasury Department spokeswoman Molly Millerwise tells TPMmuckraker. If U.S. residents and citizens have their assets frozen by the department, it will be because they’re actively abetting a panoply of insurgent and militia groups.

Previously, Treasury hasn’t had the authority to target the finances of insurgent groups in Iraq aside from al-Qaeda affiliates and former Saddam Hussein regime elements. The order now provides what Millerwise calls “seamless coverage.”

The ACLU, meanwhile, points to the chilling effect on donations to charity as well as the very real dangers inherent in giving the Executive Branch so much unchecked and unchallenged power:

President Bush’s new executive order targeting financial assets of Iraqi insurgents risks having “a chilling effect” on humanitarian donations in Iraq, according to Michael German, the ACLU’s chief national security security lawyer. And those who find themselves in contravention of the order — a determination residing entirely within the executive branch — would have no due process rights to contest the freezing of their assets. […]

The order skips right over a relevant citation: section 203b(2) (pdf) of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, which specifically denies to the president the ability to “regulate or prohibit … donations, by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of articles, such as food, clothing and medicine, intended to be used to deal with human suffering.” The order accepts the other restrictions applied by IEEPA, intended to protect, among other things, postal communications and legitimate journalism from unilateral executive restriction. And that leads to to the broader problem with the order, according to Gerson: “the complete lack of due process” for those accused of violating it. Once someone’s assets are frozen, there’s no conviction, no appellate process.

Complete lack of due process. Remember how they killed habeus corpus, and hardly anyone outside the blogosphere even sent flowers to the funeral?

Martial Law. The possibility of a police state. Do you suppose there might be something to that story about Halliburton building massive detention centers? Remember? I quoted a disturbing piece in The Progressive when I wrote about those detention centers last year:

There is so much to question here, one’s head spins. Let’s start with this: what are we doing awarding $385 million contracts to Halliburton when there are still so many unanswered questions about the colossal waste of taxpayer dollars and overbilling (fraud, anyone?) perpetrated by this company, on America’s behalf, in Iraq?

And I’m really curious about something else: why large detention centers, and why now? Then there is the disturbing issue raised by that last sentence in Halliburton’s message: “…rapid development of new programs.”

While thousands of people were celebrating the contribution America’s undocumented immigrants make to our economy, and demanding justice and recognition for workers who are denied basic rights, the government was making plans for large-scale detention centers in case of an “emergency influx” of immigrants.

KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary recently reprimanded for gross overcharging in its military contracts in Iraq, won a $385 million contract to build the centers. According to the Halliburton website––“the contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.” […]

What new programs might those be?

The web was abuzz with speculation after the contract was awarded on January 24. Pacific News Service gave the most detailed analysis.

It connected the new “immigration emergency” plans with older plans that involved imposing martial law.

Certainly the detention centers raise the specter of WW II Japanese internment camps.

The new facilities could be used for round-ups of Muslim Americans or other American citizens tagged as “enemy combatants.”

The use of military personnel and military contractors in the event of a Katrina-like disaster, which the Halliburton contract provides for, brings us closer to martial law, whether it is officially declared or not.

It also means record profits for Halliburton, which declared 2005 “the best in our 86-year history.” David Lesar, Halliburton’s chairman, president and CEO, declares on the company website, “For the full year 2005 we set a record for revenue and achieved net income of $2.4 billion with each of our six divisions posting record results.”

Not bad for a company that has been repeatedly cited for inflating charges and wasting taxpayer money in Iraq.

The immigration detention centers ought to raise a red flag, not just about nepotism and waste among military contractors, but about what our government has in store for us.

Impeachment, ladies and gentlemen. For the sake of the country, as above. But also because the President and Vice President have committed no small number of serious crimes against the nation, its citizens, and its constitution. To wit:

Abuse of power, in so many shapes and forms as to require cataloging. Violation of the Geneva Conventions and the US Military Code on War Crimes. Illegal spying on Americans. Illegal use of signing statements to custom-tailor legislation (i.e. the Patriot Act) and thus enable de facto end runs around any and all protective measures–requirements for congressional approval, for example–built into said legislation. Illegal detention, as with the Padilla case.

Congress must begin impeachment proceedings in order to fully explore all these and any other crimes of which the Vice President and President, their cabinet, and their staff, stand accused. Congressional subpoenas, apparently, are not going to get the job done: the White House ignores them and/or refuses to comply with them.

I will close with this quote from the venerable After Downing Street:

If we do not impeach when the case is as compelling as it is now, we are effectively removing impeachment from the Constitution.

