While I totally respect whatever opinion you may have on Pres. Bush, I hope you realize the impact an impeachment may have during this time of high geopolitical instability. The Bush Administration is practically the only body that is pushing the world to react to Iran’s quest to become nuclear. Only recently, it looks like Iraq has finally gotten some hope with a general consensus to elect a prime minister -now would be a bad time to leave them on their own. I for one, find myself to be much more concerned about those events than laying some blame for what was probably an honest attempt to protect the country better by allowing the government to tape into some individuals’ discussions.

Nothing like a lively debate, Sacha. Let me see if I understand you correctly — generally, you seem to value security and the nation over being punished for possibly-justifiable actions. If you apply this choice in similar situations over and over again, you’d end up with a fascist government. A government that isn’t accountable for its actions. Our first priority needs to be to maintain a government that we like and want, as opposed to letting our fear of other countries erode our liberties and freedoms.

I find sacha’s point about iran somewhat misguided given that the Bush administration has been cranking up our own nuke development. i would love to see other countries start to challenge our own nukes. the commentor’s logic seems to be “nukes = bad” well, i agree, but bush is certainly all about nukes in the US and in allied countries. I hardly think this is the administration to deal with Nukes. Furthermore, the US has been claiming Iran was “Within 5 years” of making a nuclear weapon since 1995! and the latest estimate extends the timeline to 2015! Iran isn’t a justifiable reason for keeping a president who has shredded our civil liberties and waged war under false pretenses. what’s more, bush has been having meetings to discuss attacking iran. anyone with any wits about them knows this would be absolutely disasturous (not to mention just as immoral and illegal as the iraq invasion). but even typically pro war, pro aggressive force people see an Iran attack as far more dangerous for the united states.

As for Iraq “finally having some hope” it has no hope as long as its under occupation. the fights continue, and the government isnt seen as legitimate by nearly enough of the population to truly represent some sort of “democratic government”.

Bobby covered the fascist govt arguments well. Somehow I highly doubt we’ll ever see an “impeachment” nor do i think it will really change much (that doesnt mean i don’t support impeachment). impeachment doesnt mean he’ll necessarily be removed.

Also, regarding Iran’s quest to nuclear power: We may be the only country concerned about them, but as Bush has shown, he’s not shy about pre-emptively attacking an country. If Bush had been our president during the Cold War, I suspect the world would be a mite warmer and less populated than now. See this Washington Post article for some more color around this.

Bobby, in your response, you state:

1. “…you seem to value security and the nation over being punished for possibly-justifiable actions”.

There might be stories I haven’t heard of, but to this day, I have no knowledge of punishments being handed out for “possibly-justifiable actions”. Maybe you could point me to some examples?

2. “Our first priority needs to be to maintain a government that we like and want, as opposed to letting our fear of other countries erode our liberties and freedoms.”

If I recall correctly, this government has been elected democratically and thus is representing the will of a large majority of the American people, so much that it won the last TWO elections -and yes, that is even if there were some opponents as well. Speaking of “our liberties and freedoms” -again, I apologize but I have yet to see how those of the simple, innocent US citizen have been eroded under the Bush Administration. The only liberties and freedoms I have seen to be eroded are those of people who were obviously taking advantage of all the advantages of living on US soil to a) plot more attacks against Americans interests, and b) raise funds that are steered towards recognized terrorist groups and/or towards harming US interests.

Sorry, but no, I do not see the US turning into a fascist country at all, and I know it’ll never happen just because neither the Senate nor Congress will ever allow it. As much as several would like to make us believe, this country is not ran by one person only, but by a good number of lawmakers -both republicans and democrats.

While I’m all for the ouster of Bush, I’m more intrigued by the federal and legal implications of this procedural maneuver.

Does Illinois speak for the American people? Is it right for a two-house state legislature representing 4.2% of the American people, to impeach the President?

