Bloggers on Impeachment

Where do the most-read progressive blogs stand on impeachment? We're keeping a list with these codes: Unknown/Now/Later/Never/loweroffices Chris Rabb

Agonist: Sean-Paul Kelly, Ian Welsh

  • Welsh 3/4/07: the only way to reign in Bush is to impeach him. Which the Dems won't do. So why don't we all stop pretending the Dems afre going to do fanything to stop Bush or his lackeys from doing anything they want to do for the next 2 years? Bush will ignore any law he doesn't like that he can't veto, simply by using a signing statement to get rid of it. His officials can ignore any subpoena they feel like, since Justice won't enforce them. The power of the purse is overstated - Bush has the power to take money from any department's budget he feels like, if he decides it is necessary. Without repealing the AUMF, the power of the purse can't be used, because Bush can just get the money from another pot. Bush is a dictator, and you Americans are all his subjects. You are not citizens, and it is time you stopped pretending you are - the ability to choose your dictator every four years does not make you into a Republic, it only makes you a democracy - at this point Bush can ignore any law he wants; treat any money as usable for any purpose he chooses; lock up anyone he wants at his choice; torture people at his will (because he determines what torture is); listen in on anyone he wants; use secret evidence to convict people; and go to war with any nation in the world without Congress's permission (when you've spent 60 days attacking another country the war is already on). Bush is the Decider and I suggest you all get used to it. Because it isn't going to change and the next two years are going to be very, very long.

Al Franken Show: Al Franken John Aravosis, Joe, Chris

American Prospect: Scott Lemieux

  • Scott Lemieux 7/9/07: Another upshot of this is that debates about impeachment are purely about the politics -- obviously there's no chance of 2/3 of the Senate voting to convict anyone. And here I also agree with Ezra that here McArdle is considerably more persuasive. It's hard to see how serious impeachment proceedings (as opposed to stepping up use of Congress' oversight powers in general) would strengthen the Democrats' political position. Andrew Sullivan

  • 3/6/07: Something is rotten in the heart of Washington; and it lies in the vice-president's office. The salience of this case is obvious. What it is really about - what it has always been about - is whether this administration deliberately misled the American people about WMD intelligence before the war. The risks Cheney took to attack Wilson, the insane over-reaction that otherwise very smart men in this administration engaged in to rebut a relatively trivial issue: all this strongly implies the fact they were terrified that the full details of their pre-war WMD knowledge would come out. Fitzgerald could smell this. He was right to pursue it, and to prove that a brilliant, intelligent, sane man like Libby would risk jail to protect his bosses. What was he really trying to hide? We now need a Congressional investigation to find out more, to subpoena Cheney and, if he won't cooperate, consider impeaching him.

Balkinization: Jack Balkin, Marty Lederman, Sandy Levinson

  • Jack Balkin 7/13/07:  If the NSA program and the Torture Memos were examples of the second round of constitutional hardball, the Libby commutation and Harriet Meiers’ refusal to testify before Congress are examples of the third round. Although his Presidency now seems to be a failure, Bush’s third round of constitutional hardball may be every bit as important as the first two. That is because if Bush is never held accountable for what he did in office, future presidents will be greatly tempted to adopt features of his practices.

Bartcop: Bart Melissa McEwan, Pam Spaulding Glen Ford Mike Rogers Martin Longman Brad Friedman Mike Stark Joseph Cannon John Amato, Nicole Belle, Steve Benen, Mike Finnegan, Anonymous Liberal, Logan Murphy, SilentPatriot 

  • John Amato 6/22/07: What’s it going to take to get the VP impeached? I’m glad Durbin is speaking out against him because it’s like a bad movie. Cheney Unleashed!
  • Nicole Belle 5/19/07: A strong movement for impeachment can only help get Gonzales out of office.  The no confidence votes this week are a step in the right direction but if he doesn't resign before or after the votes (and he seems to be holding on), impeachment will be the only option.   You can sign a petition to the House Judiciary Committee here. Liza Sabater Bob Somerby Kos, BarbinMDDevilstower, Georgia10, Kagro XMcJoan, Meteor Blades, SusanG