Your representatives’ contact info is all here. You can also demand your senators stand up for the people, not politics-as-usual, and vigorously condemn the illegal actions of this dangerous imperial White House; their e-mail addresses are here. And for further information and resources pertaining to impeachment, go here.

By Deborah Newell Tornello at litbrit; also at Ezra’s.


Filed under 03_litbrit

34 responses to “Impeachment Matters Even More

  1. god bless this police state.

  2. NameChanged

    when it is all laid out like that, it is simply terrifying. emailing representatives now…

  3. LB,

    I read that executive order yesterday and it chilled me to the core. Ms. Hel keeps asking me why I’m so opposed to moving out of this country, as she wants to do. My reasons and excuses have begun to take on the texture of a tortilla in a rain storm.

    Her argument is that I wouldn’t try to talk a German Jew out of leaving Nazi Germany, had they had that chance prior to the full-blown horror of the period, so why would I not want to get the hell out of here?

    I’m about to come to the conclusion that like, with most things in our lives, she’s probably on to something.

    Nice post.

  4. Pingback: University Update - White House - Impeachment Matters Even More

  5. Brynn

    Frighteningly good post, Litbrit.

    I feel if something dramatic doesn’t stop the juggernaut that is Bush and Cheney, and soon, this post may become prescient. Either impeachment, or massive nonviolent demonstrations that shut down business as usual.

  6. That was a great post, Litbrit.

    When I first heard the story about Halliburton building internment camps, I’ve got to admit- I thought it was crazy. But now it makes sense.

    I’ll be calling my Senators’ offices this weekend, but I’m not sure if it’s going to help. Our choices here are the most inactive Senator, a Republican, and one that makes me ashamed to have voted for him, a Democrat. But it’s important to try – too much at stake now.

  7. Pingback: University Update - George W Bush - Impeachment Matters Even More

  8. nightshift66

    To where would you go? When the last vestige of the Republic has been destroyed, do you really believe that the military machine won’t be turned outward even more than it is now? Free nations tend to create wealth; empires tend to conquer other countries and take their wealth. It may be the appeal of power to the imperial mindset; it may be that freedom enhances human creativity. But whatever the reason, empires expand until they are stopped. So, you’ll fight them here and now politically, or you’ll fight them later physically, but if you intend to live and die a free person, you’re going to end up fighting them.

  9. nightshift66

    That was a fine post, and thank you for the reference.

    I’m sure you know that you are describing a general strike. General strikes are part of the European tradition, but I doubt 1 American in 100 could tell you what they are. They’re unknown here.

  10. Michael Pugliese
    I’m one of those people who read the EO through the eyes of a lawyer and understand its context. You were kind enough to rec my comment yesterday doing so, but some of it bears repeating here.

    First, the “Iraq insurgency” EO is strikingly similar to the post-9/11 EO. Same elements: no prior notice required, application to US citizens, confiscation of property. Redress through the courts (though after the fact) by virtue of the Administrative Procedures Act (a fact that Craig Roberts missed).

    Since the time of the post-9/11 EO (and actually, since the mid-1990s, because “the list” actually began during the Clinton administration), the list has grown to more than 10,000 people and organizations. Now take a look at the list. There’s a lot of bad people and groups on it. But I don’t see anyone with the last name of “Smith.” Is the possibility for abuse there? Yes. But the career civil servants in the Treasury Department are not likely to start rounding up and disappearing political dissidents. They certainly haven’t yet.

    So many things countenance against a civil war or imposition of a dictatorship. First, who’s on the other side, other than Blackwater and a cadre of chickenhawks? Ever receive a nasty, graphic e-mail from a wingnut? I have. Deep down, every one of them has been a coward. Brave enough when cloaked in anonymity and armed with a keyboard, but in real fighting? Especially when fighting against something the vast majority of people passionately hold so dear–the U.S. Constitution? I ask again–in this civil war, who’s doing the fighting on the other side?

    Second, federalism. The vast majority of law enforcement is controlled by the states, not the feds. Do you think for a minute that your local police, state troopers, and sheriffs are going to submit to a dictatorship imposed by a madman? Are the mayors and the governors to whom they answer going to submit? We had a similar situation 150 years ago. But even that precedent fails because the “union” side in this case is hopelessly outnumbered and outclassed.

    Third, the endgame. State republican parties–even in the reddest states–are not going to yield to a cabal that will exterminate them politically. Once the dictatorship is declared, what then? Considering the forces aligned against such a coup–a well-armed militia, state and local law enforcement, state Republican operations, financial and industrial might concentrated in the blue states–it is doomed from the start.

