If Bush-Cheney Can’t Be Impeached, Nobody Can

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23802

If Bush-Cheney Can’t Be Impeached, Nobody Can
Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2007-06-20 12:10. Impeachment

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

By allowing the opportunity to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney to slip away, Democratic Leadership - and the ineffectual Congressional Black Caucus - are complicit in the death of the rule of law in the United States. There is hardly a law that has not been broken by the Bush gang in their six-year crime spree - a massive criminal conspiracy that began with the theft of the 2000 election and continues with impunity under a Democratic Congress. The Black Caucus, whose constituents would support impeachment "in an instant," tremble like Chihuahuas under the gaze of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

If Bush-Cheney Can't Be Impeached, Nobody Can
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

"If laws can be broken at will, there is no law."

If the Democrats don't even make an effort to impeach George Bush or Dick Cheney before these criminals' terms are up, then no president of the United States will ever face punishment for crimes against his own people or humanity at-large. So said David Swanson, of the Internet treasure trove of impeachment information, AfterDowningStreet.org.

Swanson was speaking at a discussion of impeachment at the Take Back America Conference, in Washington, earlier this week. Swanson presented an encyclopaedic list of 12 categories of impeachable crimes committed by the Bush regime - not 12 crimes, but 12 whole categories of crimes, each containing many separate instances and counts of crimes, any one of which is enough to send Bush and Cheney back where they came from before January, 2009. Taken together, the list shows there is no rule of law in the United States - that Bush has effectively destroyed the Constitution as a barrier to executive dictatorship. If laws can be broken at will, there is no law. Congress may as well stop enacting them, and go home, themselves.

"What is the Congressional Black Caucus afraid of?"

That goes for the Congressional Black Caucus as an institution, as well. At least 40 of the 42 Black members of the House of Representatives should be co-sponsors of a measure to impeach Dick Cheney - but only four have signed on. What are they afraid of? Huge majorities of African Americans would have voted to impeach George Bush before he was even sworn in, in January, 2001, for having stolen the 2000 election. He did it again, in 2004, committing myriad crimes in the process. And he was still at it, this year, firing his own Republican U.S. attorneys for not being vigorous enough in systematically suppressing the voting rights of Blacks and Latinos - in preparation for Republican theft of the election in 2008. Yet only four Black congresspersons have signed on for impeachment. They fear House Speaker Nancy Pelosi more than they respect the will of their own constituents, who would endorse impeachment in an instant. Pelosi says impeachment will remain "off the table" - meaning the rule of law is off the table. Pelosi's defenders, including Black lawmakers, say there's not enough time left in Bush's and Cheney's terms to bother with impeaching them. That's a lie that flies in the face of history. Richard Nixon's impeachment proceedings took only three months, after which he resigned in disgrace. It took only four months for Bill Clinton to go through the entire process, and be acquitted. The Democrats have been in the majority in the House and Senate for five months, and have not raised a finger to defend the rule of law.

Impeachment, and all criminal processes, are designed not just to punish current lawbreakers, but to prevent future criminality. George Bush and his gang have been running a massive criminal enterprise for more than six years, effectively nullifying the Constitution. The Constitution does not automatically come back to life after the two top criminals leave. It must be enforced, or it is just an old, moldy piece of paper. The question is not whether there is time to impeach Bush and Cheney, but whether there is time to rescue the rule of law - domestic and international.

[deutsey]

1. I hate to say it, but they're not going to be impeached and I don't even

see them suffering any legal consequences for their crimes. None. Zip. In fact, they'll probably end up profiting even more in the years to come.

Look at the Iran-Contra figures (many of whom are back in the proverbial saddle). Reagan's propped up as a presidential icon and either Poppy Bush pardoned the key criminals in the scandal or they went on to do quite well, thank you very much (Eliot Abrams, Ollie North, for example). Even the Watergate criminals made out like bandits, with Nixon himself being redeemed later in life as the wise, old, elder statesman.

:evilfrown:

[Generator]

56. Exactly

And that's why the stated purpose of this whole site, (not mine for visiting or many others I know but still-the purpose is singularly one-to elect the person with the D behind their name-period.) and the ENDLESS denial and pointless debate(much of it on worthless minutia, and gossip) so fierce in the delusion that it MATTERS that their and only their precious candidate swoop in on January 20,2009 and the country will be saved, saved I tell you, is just insane.

