Impeachment: On the Table But Not for Consumption

posted by John Nichols on 07/16/2008 @ 9:59pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (43)

Subscribe Now

Impeachment is on the table.

But Congress is not allowed to bite.

The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on one of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders in the chamber have signaled that they do not want the committee -- let alone the full House -- to take a vote on impeachment.

How's that?

The Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the president's abuses of power -- perhaps as soon as next week. Expert witnesses will be called. Kucinich says that a foreign official -- who he has not named -- is willing to testify regarding presidential wrongdoing. And Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, the veteran Michigan Democrat who actually believes in presidential accountability but has had a hard time getting other top Democrats to embrace that belief, suggests that the hearing will review evidence of "all the (Bush administration actions) that constitute an imperial presidency."

But, when all is said and done, the committee is only supposed to "accumulate" the evidence of imperial over-reach, not to act upon it.

This will frustrate ardent advocates for presidential accountability. And rightly so.

But the opportunity presented by the Judiciary Committee hearing ought not be dismissed or diminished. Conyers and his staff have been working for several years to quantify evidence of abuses, excesses and lawless acts committed by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their aides.

Needless to say, Conyers and his staff have accumulated a lot of information -- more than enough to fill a book.

A thoughtful review of that information, in a formal setting, will make clear the extent of which this president and those around him have engaged in precisely the sort of wrongdoing that the founders imagined when they gave the House the power to impeach members of the executive branch.

Achieving that clarity -- ideally on live television -- is an imperfect, yet essential, step in the arduous process of getting reluctant members of the House to uphold an oath of office that requires them to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic."

Comments (43)

Cindy Sheehan needs about 4000 signatures to get on the ballot in San Francisco. Make Nancy Pelosi answer the people help Cindy get on the ballot.

www.CindyforCongress.org. http://www.facebook.com/people/Cindy_Sheehan/1358899491

Posted by ammaloney at 07/16/2008 @ 9:28pm
"Achieving that clarity -- ideally on live television -- is an imperfect, yet essential, step..."

posted by John Nichols on 07/16/2008 @ 9:59pm

No, it is a bone thrown to a certain segment of constituents that are not very happy right now.

A distraction, or diversion if you will, to those who had visions of lollipops dancing in their heads, only to meet reality.

And to give Pelosi cover for certain future needs.

The proof? The committee may not vote.

The magic show continues.

Posted by Benchrest at 07/16/2008 @ 11:25pm
history will record a moral, humanitarian, and strategic disaster that changed the balance of geopolitical power against the US, as a result of a truly needless, egregiously wrong war of choice, facilitated by a vast lie campaign directed against the American people by the Bush administration and its allies, that was waged exclusively to serve the interests of a few military-oil-industrial powers and the agents of a foreign power, the Israel Lobby. ZERO

That pretty much sums it up rather well.

The US has screwed so many on this one, including itself, that Pelosi & ilk are as terrified of revealing the disaster's extent, as they are of revealing their dependecy on & fear of AIPAC.

In a word, betrayal of the American people, for 30 shekels & millions in side deals for family members.

The hearings will be wrapped into the campaign as another albatross around McCain's neck, helping to sink him further as he sinks himself.

A miracle if the hearings anything more than that. The killers & thieves will walk, laughing at US all the way to their golf courses & hunting estates.

Posted by sloper at 07/17/2008 @ 01:41am
Oh there's plenty of reasons:

Iraq

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Invading Iraq without any threat to the U.S.

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Lying about Iraqi WMD's to Congress and the American people

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Causing the deaths of over 2,000 U.S. troops and the maiming of over 10,000 more

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Failing to provide adequate equipment and armor to U.S. troops

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Allowing illegal torture and murder of prisoners

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe- Causing the deaths of 100,000 Iraqi civilians

As a petty Dic'tator wannaber - Spending $300 billion in just two years for an occupation that could last for decades

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Letting Halliburton steal billions through no-bid contracts

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Using vast quantities of depleted uranium weapons that will poison Iraq now and for generations to come

September 11

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Ignoring countless warnings of an attack in the U.S.

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Reading "My Pet Goat" during the attack

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Letting Osama Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Holding no bureaucrat accountable for ignoring warnings

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Delaying and obstructing the 911 Commission investigation

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Turning Afghanistan into the world's largest opium producer

Terrorism

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Allowing international terrorism incidents to quadruple and trying to cover up the facts

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Failing to secure our borders and ports to prevent terrorism

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Creating a new generation of terrorists through the invasion of Iraq and the killing of 100,000 civilians

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Letting terrorists buy high-powered weapons inside the U.S.

