1 - Just a correction, not a comment: Impeachment is solely the purview of the House, which is under the control of the Democrat Party.

After Impeachment, the trial and conviction is the purview of the Senate, which currently is balanced between parties. (And yes, I know the VP gets a tie-breaker vote, I'm just speaking to party control here.)

2 - Go Rocky, GO !!! I'm sure there will be many comments questioning your patriotism and accusing you of helping the "enemy". You are wearing that lapel pin, right?

3 - I'm so with you. I'm linking to this from my blog...

4 - what Republican controlled congress? While I have my own views on the impeachment movement (it won't happen with him leaving office in Jan), you have to be accurate in your research and statements to get your point across. Edit the article Rocky ...

5 - My biggest fear for the past six years was that a successful impeachment of Bush would result in a Cheney-led administration. That is why I so strongly supported my state's representative initiative to impeach Cheney first.

Now that we are in the final months of the Bush administration, I have to admit, my focus has been less on impeaching either Cheney or Bush and on the Democrat candidate (and candidates in the earlier primary process) commitment to overturning the worst of the Bush administration's policies which have so abridged our freedoms.

6 - @5 - Tell us Amy, which Bush policy do you consider the worst? And how has it abridged your freedom?

7 - @6 - Correction, I'm asking Jennifer, not Amy.

8 - See, here's the REALLY funny thing. The US Military and our Allies have done such an amazing job that most of you "enlightened" folks seem to conveniently forget the threats that existed just a few shot years ago. :SIGH: I wish I could conveniently forget stuff like that.

Anyway, if there was ACTUALLY anything that was impeachable, wouldn't Pelosi et al have done it by now? She certainly has had enough time to score the payback for the "gross injustice" that was done to Big Bill.

9 - Understand that being from New Orleans, I have a certain perspective on the Bush Administration { Link } .

However, I think in this situation, it's not worth it to pursue. Between Executive Privilege and the endless amounts of money for lawyers that Bush/Cheney can wield, it's just a pointless waste of resources to go down this path.

From a political standpoint, the Republicans are paying HUGE price for the Bush Administration's actions/inactions. They are out of power and will be for the forseeable future.

It's really odd, but John McCain is pretty much the ONLY conceivable candidate that they (I'm an independent) could have put up to make this any kind of race.

Otherwise, it'd be a Democrat landslide, and likely will be in every race but President.

So, I'd say to Move On (sic) and spend your efforts on digging out of the $2 TRILLION hole we've spent our way into over the last 7 years.

10 - You know I can't pass up commenting.

You're understandably steamed on this subject, Rock. But you ask the wrong question initially (and at the end too) - why is oral sex impeachable and what Bush is accused of not? The question should more accurately compare perjury, which was Clinton's crime - lying under oath, with...? What crime was it exactly Bush is accused of? In short, there is no crime he could be charged with. You can call the lack of super human foresight "incompetent", but not criminal.

Congress gave the president the authorization to carry out a defacto war when it authorized the spending. And, time and again, Democrat or Republican controlled - Congress has approved the funding. A Republican Congress gave Clinton the authority to initiate operations in Somalia and Bosnia without a declaration of war and set the precedent.

Impeachment, at this point, is a red herring. The real problem is and has been for some time the penchant in Congress to approve more spending than is rational and avoid taking responsibility for decisions that fall within their jurisdiction as laid out in the Constitution - specifically the right to declare war.

If you want reform, your best option is to promote candidates for political office that answer to the people, don't spend the tax payers money on their pet initiatives or politically expedient ones, and hold true to the Constitution.

I understand you have some heat on Bush, but you're enthusiasm is misplaced.

11 - You need to back up this statement with real facts: "We have the current Bush administration, who fabricated evidence to justify Bush's hellbent desire to kick Iraq's ass"

12 - Timothy,

I am not Amy. I have nothing against Amys, that's just not my name.

Let's see, off the top of my head --

NSA warrantless surveillance
Declassification of information for political purposes
Dismissal of US Attorneys for political purposes
Use of torture & extreme rendition
and his expansion of Executive Powers, effectively re-framing the separation of powers specified in the Constitution

13 - The truth of the matter was that Clinton was not impeached for having sex, an extramarital affair, or staining a dress ... he was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice. Clinton got what he deserved when he, as the chief executive of the land, knowingly broke the laws he was sworn to protect. He is a lawyer, he knew what he was doing, and he got caught lying about having his right hand in the "cookie jar" when they were investigating what his left had was doing/had done.

His impeachment does not have any bearing on the legality of actions by any current or future president. You can not make an analogy between what happened there, and what is happening now. There is no correlation, no legal similarities, nothing that makes the two situations even comparable.

If you take a moderate approach and say that at best, they, in their "rush to war" overlooked intelligence that would have brought reasonable doubts about what they believed, and bolstered intelligence that only supported their claims, OR even if you say that they flat out doctored intelligence, where are the laws that were broken? You must leave out your interpretation of the morality of the actions, and find a truly impeachable offense, such as lying under oath in order for impeachment to even be a possibility.

Everybody is entitled to their opinions, and the staunch members on all sides will always find fault with the opposition in power. There is no telling if there was a different president in power that we would be in any different place. Any claim to the opposite is completely false, and you could have the same intelligence and the same situation resulting in the same outcome.

When did moderate and moderation become a dirty word? What happened to the middle ground? Why must everybody be extreme one way or another? Its a lot easier to sleep at night and live through the day if you trust in the inherent goodness of all men (and women of course), and despite differences in ideology, whether political or religious, believe that all the elected officials are trying to make it a better world the best way they know how (and can while having to play within the system) ... Of course there are exceptions to that, but they really are the exceptions, not the rule, and not "everybody on the other side of the isle" ....

14 - @12

- NSA Warantless Surveillance was done under executive order :: if found "illegal" best that can be done is reverse the exec order as "unconstitutional" ... not impeachable

- Classification of information can be declassified by the office of the president/vice president at their whim actually ... its their right

- US Attorneys serve "at the presidents will"

- Lots of accusations, not a lot of proof ... and again, where are the direct ties to the president?

- The constitution is constantly up for interpretation ... how and where the office of the presidents executive powers have expanded or not, again can be challenged, and declared unconstitutional potentially, but again, does not rise to the level of impeachment. No law was "broken"

15 - Hi Jeremy,

If you'll look to my original comment, what I was referring to was looking beyond impeachment (as we only have a few months left of the Bush administration) to how the presidential candidate I plan to vote for will roll back the problematic (and possibly illegal) actions that the Bush administration has taken.

Stating that information had been declassified to support testimony that no sensitive information was leaked by the White House isn't really the same as declassifying information because it's no longer sensitive.

16 - Rocky, I think you don't have a leg to stand on.

Impeachment is a legal matter, a jury trial to try the President when he is suspected of "high crimes and misdemeanors." It is a legal criminal proceeding. President Clinton was suspected (and, I believe, guilty of) the crimes of obstruction of justice and perjury. At the very least he should have been disbarred.

While the Bush administration's prosecution of the initial phases of the war in Iraq was a great blunder, it was not a crime. You can't impeach someone for incompetence. If you could, impeachment would be a political football always hanging over a President's head. The Founding Fathers gave us a strong executive for a reason.

Also recall that just about every major intelligence service in the world was convinced that Irag was actively pursuing WMD at the time. Did the Administration ignore some evidence? Sure, but that, too, is not a crime. Bush was wrong, but he didn't commit a prosecutable crime. You can even say "Bush lied," but that's no crime either, unless he did it under oath, which he did not.

Stirling behavior? No, of course not. Impeachable? No way, not even close. I understand you're pissed about how the war started, how it was run, and how poorly it went for such a long time. I am a Republican and find the early conduct of the war disgusting and indefensible. But impeaching Bush is just not legally feasible. It would be a big distracting and expensive show that accomplished nothing.

Let me add some depth to the argument that "Hussein was no more of a threat than North Korea or Iran." Assuming the three nations warrant the same action assumes they are the same threat, which is not true.

