Impeachment Momentum

Bill Moyers recently did some great material on impeachment on his PBS program, "Bill Moyers Journal." You can see the videos online here:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

"Tough talk on impeachment" is a discussion with Moyers, John Nichols and Bruce Fein (the author of the Clinton articles of impeachment - who now advocates impeaching Bush & Cheney immediately).

I recommend you reserve some time for yourself to watch this stuff. Then call your reps in Congress and tell them to get off their butts and do something.

Still Misleading

Our Vice President is still waging his war of misinformation. The AP reports that this week Cheney once again claimed that there was a link between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Quaeda. This comes despite the fact that all such claims have been discredited.

So what do you think is going on with Mr. Cheney? It would appear that there are two options. First, he either truly believes this connection existed, or second, he is intentionally misleading the public.

In the first scenario, it would appear our Vice President is completely out of touch with the real world. He lives in a state of paranoid denial about the world, and refuses to return to reality. How can we continue to allow one of our most important government positions to be filled by such a delusional individual?

In the second scenario, Mr. Cheney is willfully and blatantly continuing the misinformation campaign that led the country into the invasion of Iraq 4 years ago. Again we're faced with the question - how can we allow this to continue?

The Democratic leadership is quite concerned about how impeachment would look. We here at BushScrewedAmerica.com are far more concerned with how failing to impeach will look. These people are either criminals or incompetent (or both).

Calls for Libby Pardon The Height of Hypocrisy

It's truly remarkable how perception and opinion change with circumstance. The conservative demands for punishment of Clinton's perjury have miraculously transformed into calls for pardoning one of their own for the same crime. Granted, Scooter Libby is probably not the one who should be punished for outing Valerie (Plame) Wilson as a CIA agent, but he is apparently guilty of covering for someone else.

A National Review editorial entitled, "Pardon Libby," states:

"A good man has paid a very heavy price for the Left's fevers [and] the media's scandal-mongering, and President Bush’s failure to unify his own administration. Justice demands that Bush issue a pardon and lower the curtain on an embarrassing drama that shouldn’t have lasted beyond its opening act."

The National Review was one of the most ardent supporters of Clinton's impeachment, and when the Senate acquitted Clinton in 1999, the editors bemoaned the outcome:

Americans should not underestimate the seriousness of the situation. The Senate's vote, and the people's acquiescence, bring President Clinton formally closer to the status of a monarch than any previous chief executive. Kindergarten teachers used to tell their charges that no one was above the law, not even the President of the United States. One hopes that, for the sake of the future, they will still say so, but it is not true of this president. We are now governed instead by the principles of Byzantine jurisprudence: quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem: what pleases the prince has the force of law. Ours is, to be sure, a limited monarchy, but so was George III's. We have retroactively decided that the Battle of Saratoga was a tragic misunderstanding.

A bit dramatic, but you get the point.

The issue in both the prosecution of Mr. Libby and then-President Clinton is perjury. Both lied when testifying before a grand jury, and when issuing statements to the investigation. Yet those who railed against the crime of perjury in 1998 and 1999 seem to have found much more tolerance for the same crime in 2007.

The National Review is just one of the conservative publications calling for Bush to pardon Libby. They roundly condemn Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald for his overzealous pursuit of Libby, and chalk the whole thing up to anti-conservative politics. And yet they fail to see the obvious, copious amounts of self-righteous hypocrisy in their position.

Which gets back to the whole point of our blog and our website, www.bushscrewedamerica.com. The Bush administration is guilty of

• lying to the public about reasons for waging war on Iraq
• allowing their friends in the "defense" industry to zealously overcharge for the services they provide in the war
  
• spying on the American people with warrantless wiretaps
• violating the already dubious Patriot Act by abusing their power to write "national security letters," illegally gaining access to personal information of thousands of Americans

and now, apparently

• firing US attorneys for political reasons

Yet we STILL won't act against them. What will it take?

Secret Deals Don't Make it Legal

It was widely announced yesterday that the Bush Administration is "dropping" their illegal warrantless wiretapping program. Attorney General Gonzalez sent a letter to various critical members of Congress indicating the president had apparently changed his mind.