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Letting North Korea build nuclear bombs and missiles that can cross the Pacific Ocean

As a petty Dic'tator wannaber - Refusing to shut down Pakistan's nuclear weapons exports

Foreign relations

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Turning the world against the United States

As a petty Dic'tator wannaber - Preparing for another war with Iran

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Signing treaties that cost America jobs and undermine American laws

Economy

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Letting gasoline prices double at devastating cost to the economy while oil companies make record profits

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Letting corrupt companies like Enron steal billions from consumers and employees

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Cutting taxes for the rich and turning a $5 trillion budget surplus into a $5 trillion budget deficit

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe- Adding trillions to the national debt, which our children and grandchildren will have to pay off with interest

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Letting millions of American jobs go overseas

Freedom

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Letting bureaucrats wiretap Americans without a court order

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Locking up suspects for years without charges or trials

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Arresting nonviolent protesters at Bush events

As a petty Dic'tator wannaber - Packing the courts with right-wing judges to outlaw abortion

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Ordering federal courts to interfere in the Terri Schiavo tragedy

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Taking away our right to sue corporations through class actions

As a Dic'tator - Taking away our right to declare bankruptcy under Chapter 7 and forcing middle-class Americans into debt slavery

Democracy

As a petty Dic'tator wannaber - Stealing the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Refusing to investigate the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters in Florida and Ohio

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Promoting black-box electronic voting machines without paper trails

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Embracing dictators in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, and China

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Overthrowing democratically-elected leaders in Haiti and Venezuela

Environment

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Allowing global warming, which will cause massive environmental damage

As a petty Dic'tator wannaber - Allowing more toxic mercury in the air and water

As a petty Dic'tator wannaber - Allowing oil drilling in wilderness areas

Scandals

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Illegally "outing" CIA agent Valerie Plame, an important anti-terrorism official

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Letting a gay male prostitute (Jeff Gannon) roam free in the White House

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Paying journalists to give favorable coverage to the administration

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Relying on an earpiece for answers during debates and press conferences

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Going AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 and covering it up ever since

As a petty Dic'tator wannabe - Defending the most corrupt Member of Congress (Tom DeLay)

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2008 @ 02:00am
HE WILL NEVER BE IMPEACHED. EVER. Drop it. No one is willing to take this up. No one is willing to risk the potential embarrassment of another US president being brought before the courts so soon after the last. He will not be held accountable ever. Give it up. If they were going to impeach the chance was a long time ago. The chance is over and done with. Drop it.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 04:06am
The chance is over and done with. Drop it.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 04:06am

You, Happy and Mask may be correct on this, but Hsubfools and Zero are also right.

If the executive branch powers are not reigned back in there will be nothing to stop another president from taking things even further. W and Cheney should already have been thrown out on their asses, but that is not the point. What's to stop the next president from pretty much disolving congress?

Bush pretty much rendered Congress ueseless with the help of Congress itself, but after a while the tax payers will see that congress does nothing but draw paychecks and nothing more. If that's all they do, then congress is no longer a functioning part of our government. If that's the case, Congress should be dissolved and we can quit the masquerade of separation of powers in our government and just have our elected dictator for 4 years.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/17/2008 @ 08:01am
If the executive branch powers are not reigned back in

the word is rein, from reining in horses.

I don't know what you are advocating here. no congress? that's how Hitler took power, by dissolving parliament.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/17/2008 @ 10:18am
The sad thing is that Palozi has jello for guts. She has set the feminist thing back about a generation.

Posted by julien38 at 07/17/2008 @ 11:06am
I don't know what you are advocating here. no congress? that's how Hitler took power, by dissolving parliament.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/17/2008 @ 10:18am

Emile, Thank you for the correction on rein. I'm not advocating anything. What I am pointing out is that Congress has not been doing it's job and has pretty much removed itself from the equation of checks and balances. Congess itself has advocated this along with, of course, folks like Liv, Happy, JM and the like.

They claim to like applie pie and support this country for 221 and on and on, but crap all over the constitution and of give the finger to Congress's oversight of the executive branch.

As long as their boy is in the White House, he can violate any laws he sees fit and can claim executive privilege. What a joke. Bush could pretty much kill a person in the light of day and say I killed that person for reasons of national security and therefore you may not investigate this act because it would violate executive privilege and also risk the security of the United States. This "executive privilege" places the president of the United States above the law.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/17/2008 @ 11:20am
I agree with you. we will however have a new congress as well as a new pres. there is at least hope for some change.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/17/2008 @ 11:24am
"I love it when a plan comes together!"

Col John Hannibal Smith "The A Team"

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/17/2008 @ 10:49am

Or maybe it's that the Iraqi's want us out and this is a way to save face for the war mongers.

You have yet to tell us what we've won in Iraq. What and where is the victory? A Shiite government that is friendly to Iran? The very same Iran that you were trying to tell us is an evil country hell bent on destroying the United States?

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/17/2008 @ 11:26am
there is at least hope for some change.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/17/2008 @ 11:24am

That's all any of us can do is hope.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/17/2008 @ 11:27am
Iraq will not be a safe haven for terrorists (Abu Nidal, members of Al Qaeda, members of the PLF, members of Islamic Jihad, etc).

I think those are sufficient reasons to celebrate what we have done. I remain immensely proud of President Bush for the courage to make that decision and for the efforts of our heroic military personnel.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/17/2008 @ 11:39am

Once again, you prove time and time again to be the one to turn a blind eye or eyes to reality.