Considering Iraq's proximity to Israel (our ally) and our #1 oil supply (Saudi Arabia), Hussein's history thumbing his nose at every possible sanction, and his obvious and consistent willingness to do anything to stay in power (including start a disastrous war with Iran) and arm his nation with any dirty old tool he could get (don;t forget he gassed his own people), something needed to be done to contain him. Just about every nation at the time thought he was actively pursuing WMD. This adds up to Saddam Hussein with significant nuclear or biological WMD and the capability to attack Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Israel. Sanctions had failed and a targeted assassination was illegal (thanks to the executive decree by Bush I) and also near-impossible due to Hussein's super-tight security. So an invasion was chosen.

Best choice? Maybe, maybe not. But that does not mean NK and Iran are the same.

An invasion is not needed to deal with North Korea. They are poorer, can't threaten oil supplies, and China, Japan, India, and South Korea want a non-nuke PRK as well. So we have leverage and partners to work with. We're making progress.

Iran looks a lot like Iraq but has major differences. They have a semi-democratic system, not an absolute dictatorship. It is harder for them to attack Israel and Saudi Arabia due to distance. They have never used WMD, unlike Hussein. We are now winding through the sanctions process just like we did with Iraq, but Europe is much more on board. So it is not just like Iraq.

Different situations, different solutions. Comparing NK, Iraq, and Iran from the point of view of threats and addressing those threats is not valid.

Oh, and I don't question your patriotism at all. But think about this... there has not been a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Many hundreds of al-Qaida and other Islamist extremists have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting over there rather than plotting attacks and sneaking in to the US over the porous Mexican border. Al-Qaida has lost huge prestige in the Mulsim world. To me, those are all pretty good outcomes. They may not have been the intended consequences of the war, but I'd rather have these bastards dying over there then plotting to come here.

17 - Interesting topic.

I think it's all about oil. By invading Iraq, Bush is trying to secure a supply of oil to the US for the future, until Peak Oil hits all of us. The fabricated evidence was all about having an excuse to invade.

Likewise, Iran is no threat to the U.S. at all. The threat is that they refuse to sign oil contracts to extend the U.S. oil empire of state loan dependencies. Instead, they have announced to spread cheap oil across the globe, a major threat to the few that are in control of it all in the U.S. Again, an excuse (nuclear technology) will be fabricated to justify the invasion.

This pattern has been repeated over history, time and time again. This is why america's foreign policy (not americans themselves) are hated all over the world. It is the new evil empire, a terrorist one even from the perspective of many countries.

In closing, I want to indicate that in no way I know about the things above for a fact, all we can do is read about the subject an form an opinion or likely fact. I have based the above on "the energy non-crisis", "confessions of an economic hitman", "the economics of globalization", and "Peak Oil". A simple Google will tell you more.

What bothers me most with the state of modern politics, both in the US and my own country, is that so many immoral acts are done in plain public. Politicians don't even bother anymore to be sneaky since they can get away with almost anything!

18 - @12 - Jennifer, sorry about the wrong name in @6, but I did correct it in @7.

I've read your list, along with Jeremy's response in @14. What I'm still wondering is how anything in your list "so abridged our freedoms"?

The only one I see that might qualify would be the NSA warrantless surveillance. And remember why Bush authorized it:

"As explained above, the President determined that it was necessary following September 11 to create an early warning detection system. FISA could not have provided the speed and agility required for the early warning detection system."

It took two years of the White House working with the FISA court before the court modified its procedures to provide this speed and agility needed.

In all of this, what was the White House's motive? Looks to me like it was to make it easier to catch the bad guys. I'm glad they didn't wait around two years. In fact I wish it had been in place years earlier. If our intelligence agencies hadn't been handcuffed by earlier over-reactions, they might have been able to connect the dots and prevent 9/11.

19 - Ugh -- I'm not going anywhere near this. The truth of this awful mess isn't going to be known for decades. By then all of our opinions will have changed, anyway.

20 - As a non-american, but with (at one point two) an American ex-services brother in law, all I feel I can say to help this discussion is that:

- Clinton was put on the stand for a blow-job. Even our most boring prime minister ever - John Major, now admits to an extra marital affair. Look at some of the previous French presidents, and their litany of mistresses. The world stood slack jawed in amazement as the president of the US was put on the stand for this. I mean - who gave a crap?

- Post 9/11, the American I used to love - the brash, overbearing but above all confident America - disappeared. In its place came ridiculous assertions ('freedom fries'), more border controls, more fear. For some reason, people who spoke against the US government were branded unpatriotic.

- The invasion of Afghanistan helped no-one. Whilst the taliban was a repressive regime which supported terror, it shouldn't be overlooked that some allies of the US are still currently in this position. The taliban - for all its evil - did manage to kill the opium trade out of that country. Without them, more than 80% of the worlds heroin is now coming from there. The war on drugs has been lost again.

- The point of that invasion - a certain Bin Laden - is STILL at large - eight years on. Why? I mean - he's an old guy, and tows around a kidney dialysis machine. How hard could it be? How much has been spent by the US and its allies on intelligence and military build up?

- The invasion of Iraq. Whilst the battle may have been planned, the peace certainly has not been. And so the 'allies' have been sucked into a ground war they cannot possibly hope to win. How far can the US economy support a sustained ground war in Iraq? The good news is that there are less deaths now in Baghdad on a daily basis than in the larger US cities. So I suppose its a step in the right direction.

- The US - the only remaining superpower - is now completely dependent on oil to run its economy. One might conclude that it is being held to ransom by countries with oil. Is this a position you want to be in? Consider this next time you fill up your SUV.. Where is the alternative energy going to come from?

And now the world opinion of America has diminished, the world economy is on its backside (thank you Wall Street), oil is now $140/barrel (up from $18/barrel), and we cant travel anywhere without being 'probed'.

Who has profited from this state of affairs? Where has all those trillions of dollars gone?

Who won?

---* Bill

21 - I mentioned in my original post that Clinton was impeached for lying:

"resident Clinton then proceeded to initially lie and evade questioning about his transgressions, and eventually he was impeached (but not convicted) for this affair and deceit. "

And I said that was fine. However, you cannot dispute the fact that many, many politicians (mostly Republican) went after Clinton furiously. When confronted with his transgressions, he messed up and lied about it. Most people who have affairs lie about it, unfortunately - it is human nature. He was impeached for lying under oath about an affair. I believe that the inordinate amount of money spent to investigate his affair with public dollars was a foolish waste of money. Just my opinion.

And I'm a Libertarian, BTW.

Now, as far as Bush - OK, I concede that "impeachment" may or may not be the "right" thing to do. However, there has to be SOMETHING criminal or criminally negligent about how he and his administration got us into this war, how they have managed this war, how they have paid for this war, and how they have destroyed our image and respect throughout the world.

I bet if the same amount of effort that was put into investigating an affair were put into investigating the actions of this administration concerning the war, willful negligence would be found.

I said that "congress" was Republican controlled. The House is Democratic, my apologies.

To say that the IRAQ WAR was responsible for heightened security and intelligence to prevent future terrorist attacks is foolish. There is no cause-and-effect there; the cause-and-effect is directly related to post-9/11 security and intelligence improvements and secondarily the aggressive persuit of terrorists in AFGHANISTAN and the mountains of Pakistan. Notice I did not say anything against the efforts in Afghanistan, I understand that effort - and I believe the rest of the world did (and does) too.

It appears to me that the government (and members of media that are conservative-slanted, such as talk radio and Fox News) have done a little "revisionist history" to justify Iraq.

Folks, we had no justification to invade Iraq, period. Had we been a bit more patient, I can almost guarantee Hussein would have given us ample (and substantiated) reason to do so. Had we waited for solid evidence or proof of overt aggression, we would have had every right to invade, as we did in 1991 - and the world (or at least most of it) would have been more accepting of that type of response. But right now it appears that flimsy reasons were fabricated to justify a war that Bush wanted.