This bill, if it passes (and it will in the Democratic-controlled Illinois state legislature), will surely go to the courts. Its legality will be contested. However, the Constitution is written such that it heavily favors states’ rights. And the Rehnquist Court had a mean streak for states’ rights, rolling back decades of advances in federalist policy. So it seems that, after a lengthy legal fight, the courts would likely defer to the House rules and the House would be forced to begin investigations into the allegations.

Summer is well-known for being slow news months. With election day approaching and the fate of Congress hanging in the balance, this could very well explode into the biggest story of the year.

If that’s what it takes to prevent our messianic president from spewing nuclear hell on Iran, let’s go for it. About time Congress actually talked about this.

Adam,

So, would you prefer that the Iran president, supposedly the 12th Iman, as he calls himself, spew nuclear hell on Israel?

With what? Weapons of mass destruction? Oh, right, those that were found in Iraq.

Sacha: Going to respond to both your points.

(1) So people are excused from prosecution or punishment if their crime is justifiable?

(2) Any right denied a terrorist will eventually be denied to us regular folks. It’s incontrovertible that a technique applied against an alleged terrorist will, if given free rein, be eventually applied to an innocent person. It’s impossible that every person that the Bush administration brands or pursues as a terrorist is in fact a terrorist. When you start denying basic rights like due process then it becomes tough to defend that what you are doing is appropriate for the country. Just look at the folks stuck at Guantanamo Bay. Where is THEIR due process? Where is Jose Padilla’s due process?

Oh, don’t forget about Bush’s spying program. Spying on innocent U.S. citizens without warrant is a felony. If they spy on someone, and find out that he’s not a terrorist, has a crime been committed?

Christian: What nuclear hell?

Bobby and Adam,

Take your heads out of the sand and read some articles about Iran’s rhetoric about nuclear annihilation for Israel.

Just this weekend, Iran said Israel does not have a right to exist. And they’ve publicly boasted that they possess nuclear weapons.

Should we take his word with a grain of salt? What do you think?

Or should we go back to the Neville Chamberlain’s way of appeasement? And hope that none of this will happen….

Christian — pure and simple, do you support preemptive war?

Christian–

With what? How will Iran smash Israel? By bulldozing some sand onto Tel Aviv? They are YEARS away from building a nuclear weapon.

Suppose America was 7 years away from building a doomsday machine…or a future energy source. Shall other countries attack us tomorrow in order to contain our potential to wreak havoc in seven years?

Bobby,

(1) I think we might have a misunderstanding here: what did you mean by “possibly-justifiable actions”? My understanding was that you were referring to actions that are perfectly legal (and thus which don’t deserve to be punished). But then you’re talking about “justifiable crimes”, thus throwing me into doubt about what you were trying to say. Crimes should, of course, never be excused from prosecution or punishment.

(2) Like the Gantanamo Bay and Padilla cases show clearly, innocent citizen and terrorists are not being treated the same way. We have military tribunals for the former and regular courts for the latter. I see your point though, but also acknolwedge that it is extremely difficult to chose to do nothing, just because we might infrige the rights of the general public a little too much. There are to be some filters, to prevent insane people from causing another September 11, which would do a lot more damages to those regular citizens you are being concerned about so much. Had this wire-tapping system been able to prevent September 11 from happening, a lot of those who perished in the attacks would be very supportive of this new measure. I would very much prefer to be wrongly arrested and questionned than the government doing not enough, and letting a terrorist go through.

Regarding Iran: It is a well-known fact that the president of Iran has been lashing out at Israel with an unprecedented fervor. It is a well-known (and documented) fact that Iran has been fighting the world community to develop and enrich uranium on their soil, when indeed they don’t have the slighest need for it. Several nuclear centrals, some of them being deep entrenched into the ground, are seeing the day in Iran. Even Saddam Hussein could have been seen as being less rhetoric than Ahmadinejad. Do you really believe that this is just talk? Sorry, I don’t. You just don’t threat other countries from extermination without a reason.

s-

Correction: “We have military tribunals for the former and regular courts for the latter” should have read “We have regular courts for the former and military tribunals for the latter”. Yes, I need to re-read myself before hitting the “Submit” button :)

…. and is anybody else tempted to draw up an analogy between this whole impeachment process and the current lash-out against the Gallaudet BoT’s presidential selection process?