Saddam has been out of power for some time, remember, Mission Accomplished? So what have the last few years in Iraq been about. Iraq wasn't a safe haven for AQ until we took it over. As far as Iraq's neighbors, I don't think you give the time of day to any of them with the exception of Israel, so that argument coming from you is quite lame. MOst of the neighbors of Iraq are Muslims and we all know how you feel about the evil Muslims.

You could care less about rapes going on in Africa. I don't see you thumping your bible, hollering and screaming about the injustices perpetrated on women there. We're talking thousands upon thousands of women going through this via armies. You justify going into Iraq because of Saddam's two sons doing this but don't give a rip if an army of thugs does it?!

Israel may have benefitted from our going into Iraq, but I don't see them doing the fighting in Iraq nor paying for it, so take your Israel argument elsewhere. You are talking to an American, not a citizen of Israel. You claim people like Zero and HSUBFOOLS don't like America, but you are the one backing policies that bankrupt the U.S., cause international hatred towards the U.S., and destroy whatever good standing we had in the world. You are the one who is more worried about Israel than your own home country and all because of the Bible, not logic.

So, once again, what has the U.S. gained out of this besides debt, dead soldiers, more enemies than we had before 9/11 and an economy on the brink of collapse? Nothing.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/17/2008 @ 11:59am
"No one is willing to risk the potential embarrassment of another US president being brought before the courts so soon after the last."

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 04:06am

I call bullshit.

The only people directly affected by the bogus Clinton impeachment were the Clintons and Lewinskys.

Today's democrats in the house have been complicit in many of the administration's crimes and overreaches.

That is why the spineless bastards won't fulfill their oaths.

Posted by drhammer at 07/17/2008 @ 12:16pm
You could care less about rapes going on in Africa. I don't see you thumping your bible, hollering and screaming about the injustices perpetrated on women there. We're talking thousands upon thousands of women going through this via armies. You justify going into Iraq because of Saddam's two sons doing this but don't give a rip if an army of thugs does it?!

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/17/2008 @ 11:59am |

That's because they don't give a damn about the people. They are fighting wars of convenience. I don't see us going into South America, North Korea. Let alone Africa. Good luck on that one Wolf. He will come back with some comment that starts with "typical leftist" then he will proceed to insult you but not actually counter what you said.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 12:38pm
Today's democrats in the house have been complicit in many of the administration's crimes and overreaches. That is why the spineless bastards won't fulfill their oaths. Posted by drhammer at 07/17/2008 @ 12:16pm

No Clinton wasn't the only one. The rest of the world does watch us. When our President is brought before the courts it's sends a message that this is a nation of criminals, all the way up from the people to the President .

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 12:40pm
After 9-11 AQL was on the rise around the world. The attack was a grand event in the eyes of radical Islam and intended to be an inspiration for their quest for world domination (their words).

The battle of Iraq became a showdown with AQL who decided to make it the main event in the global war on terror. The first few years were looking grim and getting worse but the surge "cleaned their clock". As a result AQL has suffered enormous damage around the world, both physically and politically. They have been shown to be nothing more than a group of barbaric animals from the 7th century which has dramatically reduced their appeal to Muslims. So yes, Iraq is the turning point...

Posted by pyeatte at 07/17/2008 @ 12:44pm
Check the link below out. JM, MBB and Happy might be sweating it out if they are as rich and "crafty" as they claim to be. Evidently a little illegal money laundering has been going on in the form of Swiss Bank Accounts. I'd love to see the list of clients taking part.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5394214&page=1

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/17/2008 @ 12:50pm
As a result AQL has suffered enormous damage around the world, both physically and politically. They have been shown to be nothing more than a group of barbaric animals from the 7th century which has dramatically reduced their appeal to Muslims. So yes, Iraq is the turning point... Posted by pyeatte at 07/17/2008 @ 12:44pm

Haha. Oh the grandiose hope that this is actually true. AQL was nothing but a bunch of barbaric animals BEFORE 9/11, during and after. No one but those who were interested in joining them thought any different and those who were interested in joining don't see them as any more or less than barbaric animals. The war in Iraq doesn't show them as animals, their actions on 9/11 is what shows them as animals.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 12:55pm
So yes, Iraq is the turning point...

Posted by pyeatte at 07/17/2008 @ 12:44pm

I'd like to agree with you, but there is this country, which we gave billions to by the way, called Pakistan that is training and harboring the very enemies you speak of.

Afghanistan is ready to go across the border to get at them because Pakistan won't do anything about them and also has been helping them out.

By the way, Obama is the one candidate actually saying he would go into Pakistan after these guys. Bush didn't and won't, and neither will McCain. So much for getting the "bad guys". We should just pull completely out of the ME. The sooner the better. If they wish to blow each other up, God speed to them.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/17/2008 @ 12:58pm
Iraq will not be a safe haven for terrorists (Abu Nidal, members of Al Qaeda, members of the PLF, members of Islamic Jihad, etc).

of course it is a safe haven, now. Saddam kept those elements in check. a fractured Iraq is perfect for radicals. of course your list is absurd, they have nothing to do with Iraq.

the tough talking repugs are silent when it comes to the biggest radical of them all, coincidentally the one who attacked amerika, Bin Laden. all chances of getting him vanished with the Iraq war and occupation.

no one will go into Waziristan, north or south to get him, because no one can. the terrain and strong tribal bonds have made them unconquerable. they love Bin Laden. so do many arabs. he stood up to the imperialistic power. in that he was Saddam's rival, which both were aware of.

the repugs cannot explain that failure away, no matter how much money they pour into Iraq, they could gold plate every faucet in Baghdad but running water is non existent there.