No, unless we clean the rot out, this country will continue to rot.

I suspect a banana republic, an economic collapse, a third world style place, and then, a revolution. I doubt I will live that long-40 years is about all I have expect left. But maybe. The country that I believed in December 2000 was in many ways a myth. And I'm certain that it's certainly dead now. I just want to enjoy my days on earth. But I REFUSE to believe in denial. There is no political solution with the people we have. They are up against an evil they refuse to even acknowledge, must less fight.

[Independent_Liberal]

64. So you're willing to keep letting these criminals come back again and again...

...until we no longer have a country?

That's how it goes, just look:

Reagan - Worse than Nixon
Bush I - Worse than Reagan
Bush II - Worse than Bush I

Do you want to see what the next one will be like?

[deutsey]

76. Gosh, had I only known I was the one letting these criminals come back again and again

I would've stopped them long ago. I'm sorry everyone...I'll stop them from now on.

:sarcasm:

What do you think I've been trying to do with other activists over the past few decades? In case you haven't noticed there's been an active, coordinated, well-funded rightwing reaction over the past 40 years or so to progressivism in America. They have succeeded despite all that we've done to counterbalance it.

Do I want to see what the next one will be like? You ask that as if I have a fucking choice in the matter. Did I want to see Reagan? Did I want to see Bush I, the '94 Reaction, Bush II stealing one, maybe two elections? No, but they happened anyway and these bastards got away with everything they did despite the protests I go to, the legislators I contact, the letters to the editors I write, the actions I organize, the campaigns I volunteer for.

Tell me, what am I missing? What's the hidden secret to preventing the pardons, the contempt for democratic processes, the secret and/or unconstitutional wars, the looting of our treasury by the elites in this country, the dismantling of the "safety net", the strangle hold on our Congress by lobbyists, authoritarianism crushing our liberties, the mocking disregard for people like me struggling to make ends meet every month while Bush's corporate cronies live like feudal lords?

Enlighten me.

[Independent_Liberal]

78. I'm just saying that we can't give up.

The problem is people aren't fighting hard enough. We need to get up off our asses and fight this machine until we make sure it can't come back to do further harm. Protesting, organizing and writing is better than sitting around moaning about how bad things are. That's just what I like to tell people around here.

We need to think of new ideas and not despair. The best way to deal with the problem: money. Money is their achilles heel. You've got to hit them where it hurts. Gotta say to the politicians you're not going to contribute to them and you're going to boycott the corporations. That's what it's all about.

[deutsey]

81. No, we can't give up, but there comes a point when a nation

irrevocably moves in a certain direction that leads to its ultimate downfall. It may be decades (Nazi Germany), or centuries (Imperial Rome), but there's a point that sets into motion its moral collapse.

I wonder if we haven't reached that point.

[partylessinOhio]

2. Chief enabler - Madame Squeaker!

Can't Take My Eyes Off Of You
by..Frankie Vallie

You're just too good to be true
Can't take my eyes off of you
You'd be like heaven to touch
I wanna hold you so much
At long last love has arrived
And I thank God I'm alive
You're just too good to be true
Can't take my eyes off of you

Pardon the way that I stare
There's nothing else to compare
The sight of you leaves me weak
There are no words left to speak
But if you feel like I feel
Please let me know that it's real
You're just too good to be true
Can't take my eyes off of you

[onenote]

3. I didn't realize that House Democrats needed her permission to voice support for impeachment

Its an easy out to blame the lack of congressional interest in impeachment on Pelosi. But the fact is that a bill to impeach Cheney was introduced two months ago and its garnered a grand total of 8 co-sponsors. If there is a wave of support for impeachment in the House, it would manifest itself in additional co-sponsors to this resolution.

[partylessinOhio]

6. Each member of congress should vote the will of the voters of the district

that sent them to Washington. They should not be under the thumb of a vote dictator. This was not how the writers of the constitution meant it to be.

[onenote]

8. and they can. Pelosi isn't stopping them.

Nancy Pelosi isn't stopping Democrats from co-sponsoring the Cheney impeachment resolution. THat's why the resolution was introduced and that's why it eight Democrats have gone on record as co-sponsors. The problem isn't some "vote dictator" -- its that over 200 other Democratic members have decided not to support the pursuit of impeachment at this time.

