home

New Calls For Impeachment

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 08:27:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

When the Kennebec County Democratic Committee debated the pros and cons of a resolution endorsing the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, they "rather quickly ran out of cons," said Chairperson Rita Moran. The resolution passed easily, and the Maine committee isn't alone in its desire for accountability.

In New England, where three of Massachusetts' 10 House members have called for the investigation and possible impeachment of President Bush, and residents in four Vermont towns voted last month at annual town meetings to impeach the president for lying, such an action is becoming far from uncommon.

Illinois State Rep. Karen Yarbrough recently "sponsored a resolution calling on the General Assembly to submit charges to the U.S. House so its lawmakers could begin impeachment proceedings." California Assemblyman Paul Koretz "has submitted amendments to Assembly Joint Resolution No. 39, calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney."

Voters around the country understand that the president's actions are more worthy of impeachment than President Clinton's denial that he received a sexual favor from Monica Lewinski.

State Democratic parties, including those in New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina and Wisconsin, voted in February to urge Congress to impeach Bush. A Zogby International poll showed 51 percent of respondents agreed that Bush should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, a far greater percentage than believed President Bill Clinton should be impeached during the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal.

< Abuse Continues in Iraqi Detention Centers | 'So Long As They Die": Report on Lethal Injection >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    New Calls For Impeachment | 40 comments (40 topical)
    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 09:20:05 AM EST
    Cheney should be impeached (if he does not resign first), not Bush. If we impeach Bush we get Cheney. If we impeach both, we get who, Hastert? After Cheney is removed, let Bush appoint someone who promises not to run in 2008. Once that person is installed, then we can impeach Bush himself.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 09:59:41 AM EST
    Impeachment is foolish until we have control of Congress. There is no chance that any or enough Republicans will support the measure. It will hurt our chances of winning seats in November. Worse than an empty gesture it will backfire.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 10:20:51 AM EST
    For detailed background, please read "California becomes the Second State to Introduce Bush Impeachment.".

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 10:27:11 AM EST
    Much as I'd love to see it, I agree with Squeaky. As with anything else timing is key...

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 10:41:13 AM EST
    Susan-
    The "wild card" is how many Republicans will "jump ship" due to political concerns about how they would fare in November 2006 mid-term elections if they continue to support a potentially-impeachable or an impeached president (and vice president).
    There is no wild card here. Lockstep is a habit hard to break, especially when your a$$ is on the line. These guys are largely criminals and too many of them are afraid of jail. None will stray. They still have dirty tricks up their sleeves to guarantee election victories.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:04:30 AM EST
    I say, in short (!), preempt them with the truth. Stop trying to play their game. Play our own. Their game is yesterday's. Our game is today's and tomorrow's. Because we're aiming at the truth, we're holding the cards. Because they are hiding lies, we must "call their bluff" and force them "to fold." Politics may not be a game of poker, but when strategy is involved, poker metahors can be instructive. The global integrity of our nation is what is "at stake" here.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:04:51 AM EST
    point of view on impeachment of this administration, fearing that it would "dilute" the effort of electing Democrats in November and be "distracting." The more calls there are for impeachment the more coverage by the MSM there will be about it... I also wonder if it might be that, rather than be distracting, more people will be moved to vote democrat this fall if they are confident that a democratic house and senate would impeach?

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:11:02 AM EST
    Susan-
    But impeachment is also a tool for making "the truth" public. Whether or not the impeachment hearings result in impeachment, "the truth" comes out.
    The mechanics of Republican dominated congress allow for no subpoena power, investigative committees, or anything that would force the criminals in the Congress and Executive branch to be held accountable. Independent prosecution is not even that easy. If the Impeachment had a chance in this lockstep plantation mentality Congress many would have already been under scrutiny. It is a science at this point. No committee has done anything about the eggregious ethics breaches by individual Republians. Even when the Justice dept steps and indicts, no investigation committees are formed. Do you really expect that to change when the Republican leadership is so corrupt, ruling the party members with an iron fist? Cheney and Bush are criminals amongst many. All are providing cover for each other. Impeachment is but a sad wet dream with all too much to lose in the process.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:27:22 AM EST
    interesting pov edger. I hope that you're right. The thought just came to me out of the blue while reading yours and Squeaky's post here today... It would be interesting to see a poll on the question. After work when I have more time I'll do some digging around and see... maybe one has been done?