Posted by emile duBois at 07/17/2008 @ 1:10pm
Bushfools who conveniently abandoned his previous persistent projection that the death toll of American soldiers in Iraq was going surpass that of Vietnam; and the rest of the "merry pranksters" (with apologies to Tom Wolfe).

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/17/2008 @ 10:15am

What's reported:

Military Deaths By Time Period

Period_US___UK__Other__Total__Days__Avg

6____1035 ___46___ 14 __ 1095__532__2.06 5_____933 ___32____20____985__412__2.39 4_____715 ___13____18____746__318__2.35 3_____580 ___25____27____632__216__2.93 2_____718___ 27____59____804__424__1.9 1_____140___ 33 ____ 0____173___ 43__4.02

Total_4121__176__138__4435__1945_2.28

http://icasualties.org/oif/

WHAT'S NOT SO MUCH REPORTED:

http://tinyurl.com/6efsxj

http://tinyurl.com/5zdkbf

http://tinyurl.com/3rcj4f

http://tinyurl.com/6xrve4

http://tinyurl.com/lhclp

http://tinyurl.com/5j6vz

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2008 @ 2:02pm
ER,

Period_US___UK__Other__Total__Days__Avg

6____1035 ___46___ 14 __ 1095__532__2.06

5_____933 ___32___20___985__ 412__2.39

4_____715 ___ 13___ 18___746__ 318__2.35

3_____580 ___25___27___632__ 216__2.93

2_____718 ___ 27___59___804__424__ 1.9

1_____140 ___ 33 ___ 0___ 173___43__4.02

Total_ 4121___176__ 138__ 4435 _ 1945__2.28

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2008 @ 2:06pm
Nancy Pelosi's Choice and Legacy

Will Nancy Pelosi be cited in history as the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives or the first Speaker of the House of Representatives that for politically expedient reasons would not investigate or pursue impeachment proceedings against G.W. Bush and company and thereby permitting under her watch a major constitutional breach? In a recent book US vs. George W. Bush, et.al. Elizabeth de la Vega a former federal prosecutor lays out a brilliant case against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, and Colin Powell, for tricking the nation into war, or, in legal terms, conspiracy to defraud the United States. Daniel Ellsberg a former State and Defense Department official who revealed the Pentagon Papers has said about the book: "On the basis of the evidence presented by former prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega, I'm convinced that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their fellow "indictees" are fully entitled to a fair and honest trial--indeed, several fair and honest trials--by juries of their peers".

In a recent phone call to Pelosi's California office an aide hemming and hawing on the phone tried to justify to me the lack of action by Pelosi in abrogating her constitutional duty to launch a full investigation of potential high crimes and misdemeanors by the President. The aide I spoke with revealed that many angry constituents of Pelosi have called in on this matter and in what seemed to be fit of frustration over Pelosi's tactics blurted out "They (Bush, et al.) will not get away with this" -- an interesting statement with no further explanation. But the aide trying to get off the phone as soon as possible went on to say that Pelosi feels it would be too "time consuming" to pursue an investigation towards impeachment whether or not there was probable cause. I am not a legal scholar but I never thought that launching an investigation or impeachment against a President that has possibly broken the law is a choice that the Speaker of the House has the right to make. It is my understanding that it is his/her duty under the constitution and if it is not the constitution is seriously flawed because then it puts the Speaker and the President above the Laws of the Land. July 17, 2008 Southport, CT

Posted by sdelco at 07/17/2008 @ 2:12pm
Cccomfo1: What do you think turned the Iraqi people against AQL? It was their barbaric actions in that country where they would bomb markets, killing women and children. They would bomb weddings, killing as many as possible. They would bomb schools, killing as many children and teachers as possible. The list goes on and on. AQL was banking on pure terrorism to keep the people in line but it backfired badly, which is where we are today.

Posted by pyeatte at 07/17/2008 @ 2:24pm
What do you think turned the Iraqi people against AQL? It was their barbaric actions in that country where they would bomb markets, killing women and children. They would bomb weddings, killing as many as possible. They would bomb schools, killing as many children and teachers as possible. The list goes on and on. AQL was banking on pure terrorism to keep the people in line but it backfired badly, which is where we are today. Posted by pyeatte at 07/17/2008 @ 2:24pm

Not all of Iraq is against AQL. I bet you statistically there are no more Iraqis today that are against them than there were before the war. In fact Iraq was ALWAYS against AQL. AQL didn't go into Iraq to take over governing. They went in to engage in military action against the US. AQL's tactics haven't changed in a long time. They have been on display to the world since they started. The world knew what they were from the beginning. Don't even bother trying to make more out of this than it is.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 2:55pm
Stop stealing income from those who earn it and start taxing the spending, then there would be no need for people to try to protect what they have from blood sucking ghouls like Levin...HE is the criminal. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/17/2008 @ 2:50pm

Acutally no. Those who break the law are criminals. They knowingly helped people commit tax evasion which makes them criminals. It doesn't make a difference whether you agree with the law or not. If you break it and get punished for it then it's no ones fault but your own.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2008 @ 2:57pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/17/2008 @ 2:55pm

Do you not know the difference between reality and what goes on in your head?