[defendandprotect]

51. Pelosi stopped a Conyer's investigation --

That's what I've heard. There has to be an investigation to impeach.
And Pelosi stopped the Conyers investigation.

[bdamomma]

25. nothing like shaking the hand of an enemy

:wtf: nancy pelosi?

[Solly Mack]

4. Recommending

The war criminals will walk free and America will pretend all is well.

[The Count]

5. Wrong again!

Any democrat can be impeached at any given time - for reasons to be concocted as needed.

[Moochy]

12. Keep validating that fear based frame

Fear Fear Fear of loss of our power!! fear fear fear!

[The Count]

24. It's not a meme it's a reality. IOKIYAAR. Where have you been?

[Independent_Liberal]

62. That's a lie and you know it. Quit getting sucked in by that meme.

[The Count]

67. What? You don't believe that a Dem instead of Bush would have been impeached already?

Where are you guys coming from? Are you taking your wishes for fact?

[Independent_Liberal]

70. What I'm trying to say is...

I understand that in today's political climate it's much harder to impeach Republicans than Democrats. I'm not going to argue with you on that one iota. I'm just saying that while it's okay to be sarcastic and cynical every once in a while, you shouldn't repeat it too much and start taking it for gospel. It's that whole "IOIYAR" or "unless you're beholden to the Corporofascist power structure" meme. Some people around here have repeated that so much that they're starting to believe it as fact. All I'm saying is not to go overboard with sarcasm or cynicism.

[ShortnFiery]

7. By Jove I believe you've got it! CONGRESS = fraternity that adores Corporate America. n/t

[Quantess]

37. It's about the money.

It's always about the money. Our senators are on somebody's payroll.

[Hubert Flottz]

9. I agree!

Congress has a sworn duty to uphold and protect our Constitution.

[Captain Hilts]

10. It's not about how worthy for impeachment they are [very!], but about the numbers...

of folks on Capitol Hill willing to support the impeachment process and vote.

Very few Republicans will cross over to do so.

[ginnyinWI]

11. When Tony Snow stands up there and tell us

that they all are careful to follow the law (as if it needed to be stated about WH officials!), then we KNOW we're in deep trouble.

[Philosoraptor]

13. "If laws can be broken at will, there is no law."

[blues90]

20. It seems the constitution being shedded

No longer works the way it was designed to work .

I wonder if Pelosi and Reid still have the constitutional power to impeach these freaks . another possible reason Pelosi put it off the table is that she would be next in line for the presidency .

All I hear is impeachment would take all their time and now allow them to do other things we need however as long as these criminals are in office we continue to find and face more horrors and another possible war so wht good are bandaids on society if they continue to create more death and destruction and get away with everything .

There is enough proof of crimes , what more do they need , they know the war was illegal.

[Vilis Veritas]

28. Not broken, just ignored.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1143913

[snappyturtle]

14. Better get used to it....nothing will be done for the betterment

of the people.

[Independent_Liberal]

79. No we don't get used to it. We fight and raise hell until they can no longer ignore us.

[ryanus]

15. sad but true

What else would they need to do to get removed?

[GOTV]

16. It's just as well. Impeachment without conviction is worse than nothing n/t

[jtrockville]

18. I disagree: SOME taking a stand > NONE taking a stand.

[GOTV]

19. Some people taking ineffective action < Noone taking ineffective action. I'm for results...

... not symbolism.

[jtrockville]

40. What results do you get when you do nothing?

[GOTV]

46. Ah ha! Another person who thinks the alternative to "impeach now" is to do nothing...

... get back to me when you can think of one thing that can be done to protect the country other than impeaching right now.

[jtrockville]

61. What are YOU doing to get results? If it's nothing, shame on you!

[lonestarnot]

17. Impeachment should not be a fucking choice in these matters!

The Constitution has laid out the "man" date for High Treason!

[onenote]

30. Where does the Constitution "mandate" impeachment.

[Rosemary2205]

33. Didn't you and I already go over that?

Or do I have you confused with someone else??

The Constitution does not REQUIRE congress to impeach, it only requires those who have been impeached and convicted to leave office.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. There's No Mandate Nor High Treason.

But there is an optional political process outlined and criminal acts that have occurred.