  • Meteor Blades 7/3/07:  Those who came to believe in impeachment did so at different times. Some when the Administration made Gitmo into a jurisdictionless no-man's land, free of the rule of law and public scrutiny. Some when torture and rendition and secret prisons were revealed. Some when the Downing Street Memo provided the first hard evidence that the Bush-Cheney Administration had decided ahead of time to go to war in Iraq whatever the evidence. Some when warrantless, domestic spying belatedly hit the news. Some years ago, some weeks, some yesterday. Impeachment is the right remedy right now.
  • BarbinMD 7/3/07: I agree with [Meteor Blades] 100%
  • Devilstower 6/24/07: There have been some voices raised that the we are nearing a constitutional crisis.  That's not true.  We are in a constitutional crisis.  And to lose this fight, we don't have to land in jail.  We don't have to see troops on the street or get a midnight knock on the door. We have only to worry about the events of everyday life.  We have only to flip on the tube.  We have only to be silent.  Qui Tacet Consentit -- silence implies consent. Every paper that is not running this story on the front page, every day, is providing a blessing to the administration's actions.  Every television station that wastes a minute on celebrity gossip, is complicit in the destruction of democracy.  And every one of us not actively protesting these actions is passively supporting them. 
  • Kos 12/7/06: We have one year to make our case for 2008 to the American people. We need to show not just that we deserve to hold on the Congress, but that we should be given the White House as well... what is more important, proving that we can govern and making the case for future Democratic majorities? Or a high-profile vendetta campaign against Bush? It really is just one or the other.
  • Kos 11/22/06: We have a chance to show America what a governing Democratic Party looks like. And a governing party governs. We have one year before the 2008 election cycle begins. Wasting it on impeachment would be absolutely ridiculous. That doesn't mean we don't investigate. But investigating administration abuses and impeachment are two different things. And once they're swept from office, there's always prosecution.
  • Kos 11/22/06: "President Cheney" is fucking scary. I'd rather focus on solidifying our gains in Congress and taking state legislatures and governorships and the White House in 2008 than waste another second of our time over the Worst President Ever. Brad DeLong

DemocracyNow: Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez Bob Fertik, CactusPat, Chip, David Swanson, Kagro X, Richard Mathews Howie Klein

Ed Schultz Show: Ed Schultz

Eschaton: Atrios, Avedon

  • Atrios 7/11/07: Let's Impeach the President for Lying. Or committing felonies. Either way. 
  • Avedon 7/6/07: I'm serious. There is no reason not to start impeachment proceedings. Ezra Klein

  • Ezra 7/9/07: I actually agree that impeachment proceedings would be a Bad Idea Christy, Jane, Pach, Scarecrow, looseheadprop, TREX, TeddySanFran