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:28:14 AM EST
    I already impeached Bush and all Republicans and or Democrats in the future. I was once a registered Republican.I changed my voter status to undeclared. Instead of impeaching the President why don't those Republicans who are dissasatisfied show the disapproval by changing voter status and identify themselves however they choose. I live in a State of Mr. No to everything yeah I can't vote for Arnold no way.That was the nail in the coffin.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:28:58 AM EST
    Building on what Susan says: Before we proceed with the impeachment and conviction of the president, two things need to happen. First, we need to replace Cheney. I think that's going to happen anyway because he's seen as a handicap, he can be blamed for much of what Bush has done, and Fitz is probably going to name him as an unindicted co-conspirator. The other thing that needs to happen is that the Democrats take control of the Congress. That's so obvious I don't even need to back the statement up. When Cheney is impeached or resigns (more likely, and possibly before the election), the Democrats need to stand their ground. They must not ratify anyone who plans to run in 2008. The must fight the battle to end all battles - even fillibuster - to prevent the appointment of anyone without a solemn promise not to run in 2008. I think the Americxan people would understand. I agree with the poster who said that impeachment is not the best way to arrive at the truth. But it's better than nothing. I'm not sure that the impeachment of Bush is actually necessary if he can be effectively boxed in for the remainder of his term (while the Democratic Congress, of course, inspects every pair of his shorts with their newfound subpoena power).

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:29:34 AM EST
    I'd be willing to bet that more of these people would vote democrat if they thought it woud get rid of bush sooner...

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#18)
    by swingvote on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:33:08 AM EST
    Susan, You keep talking about invoking the 25th Amendment as a means of removing the President. How does this work in your mind? The Amendment merely states what happens should the President be removed or become unable to fulfill the duties of the office and establishes the line of succession. It has in it no means for removing a President. How is this supposed to work in your mind?

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#20)
    by swingvote on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 12:09:14 PM EST
    No problem, Susan. Thanks for the clarification. I too am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV or in the funny papers.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 12:51:30 PM EST
    Susan-
    Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"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."
    Doesn't count, because his figers were crossed. Just ask the AG he will agree that finger crossing by a wartime predisent is leagal.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#23)
    by Aaron on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:31:25 PM EST
    I think we're past the accusations stage, it's time for someone to write the indictment. Perhaps some willing prosecutor who reads this blog will volunteer to author the document indicting George W. Bush, for treason and crimes against humanity. Of course it won't mean much since Dick Cheney, our next president/dictator, will immediately grant Georgie a blanket pardon.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 03:35:58 PM EST
    to the best of my ability
    That's a pretty key phrase! This is what "the American people" get for (s)electing as President a person of such limited "ability." Maybe "the American people" can learn from their mistakes. President Bush apparently is beyond doing so (even if and when he will admit making them).

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 03:46:03 PM EST
    Well anyway here is the site impeach Bush. I signed the petition three years ago. Ramsey Clark was running the site then.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 04:43:26 PM EST
    reading SHM's posts is getting my blood up in all manner of ways. my question is: where is the groundswell of people who feel just as outraged and dumbfounded by the actions of this administration? i read these posts and a few others here online and i realize while we (reasonable people) are growing in number, there still seems to be a death-grip on the minds of too many people that care more about the perils of Artie Bucco and the newest version of iTunes than how We the People might actually affect Real Change in our government. where are the riots? where are the protests? where is the Outrage? if we liberals are historically identified with cultivating major shifts in civil rights, why aren't we running mobs of people night and day down Pennsylvania Ave. with flaming torches, sturdy rope, and the peace of mind that comes with knowing our constitution has given us the right to remove these criminals by force if necessary?