And yes, realistically I know that Bush won't be impeached - but the topic definitely got your attention ;)

Seriously, however, I really can't wait for the inevitable investigations that will occur post-Bush, so that we can finally understand the full extent of Bush's negligence and reckless use of executive power to get what he wanted.

Rock

22 - Oh come on... Bill Clinton lied just as much to us about Iraq if you want to go there... Come back when you have some real news... All of these quotes and policies I detail below sound like they come from that monstrous, stupid, insipid, idiot of a President that you all love to poke fun at. But instead, they come from the philandering rhode's scholar who put a stain on the oval office that we're still coping with. The same intel that he had and was convinced about surrounding Iraq is what Bush inherited. Come on, this is lame Rock.

{ Link }

Bashing President George W. Bush for the war in Iraq is nothing new. Many of the detractors will accuse him of several things: greed for oil (where is the oil and why are prices high?!?), revenge for Saddam's issues with Bush 41, imperialism, etc... I will not just pass by the fact that Iraq was at the front of W's mind when he became President. However, there is another reason for this preoccupation with Iraq.

In 1998, President Clinton signed into law the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" { Link } . The main focus of this act is described in its title: "To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." I find it amazing the various issues this Act was supposed to address: Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran (1980-1988), killing up to 180,000 kurds and using chemical weapons against about 5,000 Kurds (1988), Kuwait occupation (1990), failed plot to assassinate George Bush (1993), possible desire to attack Kuwait again (1994), deception of UN inspectors regarding weapons (1996-2003), ceased cooperation with inspectors completely (1998).

Section 3 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 simply states "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

From Section 6 we read "the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law."

Further, I have found some interesting quotes at this forum: { Link }

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Also, regarding the failed attempt on Bush 41's life, we shouldn't villify a sitting President for wanting using that as a reason to oust a dictator (which George W. Bush hasn't used but Clinton did use as a reason!). Remember, from above, that part of Bill Clinton's Iraq policy was also meant to seek revenge for that! It was an assassination attempt against a sitting President - of course we should seek out those who tried.

I wanted to look up some more quotes, and I may do so in the future. I would like to see what Hillary and Kerry said about the act back in 1998. I believe that this passed 98-0 in the Senate, so everyone was on board with it (including Senator Kerry). To be sure, this act was really only intended to give support to Iraqi dissidents, but it did state that Saddam needed to be removed from power. George Bush was the one who carried out Bill Clinton's plan for this.

23 - By the way Rock, sup with your last line: P.S. According to this article in Wikipedia (take it for what it's worth), there is a movement to impeach Bush. Wonder how far it will get in a Republican-controlled congress?

Don't you know that congress has been Democratically-controlled for nearly 2 years now and they've sat on their can and have brought themselves down to 9% poll numbers?!?

24 - Chris - I corrected myself in my earlier post. I'll correct the main post to avoid further confusion.

Rock

25 - @22 (Chris) - I don't care what other politicians said about Iraq in the past; I don't care what others' intentions were; it doesn't make it right, no matter how many people think it is.

And it is perfectly fine to state that there is an intention to depose an evil dictator from power; however the means of the deposing can be in a variety of ways - covertly, overtly, and so on. We've done it in the past, and in ways that were much more economical and effective, and also in ways that didn't kill thousands and cost trillions.

Yes, you can state what your intentions are; and you can even provide sound reason for those intentions. But the fact remains that you must justify your actions with solid evidence so egregious that the world cries out for justice. We didn't do that, Chris. We made up flimsy evidence to do what we (ok, Bush) "felt" was right.

Look, I didn't like Hussein any more than you do. Hell, I don't like any dictators that oppress and kill their people. But that wasn't the reason we attacked Iraq. The justification was WMDs - WMDs that didn't exist.

Rock

26 - Wow...the "it's all about oil" issue came up here again. Before that gets up a head of steam, I want to clarify something. As far as the top 15 importers of oil into the United States, here's the official list in order of quantity of barrels shipped to the US { Link }

CANADA
SAUDI ARABIA
MEXICO
NIGERIA
VENEZUELA
IRAQ
ALGERIA
ANGOLA
RUSSIA
VIRGIN ISLANDS
BRAZIL
UNITED KINGDOM
NETHERLANDS
KUWAIT
ECUADOR

Hmmm....I guess Bush and his oil buddy cronies are probably working on a plan to invade Canada and Mexico!

Oh....and "fabricated" as in "To concoct in order to deceive"...PLEASE...you have GOT to be kidding. When intelligence information dating back to the Clinton Administration pointed toward WMD's in Iraq, you surely can't be serious with that accusation. It wasn't just US intelligence either. If a fabrication was taking place, then the stupid President you hate so much must actually be brilliant to pull off a scam like this! Even scamming intelligence services from Great Britain and Australia. I'm impressed at his skills in getting it to go through without a single leak.

Almost forgot, the US already was a debtor nation to the world before the war. Remember that trade imbalance thingy?

27 - Rocky, I think I just proved without a shadow of a doubt that George W. Bush wasn't the first US President to tell the American people (and the world) that WMD's existed in Iraq. Disprove me. You can't. So let's stop saying that it's all GW's fault that the world was misled on Iraqi WMD... It's a lie.

Oh, and did you know that hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake were just sold to Canada by Iraq?? No WMDs? No nuclear aspirations? right.... { Link }

28 - @25 (Greg) - I never said it was for "oil". I don't think it was.

Once again, just because others made a mistake believing that Iraq was "possibly" creating WMDs is not the same as having undeniable proof of WMDs.

And the last time I checked, previous administrations didn't act on that "possibility". They were waiting for concrete proof.

Bush used that "gap" between "possible" evidence of WMDs and "concrete" evidence of WMDs to push for a war - and I don't care about WHY he wanted the war, the fact that "maybe" evidence was presented as "undeniable" evidence is absurd. And negligent.

The supposed "concrete" evidence that sticks in my mind is the "confirmed" WMD chemical creation plant that turned out to be a baby formula factory; a baby formula factory confirmed by our own investigators.

If you're going to use the "last resort" of a war to achieve the desired outcome, you must have incontrovertible evidence to justify it - at least that's what I believe.

BTW, I want to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion so far. You know that I have strong opinions, but I love to put them out there for discussion. Why? Because I learn - I learn so much from you all. And you help me refine, substantiate, or even change my opinions and beliefs. This is an amazingly astute group of people, and I cannot think of a better way to learn about the hot topics of the day.

Thank you ALL for sharing your thoughts and beliefs - I truly cherish them.

Rock

29 - "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Bill Clinton didn't assert that there was an alleged WMD program. He said that the current threat they pose with their program was enough to justify the use of force.

30 - Impeachment of the President occurred once in the first 180 years of our history. It has occurred three times in the last 35. There's something wrong about that.

In the end, an impeachable offense is whatever the House of Representatives deems to be a "high crime or misdemeanor", and a impeached offense that warrants conviction and penalty is whatever the US Senate decides is a "high crime or misdemeanor". The constitution makes no definition of the terms, and that was certainly a deliberate choice. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can make procedural rulings during trial, but there is no appeal, therefore the House and Senate are the sole (ahem!) "deciders" of what is or is not impeachable and worthy of conviction and penalty. They do not have to follow any precedent, legal theory, or statutes. Apart from procedure and some reasonable respect for the principles laid out in constitution, they can make it up as they go along.

Impeachment is a political tool, not a legal tool.

There need not be a criminal statute involved in an impeachable offense, and conversely a clear violation of criminal offense need not be an impeachable offense. To the extent that precedent does hold, perjury regarding non-official acts that occurred while in office is now an impeachable offense... but not one worthy of conviction. That is all that we can conclude from the Clinton affair. (I can say "no pun intended", but you won't believe me.)

We can not draw any conclusions about any potential "high crimes and misdemeanors" of the W. administration from this; except according to our own personal standards of "what's worse?" Even though Congress consists of 535 individuals, and even if the personal standards of a majority do conclude that W's incompetence and/or deceitfulness are indeed a worse offense, it would still be naive to expect Congress to act on those personal standards, because Congress is an institution and more specifically it is a political institution, not merely a collection of individuals.