  • Christy 11/28/06 (endorsed reader Bargain Countertenor): Impeachment is first and foremost a political act, and the available evidence (Nixon and Clinton) shows that the electorate views it so. Starting in office saying they’re going to impeach the Two Stooges is repeating the Gingrich mistake. If, on the other hand, carefully conducted oversight hearing bring forward compelling evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors on the part of BushCo, then impeachment grows organically from the findings. The analogy then becomes Nixon rather than Clinton. And BushCo will be gone
  • Jane Hamsher 7/15/07: I don’t know if this thought scares the daylights out of anybody else, but it has plagued me of late — that if nothing is done to stop Bush, if he pays no price, we’re looking at the future of the United States because there is nothing for any President to fear. And that’s a pretty bleak picture.
  • Pach 12/18/06: I'm not arguing for impeachment, not because I don't think he's been criminal, or even because he doesn't deserve it. I believe he does. But I want the Democrats during these next two years to begin to change things, pass some good legislation. They can't pursue impeachment and do all that stuff at once. Our home, our world, is on fire. Put out the fire first. We don't have time to impeach this horrible man.
  • Scarecrow 8/15/07: We hardly talk about these other costs of having Bush as Commander in Chief, because we are saddled with a President whose choice of friends/advisers and whose disastrous policy choices require that we focus on killing Iraqis instead of saving our own country. Now we’re told he will veto every budget bill that provides “too much” money for everything from children’s health to worker protection and block every piece of legislation that tries to address energy dependence, global warming, or the absence of universal health care. Nothing critical that needs to be done can or will get done as long as this crowd occupies the White House. Nothing. Rove is leaving, but the core problem America faces still sits in the White House, smug in the belief he and Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales are accountable to no one and no law. Faced with such unprecedented Presidential misconduct, tell me again why starting impeachment proceedings, whatever the outcome, does not send the right signal to them and to our own future, and why we should not face this White House every day of its remaining term with the threat of removal. Because I just don’t get it, no matter how weak the Democrats often seem. Standing up to this regime is the first duty of a patriot and the litmus test for any Democrat seeking our continued support.
  • Scarecrow 7/1/07:  Putting impeachment on the table has always mades sense to me, not because I have any illusions it would likely lead to forcibly removing the regime from office — that may or may not happen — but because their unworthiness for office provides the framework for every other issue we support. Everything they do, every statement of their philosophy, every action they take or fail to take while in office should be made an argument for removing them from office now and preventing their clones from returning in 2009.
  • Scarecrow 5/23/07: I have often argued here that Congress cannot stop the Bush/Cheney neocon wars (add new covert operations in Iran) until the country removes Bush and Cheney from office and gets a President who wants to end the occupation and is committed to defeat the dark ideological forces that have the nation by the throat. I strongly favor starting impeachment hearings with the regime’s Iraq deceptions and degrading our national honor being the lead article(s), followed closely by the subversion of the rule of law and administration of justice at home. There are reasons why the country is not ready for impeachment, but I see no reason not to begin; let the media debate that, however badly, as the country watches Iraq disintegrate and the scandals unfold. The country undoubtedly wants this regime over, but they can be brought to the realization that impeachment is the proper tool for bringing that about and that waiting until 2009 requires too great a cost in lives, treasure and honor. 
  • Scarecrow 12/18/06: this Administration is hell bent to continue staining America's honor through every egregious violation of the rule of law — warrantless spying, renditions, indefinite detention, denial of counsel and legal recourse, torture, phony Iraq trials — brought to light in the last three years, not to mention those we don't yet know about but are undoubtedly occurring. And it's not just Middle Eastern "unlawful combatants" who are subject to the most serious crimes, now sanctioned by the Military Commission's Act. Immigrants and US citizens and whistleblowers and relief agencies are also victims or targets. This regime does not believe in America. They don't accept the principle that the authority of government flows from the consent of the people. They don't believe in America's core ideas of democracy, or the rule of law, checks and balances, the Bill of Rights, individual human dignity, or such quaint notions as pursuing negotiations instead of war. They are putting the security of everyone in the Middle East, friends and foe alike, in danger, and they're starting to bring the war home. So what do we do now? Nothing is going to stop these people from continuing what they're doing, and more of it, except removing them from office (or seriously threatening to do so). We need to begin asking questions about how we bring that about.
  • looseheadprop 3/19/07: I have seen it reported in the press that you have publicly stated that “impeachment is off the table.” As a former prosecutor of public corruption and fraud against the government cases, this statement is deeply, deeply disturbing to me. Predetermining the outcome of a criminal investigation prior to the completion of that investigation and the uncovering of all the facts, is one of the very worst abuses of prosecutorial discretion and a grievous breach of the canons of ethics for prosecutors.
  • TeddySanFran 4/13/08: My next small project (I start this week) is business cards with "Impeach Bush & Cheney Now! Call 202-225-4965" (I'm sure by now you recognize the Speaker's office number.) I'll put these on windshields and on community bulletin boards; just a fifty-dollar investment for a thousand cards. If only ten percent of those who get a card make a call, I will have generated one hundred more calls to Nancy Pelosi's office. Leave some at the community area of the public library, with the pilates and tax prep flyers, and put one in every eatery's fishbowl promising a free lunch if your card is drawn. Leave one on the folding table at the launderette, and a couple on the deposit-writing tables at the credit union.  Slip a few between CDs at the record store, or between boxes of pasta at the supermarket.  Ask your favorite vendors at the farmers' market if you can put a few on the corner of their tables.  Word gets around, and people start to talk.  Split the cost among five friends; each of you can quickly distribute 200 cards.
  • TRex 3/29/07: Frankly, I don't understand why we don't just go ahead and impeach the little turd. And his minder, Dead-Eye. And absolutely anyone and everyone that their vipers'-nest of an administration has appointed to any job at all since the 2000 elections. I mean, what further proof could we possibly need at this point that every little thing Republicans touch is irretrievably corrupted and infected, rotting from the inside from unchecked necrotic politicization? The Justice Department, the GSA, the War and subsequent "Reconstruction" in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the nation's intelligence agencies, the educational system, everything these filthy kleptocrats have turned their hands to has been sullied almost beyond repair by the "loyal Bushies'" insistence on politicizing EVERYTHING. Athenae, Holden Glenn Greenwald