Sacha: As a historian, I want to point out a few ‘missing’ things in your post (apology for a long post):

1) Bush wasn’t elected democratically in 2000. He became President solely based on the Supreme Court’s decision so therefore, according to the U.S. Constitution–I’m playing the “Strict Constitutionist” at the moment–he simply cannot be President because he wasn’t elected democratically in first place anyway. This is why I was always puzzled by Bushervatives (a term for Bush voters) whom foamed over Sandra Day O’Connor that she’s a liberal which she isn’t. She’s a moderate conservative and she supported other Supreme Court judges’ decision on Bush v. Gore.

I wonder if Bushervatives here will call me a “traitor” or “America-hating liberal!” like Bushervatives usually say when they were cornered by irrefutable facts or when I explained the interpretation of U.S. Constitution above? It’s entirely up to you to think if I’m being sarcastic or not.

2) To respond to your odd statement: “Speaking of “our liberties and freedoms” -again, I apologize but I have yet to see how those of the simple, innocent US citizen have been eroded under the Bush Administration.”

I apologize but no matter how many facts or how many articles I’d pull, I’ll never convince you otherwise. I’ve dealt with Bushervatives for a while now and I know where this post will lead if I post the facts and articles. However to save my time or Bobby’s time, I’d suggest you pick up this excellent book, “The War on the Bill of Rights: And the Gathering Resistance” by Nat Hentoff, a columnist of The Washington Times and other newspapers. I’m sure that you are already aware by now that The Washington Times is a conservative-bias newspaper (or some people like to call them, “Moonie Times” because the newspaper’s founder is the insane conservative ‘Messiah‘, Sun Myung Moon). Go pick up the book that I suggested and read it. Although I wonder… will you pick up this book and read it or not. The choice is more likely the latter but I pray to God that I’ll be proven wrong. Yes, there is a such thing as liberal Christian. Or this book, The War on Our Freedoms: Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism by Richard C. Leone and Greg, Jr. Anrig. Well-research book.

3) To respond to your other statement: “Sorry, but no, I do not see the US turning into a fascist country at all, and I know it’ll never happen just because neither the Senate nor Congress will ever allow it.”

Um, what Congress? Oh right, Republican-controlled Congress & Senate, silly me. As to what history has indicated so far is that the Republican-controlled Congress has been allowing Bush to do whatever he wanted (Ports issue was one of rare moments that most Republicans would side with Democrats against Bush. Extremely rare). Hence why there is a new slogan for the Republican-controlled Congress, “Rubber Stamp Republican Congress”. No, I’m not saying that America is turning into a fascist country but there is a high possibility that it will. I can use the “Big Brother” agenda (Spying on Americans) as a example, it’s only the beginning. Or totalitarianism. Remember the moments when anti-Clinton conservatives and the likes who used to yowl like a wolf with broken leg at the air that America would turn into Communist under President Bill Clinton? Ah, what a fun time I had with these people. Although, ironically, President Bill Clintion is more conservative than Bush Sr. and Jr will ever be. I’m serious. For further evidence, read Bruce Bartlett’s Impostor. By the way, Bruce Bartlett is an Reaganite conservative economist.

4) To respond to your other statement: “The only liberties and freedoms I have seen to be eroded are those of people who were obviously taking advantage of all the advantages of living on US soil to a) plot more attacks against Americans interests, and b) raise funds that are steered towards recognized terrorist groups and/or towards harming US interests.”

Uh huh. So you mean that the former dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein–who was funded, trained, supported and befriended by the CIA and the Reagan Administration (and handshook with Donald Rumsfeld)–was somehow linked to … this 9/11 disaster? Or you mean, Osama bin Laden and his group, al-Qaeda who–clearly linked to the 9/11 disaster–funded, trained, armed and supported by the CIA using American tax-payers money are still roaming free in somewhere only God knows where? If that’s what you mean, I’d say that you’re right on. Folks, that’s the beautiful part about history.