The real aberration was the impeachment of Clinton. That should not have happened. There are many theories about why it happened, and it is widely seen as the "long-awaited political revenge for Nixon", but I see it as mere political opportunism. It comes down to the fact that a Supreme Court ruling (which W's administration would have opposed vehemently if used against them) forced Clinton to give testimony, and he got caught in a lie (about a subject that many previous Presidents -- and Congressmen, too -- would have also lied about if they had been forced to testify), and the Republican majority in the House determined that it would be to their collective political advantage to call that an impeachable offense, even though it was highly unlikely that they could convict. They believed that political theatrics of it were to their advantage, and they acted on that belief.

Today's political situation is quite different, or at least it is being read differently by the Democratic leadership. Prior to the 2006 mid-terms, impeachment was impossible -- period, end of story. After the 2006 mid-terms, the Democrats anticipated a very high probability of a win in the 2008 general election. Given that, there's a big risk in impeachment. The theatrics will not necessarily be to the Democrats advantage. The arguments will not include any tabloid-style stuff to engage a mass audience. The arguments will be technical, fully comprehended only by a small minority of citizens, and when it comes down to it they will be matters of political disagreement. Bearing in mind that the administration's political spin machine is still very formidable, and that the conclusion of a Senate trial is essentially pre-determined given the number of GOP Senators who would have to vote for conviction, the Democrats rightly conclude that they should not take the risk of impeachment.

As much as I detest what this administration has done to our country, and as much as I personally believe that W. is morally accountable for numerous acts that have hurt our country, I shudder to think of what will happen if he were to be impeached. No President whose party loses control of the House of Representatives will be able to accomplish anything. Now, I'd love to say that the Democratic leadership is doing the right thing for the country by refraining from continuing the political escalation and over-use of impeachment started by the Republican-controlled House during the Clinton administration, but that, too, would be naive. They are avoiding a very public pissing match that they ultimately can not win, and doing what, in their judgment, is to their parties greatest political advantage for the next election cycle.

31 - Wow, you're bringing 'em out of the woodwork with the past couple of posts, Rock. Fun. Normally, this stuff would be meat and potatoes to somebody like me, as you know. But now? I'm just waiting for January 09, when we will get a sane government in place.

Here's the thing about impeachment. It has never been used in pursuit of justice. It is fundamentally a political exercise. And the Democrats have chosen not to play that particular game. There are, without question, plenty of justifications to *begin* impeachment proceedings now, and whether or not it would succeed has nothing to do with legality, reality, or truth, and everything to do with numbers. So why not impeach him? Two reasons. One, President Dick Cheney. 'Nuff said. Two, and more importantly for the last 18 months, because George W Bush is the strongest advantage the Democrats have had in American politics in decades. With him in office, the Democrats will sweep the November elections, possibly even reaching filibuster-proof numbers in the Senate. Impeachment would be a distraction at this point, and politically it would be a big loser. The American public hates W right now, but they'd hate impeachment proceedings more (just ask the GOP what destroyed their legislative momentum in the late 90s).

By the way, I forget who it is, but somebody keeps quoting the stat that Congress has lower approval ratings than the President does. Congress always has lower approval ratings than the President. It's a false comparison. Congress consists of hundreds of people from both parties. I approve fully of MY delegation, and the vast majority of Americans approve of THEIR delegation, but almost none of us approve of EVERYONE's delegation. So I give Congress a failing grade (yes, I do, because they haven't done enough to stop Bush from ripping the Constitution to shreds), but so do all the people who still approve of Bush (because Congress is slowing him down, or getting in his way, or trying to make his people testify, or simply run by the opposing party).

32 - And, as usual, Rich said it much better than I could. Ignore me, but read comment #30.

33 - @30 (Rich) - Once again I can count on you for a reasoned and objective explanation of impeachment and why it most likely won't be pursued, and you clearly state what is your personal feelings as well.

@32 (Capt. O.) - No sweat, yours is simply the "Cliff Notes" version ;)

And yes, I do agree after reading the responses here, that impeachment would be more of a detriment than anything.

However, I must admit that I am still deeply disturbed by what my government has done and how it has conducted itself in foreign policy and international affairs; and I really wish this administration could be held accountable.

Rock

34 - Isn't the administration accountible? How sad.

35 - MY PESSIMISTIC SIDE
This discussion should have happened five years ago. The answer to your question is, "Because the people who own our government want it that way."

Republican .... Democrat .... no difference that matters any more. I'm voting for Oboma not because he's a Democrat, but because he's the candidate newest in politics and thus might be less controlled by the moneyed interests that really run things in the world.

However, while I think Oboma may win, I don't thing he will be much different from all the rest.

Most of the things discussed in this thread are just venting.

MY OPTIMISTIC SIDE
We, you and I, have created these problems. Acknowledging this also acknowledges that we have the power to change things. Anybody got any suggestion about how to effect change, and which change do you want? What actions are you willing to take now?

Peace,

Rob:-]

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." A. Einstein

36 - @34 Lars: Our system here has many checks and balances. Sometimes it takes time for all of them to work. The administration will be accountable to voters, to history, to ongoing investigations, and possibly to criminal prosecution after they are out of office (though I think the probability of that reaching to the top levels is quite remote, requiring the proverbial "smoking gun").

@30 Rock: Thanks for the kind words. Actually, though, I blew it in the first line. I should have said impeachment has occurred twice in the past 35 years, but has been seriously raised as a possibility a third time. A bit of sloppiness on my part. But still, there's something wrong with how the barriers to talking seriously about impeachment have been lowered in recent years.

37 -
I just spent a few minutes reading through the AIM chat transcript from a group chat a whole bunch of us were in back on 9/11/01 while watching the incidents of that day unfold.

Even on that day, one common dread many of us had was that we were now all but certainly at war in the middle east, and more than one person commented that once in you can't get out.

This administration went in purpose driven toward a very hard line "right wing" agenda and were being pretty effective at ramming things through congress already. I think had the 9/11 events not happened many of the same civil liberties and legal system abuses would have come to pass.

38 - @16 "...there has not been a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11."

Really? What about the anthrax mailings? People died because of these. There was quite a lot of fear at the time.

Why are these always forgotten? Is it because the FBI hasn't been able to solve them and we just don't want to think about it?

39 - Where do I start. Those who do not know start off with, " it's a war for oil", or Bush lied.

1) then were is the oil? when was the last time you filled up for gas ? Truth be told, the US has more oil the any other country, we just won't drill it. ( look it up, it's true). if this was about oil, we did not have to leave our own yard for Bush to make money...

2) Bush lied. oh come on. the entire world agreed with the data that Irag had WMD etc. France agreed, Germany agreed, eveyone did. the data was wrong, the world was wrong. not just bush.

.. now, YES at the point Bush caught on that the data was not correct, he should have had the "guts" .. (wanted to use another word here) to stand up and say the truth, but thats where he failed

40 - @39, according to Wikipedia, our proven reserves put us at #11. That's not counting oil shale, which is not yet counted as proven.

{ Link }

41 - (takes a deep breath)

The only reason our system of government has survived so long is because of the checks and balances put in place by the "Founders". As others have mentioned, impeachment is merely one tool of accountability among many in that delicate balance. But here's the thing about impeachment: each occurrence sets a new precedent. Some have gone as far as suggesting that the primary motivation behind the Clinton impeachment was not, in fact, to actually remove him from office, but rather to convince the electorate that impeachment is a waste of time. In that sense, the Clinton impeachment actually expanded executive power by making current and future Congresses less willing to spend political capital investigating suspicions of "high crimes and misdemeanors". As a result, Democratic leadership has long stated that impeachment is completely off the table. That's not entirely accurate, of course: were a particularly gross and public violation to occur, it would be political suicide not to pursue impeachment; in the meantime, however, the electorate's distaste from the last impeachment makes the current Congress unwilling to be seen as advocating a similar waste of resources pursuing what at this point only appear to be crimes, even to some of the most opinionated. Unfortunately, this also sets a precedent. Future presidents may be even more willing than the current one to push the envelope of executive power, counting on an apathetic electorate to emasculate their representatives' courage to enforce the very checks and balances that ensure the freedoms we claim to treasure so much are preserved.