    Don’t forget–this is the same bunch of boobs that “planned” the post-Saddam occupation of Iraq. That clusterf*ck is nothing compared to what would happen here shortly after “The United States of Amerika” is declared. And poppy Bush would finally have to bend junior over his knee and give him the spanking he so richly deserves.

    Really, people…

  11. Pingback: Birmingham Blues » Blog Archive » Litbrit at Shakesville: Time for Impeachment

  12. MarzBozo

    And another major reason for the impeachment of both is to provide a process of undoing the damage of the last 6 years to the constitution of the United States. Return of habeas, warrants for wire taps, political manipulation of the elections system via the “justice” department, all this and more needs to be aired out and reversed. The impeachment process would provide a venue for returning the constitution to some semblance of what we had before this administration began dismantling it. In my opinion, for this reason alone, impeachment becomes vital to the survival of the United States.

  13. ballgame

    I agree with MarzBozo. Excellent post, Litbrit.

  14. Pingback: StumbleUpon » Your page is now on StumbleUpon!

  15. nightshift66

    It is my opinion that you are making a mistake when you analyze this particular EO, and this administration generally, under the assumption that the old rules apply. All evidence suggests that they do not.

    Any efforts at redress under the APA would be heard in federal court. I have no confidence in the federal judiciary that has, with only rare and ineffectual exceptions, rubber-stamped everything the administration has done. Further, I take no comfort in the “civil servants” who will supposedly side with the people. They know whence their jobs come from and most will not lose them for some stranger who’s been accused of being with the terrorists.

    Your assertions against a civil war ignore the fact that nearly every coup in history has been carried out by a small cabal, and then accepted by the populace. You present people with a fait accompli, and most will accept it. Pinochet had no trouble holding power in Chile, for example.

    You also ignore the fact that federal law and executive orders allowed for federalizing state and local police before Bush ever came to office. Yes, some would side with the people, and some would ‘follow the orders of their elected officials.’ I have no way to know how many would line up on each side, and neither do you. The same holds for all the other economic and political forces you cite. And the fact is that in most revolutions and civil wars, the fighting is done by small minorities of the general population. Organization, resources, and acting decisively are far more important than numbers in such circumstances. The Bolsheviks took over Russia while never numbering more than 100,000.

    I completely agree that at most things, this cabal has been utterly incompetent. But at the mechanics of seizing power, they have been masterful. I also note that, even today, 30% of the public APPROVE of this buffoon.

    Hence, I assert that it isn’t paranoia nor irrational to note the accumulation of power in the executive and to remember that Rome didn’t go from Republic to Empire under one man, or even in one era, but over a period of over 100 years.

  16. Pingback: what's new online

  17. Benjamin

    Rule of Law.
    That’s the real reason why we *must* begin impeachment proceedings: not because we fear for our lives or liberty, not because we believe this President or some future President will use the precedents of the extensions of Executive authority that seem to issue from the white house on a weekly basis. These are all perfectly valid reasons, but they cannot be our only reasons. The current abuses of authority are a threat to constitutional law, but more, they are a direct violation of the principles on which Rule of Law itself are founded, all the way back to Magna Carta.
    I’ve got to take this back to Locke: executive authority is issued by the consented wielding of the innate power of the constituency. In a state under rule of law, this is granted to the law itself. We often misrepresent this as functioning in a different, more human way in a republic: we think it is to our elected officials to whom we lend our power en masse. This is not the case.
    The electoral process merely appoints stewards, custodians, and caretakers. We elect men and women to the task of making necessary clarifications and extensions of the law, but it is the law that has ultimate authority. It is the law which is invested with our collective will, the law to which we grant obedience in exchange for the protections it affords against those who operate outside it.
    The essential function that rule of law provides is limiting the degree to which the ambitions of the individual may supercede the innate rights of those around them.
    It is of great advantage for the ambitious individual to confuse the constituency as to where they have invested their power. A political predator *must* convince people that it is an elected official who wields their granted power. They must make people believe that the election process put the authority of the people in their hands, and at all costs prevent those people from recognizing the truth: we elect caretakers and executors of that which we have given supreme authority, not supreme authority itself.
    This White House shows its fangs every time it affirms its authority over the law. Every Executive Order heralds a step closer to Rule by Divine Mandate, wherin a king is a king simply because they are a king. It is no coincidence that this White House leans heavily on religious rhetoric.
    We must clearly and definitively demonstrate that we live in a country of citizens under law, and law in service to citizens, NOT a country of citizens under the President, and the law in service to a whim.
    Bush has stepped beyond his authority as a custodian, no less than any other criminal. His crime is greater than most in the horrifying destruction it has wrought, and the affront to rule of law itself.