Addition: I wonder if do you know that Adolf Hitler had been elected democratically? Germany used to be an Republic country before Adolf Hitler and his loyalists changed it into fascist country. Speaking of “US interests”, do you know that IBM helped Hitler keep tabs on the Jews? Before someone jump to conclusion, I did NOT say that Bush is Hitler. I repeat: I did NOT say that Bush is Hitler.

And also, it’s highly possible that Bushervatives would jump to conclusion so I want to say before they ‘invent’ something out of the air: I don’t hate America. I love America more than many things but what concerns I have about America is their history of funding or training terrorist groups in the past (or still do) which I found seriously disturbing. Maybe that’s why the Bush Administration ordered ‘certain’ departments to reclassified a lot of State Department documents as of late to hide the truth. Unfortunately that President Bill Clinton did that in his term…

Additionally, Bobby Cox is correct about his observation: “Our first priority needs to be to maintain a government that we like and want, as opposed to letting our fear of other countries erode our liberties and freedoms.” Indeed. But if Sacha or any Bushervative don’t want to take him at his words, why don’t you try and take a neoconservative’s word instead?: “There was actually a deliberate search for an enemy because they felt that the Republican Party didn’t do as well“. Note: Francis Fukuyama is a neoconservative. Or as the conservatives’ hero, Niccolò Machiavelli said the best: The best way to govern them was to keep the people poor and scared. If you don’t believe me, read his works. I know his works because I’m an ex-Reaganite conservative.

As ol’ George Wilhelm Hegel said it best: “What history and experience teach us is this: that people and government never have learned anything from history or acted on principles deduced from it.” Indeed.

P.S. Back to this topic, Bobby, I highly doubt that the impeachment will go anywhere–especially under Republican-controlled Congress. But if Democrats somehow win the seats from Republicans which would obtain them the power to issue the subpoenas, and then there is a chance that the impeachment will start from there. That’s why the Bush Administration is worried about this November at the moment–well, according to latest the Time magazine article anyway. Although, I sincerely hope Democrats will because whoever commits a sin must pay for it.

Well, as of late, I’ve been hearing about Bush being behind the whole September 11th thing or at least knew about the plans before it happened. Perhaps this is the “bombshell” that Illinois plans to drop…?

Bobby, what outcome do you hope to see from President Bush’s impeachment?

“Accountability”? Did President Clinton become accountable for his actions after he was impeached?

Do you want our country focusing its collective energy on impeaching our sitting President with two years left in his term?

Is impeachment more important than the country’s other concerns, such as healthcare reform, emergency preparedness, illegal immigration, and so on?

If President Bush is impeached, he will be nearly finished with his term. What do Americans get from tarnishing his legacy?

Like Clinton, if Bush is impeached will we forget about it in time? Who remembers (or cares) that Andrew Jackson was impeached? If anything, it is a cool Jeopardy question.

I do not have an opinion on this yet. I look forward to your answers which may persuade me to buy into or dismiss your rhetoric.

Bobby Cox just pointed out that the Illinois state legislature enacted the formal impeachment process (to just investigative). It will be more likely as a symbolism than gearing up for the real impeachment process.

The mid-term election of 2006 would be the valid determination of American people to seek the formal charges against President Bush or not.

One remaining question is why President Bush fail to give us a logical issue why Iran ought not to have a nuclear technology. One Iranian blogger exclaimed that why some country like Iran really need the nuclear energy while having substantial depots of minerals and natural resources at disposal.

President Bush is very ineffective at his own leadership like former President Gerald Ford and his misguided presidential leadership on “WIN” (Whip against Inflation), long gas line and lack of foreign policy success under Kissinger’s Machevillian leadership.

Seem like that we are eerily back to the “Me Decade” - 70s with similar issues facing us, Americans. How concidence of Bush’s recent visit to President Ford few days ago. Many Bushies are actually the product of the Ford adminstration.

According to the Salon e-magazine, Cheney and Rumsfield engaged in systematic ways to undermine Ford’s foreign policies and other domestic intitatives as the chief of staff and Secretary of Defense.