The key piece of information, though, is only rarely highlighted in the main stream news. The Justice Department has been meeting secretly with one of the FISA judges, and some back-room deal has been struck. The Boston Globe writes:

Gonzales's letter merely described the new process as complicated: "These orders are innovative, they are complex, and it took considerable time and work for the government to develop the approach that was proposed to the court and for the judge . . . to consider and approve these orders."

This standard lack of transparency on the part of the administration leads one to believe that the criteria for determining probable cause must leave something to be desired. Or it's illegal altogether. I hate to be cynical, but cynicism comes all too easily after 6 years of unabashed law-breaking by the administration.

And, as the Globe also points out, the timing of this change of attitude implies that the Bushies realize they will have trouble from congressional Dems if the spying program continued to violate the law. While Arlen Specter made noise about the program, his challenges to the Bush administration were easily brushed aside. Now that Democrats control the Senate Judiciary Committee, it's safe to assume that Bush would face a much greater challenge from Senators Leahy and Feingold.

So they worked a deal where they can continue their spying program, but now it will LOOK like it's legal. Same nasty product with new packaging. Until the spying program actually complies with the law, it will remain illegal. Making a secret deal with a judge does not mean the program complies with the law. Details of the process must be disclosed to Congress to determine if there are still incursions into our privacy.

Now Can We Impeach Him?

The day after President Bush announced his intention to send another 20,000 troops to Iraq, an AP-Ipsos poll shows that 70% of Americans disagree with him. His approval rating is now at an all-new low of 32%. Based on the results of the November elections, this should not surprise anyone.

Since it's now so crystal clear that the Bush administration is simply not going to listen to the will of the people, when will the people realize that Bush and Cheney must go?

Keep talking to your friends, family and neighbors. And keep the pressure on the Dems. Perhaps they'll find a way to grow a backbone.

NYT: Get Going, Dems

Yesterday's editorial in the New York Times stopped short of calling for impeachment, but it reflects the sentiments of those Americans who voted against the policies and tactics of the Republicans and Bush administration in November. The editorial highlights the administration's distaste for civil rights and calls on the Democrats to do something about it.

Rep. McKinney Files Articles of Impeachment

On her last day as a US Representative, Cynthia McKinney (GA) submitted Articles of Impeachment against President Bush. Her actions naturally met with a great deal of derision from bloggers and mainstream media writers alike.

As for us, we applaud Ms. McKinney for taking action on something that has needed attention for quite some time. Now if only we can get the Democratic leadership to get with the program.

Here is the content of those Articles, as posted on CactusPat's blog on Democrats.com: (you can get a PDF version here)

(Original Signature of Member)
109TH CONGRESS
2ND SESSION
H. Res. 1106
Articles of Impeachment against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, and other officials, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
_____________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF
REPESENTATIVES
DECEMBER 8, 2006
Ms. McKINNEY introduced the following Resolution:
_____________________________
RESOLUTION
Resolved, that George Walker Bush, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate: Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of all the people of the United States of America, against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, and other officials, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that:

ARTICLE I. FAILURE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION

In violation of the oath of office, which reads: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” George Walker Bush, in his conduct while President of the United States has demonstrated a pattern of abuse of office and of executive privilege, and disregard for the Constitution itself. This conduct includes the following:

Manipulating Intelligence and Lying to Justify War.
In violation of the separation of powers under the Constitution and his subsequent obligation to share intelligence with the Congress, George Walker Bush, while serving as President of the United States of America, in preparing the invasion of Iraq, did withhold intelligence from the Congress, by refusing to provide Congress with the full intelligence picture that he was being given, by redacting information by, for example, removing portions of reports such as the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief, and actively manipulating the intelligence on Iraq’s alleged weapons programs by pressuring the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies to provide intelligence such that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” as revealed in the “Downing Street Memo.”