  18. Don’t leave the country and don’t loose hope! We all must band together and fight these bastards. This is MY country and I wnat it back They work for US – and we need to fire them.

    I refuse to let them win. We have our work cut out.

  19. Brynn

    I doubt 1 American in 100 could tell you what they are. They’re unknown here.

    nightshift, you’re right, it’s a general strike. And you’re also sadly right that they’re largely unknown in the US at this time. But that was far from true in the 1930’s, when the labor movement, a strong press, and a more educated citizenry ruled the land.

    The people, united, can never be defeated.

  20. boatboy_srq

    I’m with Benjamin here.

    I would add this: the American Revolution, that moment in history when thirteen states came together to oppose an authoritarian, distant administration (it was the work of George Grenville, the two Pitts, the Duke of Grafton and Lord North [as PMs] rather than George III that essentially spawned that revolt), was only supported by about one-third the populace, with another third loyal to the Crown and the remainder neutral and uninvolved. Shrub’s 30% hits that historical mark rather well.

    Also, the [mal]administration has done an excellent job of destroying the people’s faith in government. One look at the brilliant work of FEMA in New Orleans is enough to tell you that. How should the populace trust their elected officials in any position when their recent experience tells them that no government body will be able to help them when they truly need help? The seeds of the destruction of the social safety net – even of the emergency relief agencies entrusted with our safety and recovery after disaster – have been sown wide and deep: should Washington act, there will be few who will trust their state capitals to stand up against that with any success.

    Ironically, had we the Confederacy the South desired instead of the Union which prevailed a century and a half ago, the more Federalist option might actually merit consideration. However, under the government that has evolved, the Federal government has aggregated so much power once invested in the individual states that assuming an effective resistance on a more local level verges on laughable.

    Further, it is not the act that Michael there thinks is essentially harmless that we oppose, but the principle: that the rule of law should be withdrawn from any of us means it is effectively withdrawn from all of us. For me, this latest act is only one (admittedly substantial and alarming) brick in the edifice of offenses ShrubCo has committed against the Constitition, the nation, and basic morality.

    We have seen this [mal]administration take the most simplistic, straightforward legislation and twist it to their own ends; we have seen straightforward acts of Congress inverted or disregarded through Shrub’s now-infamous signing statements; we have seen them exhibit consistent incompetence, either by intent, negligence or sheer mismanagement; we have seen the most obscene escalation of conflict, justified by at best questionable intelligence, of a simple issuance of policing authority whereby efforts to apprehend international criminals has been used to justify the most costly and possibly bloodiest misadventure these people could have imagined. Our treasury has been beggared, our military driven to the edge of exhaustion, and our international diplomatic clout squandered for narrow ideology and minuscule and temporary domestic political gain. Every step of this path has been “justified” by claims of “war” emergency, “executive privilege” and the fear-mongering of what would horrors happen if those in power were so much as challenged.

    It is past time to call this for what it is: the manipulation of the populace and every imaginable branch of government, aimed at the aggrandizement of the Presidency at the expense of all else; the aggregation of sufficient power to that office to render the other branches ineffective if not quaintly obsolete; the enrichment of the core supporting interests backing this effort; and the enshrinement of a narrow sectarian theology as domestic and global policy regardless of cost or consequence. And it is well past time that such overreaching, such overweening aggrandizement of but one office of our government, be halted, for both the sake of our nation’s immediate future and the health of our governmental system.


  21. Michael, I think you’re right that a declared dictatorship is a real long shot. Aside from all the factors you mentioned, I’d be willing to bet that enough of the US military wouldn’t stand for it.

    But I think you’re also missing an important point. The hallmark of Rovian dictatorship is to fly under the wire. You exert just enough force to keep yourself in power, and no more. In other words, you don’t steal 40% of the votes when you only need 8% to put you at 50.01%. And you try to make sure those 8% are camouflaged in misdelivered voting booths, misprinted ballots, and a hundred other bureaucratic kerfuffles.

    If Turd Blossom hadn’t miscalculated the level of popular anger, it would have worked during this last election, too. Don’t forget that with about 65% of people against them at the time, the Repubs still almost managed to hang on to the Senate.

    The real question is: was that miscalculation fatal to them? Or will they somehow manage to hang on to power?

    It doesn’t have to be hamhanded arrests of thousands of dissidents. A bit of free speech suppression here, “news” companies desperate to be level-headed and respectable there, maybe a real or inflated terrorist incident, and there you are. With a bit of help from people who “fight voter fraud,” there’s another election as good as in the bag, and another four years of robbing the Treasury blind.