Which leads me to my final point: Timothy asked (and, in my opinion, was not satisfactorily answered) what has occurred during the Bush presidency that has reduced our freedoms. Habeas frickin' corpus. I do not question the short-term motivations for the legal black hole that is Guantanamo, but I do question the long-term implications. By revoking habeas (which was recently restored in part by the courts - further proof of why checks and balances are a very good thing), all other rights are null and void. If you are labelled an "unlawful enemy combatant" because your exercise of free speech leads the government to believe you are a threat, and are therefore detained indefinitely without trial, without habeas corpus you can't challenge the legality of your detention in court, so your right to speech goes unenforced. This holds true for every other freedom we assume we still have: without habeas, the government can (I'm not insisting they do, merely that they legally can) arbitrarily make you disappear for an arbitrary period of time, and you have no legal recourse. Freedom of the press, freedom of assembly - heck, even your right to bear arms - it all goes away. Habeas corpus is the cornerstone, and in response to the administration's insistence that it was a legal impediment to our physical safety, we temporarily lost it entirely. But here's where Jerry was right on the money: every erosion of freedom we have seen during this administration has been facilitated, if not initiated, by the legislative branch. The horrifically named "Patriot Act", abolishing habeas corpus, the recent FISA bill (Fourth Amendment, I'm missing you already)... in every case, Congress has ignored Benjamin Franklin's exhortation that those who would surrender liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither. Has Bush broken any laws? Yeah, probably. But we don't yet know that. We do know that Congress (including members on both sides of the aisle) is rewriting the laws in ways that undermine the very freedoms we say we love, the identity of the nation, inching us ever closer to resembling the type of regimes we hold up as examples that should not be emulated. That's the precedent that worries me, and time will tell whether the courts will continue to uphold their responsibility to hold both of the other branches accountable (after all, any law or executive order that conflicts with an existing constitutional amendment is, by definition, unconstitutional until a new amendment is passed), or if the politics of fear that have dominated this decade have already taken us past the point of no return.

42 - @Bruce, thanks for jumping in with some salient facts. It is most appreciated.

@Tim T. - your response was measured, intelligent, and informative - and I sincerely enjoyed reading it. I had not given specifics as to why I thought the Bush administration has acted negligently (willful or not), other than the specifics of the Iraq War itself. The points you bring up (habeas corpus being the most relevant), as well as points others have brought up regarding the erosion of rights and freedoms we are (supposedly) guaranteed by our government, are also extremely important and relevant when discussing the (criminally?) negligent and inept the Bush administration has been.

And yes, even though others have been responsible for these gross affronts (such as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ashcroft, et. al.), I still hold Bush ultimately accountable. It's his show.

And for those of you who aren't familiar with habeas corpus, here's a brief description from Wikipedia:

Habeas corpus (IPA: /ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔɹpəs/) (Latin: [We command] that you have the body)[1] is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of himself or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

Also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person, or, if not, the person should be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person on their behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.

The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty." In most countries, however, the procedure of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of national emergency. In most civil law jurisdictions, comparable provisions exist, but they may not be called "habeas corpus."[2] The reach of habeas corpus is currently being tested in the United States. Oral arguments on a consolidated Guantanamo Bay detention camp detainee habeas corpus petition, Al Odah v. United States were heard by the Supreme Court of the United States on December 5, 2007, and recently by HR 1955 The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2006. On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush recognized habeas corpus rights for the Guantanamo prisoners.

43 - OK, so I somewhat agree that there may be some/many people at Guantamo Bay who were probably in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not to try and justify this or anything, but let's make a comparison between the internment policies of two presidents.

Democrat FDR systematically placed 120,000 Japanese-Americans in camps on US soil. Thus, a large percentage of Americans were unduly incarcerated.

Since that time, we have learned much from these atrocities. Hollywood even played out what could/would happen if a Muslim terrorist attack happened in NYC via the movie The Siege in 1998. Basically, they predicted that all Muslims would be detained in much the same way the Japanese were during WWII. Then just 3 years later events of more epic proportions played out in NYC and DC, but the response by the Administration was a far cry from the potential atrocities that we saw in the movie.

Bush has decided to hold 775 people at Gitmo - releasing 420 without charges and only around 270-350 are left there. Many of those left can't be released because nobody will take them!! American citizens have not had to deal with wondering when or if they will be seized in the middle of the night. Instead, there are generally only people there who were picked up in Afghanistan.

Does that still make this wrong legally? Possibly (leaning toward probably). But I really don't like it when the extent of the situation is ignored and we just hear that the rights of all Americans have been revoked. Are any readers of this blog truly victims of your rights being revoked by this Administration?

44 - @38 - Good point about the anthrax attacks. I live in Florida and remember the attack on the National Enquirer building (it was in Boca Raton). Five people were killed and 22 others infected. See Wikipedia { Link } .

...but the fact remains that these attacks happened basically at the same time as the 9/11 airplane attacks. So I think my point that our counter-terrorism efforts since 9/11 have been successful still stands.

45 - @Chris, you skipped over Tim's point, though. Whether we are ACTUALLY held without legal recourse or not, the current policy of the administration is that we CAN be. We CAN be imprisoned for anything. Anything at all. And we are not allowed to challenge that if the government SAYS we can't challenge it. And we can't even know why we've been imprisoned if they say we shouldn't know.

It amazes me that conservatives, who rightly recognize that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow individual citizens a means of defense against anything up to and including government oppression, do not see the risk here. It is one thing to imprison people illegally. It is another ENTIRELY to insist that such imprisonment is NOT illegal, and to change the laws so that it becomes legal.

If the government was entirely in the hands of liberals (as it will be in a few months), wouldn't you be concerned that they might arrest and lock away one of the more aggressive militia organizations and never allow a trial? They could make Ruby Ridge look like a quaint little campfire story if they wanted to.

Habeas is NOT optional. It absolutely has to be fully restored because it is the ONLY thing that protects us from our own government.

So yeah, our rights have absolutely been revoked. We haven't suffered as individuals because of it yet. But the rights we depend on and are so proud of? Gone. Until we restore Habeas in its entirety.

46 - @45 - The democratically-controlled presidency and congress have ALREADY taken such actions on organizations. I've already cited internment camps in which democrats restricted habeas on 120,000, but go back to just 1993 with the Waco incident in which Clinton and his law-enforcing administration were more brutal against some religious nuts in Texas than they were with religious nuts who tried blowing up WTC. Seems like the Democrats have a habit of doing more harm with human rights than the "possibility" we have from the current administration.

Rights are gone? Come on... Less than 800 people picked up on foreign soil in battle areas under these laws. Sure the "possibility" is there, but it's been used very selectively, and I don't believe anyone can disprove that. And we know from McCain's history that he'll be even more cautious with these things. NObama? Heck, nobody knows where he stands this week... (yes, he's waffled more in the past 2 months than McCain has in the past 30 years and Obama only has 143 days of Senate experience under his belt before he got into the race...)

47 - Not to change the topic, this being Rocky's blog, but, really? Is 'waffle' the new 'flip-flop?' heh. Seriously, Chris, McCain has contradicted himself several times this week alone. His reputation as a straight talker is entirely a media creation. Since I know you have a very thorough grasp on the way the various national media outlets manipulate perceptions in our culture, I'm surprised you aren't more cynical about that. Not that you shouldn't vote for him - you be crazy not to, he's much closer to your political leanings than Obama is (though he wasn't your original choice, was he? I forget). And not that contradicting yourself is an inherently awful thing, either. I don't have any trouble figuring out what he really means, any more than you do.

[Aside: By the way, it's pretty easy to predict what Obama will do, too - he's been slightly left of center for his entire career, though we'd of course disagree on exactly where the 'center' is. He's not a strict Church-State separationist like I am, so when he talks about expanding Bush's faith-based programs, that is actually in character and he should be expected to follow through. His policy on getting out of Iraq has been 100% consistent all along (he intends to start immediately, one division per month, which translates to roughly 16 months, and that's what he's always said). Even his position on FISA, which all the left-most liberal blogs are bent out of shape about, isn't surprising at all.]