Since your boy W has been in office we've gone to a record deficit.

We went into Iraq which had nothing to do with the 9/11. Bin Laden is still roaming around but by God Iraq is in a mess.

Afghanistan is now overun by the Taliban once again thanks to our little venture into Iraq.

The banks are being bailed out by the fed because they made poor investments and we, the tax payers, have to pay for it even though our government is pretty much borrowing money faster than they can print it.

Oh yes, things are just grand. You go ahead and live in the land of Oz or where ever the hell it is you go in your head.

I never said our soldiers raped thousands of people, that was you who said it, not me. You know damn well what I was talking about, or are you ignorant of that too.

And, not thinking the U.S. should have it soldiers die for Israel and that we should bankroll Israel is not anti-semitic. I'm just an American and not a citizen of Israel. I would no more think we should go to war or bankroll Germany than we should Israel. Both countries are quite capable of taking care of themselves.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/17/2008 @ 4:24pm
To say I'm disappointed in Pelosi and the rest of the Dems in D.C. is understatement. Kucinich was right - they should have moved forward with impeachment against Cheney and then gone after Bush. When do they - our erstwhile "leaders" in the Democrat party get the message that we're sick and tired of their vacuous posturing? If they're not going to actually go after Bush for war crimes, then just stop wasting our taxpayer money on more empty crap. They've let Bush have his way over and over; when do they understand that we're not really interested in their rationalizations as to why they haven't stood up to him. I think as a nation, we're pretty clear on where Bush has taken us at this point - and worried whether we can EVER overcome the damage he and his cronies have inflicted on our nation. If Ms. Pelosi and those in congress now don't have the appetite to reign him in and make him, Cheney, and all their "protectorates" such as Halliburton accountable, that makes them - congress - guilty of collusion, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm an Obama supporter; but I can't begin to tell you how disappointing his vote on FISA is. It's almost enough for me not to bother to vote in the pres. election. His reasoning is packaged as pure rationalization. I - and I think most of my fellow Americans - are sick of hearing all the "gray reasonings" our representatives throw out there. TRY TALKING TO A CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT. There is, and has been, a process that deals with threats against our country. All Bush et. al. have accomplished - with the blessing of Ms. Pelosi and company - has been to usurp those safeguards, erode our Constitutional rights, and throw the balance of powers our forefathers created into a skew that no longer resembles what our forebears intended.

If Ms. Pelosi and her colleagues don't have the guts to stand up for what's right, stop wasting our time and dollars on empty gestures. They mean nothing.

Posted by AdrienneHB at 07/17/2008 @ 4:38pm
Why is everyone in a quandary about why the congress won't utilize their constitutional power of oversight and impeachment?

Er, HELLO-- if no one has noticed or are purposefully in denial-- we've been in a petty dic'tatorship form of government for a good long 6-7 years now.

Oh DUH!

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2008 @ 4:56pm
Bushfools who conveniently abandoned his previous persistent projection that the death toll of American soldiers in Iraq was going surpass that of Vietnam;

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/17/2008 @ 10:15am

I'll try this one more time.

What's reported:

Military Deaths By Time Period

Period_US___UK__Other__Total__Days__Avg

6____1035 ___46___ 14 __ 1095__532__2.06

5_____933 ___32___20___985__ 412__2.39

4_____715 ___ 13___ 18___746__ 318__2.35

3_____580 ___25___27___632__ 216__2.93

2_____718 ___ 27___59___804__424__ 1.9

1_____140 ___ 33 ___ 0___ 173___43__4.02

Total _ 4121___176__ 138__ 4435 _ 1945__2.28

http://icasualties.org/oif/

WHAT'S NOT SO MUCH REPORTED:

Pentagon holds brain injury data 6/8/2006 9:17 PM, By Gregg Zoroya,

USA TODAY The Pentagon is refusing to release data on how many soldiers have suffered brain injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan. It says disclosing the results would put the lives of those fighting at risk.

The data come from screenings of 1,587 soldiers at Fort Bragg in North Carolina and 9,000 at Fort Carson in Colorado. Army Medical Command spokesman Jaime Cavazos said Wednesday that the results of the tests represent "information the enemy could use to potentially make soldiers more vulnerable to harm." He declined to elaborate.

...

Pentagon scientists and other health officials have already made public similar data from other installations. Those results show that about 10% of combat troops -- and 20% in front-line infantry units -- suffered concussions during their tours. The injuries frequently go undiagnosed; multiple concussions can lead to permanent brain damage.

http://tinyurl.com/6efsxj

After a land mine exploded under his armored vehicle last October in Barwana, Iraq, Marine Sgt. Devon Bradley remembers a deafening noise and a flash. Then nothing.

...