To this end, President George Walker Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld created the Office of Special Plans inside the Pentagon to override existing intelligence reports by providing unreliable evidence that supported the claim that Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the United States of America. By justifying the invasion of Iraq with false and misleading statements linking Iraq to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and falsely asserting that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program for which it was importing aluminum tubes and uranium, these assertions being either false, or based on “fixed” intelligence, with the intent to misinform the people and their representatives in Congress in order to gain their support for invading Iraq, denying both the people and their representatives in Congress the right to make an informed choice, George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.

ARTICLE II. ABUSE OF OFFICE AND OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

In violation of his oath to “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,” George Walker Bush, in his conduct while President of the United States, has consistently demonstrated disregard for that oath by obstructing and hindering the work of Congressional investigative bodies and by seeking to expand the scope of the powers of his office. This conduct includes the following:

Failure to Uphold Accountability.
In abrogation of his responsibility under the oath of officeto take care that the Laws be faithfully executed, by which he agreed to act in good faith and accept responsibility for the overall conduct of the Executive Branch, a duty vested in his office alone under the Constitution, George Walker Bush, failed to take responsibility for, investigate or discipline those responsible for an ongoing pattern of negligence, incompetence and malfeasance to the detriment of the American people.

Those whom George Walker Bush, as President of the 23 United States of America, has failed to hold to account include but are not limited to the following top-level officials in his administration:

(a) Richard Cheney. In violation of his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, Richard Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, played a key role in manipulating intelligence in the interest of promoting the illegal invasion of Iraq by pressuring analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency to “fix” their intelligence estimates of the danger posed by Iraq in relation to weapons of mass destruction, whereby Richard Cheney, Vice President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.

(b) Condoleezza Rice, In violation of her Constitutional duty to share and provide accurate and truthful intelligence information with the Congress, as former National Security Advisor to the President, did play a leading role in deceiving Congress and the American public by repeating and propagating false statements concerning Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction program, including false information that the purchase of aluminum tubes demonstrated that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, false information that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium and false information that Iraq sought help in developing a chemical and biological weapons program; whereby Conoleezza Rice, Secretary of State of the United States of America, did commit and was guilty of high misdemeanors against the United States of America.

By neglecting to superintend the conduct of these officials and to hold members of the Executive Branch responsible for their negligence or violations of law, George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high misdemeanors against the United States of America.

Wherefore, by their aforementioned conduct, George Walker Bush, Richard Cheney and Condoleezza Rice warrant impeachment, trial and removal from office.

ARTICLE III. FAILURE TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED

In violation of his duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” George Walker Bush, during his tenure as President of the United States, has violated the letter and spirit of laws and rules of criminal procedure used by civilian and military courts, and has violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that carry out the law.

This conduct includes the following:

Illegal Domestic Spying.
In violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [50 USC Chapter 36], George Walker Bush did clandestinely direct the National Security Agency and various other intelligence agencies, in secret and outside the lawful scope of their mandates, for purposes unrelated to any lawful function of his offices, to conduct electronic surveillance of citizens of the United States on U.S. soil without seeking to obtain, before or after, a judicial warrant, thereby subverting the powers of the Congress and the Judiciary by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts established by Congress, whose express purpose is to check such abuses of executive power, provoking the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to file a complaint and another judge to resign in protest, the said program having been subsequently ruled illegal (ACLU vs. NSA); he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of spying on American citizens from the people and all but a few of their representatives in Congress, even resorting to outright public deceit as on 20 April, 2004, when he told an audience in Buffalo, New York: “any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires . . . a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so,” whereby said George Walker Bush, President of the United States, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.

In all of this, George Walker Bush has repeatedly and unapologetically misled the American people and has sought to undermine the system of checks and balances established by the Founding Founders. Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, and in the interest of saving our Constitution and our democracy from the threat of arbitrary government, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Now Let's Get to Work

I'm afraid to say the elation I felt as I watched America hand the Republicans a bunch of pink slips is beginning to ebb. The election has done much to restore my faith in people, but now it's time to talk about the reality of the situation.

Although the Democrats now have a majority (a very thin one in the Senate), it will still come down to how each congress member or senator votes. In many cases these are the same individuals who have voted to continue to fund Bush's war in Iraq, and have done little to stand up against the legislative atrocities the neo-cons have passed in the last 6 years.