[lonestarnot]

77. Going to war based on a pack of lies is high treason.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

80. No It Isn't.

[DeeDeeNY]

21. The section you highlighted says it all

[Highway61]

22. I truly don't understand...

The MAJORITY in this land want justice, jobs, health care, normality and accountability! Their voices spoke in November...why are they blowing it???? I don't want to hear "the majority isn't there in the votes." Maybe so but Nancy specifically right from the get go said..."Impeachment is not on the table nor will it be considered."
Am I missing something????:banghead:

[GOTV]

27. Yes, you are missing a few things...

... and you will keep beating your head on a wall until you're willing to slaughter some of your sacred cows. When you're expectations differ from reality, it's not reality that's wrong.

> The MAJORITY in this land want justice, jobs, health care,
> normality and accountability! Their voices spoke in November

You can only guess that everyone who came to the same party you did came for the same reasons. In reality most people who voted the way you did might have had different reasons than you.

> I don't want to hear "the majority isn't there in the votes."

Maybe you shouldn't be on a message board then. Someone might just post that and that just might be the truth.

> Maybe so but Nancy specifically right from the get go said...
> "Impeachment is not on the table nor will it be considered."

Yes she said something like that. If we can make the Senate support removal you'll see Nancy change her tune in about a nanosecond.

[Yukari Yakumo]

29. Allow me to elaborate...

>> I don't want to hear "the majority isn't there in the votes."

> Maybe you shouldn't be on a message board then. Someone might
> just post that and that just might be the truth.

Allow me to elaborate...

1. We need 67 to convict. That means we need to turn at least 17 Senate Repubs to do that. At best, I'd only guess 5 might turn.

2. Take a good hard look at where the Senate Democrats come from. A fair number of them come from states that voted for Bush twice. You'd have to convince all of them to play along as well.

They only way you'll get a conviction is to have a slam dunk case that not even the M$M or Rove can spin Bush out of.

[Beelzebud]

23. Our system of checks and balances is totally broken.

[bdamomma]

26. so are we totally broken, unless we turn the tables on these SOB's

[CrazyForKucinich]

32. Absolutely

R3VOLT!~

2008 we're bringing in a new way of thinking to government...one that works. Every Democrat and Republican that has failed us will be replaced.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SaneInSC]

34. Such a shame

that we already have the 535 most courageous and honest people in America serving. I wish we could do better, but alas...

"Don't overlook the obvious" is a quote that I heard from Al Franken that I really like. Well folks, its obvious to me that the VAST majority of Congress is bought and paid for. Hello term limits. Thank you for your service--now get the hell out, go home, and go get a real job..I've been MIS-represented by you UP TO HERE! I'm not much into your political games and oneupsmanship while people are dying and suffering daily. Oh and while your at it, go fuck yourselves.

[onenote]

35. what makes you think you'd get better representation with term limits?

The presidency is subject to term limits. Has that produced presidents who don't "mis-represent" you?

[GOTV]

36. Touche! Best anti-term-limit-comeback ever. n/t

[SaneInSC]

38. Not necessarily

I was just thinking that perhaps the founders hadn't considered what might happen if the Congress, as a whole, were " bought off" and stopped actually representing the will of the majority for years on end. I'm also interested in public financing of elections, though that alone wouldn't address the problem. If the media were bought and paid for by the same people who "owned" our Representatives so that the public wasn't getting the true picture..well that would be a problem. I think we are in that situation now. I don't fear losing a Ted Kennedy(or whichever) lifelong Rep. to term limits, as they could go and make their state/local communities a better place. I have much more faith in the average educated citizen then I do in what we have now. 535 of them are befuddling 290-300 million of us, no doubt about it. They could be making such a fuss/ruckus that the country would have to take notice and get involved, veto-proof majority or no.

[onenote]

41. I'm always intrigued by the claim that Congress doesn't represent the will of the majority

I have no doubt that COngress as a whole, and most members of Congress individually, don't represent the "will" of a majority of DU. But here's the rub. I think (indeed, I know) that I am more liberal than most, but not all, of the people with whom I work and associate socially. It is not a surprise to me that the percentage of people who describe themselves as "liberal" consistently is smaller than the percentage that desribes themselves as "conservative" and the percentage that describe themselves as "moderate" is greater than either of the other groups. Now, I think the moderate group tends to agree with my views more often than it would agree with the conservatives, but that there are clearly instances where my views are more liberal. And there are clearly people who are even more liberal/progressive/radical than me.