He was eventually flown to a battlefield hospital where he was diagnosed with a concussion -- his second in the Iraq war and the third of his life. Bradley learned that what he thought was post-nasal drip was actually leaking spinal fluid.

By January, he was back at Camp Pendleton in California. Doctors told him his brain may never fully recover, and his career in the Marine Corps is in doubt.

...

The number of concussions keeps rising. Almost 30% of the patients admitted to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., have brain injuries.

Doctors fear that thousands of others go undiagnosed. A two-question survey developed by the Brain Injury Center shows that about 10% of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffered a concussion during their combat tour.

About half still had symptoms that could be related to a concussion, including slowed thinking, headaches, memory loss, sleep disturbance, attention and concentration deficits, and irritability, says Air Force Lt. Col. Michael Jaffee, a neurologist with the center. More than 500,000 soldiers and Marines have served in combat since Sept. 11, 2001, many more than once.

http://tinyurl.com/5zdkbf

"This blast group is going to be potentially huge," says Angela Drake, a neuropsychologist with the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, a research arm of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Pentagon. "We're looking at thousands of potential patients."

Military doctors describe brain injuries as a signature wound of these wars. That's because advances in body armor save soldiers who might have died in previous conflicts, but blast waves from roadside bombs can cause brain damage.

U.S. troops in Iraq are exposed to hundreds of bombings each month. "We've seen patients who have had three deployments and have had some (head) injury on every single one," Drake says.

The damage from multiple concussions can be irreversible. "Repeated concussions can be quite serious and even lethal," says Air Force Maj. Gerald Grant, a neurosurgeon who treated troops in Iraq.

...

Pentagon health official Michael Kilpatrick questioned the accuracy of the screening and whether soldiers even remember information they're asked for: "Most people, when they get knocked out, don't really know it."

Military researchers, however, say the two-question survey has proved highly accurate.

"I think they're afraid," Drake says of the Pentagon's decision not to screen for concussions. "The sheer numbers are overwhelming. This is a worrisome thing. It's like opening a can of worms."

The Pentagon is developing a simple mental exam that medics can use on troops who may have suffered a brain injury. If the test shows evidence of a mild concussion, a servicemember could be kept from combat until the injury heals. Kilpatrick says this test could be used in Iraq within a few months.

Posted 6/6/2006 11:29 PM ET

http://tinyurl.com/jevux

Post-War Suicides May Exceed Combat Deaths, U.S. Says, By Avram Goldstein

May 5 (Bloomberg) -- The number of suicides among veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may exceed the combat death toll because of inadequate mental health care, the U.S. government's top psychiatric researcher said.

...

Failure to adequately treat the mental and neurological problems of returning soldiers can cause a chain of negative events in the lives of affected veterans, the researchers said. About 300,000 soldiers suffer from depression or PTSD, the report said.

http://tinyurl.com/3rcj4f

The Veterans Administration has lied about the number of veterans who've attempted suicide, a senator charged Wednesday, citing internal e-mails that put the number at 12,000 a year when the department was publicly saying it was fewer than 800.

...

CBS reported that the VA had provided it with data earlier that showed only 790 attempted suicides in all of 2007.

"How do we trust what you are saying when every time we turn around we find out that what you are saying publicly is different from what you are saying privately?" Murray asked Mansfield. "How can we trust what you are saying today?"

Mansfield responded that the situation was unfortunate and didn't "send the right message" to Congress or the public.

"I know Dr. Katz is a dedicated public servant," he said. "There isn't a lot the VA should be keeping secret."

Murray pointed to a RAND Corp. study released last week that found that 320,000 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from traumatic brain injuries and 300,000 troops suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder or major depression.

Of those with PTSD or depression, Murray said, only half have sought treatment, and only half of those have received treatment that was "minimally" adequate.

"I think we ought to be worried," Murray said, adding that, as with Vietnam-era vets, some of the more violent symptoms might not show up for 50 years.

"They can be walking time bombs for decades," Murray said. "I hope everyone in the VA understands this."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/34718.html

Eighteen American war veterans kill themselves every day. One thousand former soldiers receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs attempt suicide every month. More veterans are committing suicide than are dying in combat overseas.

In fact, they never would have come to light were it not for a class action lawsuit brought by Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United for Truth on behalf of the 1.7 million Americans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The two groups allege the Department of Veterans Affairs has systematically denied mental health care and disability benefits to veterans returning from the conflict zones.

...

Another set of documents presented in court showed that in the six months leading up to March 31, a total of 1,467 veterans died waiting to learn if their disability claim would be approved by the government. A third set of documents showed that veterans who appeal a VA decision to deny their disability claim have to wait an average of 1,608 days, or nearly four and a half years, for their answer.

Other casualty statistics are not directly concealed, but are also not revealed on a regular basis. For example, the Pentagon regularly reports on the numbers of American troops "wounded" in Iraq (currently at 31,948) but neglects to mention that it has two other categories "injured" (10,180) and "ill" (28,451). All three of these categories represent soldiers who are so damaged physically they have to be medically evacuated to Germany for treatment, but by splitting the numbers up the sense of casualties down the public consciousness.