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 05:23:58 PM EST
    Susan: Wow--raulduke-- ... perhaps you were just being hyperbolic to get your point across He was. raulduke's namesake was pretty hyperbolic as well...
    ...an outlaw with "that extra 'something'", meaning that although he breaks the law he does so in a way that is not offensive to society, but that, in fact, makes him more acceptable.
    Nicely said, raulduke. :-)

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 06:25:59 PM EST
    Thanks for making me feel better guys and gals. Nothing makes me laugh harder than you talking about impeachment. Y'all do know how to count, right? As well as knowing which house of Congress is more likely to change sifes? I'll give you a hint: while the Dems may win the Senate, they will not win the House, and thus will be unable to Impeach in the House.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 06:29:36 PM EST
    Hey-troll alert. boring one at that.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 06:40:32 PM EST
    hey, you're welcome, anytime bud. Whatevever we can do to help with the drooling, giggling and grinning here, you know?
    As bad as Bush's numbers may be, Congress' are worse. Just 30 percent of the public approves of the GOP-led Congress' job performance, and Republicans seem to be shouldering the blame. "These numbers are scary. We've lost every advantage we've ever had," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said. "The good news is Democrats don't have much of a plan. The bad news is they may not need one."


    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 06:43:03 PM EST
    Y'all do know how to count, right?

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 07:49:16 PM EST
    sorry, its a sad mix of having been laid off from a sweet account exec. job, blood sugar spiking, and too many Chomsky podcasts this weekend.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 10:28:02 PM EST
    Raulduke--[Thanks to edger, I see now that your moniker is "RaoulDuke" (I thought you might have been "Raul" (rhymes w/ "Saul") from "Duke U" :-)]--Don't let it get you down. At least you now have some "down time" to start your revolution (or join one) and drink your lattes at your leisure (smell the roses--"Gather ye rose-buds while ye may"; carpe diem (Seize the day), and all that. Enjoy your time off while it lasts. Another perhaps even better job will come along bye the bye (espec. if you're still relatively young). . . . Take resumes with you to the marches--you can always network while waiting for the revolution (if not instigating it). . . . ;)

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 10:51:44 PM EST
    Wow--raulduke--it isn't my intention to provoke armed mutiny, but rather to encourage non-violent, peaceful protests. I don't sanction the use of "force" of the kind your reply implies. Setting the Constitutional right to bear arms aside for the moment--and perhaps you were just being hyperbolic to get your point across-- I have been trying to encourage people to pay attention to the non-violent, peaceful protests already scheduled and to suggest that they might want to join in promoting them and such related forums if they don't live nearby (New York City, California, Illinois, etc.), signing petitions, and starting some similar peaceful protests in places closer to their own homes. It is true that many more people could do that than currently are doing that.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 10:56:37 PM EST
    Relative to impeachment and presidential pardons or presidential pardons of former presidents: "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"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." " "Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." Thus, Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached, apparently having brokered a deal with his successor President Ford to pardon him after his resignation. [Setting a very bad precedent for future Republicans' "dirty tricks"--it's okay if you can get away with them, continue deceiving "the American people," and, best of all, put your cronies in office to carry on on your behalf.] Options: (1) President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney resign prior to impeachment (not likely to happen re: Bush; more re: Cheney), and, in the case of both, both are pardoned by Bush's successor as President. (2) President Bush and Vice President Cheney are impeached and convicted of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Neither one can be pardoned by later presidents. (3) One or both are charged and impeached but acquitted. Yet more "truth" is made public and they are disgraced. Neither one can be pardoned by later presidents. (4) The Democrats take back the majority in Congress (one or both houses) in November and engage in options (1) to (3). (5) The Democrats fail in the attempt to take back the majority in Congress (one or both houses) in November and fail to impeach and/or to convict the Pres. and VP. (6) Having failed to elect a majority in Congress, the Democrats somehow succeed in electing Democrats as President and VP in 2008. (Not very likely.) (7) Having failed to elect a majority in Congress, the Democrats also fail to elect Democrats as President and VP in 2008. (8) Déjà vu all over again. . . . Other options?