There is much more to contend with than our strategy in Iraq. The line between church and state was blurred with Bush's "Faith-Based Initiative," our civil rights were badly weakened with the passing of the Patriot Act, and we have sanctioned torture in the Military Commissions Act. Moments after signing the Military Commissions Act, Bush signed a law (John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007) that would allow him to take control of the National Guard, posting them wherever and whenever he wished. This was previously a power held only by state governors. (You can read more on this subject in Ted Rall's Nov 7 piece, "Like Cornered Rats, GOP Losers More Dangerous Than Ever."

So, now that all this damage has been done, what will the Democrats do about it? "Rolling Back Neo-Conservative Offenses to the Constitution" is sadly not on their agenda. Now, while there are some good things in their "6-point plan," when will they get around to restoring our civil rights and the separation of church and state (which they were complicit in undermining in the first place)?

Pelosi's post-election appearances have indicated that the Dem's strategy will be to take the high road - it's not about retribution for them. She has now emphatically restated her promise that impeachment is "off the table." They're not going to look back at what has been done before. They're thinking positive and looking to the future. Makes sense, doesn't it? They're Democrats after all - full of love and forgiveness, right? Clearly, the Dems are attempting to lay claim to the idea that they are standing on moral high ground.

I'm concerned that this is what has made the left, not just weak in the eyes of many, but truly weak. What about serving justice? What about prosecuting criminals for their crimes? What about being strong and standing up for what is right? People are hungry - starving - for this. The Republicans made a good show of claiming to stand up for something, and they remained in power because of it. They were brought down more by their own hubris than anything the Dems had to offer. The Dems simply stood up for being against the Republicans - an offer that pales by comparison.

So here's what I believe should be the Dems new agenda (caution, requires a backbone):

1. Impeach Bush, Cheney, and any of their cronies who are guilty of lying to the public about WMDs, and/or spying on us without warrants. The evidence is there. Just do it. Three thousand dead Americans and literally hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and their families demand it.

2. Roll back the neo-con laws that violate the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution (Patriot Act). Roll back the law that blamed teachers for the failings of their parents and communities and restrict funding for schools who don't supply the military with a list of their students (No Child Left Behind). And roll back those laws that undermine our civil rights (Military Commissions Act, etc).

3. REQUIRE the IRS to more stringently enforce rules restricting churches from getting involved in political races. They're not supposed to advocate for or against political candidates, but they do it anyway. Enough of this anti-constitutional, dogmatically self-righteous encroachment on our laws and schools.

4. Take away all those incentives to the oil and gas industry. Give them to the industries who are leading the way toward truly renewable energy sources. Reclaim all those oil and gas leases on our "protected" lands, and make them clean up after themselves. They've left a terrible mess.

5. Listen to the Iraqi people - bring our soldiers home. Of course, we can't just walk away entirely - we have to pay for Bush's mistake of occupying their country for nearly four years, and the mistake we made in allowing him to do it. There will be decades of rebuilding in Iraq, and that's only if they don't tear themselves apart when we leave. We have to help them mend their fences, restore their dignity, and rebuild their lives. It won't be easy, but we owe it to them.

6. Prosecute the companies that have profited so heavily from the war in Iraq, and setup better methods of auditing private contractors. Halliburton alone is guilty of bilking taxpayers for literally a BILLION dollars worth of unsubstantiated charges. (If you haven't seen it already, you really MUST see "Iraq for Sale - The War Profiteers."

It will require much more than this to restore what has been lost, but it's a start.

VOTE or DIE

If not now, when? Please get out there and support candidates who back the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Vote Tuesday, November 7.

Bush Administration's Response to North Korea Reveals Much

I fail to understand the rationale (if that's what you can call it) of the Bush Administration's reaction to North Korean nuclear tests. Back in 2002 and 2003 the Bushies were positively foaming at the mouth to invade Iraq, who supposedly had WMDs. They even fabricated ties between Al Quaeda and Iraq to convince us that Iraq represented an imminent threat.

The [Iraqi] regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. - George Bush, 3/17/2003

They continued these fabrications long after we'd invaded Iraq.

Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, 1/14/2004

(Incidentally, you can find an enormous wealth of awesome lies by Bush and his administration at Bush on Iraq.)

Today, even though North Korea proudly claims their own nuclear test, and has brazenly stated their ambitions for nuclear weapons, the administration seems much less eager to wage war. Sure, they've condemned North Korea's actions, but today it appears that they're even downplaying the threat. Here is an excerpt from a Reuters article, W.House raises doubts about N.Korean nuclear arms:

But asked if he considered the reported test a big deal, [White House Spokesman Tony] Snow replied, "No, I think it's an important deal" and noted that "there are a lot of ifs, aren't there?"

Now, first let me say that I'm no fan of invading other countries. I didn't think we should have invaded Iraq then, and I certainly don't think we should invade North Korea now. But what's interesting here is how the Bush administration has changed its tune when it comes to WMDs in the hands of "rogue nations." When they were rallying support for an invasion of Iraq, they were publicly absolutist and unswerving in their resolution to protect the American people. When they were accused of just going after the oil, Bush and his cronies all claimed that it would be the same with any other country who threatened the U.S.. They pushed the invasion of Iraq so hard that it divided public opinion here, and seriously strained our previously good relationships with most of our allies. Where were the "ifs" back then?

I'd like to think that they've learned a thing or two about the mistakes they made regarding Iraq, and that is why they're so much less hawkish concerning North Korea. But I fear that the reality is more insidious. I think they just don't care as much about North Korea. They can sit back and call for sanctions, and then just let U.N. and North Korea's Asian neighbors worry about it. From the administration's perspective, an invasion of North Korea just isn't worth it. There's no oil to gain control of, no new territory to establish military bases, and China would never stand for it.

The administration's behavioral dissonance only bolsters my conviction that President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld (and many others) misled the public leading up to an invasion of Iraq. They were bound and determined to go into Iraq and they were willing to lie to the public in order to do it. They didn't stop to ask whether or not there were any "ifs" left to be answered.

A great read for those of you who are beginning to lose hope

David Swanson, one of the founders of AfterDowningStreet.org, has written an excellent essay on the current status of the impeachment movement. In his article he provides an up-to-date summary of the known offenses and evidence. We found it to be encouraging.

We've known for some time that the president and vice president should be impeached. Now we'll find out if the media and our political representatives will figure it out as well.

Impeachment Anyone?: The case for taking the tape off our mouths.

Illegal Warrantless Wiretapping Program Officially Declared Illegal

Federal District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled yesterday that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, conducted by the NSA, violates the Constitution. This is the official word we've been waiting for, confirming what everyone already knew to be true. The Executive does not get to do whatever they want in the name of protecting the country.

This is also a vital step in the impeachment process. In Articles of Impeachment, it's one thing to claim that the program is illegal. It's quite another to be able to show that the judicial branch agrees.

Clearly, the administration will not allow this decision to rest - they've already pledged to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Should it go that far, it will be very interesting to follow. Conservative blogs are already frothing with charges of "activist judges, " and "liberal media bias." Which is no surprise since the RNC followed the ruling yesterday with a post, "Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda To Weaken National Security."

The Republican support for the warrantless wiretap program ALWAYS excludes the very heart of the matter. Because of past abuses by the Nixon administration (and likely others), there is now legislation (FISA, for example) that requires investigators to get a warrant to spy. The law allows for urgent requests, so even when there is a last-minute need to eavesdrop, the process is designed specifically not to get in the way. It's even allowed that you apply for the warrant after the fact. Yet, the administration feels that it need not obtain these warrants, so they simply ignore the law.

If the administration claims are true - that, while eavesdropping on a conversation, "one of the parties on the call is a suspected Al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist," WHY is it so difficult to do it legally? If they're suspected, don't you have evidence to support your suspicion? Can't your evidence be shared in the secret FISA court to ensure that there is substantial reason to spy? So far, there is no clear indication that there is a need to suspend the balancing effect of the judiciary on the executive.

I guess it's just easier to claim that liberals and others concerned about civil rights are "soft on terrorism."