Here's another number that we don't often hear discussed in the media: 287,790. That's the number of returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who had filed a disability claim with the Veterans Administration as of March 25th. That figure was not announced to the public at a news conference, but obtained by Veterans for Common Sense using the Freedom of Information Act.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5219

Gulf War Veterans and Depleted Uranium by Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D., GNSH

There is no dispute of the facts that at least 320 tons (about 320.000 Kg) of depleted uranium (DU) were «lost» in the Gulf War, and that much of it was converted at high temperature into an aerosol - that is, a mist or fog of minute airborne particles of uranium oxide, UO2 or UO3. It would have been impossible for ground troops to identify this exposure if or when it occurred in war, as this would require specialized detection equipment. However, veterans can identify situations in which they were likely to have been exposed to DU. Civilians working at military bases where live ammunition exercises were conducted may also have been exposed.

Uranium oxide and its aerosol form are insoluble in water. The aerosol is able to travel tens of kilometers in the air. Once on the ground, it can be resuspended when disturbed by motion or wind. When inhaled, very small particles of uranium oxide, those that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter, can reside in the lungs for years and slowly pass through the lung tissue into the blood. Uranium oxide dust has a biological half-life in the lungs of about a year, but, according to British NRPB experiments with rats, the ceramic or aerosol form of uranium oxide takes "twice as long" or about a two-year biological half-life in the lungs, before passing into the blood stream. [Stradling et al 1988]

...

The presence of depleted uranium in urine is sufficient evidence to substantiate tissue storage and long-term internal contamination of this radioactive substance, seven or eight years after exposure.

http://tinyurl.com/6xrve4

DU SCANDAL EXPLODES

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com

The Preventive Psychiatry Newsletter has written to its subscribers telling them that the real reason the former Veterans Affairs Secretary, Anthony Principi, recently resigned was because he has been involved in a massive scandal covering up the fact that Gulf War Syndrome was caused by the use of depleted uranium, according to the SF Bay View.

In the article Arthur Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law, reportedly wrote that "thousands of our military have suffered and died from, [and depleted uranium] has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed." Bernklau went on to detail several alarming statistics. The historical disability rate amongst soldiers last century was about 5 percent, although it approached 10 percent during Vietnam. But due to the use of depleted uranium in the battlefield, 56 percent of the 580,400 solders that served in the first Gulf War were on Permanent Medical Disability by 2000. 11,000 Gulf War veterans are already dead. Now 518,739 Gulf War Veterans, almost all of them, are currently on medical disability.

Principi, under the order of the Bush Administration, had been allegedly covering up the disastrous results of using depleted uranium since 2000. However, with so many soldiers having serious health problems it has become impossible to keep secret.

http://tinyurl.com/lhclp

http://tinyurl.com/5j6vz

Cancer in Iraq Vets Raises Possibility of Toxic Exposure, by Carla McClain

Published on Sunday, August 26, 2007 by The Arizona Daily Star

...

These are kids 19, 20 and 21 getting all kinds of cancers. The Walter Reed cancer ward is packed full with them."

The prime suspect in all this, in the minds of many victims -- and some scientists -- is what's known as depleted uranium -- the radioactive chemical prized by the military for its ability to penetrate armored vehicles. When munitions explode, the substance hits the air as fine dust, easily inhaled.

http://tinyurl.com/56bhdu

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2008 @ 6:35pm
Bush, and **ALL** of Congress should be impeached and removed from office because they've all destroyed ENORMOUS amounts of value in the government, in the people, and in the nation. This is the WORST CONGRESS and WORST PRESIDENT combination because a BAD president making BAD decisions with a weak Congress that permits all kinds of BAD decisions to keep going UNENFORCED is the destruction of the CONSTITUTION and all that it stands for.

Posted by revo at 07/18/2008 @ 11:58am
Now they think about impeachment? After 8 years with only about 7 months left on his presidency they decide now. The amount of time it takes for a impeachment his term for presidency will be over what difference does it make now. All the US money he used for war products purchased from his fathers company i think hes well off let alone left United States scared. Small business to banks are closing down i believe he has already done enough in his time. He should be punished!

Posted by NotHappy at 07/18/2008 @ 12:00pm
er, notHappy--

Please consider-- 12 years of repub perv controlled congress vs 1.5 for dems and under an already freshly created new con petty dic'tatorship... Give the dems another 10.5 years to dig out of it if you want to then weigh the dems and repubs on a balancing scale I think that would be more equitable don't you think?

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/18/2008 @ 1:24pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/17/2008 @ 6:35p

One addition to my above statement concerning DU:

U.S. airpower dropping bombs on Iraq at twice last year's rate

By: CHARLES J. HANLEY - Associated Press | Tuesday, June 5, 2007 7:57 PM

BAGHDAD -- Four years into the war that opened with "shock and awe," U.S. warplanes have again stepped up attacks in Iraq, dropping bombs at more than twice the rate of a year ago.

...

It also reflects increased availability of planes from U.S. aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. And it appears to be accompanied by a rise in Iraqi civilian casualties.