Rights exist not because we DO exercise them, but because we CAN do so. If some idiot decides your speech is too conservative to be allowed in public, you COULD be locked away, declared an 'enemy combatant,' and you'd have one heck of a time getting out, if you ever did. We don't need the right to Habeas until some other right is taken away, but the beauty (not) of screwing around with Habeas is that the government can then take away ANY right they choose with no consequences. We THINK some of the people at Guantanamo probably shouldn't be there, but we don't know. And we don't know if other entirely innocent people were transferred to prisons in other countries (extraordinary rendition?). Whether we think it's likely or not is entirely due to our political preferences, but the fact that the government can wave a magic wand and declare that any individual has no right to challenge their imprisonment should scare everybody. We aren't supposed to NEED to trust our government, that's the whole point of our Constitution.

48 - @45 - wow - I agree with Captain Oblivious... except one minor, non detracting point - as you mentioned the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms makes habeas corpus one of two ways we are protected from our government. Habeas is passive and hopefully all you ever need - right to bear is active and hopefully never needed but ultimately useless unless widely practiced.

But, both of these are ultimately of no use when you stand in opposition to the federal government and find yourself outnumbered. Until our nation is united in principle that we, not the government, are the true authority in the land, then we are doomed to fall under the boot - as unlikely as that may or may not be. Here's the way I see it - thus far in history, one administration will fight for the tools they need to defend the nation, and the next will abuse those tools for ostensibly the same purpose. In that context, it should scare the crap out of all of us when a politician has a noble idea which might reduce our freedoms, because rest assured, the next administration will find a way to reinterpret it that continues or accelerates the downward spiral.

I think all of you would agree, or I hope you would, that we can steer the ship if we will but lay our hands upon the wheel.

49 - I'm so tired of this "Clinton was impeached for getting a blow job" meme. As soon as I read that, I know the rest is just a regurgitation of what goes on at Democratic Underground or some similar site. It's blind partisanship, over the top hyperbole and downright dishonest. When you drive it home with a shot at the Republican controlled congress after its been in Democrat hands for over 2 years, you only further demonstrate that blindness.

This site is a great technical resource, why don't you keep it that? There are plenty of other places you can vent.

50 - I did say that McCain has waffled or flip-flopped or whatever. But Obama will say something one week and then something different just within a few weeks. But all politicians do that, so that was just in passing from me.

If I lived one town over, in Kennesaw, GA, I COULD get arrested for NOT having a gun in my house. The law there is that all homeowners are required to have guns. If I want to exercise my right to bear arms by NOT doing so, then I COULD be in trouble there.

"slightly left" yes, you do have a different interpretation of what "center" is...

@49 - I agree. The two previous posts here have been riddled with some inconsistencies and factual errors and is passing along DU rhetoric at points. Clinton was impeached for LYING UNDER OATH. But it IS Rocky's blog and he can post about whatever he wishes.

By the way, I guess all Bush would have to do if he is ever impeached is just say the following:

"That depends on what the meaning of WMD is." And he's scott-free...

51 - Here's a link documenting 61 major policy reversals by John McCain:

{ Link }

My personal favorite:

"3. He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

There's additional links for each of the 61 items to further information.

The overall impression McCain gives me is that he's willing to say absolutely anything to get elected.

BTW, Obama isn't what I'd call a liberal. Centrist fits him better. For the last few elections, the Republicans have claimed the Democratic candidate has the "most liberal record", but it's starting to get a little absurd.

52 - OK, I am reading everything from when I posted last, and I'll respond to the ones I want to comment as I go...

@47 (Capt. O.) - You're right - I want my politicians to be honest, damn the media. You know what I really wish would happen? That a politician would be honest, and say something like "I have given it careful thought since I voted/said/commented on [fill in the blank]. Since then I have listened to and consulted with friends, advisors, and the public, and I have decided that my original thoughts/beliefs on [fill in the blank] were wrong/misguided (or say 'things have changed since then'), and I am changing my position on [fill in the blank] - and here's why..."

Wouldn't that be refreshing? We all modify our positions on things as we continue through our lives - it is a part of being an informed and intelligent human. Why do we not allow our politicians to do the same thing? I hate it when the media goes after politicians like a pack of wolves whenever they change their position - which leads to our politicians backpedaling, or in the worst case sticking to their original position even though they know it is WRONG!

For instance - there was something in the news recently where Carly Fiorina { Link } (who is now an advisor for McCain) stated that it is wrong that medical insurance will cover Viagra for men, but not birth control pills for women. Well, McCain was aggressively questioned about this on his "Straight Talk Express" bus bececause he voted against a recent bill that would force insurance companies to cover birth control pills. He himmed and hawed (Southern terms) about this in front of the reporter (and camera), because he didn't know that Fiorina (who was speaking on behalf of him) said this. It appeared that he didn't remember that vote, and that he probably agrees with what she said - but he couldn't say what he really thought for fear of being tagged as "waffling" again. It is a tragedy that politicans can't do that at all.

Here's a video { Link } of that questioning, and McCains uncomfortable response. I think it is sad that he couldn't say what he really thought, knowing the media would immediately jump on his "waffling" instead of highlighting a politician's maturity and growth as displayed by his ability to adjust his beliefs as he evolves as a politician and human.

(Incidentally I do believe that McCain's delegates - including Sen. Phil Gramm and Carly Fiorina - need to be reined in and told to only speak to McCains platform, not their own thoughts on issues. They are, after all, supposed to be supporting his stances on things, not their own.)

I may not support McCain, but I also think the media unfairly targets politicians for any issue they can find, and highlight it in the worst possible way. It is sad that no politician - especially US Presidential candidates - can speak clearly and openly about what they really think, knowing that it will be spun the worst possible way, every time.

Rock

53 - @49 (Greg) - you didn't read my post carefully enough, obviously - I did state that he was NOT impeached for the blowjob, he was impeached for lying about it. I've already stated this in a previous response to someone who said this earlier, with a quote - I'm not going to do it again. Find that response, or re-read the post - and then come back and give us your polite, considered response.

Oh, and BTW, I'm a Libertarian, not a Democrat, so you're off on that one too. I just despise how Bush has run this country for 8 years.

Rock

54 - @50 (Chris) - Sigh... I have told you as well, if you read my post carefully enough you'll find that I DID say he was impreached for lying - not for getting a blowjob.

My point by mentioning this is that the blowjob didn't get him impeached, it was something else. The same stands for Bush - getting us in an unjustified war isn't what will get him impeached, or some sort of hearing (I do agree with other posters now - that is a bit heavy-handed), but something else will - something that has to do with abuses of Executive Power, misrepresenting evidence presented to congress, or something similar.

Rock

55 - Stick to LotusScript

56 - @55 Stick to being an anonymous coward, it suits you...

57 - The conversation seems to be winding down, but just for your reference, Rock (and anyone else who's curious), here's a PDF containing the full text of the articles of impeachment recently introduced by Dennis Kucinich:

{ Link }

It's a long read, but an interesting one. He certainly makes a detailed case, whether or not it's a convincing one; Pelosi is dumping this off to the Judicial Committee, where it will most likely disappear.

For what it's worth, I think your original point was largely lost in the ensuing discussion: for many of us who think Clinton's impeachment was ridiculous, and that far more justification exists for an impeachment of Bush, it's the consequences of the actions of each that seem so disproportionate. Clinton was accused of lying under oath. Even if guilty, what were the consequences that had already resulted from that action prior to his impeachment? And what eventual consequences could have been avoided that weren't as a result of his acquittal? Was it all just a matter of principle? The point you seem to have been originally making is that the actions of the current administration, whether or not they can be proven to have been illegal, have had cataclysmic consequences, and a failure to hold those responsible to account not only withholds justice from those who have suffered those consequences, but also establishes a precedent that could lead to additional consequences in the future.