  22. me

    I blame the Democrats. For more than 40 years, they have aided and abetted the rise of the militant-ignorant right wing of the Republican Party. There’s hardly been a peep of protest since Reagan got elected. Even today, they refuse to impeach the worst president in history. They even punish their own members who speak the truth by calling Bush a liar.

  23. Pooche

    Pelosi says the bush impeachment “is not worth it”. What is it going to take to make it worth it? Does Bush have to again try and kill Democratic Congress People (the anthrax attacks on Leahy etc.) before it becomes worth it?

  24. I will now take questions about how fucking awesome “Transformers” is. And I’ll also explain why The Simpsons Movie is looking great.

    (Sorry, I can’t talk about impeachment…)

  25. TC

    I’ve had an impeach sticker on my car over three years now. I don’t know it will take…well, I do….everyone needs to flood their representatives offices with e-mails and phone calls. This ban on funding “the insurgency” is very troubling. The insurgency is a very ephemeral, disparate group. There is no uniform, no membership card, so Bush will simply designate people at will as those who help “the insurgency”. and down the slippery slope we go….

  26. No argument from me. Let’s set the date and time and impeach these bastards.

  27. Tactical Grace

    Impeachment ? You have a snowballs chance in hell. The system has grown into a monster that has been out of our control for sixty years. We are my friends the sheep that don’t look up from their mindless consumption.

  28. Janet Thome

    Democrats are not to blame, both parties are THE SAME, bought and paid for. The last 2 elections were rigged, it just looked like we had the choice. Bush and Kerry are cousins and both members of skull and bones. Bush and Clinton go way back and have the same agenda. Do not be fooled. Do not trust anyone running for president that does NOT warn you that America is in mortal danger of being destroyed. We are in exact parallels with Nazi Germany with an agenda to track us, chip us, vaccinate us and take us to the 800 Fema camps built by Haliburton. The agenda is to exterminate 80% of the poplutation. Proof is everywhere. We have to pass this on and WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!! A new war with Iran is what they want with a 2nd ”911” that will be ANOTHER government sponsored, so martial law can be declared. WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sound extreme, do the research. The wolfe is at our door.

    America To Fascism
    5 Minute Trailer

    Full Director’s Cut America To Fascism

    Terror Storm by Alex Jones

  29. cavjam

    Impeachment is the duty for all congressamoebae who have even a shred of respect for the US Constitution. Prior to this, however, a bill should be introduced which reverts the order of succession back to the Cabinet. The Speaker should not be second in succession.

  30. nightshift66

    That’s a curious thought. Why is a cabinet official, appointed by and loyal to the president, a more suitable choice in line of succession than the duly elected leader of an equal branch of government? Further, a cabinet member is far more likely to shower the pardons all around, leading to even more justified distrust of government.

  31. Except, impeachment is never, ever, ever, in a hundred million billion years going to happen. Even if every single Democrat votes for it, it’s not going to happen. Even if every single Republican who has actively critcized the President votes for it, it’s not going to happen. There just aren’t enough votes. So what, exactly, would a pointless vote for an impeachment that would never happen accomplish? To shame this Administration into doing the right thing? Please. You need a conscience to feel shame. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are going to leave office on January 20, 2009 (in a flurry of pardons); they are going into the crony “private” sector where they will make tons of money and ghost-write crappy books on their “braverey” and “leadership.” And they will never pay for their crimes. I wish it were otherwise, but that’s reality and we are supposed to be living in the reality-based community. The energy being expended to hawk a pointless impeachment that will never materialize would be better directed to making sure the Democrat of your choice is elected President in 2008 and that the Democrats retain control of Congress, preferably with a cloture majority in the Senate. But more than that, they should win in such a way that they will be beholden to the grassroots and know that we put them there, we are watching them like hawks, and we can take them out just as quickly.

  32. yea, Pelosi is being a politician. Bush will win the dems plenty… given enuff rope.
    still and all, crimes against our country = impeachment. bottom line.
    throw the f#ckers OUT!

  33. Pingback: Mike the Mad Biologist

  34. Impeachment on the President and Vice-President should have begun some 250 days ago when the Dems took power. But they lacked the guts because fundamentally their is no differences between what they want and what the Republicans want. The only difference is the voters have given them a 60% cut of the bootee to the Republican’s 40%. Ah, the perks of being in the majority.

    But absolutely started it NOW, and start if fast track. With Cheney targeted for removal before Bush, to allow the Republicans to replace him with one of their own. The finish off the Bush impeachment. Why the rush?

    I want those two to be concentrating on themselves instead of Iran. Want to prevent another debacle, impeach the bastards NOW!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s