Look at the history of Calvin Coolidge and Warren Harding how America get ******">****** up in the first place from their corporatist mentality. That’s how America get herself in the long-term economic doldrum.

Gotta go now. The Democratic Party is really spineless and clueless in many ways.

RLM

CORRECTION - I meant to say that the Iranian blogger questioned why Iran really do NOT need the nuclear energy technology while have ample depot of minerals and natural resources. I emphasize “NOT”.

My sincere apology for unintentionally confuse any of you with my earlier submittance on consideration of Illinois’s Bush impeachment.

RLM

Adam,

In your reply to Christian:

With what? How will Iran smash Israel? By bulldozing some sand onto Tel Aviv? They are YEARS away from building a nuclear weapon.

Suppose America was 7 years away from building a doomsday machine…or a future energy source. Shall other countries attack us tomorrow in order to contain our potential to wreak havoc in seven years?

————

For the record, Iran has recently ‘tested’ a long range missile that is capable of carrying a nuclear warheard. You can google it up if you want. It’s all there, and unlike Iraq debacle, it’s pretty much a fact.

And according to some reports, Tehran is not years away from developing nuclear weapons. They already have know-how technical knowledge, all they need is a successful uranium enrichment program that makes it possible to build a nuclear device. It is known that Iran may possibly start the enriching process this year, therefore any strike must be done before 2008 at latest.

It is unlikely Bush will want to leave this crisis to the next president, nor will Israel despite its newly formed centrist party, Kadima, will not sit and let Iran take the initiative. Israel may mount its own air strikes with US assistance, at least covertly.

Moreover, Iran announced a few days ago that Tehran will happily transfer its nuclear know-how knowledge to the higgest bidder, making itself an extremely dangerous country to reckon with. We cannot permit this to occur. It would be foolish of us to leave Iran alone.

Dan

More reading material at c2ore. Vermont just joined the impeachment party.

In response to all (because I’d like to make a sweeping comment to those posters arguing in favor of… well, I’ll make my statement below):

The philosophy that I have a lot of trouble grappling with, and I don’t think I totally disagree, is one of our ‘right’ to muck with other countries. This philosophy is evident in major issues such as the Iran nuclear program or the Iraq war, to name some current touch points.

I see both sides of the philosophy. Truly, I do.

On the one hand, the modern concept of each country being its own entity, accountable to only itself within its borders, is a relatively new idea. Back in the day (e.g., the 11th century), this was an alien policy. To men of yore, one entity (country, tribe, religion, whatever) had every right to muck with the affairs of another, as long as they had the means to do so.

Prime examples of the application of this concept are the crusades, or Roman expansion. When there was objection to the action, it was more in a defensive or anticipatory manner (”don’t hurt me,” or “if you’re hurting them, I’m going to be next”), rather than a moral one (“it’s wrong to hurt them”). This was cause for a violent world.

I forget the defining moment, but I believe it was a pan European treaty, that introduced a formal policy that led to relative stability in society: what a recognized country does in its own borders is its thing. The collective rulebook now stated that invading another country’s recognized land was not permissible. Granted, the application of this notion was and continues to be imperfect at best (the British empire, and Polpot, to name a couple), but that’s besides my point.

And what is the point? The point is, that in current political arenas (at least those in the western hemisphere), invading another country is not permissible if what the other country is doing is contained in their own borders. There’s a lot of squish room here, yes, I know, but it’s what I see with my imperfect eyes. Bush couldn’t justify his invasion of Iraq until he made at least a superficial link to terrorism, which would be inside our borders and thus justification for attack. Otherwise, well, I’ll let you make your own comparisons to previous ‘unjustified’ invasion-prone leaders.

A human world permitting moral high ground is a human world permitting violation of that high ground. Meaning, the only way to have a moral high ground is to stand on it, and point down at others, and tell them they sin. I have never ever supported that kind of arrogance, and I never will. To me, there is zero difference between the dully elected official telling the populace of another country that killing each other is immoral, and the usurper dictator telling the populace of another country that permitting women to vote is immoral. Same arrogance, different topic. I’m sure this post can be brutally applied to Darfur, but that’s a whole other mess of snakes to contend with.