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 10:58:38 PM EST
    Justpaul is correct; sorry for causing any confusion. I did mistakenly write "to accomplish" implying "in order to" accomplish recently; in other comments about these matters, I was referring to the procedure that Amendment XXV kicks in after the president has already been removed from office (e.g., via impeachment/conviction), which is more accurate. Article II of the Constitution spells out the relationship between (prior) removal of the President (or vacation of his office otherwise) and the involvement of Amendment XXV: see the links.
    Amendment XXV Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
    Article II provides for the situation of the removal of both the president and the vice president or either one:
    In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
    Impeachment is a means by which Congress can "remove" the President and/or the Vice President. The Constitution grants Congress the "power" to "remove" these government officials and to define how it may do so.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 10:59:56 PM EST
    interesting pov edger. I hope that you're right. Squeaky: I expect things to "change," when enough people put their money and their time where their mouths are and force things to change. So my bets are on individual people, the voters, the citizens of this country more of whom I hope will vote in the future when they realize that their own lives and their livelihoods are at stake. My bets are not on the members of Congress except in that they may pay attention if their constituents pressure them. So I'm urging people to contact their Representatives and Senators to make their feelings known. While you and I and others who post here may be doing that, too many other American citizens are not doing that. So the "netroots" and "grassroots" efforts to inform them about "the truth," to register them as voters, and to get them to polls in November are where the biggest efforts eventually need to be made. This cannot be a one-pronged effort. The monster has many heads, and we need many hands wielding many weapons to fell it.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:00:34 PM EST
    The other metaphor that comes to mind is the phrase "the Emperor has no clothes." We've known since the campaign of 2000 that our "Emperor" (Pres. Bush) has "no clothes" and, yet, somehow we let him and his party get away continually with "naked lies." We need to stop letting him and the Republican Party (with election campaigns to be orchestrated by Karl Rove [again!]) get away with not only naked lies but the murderous policies that these lies hide. I can't believe that there is not a huge public scream against Rove being given even more concentrated powers to maneuver elections to the Republicans. (Let's not focus on or speculate about the nature and meaning of his putative "demotion" like the MSM; that's not what it is: it's just more "sleight of hand." He will be running the Republicans' future "dirty tricks," perhaps even if he is indicted by Fitzgerald! Perhaps they can even spin that politically in their favor!!)

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:01:48 PM EST
    Squeaky: I used to have your point of view on impeachment of this administration, fearing that it would "dilute" the effort of electing Democrats in November and be "distracting." But impeachment is also a tool for making "the truth" public. Whether or not the impeachment hearings result in impeachment, "the truth" comes out. The Grand Jury investigation being led by Fitzgerald would have more indictments in place prior to impeachment hearings, and the knowledge of those indictments and their outcomes (if any) would be a basis for impeachment hearings of both the president and the vice president. Depending on how many Republicans "jumped ship," allegations would become charges and be tried in the Senate. Whether or not the president and the vice president resigned and/or were impeached and then convicted of "high crimes and misdemeanors" by the Senate, the reversal of this direction in which they have been taking our country would be more possible than if none of this occurs and people just wait out the results of the elections of 2006 and 2008. That relatively-passive "strategy" did not get rid of them in 2004 (much to the surprise of those who voted against them in 2000); given Republican "dirty tricks" in elections, it would not work again in 2008 unless the Democrats and "the American people" wise up and take back the reins of our country. The country belongs to us all, not just to Bush/Cheney Republicans. They need to be reminded of that every step of the way. We Democrats have repeatedly underestimated the power and the prowess and the lack of ethics and dishonesty of Republican strategists in the White House and the presidential campaigns. We Democrats don't think like Republicans. We don't get into their heads. In this case, we can't get caught in a trap of their making (avoid impeachment because. . . .). We have to become better poker players--call their bluff. We hold the cards, they do not. In this case, the cards are "the truth," and "let the chips fall where they may." If one is on the side of truth, one has more power than one may think. Eventually, players have to show their hands. My bets are on the Democrats and not on the Republicans. I have no fears anymore about impeachment hearings.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:02:38 PM EST
    Cheney can be impeached simultaneously with Bush. But impeachment efforts do not remove these "government officials" from office while the hearings are going on. Amendment XXV has to be invoked to accomplish the removal of the President from office; then the Vice President is in line. The Vice President would already have to have resigned in order for the President to appoint someone else in his place prior to his removal from office, otherwise Dick Cheney would become President Cheney, which, it is known, that he really had no interest in being in either 2000 or 2004. It is likely that he would resign (for reasons of health, people surmise) The Vice President who replaces Cheney would have to resign, in order for the powers of the presidency to go to the next in line, the Speaker of the House, in this case Dennis Hastert. [Without a new unimpeachable Vice President in place prior to the resignation of the President (not Rice imo), Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is next in line (unless someone else becomes Speaker before that).]