58 - @57 (Tim) - You're exactly right - the intent of my post is exactly as you stated:

"The point you seem to have been originally making is that the actions of the current administration, whether or not they can be proven to have been illegal, have had cataclysmic consequences, and a failure to hold those responsible to account not only withholds justice from those who have suffered those consequences, but also establishes a precedent that could lead to additional consequences in the future."

Thanks for putting it so succinctly, it is appreciated.

Rock

59 - I kind of agree with the coward...stick to Lotus Script Rocky. But it's more complex than that. It's to easy to just say that.

While I think you have the right to say what you are saying, I think you are wrong. I don't understand the hate for the president. I mean I do, but I don't think this is how you solve it.

I am going to be frank with all of you. I was in the US Navy from 1993 - 1997. I was in the gulf and saw some things. I can tell you looking all of you in the eyes and tell you there were WMDs in that area of the world and they were coming out of a certain country.

I will also ask you Rocky, how many years to we put up with a person to kills and terrorizes it's own people? How long do we allow that to go on? Also what about the Training Camp in or near Baghdad? What about that?

I am sorry Rocky, but there are crazy people out there and I assumed you were not one of them. I may be wrong. You have read what you want to read and you are making some accusations I don't think you have all the information, in fact no one does and if we all did we would be working for the CIA or some other black ops community. While I don't think Bush is perfect and I don't like some of the things he has done in the past 8 years, we didn't have anything better from the other party either.

Kerry are you kidding me. He is a boob!

Also your going to tell us soon about how much you love Obama and want CHANGE and HOPE! Good luck with that from a person who has never really done anything other than lie and cheat his way into politics. So in the end we are suck with the same crap. Politicians are all crap and right now it's a government for the government and not the people.

We are never going to get anything done until we all come back together to realize we are not in control of our elected officials or the process anymore.

instead of complaining about the President, whom is not as powerful as you think, we need to all think long and hard to take back the government, shrink it, stop the taxation that is killing our country and reduce the size of government and take our nation back.

Again I support your right to be angry and upset, but really lets focus on the nation as a whole and not the parties and who is worse. It's not doing any of us any good. It's what they want us to do, we all fight while they all stay in power and milk the middle class dry with taxes and regulations.....the slippery slope!

60 - Oh and for the record, we are winning in Iraq, and while we continue to do better there Obama continues to try to scrub his site of the places where he says we can never win in Iraq. The media is not reporting it since they had on every fired general to tell them the surge would never work and it's a waste of money, but yet one year later we are getting the country back, the local police are able to take care of it and the locals are turning in the bad guys because just like you would not want to live next to a terrorist, neither do they.

Also, we are still in Korea, Germany, and Japan some 60 years after the way. You all wanted a "Fast Food War" and you didn't get it so now all there is to do is cry about it.

Lastly the people in the military who want to keep going back because its the right thing to do and they are true warriors, who would rather not be labeled alive or dead as "unnecessary and unwarranted deaths"....I don't know if you remember Rocky but when you signed up just like I did your job was to defend the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.....I was ready to fight to the death when I was in, and still would today if asked.

When you say you want to impeach Bush you are talking about going after the Commander and Chief of the Military, why not start with the Congress and the House who allowed him to do it, why not hold them accountable? Why not go after the intelligence committee of the Baby Blue uniforms of the UN, which is nothing but a group of "rent-a-cops" who get to watch the world laugh at them. Someone has to be the adult in the world, and while the french and other left wing countries all think to leave the baddies alone we are here to make sure they pay and leave the people of the country they are terrorizing alone.

Would you not call what Sadam was doing to Iraq terrorism under a dictatorship?

I really think your opinion on this entire issue is very left wing and socialist. Everyone else it wrong but us kind of thinking.

I do think the spending is a bit much and it is hurting out economy but there war ways to fix that and he, nor any of the two other bozo's wanting in the wings have a clue as to what to do....

Our next big issue is what to do with Iran.....Israel I would imagine attacks them before the end of the year and I think the leaders there want that. I also know we can't help them out with that problem as we are in fact a bit thin with resources right now.

-David

61 - @59, @60, Rocky is fully capable of defending himself, but let me just say that Republican habit of calling things they don't like both "liberal" and "socialist" is getting very old. There's nothing of either in what Rocky has said.

I think if there had been any WMDs in Iraq, we'd have heard plenty about it by now. The Bush administration has been all about getting what it wants by making people afraid. Would they have missed a chance to back up their fear-mongering with some actual evidence?

When the Republicans started impeachment proceedings against Clinton, they were "about going after the Commander and Chief of the Military". What makes it OK for Republicans to do this, but not OK for Democrats?

Rocky's original point was that if Clinton's lie was impeachable then certainly Bush's lies (with far worse consequences) ought to be as well. Rich's post (#30) points out that impeachment is inherently political. Thus, the razor thin Senate majority of the Democrats makes success unlikely and is ultimately the reason Bush will escape impeachment.

62 - @61 - Please don't ever call me a Republican. I am neither and would rather you not try to place me in either of those two camps. Both political parties are jokes and stand for nothing, more importantly they don't stand for "We the People...."

I fear that Dems want a more socialist and communistic society and if you think they don't then please explain away national health care and welfare please I dare you?

I think the Repubs are just to stupid to realize they need to take a stand and say no no no once a while and actually be Conservative, starting with the budget and taxes!

As far as the Clinton's and the problems they had, I could care less, what I don't understand is this impeachment is about the military, and not a blue dress and some lies, please make sure you don't try to muddy the waters and think the Clinton's knew what the military was or how to use it.

I think to many times in political arguments people try to divert attention away from the topic by trying to compare thing and let me be the first to point you you are not good at comparing two people or two items. The impeachment of Clinton and the impeachment of Bush don't have anything to do with each and are not in the same ball park, other than the fact that they were or are Presidents of the United States and by all measure, poor ones in their own right!

They are in fact political maneuvering on both counts.

For my last topic, please don't tell me what I did or didn't see in the Gulf when I was in the Navy. Please don't think either you or any American gets to know everything. Most Americans can't handle the bad news of the economy so how on earth would the bulk of you understand millions of tons of WMDs in ships being sent to places all over the globe?

You couldn't and it's hard now to live with that in my head. So when you say they would have told us, I think much like you don't need to know what spies are up to you also don't need to know what or where the WMDs are, have been or may have ended up because it will keep you up at night like it does me some 12 years later. Knowing what I know I expected more to happen by know so I fear and feel pitty thinking that we all think we are safe, when in fact it's only a matter of time before those WMDs show up at our doorstep. I never want to see what day. But I fear I may be wrong.

So don't assume you deserve to know anything about everything because you don't and some things are better left in hiding and out of the public.

Which would be worse, producing pictures or proof of millions of ton of WMDs and telling everyone what you found only later to have to tell everyone, but it's in the hands of people who hate us and we don't know where it is now because it was shipped out via trucks and ships to unknown places on unknown ships.....Yeap that would go over really well, they would make sense and the public would have panic'ed and been on fire to know where it was and who had it and if they didn't find out they are going to impeach someone....oh look. Your damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I think it's best you don't know what I know. I think it's best the world does not know what I or others have seen and I think it's best you all calm down and start thinking about AMERICA and not about politics. The politics is ruining this country and it has nothing to do with religion, democrats, republicans, liberals, or faith. It has everything to do with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are over taxed and under represented and it's not what they had in mind when we started.

But while we sit around and squabble like little girls, the politicians we elected who are mostly multi-millionaires and don't give a rats ass about you or I are making this all up to divert you from the problem that is the politicians are crooks, felons, drunks and rich who see us all as tax paying robots who should shut up and watch the monkey dance they put on.

1980 - People you need to read it and wise up, this is all grandstanding and it not hurting the career politicians of this country, it's hurting you and me and small businesses, the value of the dollar and crap like that.