So when it comes down to it, I accept the notion that my vision and wishes aren't going to be reflected by my elected officials a lot of the time. For example, I proudly supported Jim Webb for Senate in my home state of Virginia. Am I more liberal than Jim Webb? Undoubtedly. Am I more liberal than most voters in the state of Virginia? Also undoubtedly. But holding my breath until I turn blue isn't going to change that nor is refusing to vote for the candidate whose views are closer to mine even if that candidates views diverge from mine on a number of issues.

During the Vietnam War, the right talked constantly about a "silent majority" that supported the war in the face of large scale public opposition. I find it ironic that some on the left insist on claiming that there is really a "silent majority" that agrees with them. The majority that matters is the one that stands up and is heard. If there is a big silent majority of progressive voices out there, I have to wonder why Dennis Kucinich is as far down in the polls as he is.

[bjobotts]

39. I SAID THE SAME DAMN THING 3MOS AGO SO THE THOUGHT IS OCCURRING TO EVERYONE

The truly sad part is that Pelosi will not be remembered for any of her accomplishments
She will be remembered only as the Speaker of the House who took impeachment off the table during the worst and most corrupt presidency in the history of our country.
Congress can't have it both ways. They cannot demand oversight and accountability from the administration and then remove the process for holding them accountable.
Pelosi just gave Bush/Cheney "permission" to do what ever they wanted by removing the consequences for their behavior.
It's like saying, "No matter what you do we are not going to punish you for it." And she said this first thing when the Democrats took control of Congress. Why even mention it? Why even make that statement.
The 2 most prominent pressing issues of the '06 election: 1) stop the Iraq war and bring our troops home; 2)Stop government corruption (which included making them accountable for their lies and corruption).
Can't get either one done.
This is the reason for congress's low approval rating...not just the Iraq funding bill but because they refuse to impeach. Congressional Dems can't see the strength in Impeachment. It show them willing to stand up against the odds to do the right thing and defend our constitution. The heroes of government will stand up and fight against this administration. The people back them. The party will once again stand for something...the law and the constitution.
The corruption is overwhelming and running rampant and never was there a greater call or need for impeachment.
If Congress doesn't impeach this administration then there will never be a reason to impeach. It's like telling future presidents that no matter what you do you won't be impeached (unless of course it involves sex)
This is why Nancy Pelosi is gaining the reputation of the most resented Speaker of the House in history...and from her own party...for inadvertently protecting the worst and most corrupt presidency ever by taking impeachment off the table.

[onenote]

42. And I'll ask again -- How is Pelosi keeping members from signing onto the Cheney impeachment

resolution? Eight members of Congress have signed on. As far as I can tell, none have been stripped of their committee assignments or otherwise punished. As Speaker, Pelosi may have considerable sway over the legislative agenda and calendar, but if 218 Democrats signed on to the Cheney impeachment resolution as co-sponsors, there is little doubt that she would move it forward.

Blaming Pelosi for the fact that most Democratic members of Congress appear to have little interest in the pursuit of impeachment at this point in time is convenient, but wrong.

[bjobotts]

73. Because Pelosi sets the agenda, she is the overall coordinator

of the House. She keeps and sets the focus of the House. Because she assigns committee's memberships and chairpersons she wields considerable power over the direction of the House. Sure, people can sign on to the impeachment resolution but she decides its importance and when and how it would be called to the floor and basically how much attention it gets. She is the leader of the House and all she has to say is impeachment is on the table and it would be back on the House's agenda. Without Pelosi behind it , impeachment doesn't have a chance unless there is a rebellion against the House Speaker's agenda. She determines it's importance. You would have to have a battle to bring up anything without her approval. Though it is "possible" to do, it is highly "unlikely" unless she approves. But Pelosi took it on herself, without being asked, and before there was any discussion about it to "take impeachment off the table". Not Pelosi and others, not after being asked about it and definitely before it ever came up, Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, the leader of the Democrats in the House, announces to the world and to the House "impeachment is off the table". That's why it comes back to rest on her shoulders. She denied it for everyone and thereby became chiefly responsible for it. Without her it doesn't have a chance in hell.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. Kind Of A False Premise From The Author: It Should Be 'Nobody Can When There Isn't A Super Majority'

That's the issue here and always has been. The author repeats several times that the administration should be punished for their actions and that the punishment would serve as a deterrent for future administrations. Problem is though, without 67 votes, there IS NO PUNISHMENT. So the whole premise as to why impeachment should occur here; for sake of punishment and deterrent; is a bit irrelevant since that outcome couldn't possibly occur with the current mix of republicans in the Senate anyway. Therefore, the dems can't be blamed nearly to the degree that the author would like them to be, since the process itself would then be minimized to a political exposure only as opposed to any real punishment or deterrent; since even if the dems did as he said the process would not succeed overall.