Israel Invades Lebanon, Bush Cheers

Responding to the abduction of 2 soldiers and other terrorist activity, Israel invaded Lebanon this week. Despite the enormous number of civilian casualties, the Bush administration has repeatedly issued statements of support for Israel's campaign.

None of this is surprising. From the Bush perspective, Israel is doing what every country has a right to do - bomb terrorists into oblivion, even if a large number of innocent civilians are killed in the process.

Secretary of State Rice should have been over there on day one trying to shut this thing down. Unfortunately, she and her boss share the belief that peace can only be attained through violence. Even Bush the First approached the Middle East as a broker of peace.

For a thoughtful writeup about the situation in Lebanon, check out this opinion piece by Michael Young in the NYT.

Local Efforts to Initiate Impeachment Proceedings Against Bush and Cheney

I love reading the "headlines" on GOP.com. The posting on June 6, "The REAL Dem Agenda: Impeachment," concerns all of the local - but nationwide - initiatives for impeachment that have met with success.

And, classically, the RNC's point is that seeking impeachment is a really radical thing to do, and that only the "liberal elites" of the "ultra left" support such a shocking thing. All of this gets back to the GOP talking point about "loony liberals." In other words, you must be CRAZY to think about impeaching the president.

As mentioned on www.bushscrewedamerica.com, we point out that impeachment isn't at all as radical as the Republican leadership would have you believe.

...this is another attempt to make the impeachment movement sound like something only radicals could get behind—which is ridiculous. Public support for impeachment has been growing for quite some time. As far back as October 2005 a poll found that 50% of Americans agreed with the statement, "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him." (AfterDowningStreet.org commissioned the poll, which was conducted by the non-partisan group Ipsos Public Affairs.) In mid-March 2006, another poll by the American Research Group showed that 48% of voters polled favored Sen. Feingold’s plan for censuring Bush. Notably, so did 29% of Republican voters who were polled. From that same poll, 43% of voters favored impeachment – 18% of Republicans included. In May 2006, a non-scientific poll on MSNBC showed that 84% of respondents favor impeachment based on the illegal wiretapping, and the misinformation leading up to the Iraq invasion.

In other words, the impeachment movement is not relegated to the fringes of society after all.

And why do the Republicans want to you to think it's such a crazy idea? Because they're complicit in the illegal activities of the administration. If Bush and Cheney are impeached and convicted of their crimes, guess who's next in line.

Pelosi Rules Out Impeachment

In an effort to steal a rallying point from Republicans,* Nancy Pelosi has indicated that she will not support the impeachment movement. As quoted in the Washington Post article, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said, "impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it."

While this does seem to take some of the wind out of our sails, it also reinforces our opinions about the current Democratic leadership. They have given up their role as champions of fairness and equality for the role of the whiny opposition. Their strategy is itself only based on the strategy of the Republicans. You have to give the Republicans credit for what they've done. They organized and executed a long-term campaign to shift the entire national dialogue to the right. Now the Dems are sitting around with wide eyes just shouting to be heard.

One of my classes in college used a textbook (can't remember which) that showed the timeline of political parties on our great country. Over the history of politics in the US, political parties have come and go when they no longer speak for a large enough consituency. As I've watched the Democrats of today hem and haw, that timeline has come up more and more in my mind. Are we seeing the final days of the Democratic party? Have they shifted so far to the right in the last 15 years that they can no longer represent the environment, fairness and integrity? Or is it just a low-spot?

*How ironic it is that efforts to impeach Bush, guilty of so many "high crimes and misdemeanors," should become a rallying cry for Republicans. It wasn't that long ago that the members of the Republican Revolution successfully impeached Clinton for such weighty offenses as lying about his triste in the Oval Office.

Welcome to the BushSCREWEDAmerica.com blog!

Here we'll post our thoughts as necessary regarding the evolution of the impeachment movement, developments in foreign or domestic affairs, etc.

Please note, comments will be moderated. Opposing views will be posted, so long as they're respectful and coherent. We promise to strive for the same!

If you want to read more, please visit www.bushSCREWEDamerica.com.