So we impeach Bush, he goes home and is still wealthy and living in high cotton, then what? F-This and lets get some people in office who want to represent me and when we pay them the $150K a year, that's the biggest pay check they have ever gotten and when we say balanced budget, we mean not a damn penny more, how my check book works.

I am not some a-hole with a keyboard, I am an American who thinks our priorities are all out of line right now and neither presidential candidates is worth a crap and this impeachment blah blah blah is just that!

READ THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS and lets get back to basics PLEASE I beg you all!

-David

63 - @62 You don't seem to realize that you are not the only military vet in this particular thread. Rock can speak for himself, of course, but as a US Navy vet myself I'm not overly impressed by your arguments that you know more than the rest of us do, and we should all be grateful that we don't know anything. Frankly, it's absurd. And astonishingly arrogant. Though that is in keeping with the rest of your tone in the last several comments you've made here, so it is at least consistent.

When/if you realize that the people who disagree with you can have just as much knowledge, background, experience, and ability as you do in a given area, then people will talk to you seriously. Until then? Not particularly interested.

64 - @63 - ROB: I don't think you are understanding my point and I want you to understand that my posts are not AT you but are AT the American Public. I use my personally exprerences to fortify my conclusions and please don't dicredit me and my past becasue it's easy. That was a scheap shot and you know it.

Some things are better left alone and not known and to again imply that because Rocky or you were in the Military gives you the right to discount what I saw/know is insulting.

My tone is this, we are the public and we don't get to know everything. We have all opted for that as Americans. If you want to know more you have to wait for the info to come out. It's that simple. I don't think that all of the information has come out yet, because I personally know that it's missing. So there you go.

You can call it what you like but the short story is this. This topic is ridiculous and not because I say so but because it is taking your attention away from the problem, it's all slight of hand.

Hey we should impeach the president, while at the same time they do all kinds of other crap behind our backs. You all need to understand it and I am sorry but your ability to call me arrogant and other names is the same thing. You have little argument, so we start the name calling. Did I call you names? No so don't try it on me.

Lastly the fact that any of you was in the military gives you little to no right to anything other than we thank you for your service, but what you do with the time is up to you. I was able to see many things during that time which are jermaine to the topic at hand and yet you attempt to discredit them on the grounds that others were in the military and that makes my previous experiences all non-existent some how?

"When/if you realize that the people who disagree with you can have just as much knowledge, background, experience, and ability as you do in a given area, then people will talk to you seriously. Until then? Not particularly interested. "

I give you factual, first person information on the topic of what I saw or did not see in the Gulf in 1996, you of course have offered nothing so I would see who would be taken seriously in this case. While I have not discredited anything you have said you somehow think it's OK to stomp all over my first hand report of what I saw and say it's not important just because you were in the military and so was Rocky? Your argument is rather like Swiss Cheese, it has to many holes and is more like name calling than it is fact based. You don't tell a victim of a crime that what they was is irrelevant because other people in the room have all been victims? Every person is different and my experiences are topical in this case. If you have anything factual you can add to or against the argument I implore you to do so as I would be interested in hearing/reading it.

I would implore you to not look at me, but take what I have shared with you and my time in the Persian Gulf in 1996 and know that there were WMDs and I feel like the entire "Impeach Bush" is a diversion because it's good to do in a political year when you are trying to win the White House with an Empty Suit Candidate is all. Again for the record neither side has a candidate that is worth a crap but I am sure you disagree as I can guess where you stand on the issue.

One last thing Rob, you have said this twice, "Rock can speak for himself", as if to imply something and it's just stands out to me that you are somehow waiting for Rocky to show up and tell me your right or maybe it's just you being polite at any rate it's odd that you would have to keep saying it.

For the record Rob, I love your blog but don't think we will ever agree Politically about anything. I can comment as to why I think that via email but not here.

Thanks for the comments!

-David

65 - David, my point about Rock being able to speak for himself was simple. I was making it clear that I am not attempting to speak for him in any way. Since you were taking a position in opposition to his, I wanted to state explicitly that I wasn't trying to respond in his place.

66 - @62, sorry about the Republican reference. You were using a lot of their talking points, and I mistakenly assumed you were one of them.

About the WMDs, you give us almost no information, not even the name of a country. There are at least three there that might be suspected of such activities (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan). OK, Pakistan isn't exactly in the Gulf, but they're nearby and known for nuclear tech trafficking .

Colin Powell went to the UN with WMD information that turned out to almost completely incorrect. I was shocked that he let this happen. In the future, I think the public would be wise to insist on a high standard of proof when we are debating starting a war.

I accept that you may be honor-bound not to reveal any details, but in return you must accept that many will be unwilling to accept unsupported WMD claims.

67 - @ROB - You know I know why it bugged me, you are assuming that I am not bright enough to know that Rocky is not holding a gun to your head and telling you what to say. Do you really in a thousand year think that you are talking for Rocky? Thats the most insulting and demeaning thing I think anyone has done to me in some time. Your condescending tone is appalling and I for one am not going to accept your argument as you have in fact provided nothing other than condescending remarks that have tried to discredit me and my experiences in the military. Do you think I am stupid, of course you are not Rocky and I would never mistake you, Rob, or a person name Rocky. This is silly now.

@ALL - It's obvious the people who think Impeachment is good and don't think this is slight of hand in an election year.

We need, as Americans, take back the country from the politicians who in the end will end up making this a nanny state, telling us all what to do and where to go. Taxing us into poverty only later to realize that this is what we all call communism. We don't need impeachment what we need is leaders who understand that freedom is not legislated and that hard work is rewarded, not punished with taxes and rules.

Impeachment in this case is nothing more than crap. There has not been a good reason to impeach a president since Nixon and even that was just more political tampering, and abuse of power. He got what he deserved.

If you don't like the Iraq war then just say it. I think it's important and you ask the troops on the ground who are fighting the terrorist if they would rather it happen in Iraq or down town USA......if you want to bring the fight back here then I really feel sorry for you and every American.

NOTE: The Wiki on the Impeachment is impressive.

68 - Oh, for crying out loud, David, I put the comment in FOR ROCKY, so he wouldn't think I was being presumptuous. It's just freaking polite.

69 - Interesting.

The same person makes these two seemingly contradictory statements.

"So don't assume you deserve to know anything about everything because you don't and some things are better left in hiding and out of the public."

"We need, as Americans, take back the country from the politicians who in the end will end up making this a nanny state, telling us all what to do and where to go."

Information is the bedrock of any free society. Having someone decide that "some things are better left in hiding and out of the public" is practically the very definition of "a nanny state"

70 - It is a false choice to present only the options of fighting terrorists "... in Iraq or down town USA". There are other options. One could, for example, opt to fight them in Afghanistan or Pakistan. That might even lead to the capture of Osama bin Laden. Remember Osama?

71 - In Business Daily......

"Hear about the 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq? No? Why should you? It doesn’t fit the media's neat story line that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed no nuclear threat when we invaded in 2003. It's a little known fact that, after invading Iraq in 2003, the U.S. found massive amounts of uranium yellowcake, the stuff that can be refined into nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel, at a facility in Tuwaitha outside of Baghdad. In recent weeks, the U.S. secretly has helped the Iraqi government ship it all to Canada, where it was bought by a Canadian company for further processing into nuclear fuel --- thus keeping it from potential use by terrorists or unsavory regimes in the region. This has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Yet, as the AP reported, this marks a 'significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy.' Seems to us this should be big news. After all, much of the early opposition to the war in Iraq involved claims that President Bush 'lied' about weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam posed little if any nuclear threat to the U.S. This more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon... Saddam acquired most of his uranium before 1991, but still had it in 2003, when invading U.S. troops found the stuff... That means Saddam held onto it for more than a decade. Why? He hoped to wait out U.N. sanctions on Iraq and start his WMD program anew. This would seem to vindicate Bush's decision to invade."

@ Rob - You were not being polite you were being condescending, and it's all perception at this point, and I say you were. Why would I think you are talking for Rocky.......that silly and you know it. The whole idea that you have to keep saying it is silly and presumptuous...

I am not angry with you Rob I just don't think anyone is looking at all the Facts!