Does that mean we shouldn't try? Not necessarily. But it does mean that the author's premises of punishment, accountability, future deterrent, and ensuring that the constitution is protected, are all moot since there's no way, no matter what the dems do, that they'd get a conviction out of it anyway.

[Alpharetta]

47. Should be "nobody can" unless they're Democrat

They impeached Clinton easily. All it took was some sex.

If Clinton had been their boy (If Clinton had okayed the swindles in Iraq, the drug program swindle, the tax cut swindle, the energy program swindle, etc.) then his trangressions would have been overlooked as Bush's have been.

[thegreatcause2]

60. partisan majority impeached clinton

democrats need to follow the repuke lead and "just do it" by impeaching bush's dumb ass.

[Alpharetta]

65. the majority media impeached Clinton

Yes we have a Congressional majority. But it wasn't just Congress that impeached Clinton -- they did it with the support of the media.

[H2O Man]

45. Nominated.

I will no longer donate a penny of my money, nor will I invest any time, in the campaign of any candidate who does not represent my values. I'm still a democrat, but I am a grass-roots democrat. And the majority of the democrats in Washington DC are not even close to representing my values.

[RestoreGore]

48. Everyday Congress enables these criminals they are accomplices

[Middle finga]

53. Bushco must have dirt on quite a few of the congress members

I think if they tried to impeach him over this Iraq war he probably have information on quite a few of them to take their asses down with him. I feel the members that voted for this war did it primarily out of political reasons, I mean they had to know what Bushco was putting out at the time was garbage, they had the resources and the staff to find the truth. A lot of us knew Bushco was exaggerating and lying and all we had was the Internet. So some in congress who would like to impeach over the war are probably afraid it will cause collateral damage among st their comrades. I'm sure Karl 'the Snake' Rove has made it clear to congress "if you try to impeach bush over the war he wont be the only one to fall". Either that or Bush has NSA secrets on key members of congress.

[RestoreGore]

66. I wouldn't be surprised at all n/t

[conspirator]

49. Both the republican and democrat elite are together in the cabal nt

[CK_John]

50. After 200+ yrs, the score 2 impeachments 0 removals.

[H2O Man]

58. nope n/t

[ananda]

52. actually..

.. anyone not toeing the corporofascist line
is subject to .. ermm.. law.

Sue

[wizstars]

54. Where is Barbara Jordan when we need her????

:shrug: :shrug:

[leftofthedial]

55. there is no point in even having an impeachment option

if it CAN be used as it was against Clinton

and CANNOT be used against these criminals

we passed through the looking glass somewhere along the line

[Maryland Liberal]

57. I will vote for...

The DEM canidate 4 President who SUPPORTS Impeachment of the Bushie.

[BlooInBloo]

59. Clinton can. It's the ultimate IOKIYAR.

[Independent_Liberal]

63. Once again, you're getting sucked in by that lie.

That's a false meme and you know it.

[The Count]

69. What's with this obsession with memes - when facts are presented to you?

It's not "fear" - it's a statement of fact: Dems do not have the guts to impeach a criminal republican. republicans won't hesitate to destroy ANYONE who is in their way.
Have you read any positive press on Gore lately?

[Independent_Liberal]

71. Read my response above. #74

[GeorgeGist]

68. Complicity ...

in the crimes by the 'prosecutors' and the 'jurors' effectively convicts the victims.

[WillyT]

72. Tell It Sister, TELL IT !!! - K & R !!!

:bounce::yourock::bounce:

[tomp]

74. the full exposure and prosecution of bush/cheney, inc....

....is the #1 issue for me, surpassing all others combined. it's what we didn't do with nixon, reagan, gwhb, and gwb. there's only so long you can sweep this shit under the rug before the country just falls apart. it's coming. support impeachment as if your life depended on it. expose and prosecute the current cabal. kucinich for president.

[jarnocan]

75. awesome thanks for posting! nt