But I digress.

On the other hand, who can stand at his border, look across to his neighbor’s yard, and calmly watch him build a device to hurt other neighbors?

So where is the line drawn between to-each-his-own and protection of one’s self? Our current president’s stance seems to be toward, shall I rehash it, preemptive strikes. My personal preference is a focus on defense, which seeks to balance between protection and independence. The grand example of this is the Cold War, which the world at large survived… but I’ll be the first to admit that it took extreme and profoundly clever leaders to keep defense from progressing into offense; a potentially cataclysmic offense, at that.

I could write an entire book here just on the political implications of defense/offense strategies (many already have, of course), so let’s not dig deeper there.

*sigh*

Crud, where was I going with this? Oh, yeah; I believe the summary of this post is that starting from an assumption that it’s our right/prerogative to judge and consequently muck with other countries is a deeply dangerous presumption, and any actions that start with the thought “They are doing something wrong, and I do something right to fix them,” are inherently bogus.

Defend yourself from direct attack, I whole-heartedly support that. But preemptively striking down a possible attack…just doesn’t fit. I won’t go so far as to say preemptive strikes are wrong, because I then fall into the trap of my own argument, that moralistic judgments are intrinsically arrogant. But there is no distinction between a preemptive strike for ‘protective’ reasons, and an invasion for internally selfish reasons (resources, moral crusade, etc.).

*clears throat*

Ok, I’m ready to have my argument poked full of holes now.

The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review found “The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
2002 opinion here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/.....11802.html
It’s the law that need changing or further clarification, not that of the president with his currently given constitutional power.

But it is interesting that the president works to protect Americans from terrorists, Democrats deliver no solutions of their own.

But it’s doubly ironic to see how many people forget about during the Clinton-Gore era that supported warrantless searches in the 1990s. Lo and behold the very same powers that Mr. Bush does today in arguing for the NSA intercepts.

“The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the attorney general,” Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on July 14, 1994.

I completely forgot to add this in my initial response about Bobby’s comment on the Illinois impeachment attempt.

Ahem.

The bill you are referring to, Bobby was referred to the House Rules Committee where it is *DEAD*. Dead…dead…dead!

It was the simple fact that the Illinois House refused to get involved with these moonbats’ schemes on the House floor. Why? Well, if you read carefully the US House Rules, a state vote on an impeachment resolution does not bind the House of Representatives to:

(1) investigate whether to procede, or

(2) refer it to the House Judiciary Committee for further review.

The U.S. House Rules simply state that the House will consider such a request from a state, or they can simply ignore it.

What you don’t understand Bobby is that the House of Representatives are elected directly by the people, and the collective body is separate from the States, who have no jurisdiction over the Federal government. Or even in the hope to try and somehow overthow Bush with their actions. Laughably so, no, they cannot.

But let me ask you a question. If the Illinois state legislators who introduced this resolution/bill would they be at risk for FEDERAL charges under 18 USC 2381 (treason) or 18 USC 2385 (attempting to overthrow the Federal government) for the simple act of introducing a bill just to try oust the elected President of the United States coming from a state government to a Federal government?

Something for you to chew on.

by the way, how come “Will Bush be Impeached Soon” blog not visible in the DeafDC home webpage?http://www.deafdc.com/

Somebody needs to be a bit honest around here.

Bump

Answers, please.

Its too late to state that we are at the edge of a world abyss and to impeach Bush is too risky or dangerous. In fact, I believe strongly, that this would send a message to the entire world that the American people want nothing to do with this kind of leadership - it might save us - and that we apologize for bringing this goon and his henchmen into office - and that we intend to take more responsibility as citizens in the future to prevent liars, thugs, war mongers, and greedy capitalists from entering our great halls of freedom and justice. This Administration must stop and soon - we cannot wait until the election - they are already planning to hit Iran and Syria - we must openly punish this man NOW and his administration for lying to the world. Then perhaps the world will honor us again for taking the risk, courage, to do right.