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:03:25 PM EST
    Two important related events are taking place this weekend on Saturday, April 29, in New York and California: 1. Peace March in New York APRIL 29 in New York City March for Peace, Justice, and Democracy Unite for change - let's turn our country around! 2. Impeachment Forum in California The Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party Presents: Impeachment: Dialogue, Debate & Action April 29 at 8:30 PM The Crest Theater, 1013 K Street, Sacramento, CA

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:19:17 PM EST
    hyperbole? alright...i wouldn't actually expect we try to burn Bush out of his castle in broad daylight. darkness shades a multitude of sins, as we well know. forget about the day raids.
    At the time of Watergate, HST said he wanted to tie one of the conspirators to his car bumper, drag him around the the White House a couple of times and then cut him loose at the gate. Shocking and over-the-top, it was (and remains) a hell of a lot more honest than Fox News and Bret Hume pimping for the sitting Administration or planted fake reporters in the White House press room or journalists on the take to promote governmental agendas. All of this thoroughly evil behavior--wrapped in the cool, measured tones of Objective Journalism is shocking and skin-crawling in ways HST could only hint at.
    "The Edge. . . There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. The others--the living--are those who pushed their control as far as they felt they could handle it, and then pulled back, or slowed down, or did whatever they had to when it came time to choose between Now and Later. But the edge is still Out there. Or maybe it's In. The association of motorcycles with LSD is no accident of publicity. They are both a means to an end, to the place of definitions."

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 06:36:44 AM EST
    I'm a big fan of Tom J. "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1846), U.S. President, Letter to Abigail Adams, 22 February 1787 And "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... We have had thirteen States independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half, for each State. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?" -- Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 04:40:20 PM EST
    Do we really need to go through this type of revolution (armed rebellion) again? Haven't we made any progress since 1776 (over 230 years)? Actually, maybe not much--acts of terrorism and insurgencies in the Middle East and elsewhere all over the world, the current War on Terror, television dramas like 24--all are more in keeping with that historical past than we might generally acknowledge. In the language of the 60s--Are the times really a-changin'? And, if not, why not, and how can we make them change to be "better" (and better for whom)? There are so many conflicts of (special) interests in operation, that it is often hard to keep one's head above the "troubled waters." But that we must do if we hope to survive in a civilized world.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 04:50:15 PM EST
    Susan-
    Haven't we made any progress since 1776 (over 230 years)?
    You don't believe in progress, do you? It is a word invented by military contractors. A marketing tool used to sell the latest WMD.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 07:14:35 PM EST
    You don't believe in progress, do you?
    Call me a Pollyanna, Squeaky, but actually, I do. Believing in at least the possibility of progress beats bleak pessimism and defeatism. What else have we got if it is not hope in the future and in future generations? (That's why young people need to get engaged politically and to vote!) We have to believe in the possibility of human progress (nothing to do with support for "military contractors" and their "marketing tools"--I don't know how you came up with that association, but you obviously you did). So whether it's "new calls for impeachment" or concomitant efforts to elect new leaders, there could be light at the end of this very dark and depressing tunnel (vision) yet. If I--or you--or others--had no belief in progress, we wouldn't be commenting from time to time at all.

    Re: New Calls For Impeachment (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 07:26:08 PM EST
    Susan: If I--or you--or others--had no belief in progress, we wouldn't be commenting from time to time at all. Yep... especially me. Squeaky too, I believe.

    New Calls For Impeachment | 40 comments (40 topical)