In the first 4.5 months of 2007, American aircraft dropped 237 bombs and missiles in support of ground forces in Iraq, already surpassing the 229 expended in all of 2006, according to U.S. Air Force figures obtained by The Associated Press.

http://tinyurl.com/5pwypq

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/18/2008 @ 1:28pm
I know how many times it has been said already. Pelosi is a closed Republican. How she got elected is beyond me unless she, like too many politicians, lied her way into office.

She needs to go. I would even support a Republican to replace her...after all she is already acting like one now.

It is a disgrace for her to continue to protect Bush and Cheney when it is abundantly clear both are criminals, probably felons for their shameful actions in public office.

Pelosi will be equally guilty if she actively blocks impeachment.

Is she hiding something as well?

Posted by reelectnoone at 07/18/2008 @ 1:36pm
Well it's about time! And the reason I don't support the Democrats with my money is that most of them have no backbone - Kucinich is an exception and if/when the others wake up and learn to take their own side in a fight, the Democrats might actually do this country some good!

Posted by louisadyer at 07/18/2008 @ 3:10pm
to my mind it seems to me that government is pretty close to being obsolete, remembering it's purpose was to carry the voice of the people,as we couldn't do that ourselves,..with the advent of computers and the prices of comin down everday, wouldn't it be possible for us to lose our "representatives" at some point and represent ourselves,..just a thought,.

Posted by tomazzo at 07/18/2008 @ 4:01pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/18/2008 @ 1:56pm

And as always-- ¬<¬'s soulless response to learning of more death and destruction belies its true evil intent. Dig into your sulphur laden grave ever deeper great empty one.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/18/2008 @ 6:18pm
And it continues to 'surge' on to ¬ˆ¬'s glee and to the future US troops and Iraqi Depleted Uranium/brain concussion disability and death:

U.S. Boosts Its Use of Airstrikes In Iraq Strategy Supports Troop Increase

By Josh White, Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, January 17, 2008; A01

...

The greater reliance on air power has raised concerns from human rights groups, which say that 500-pound and 2,000-pound munitions threaten civilians, especially when dropped in residential neighborhoods where insurgents mix with the population. The military assures that the precision attacks are designed to minimize civilian casualties -- particularly as Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy emphasizes moving more troops into local communities and winning over the Iraqi population -- but rights groups say bombings carry an especially high risk.

...

"The Iraqi population remains at risk of harm during these operations," said Eliane Nabaa, a spokeswoman for the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq. "The presence of individual combatants among a great number of civilians does not alter the civilian character of an area."

...

The strategy was evident last week, as U.S. forces launched airstrikes across Iraq as part of Operation Phantom Phoenix. On Thursday morning in Arab Jabour, southeast of Baghdad, the U.S. military dropped 38 bombs with 40,000 pounds of explosives in 10 minutes, one of the largest strikes since the 2003 invasion. U.S. forces north of Baghdad employed bombs totaling more than 16,500 pounds over just a few days last week, according to officers there.

...

"Part of this is announcing our presence to the adversary," said Kahl, who recently returned from a trip to the air operations center. "Across this calendar year you will see a reduction in U.S. forces, so there will be fewer troops to support Iraqi forces. One would expect a continued level of airstrikes because of offensive operations, and as U.S. forces begin to draw down you may see even more airstrikes."

...

"You see an increase in the number of kinetic strikes because we have found the enemy, we are finding the enemy's emplacement sites, manufacturing facilities for IEDs and caches of weapons," said Air Force Lt. Gen. Gary L. North, the U.S. Central Air Forces and Combined Forces Air Component commander. "And we're striking them."

The Marine Corps keeps its own statistics for airstrikes in western Iraq but could not provide 2007 data.

In Afghanistan, where U.S. and NATO bombings picked up in the middle of 2006, coalition airstrikes reached 3,572 last year, more than double the total for 2006 and more than 20 times the number in 2005. Many of the strikes have targeted the Taliban and other extremists in Helmand province, and military officials said they have been able to use air power to support small Special Forces units that engage the enemy in remote locations.

http://tinyurl.com/yqbonu

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/18/2008 @ 6:42pm
"Operation Phantom Phoenix" = Depleted Uranium's hidden deadly conclusion rising from it's ashes...

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/18/2008 @ 6:48pm
The list goes on and on. AQL was banking on pure terrorism to keep the people in line but it backfired badly, which is where we are today.

Posted by pyeatte at 07/17/2008 @ 2:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Yes, but that event was independent of the surge. It started beforehand and in areas where the surge didn't take place.

Likewise, the political solution that the surge was supposed to make room for hasn't happened.

Posted by brunowe at 07/20/2008 @ 10:45am
Surge or more new con double speak BS?:

Sunday, September 14, 2003

MR. RUSSERT: We, in fact, have about 140,000 troops, 20,000 international troops, as well. Did you misjudge the number of troops necessary to secure Iraq after major combat operations?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, you're going to get into a debate here about--talking about several years, several hundred thousand troops for several years. I think that's a non-starter. I don't think we have any plan to do that, Tim. I don't think it's necessary to do that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

No 'surge', just a lot of fucked-up as long as possible dragged-out no-bid money grabbing.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/20/2008 @ 12:28pm