  • 9/17/07 On whether Congress should impeach George Bush: “I think the Congress is so far away from impeachment under circumstances that clearly justify it…. Impeachment is a Constitutional tool but it’s also a political weapon.” Sally Hemings Arianna Huffington, Paul Abrams, Joseph Palermo, Byron Williams, Barry Yourgrau Digby, Tristero, poputonian, dday

  • dday 4/10/08: The predictable response is to call for impeachment. It's clearly warranted, but at this point impeachment is way too good for this crew. Indictment is more like it. Less martyrs, more felons.
  • Digby 7/12/07: I know that many of you feel that impeachment is the only answer and I'm not going to say you're wrong. What else can you do with an administration that is totally unresponsive to public opinion and the congress? They are not leaving the Dems much choice -- indeed, I almost think they pray for it, as a means to get their base enthused and test their Three Stooges theory of extreme politics on impeachment.
  • Tristero 5/9/07: The situation [in Iraq] is now so godawful, so completely coo-coo, and so totally out of control that future historians will shake their heads in amazement trying to figure out why, by the spring of '07, the US politicians and the public haven't demanded the immediate removal of the Bush administration from office and their incarceration in the Hague to stand trial.
  • Tristero 3/4/07: Withdrawal [from Iraq] now isn't going to happen. As a political tactic, perhaps it makes sense to organize around it, but I think calling for impeachment makes even more** even if it has as little chance of happening as withdrawal. With Bush in the high 20's for approval, a sober movement to impeach Bush AND Cheney has an opportunity to make clear to the world that the US is repudiating Bushism... **Given the ongoing deterioration of the Bush administration's standing, and their continued desire to break the law and create a modern America King to replace the presidency, the advantages of pressing seriously for impeachment far outweigh the dangers that concerned me earlier. Bulldog

Informed Comment: Juan Cole

  • 3/7/07 It is time for the Democrats in Congress to step up and impeach Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney. Enough came out in this trial to make it clear that Cheney was deeply involved in the operation to smear Wilson. The vice president of the United States should not be in the business of outing CIA operatives! This was a high crime, and Congress could impeach if it desired. A conviction in the House of Representatives could, I believe, easily be gotten. The Senate would be more difficult, given the strength of the Republicans there. But Republicans would have voted to impeach Nixon. Why not Cheney? James Wolcott Bill Schur Mark Crispin Miller

Mark Riley Show: Mark Riley Michael Moore Mike Malloy Jerome Armstrong, Chris Bowers, Jonathan Singer, Matt Stoller

  • Jerome Armstrong 7/3/07: A waste of resources. 
  • Matt 1/11/07: "If Bush is escalating our military conflict into Iran and Syria, he and Cheney must be removed from office." Simon Rosenberg Fubar, Swopa

NoneSoBlind: Andrew Bard Schmookler

  • 7/16/07:  With all these maneuvers, the Bush administration has laid down the gauntlet. It has precipitated the ultimate in constitutional crises: will America be ruled by an all-powerful president, accountable neither to Congress nor to the courts nor to the American public? The answer to that question must be “No!” For the sake of future generations, American cannot afford to allow this profound constitutional challenge to go unmet. Krugman

  • 12/16/08: there’s a major effort underway to flush the sheer crazy/vileness of the Bush years — and the cravenness of those who enabled it — down the memory hole. We shouldn’t let that effort succeed. The fact is that an American president deliberately misled the nation into war, probably for political gain — and most of the country’s elite went cheerfully along with the scam.

ObsidianWings: Hilzoy Rob Kall David Neiwert

Pandagon: Amanda Marcotte Jon Ponder

Peter B. Collins Show: Peter B. Collins

Peter Werbe Show: Peter Werbe

Politically Direct:

Rachel Maddow Show: Rachel Maddow Mark Levine

RadioNation: Laura Flanders

Ring Of Fire: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mike Papantonio Joan Walsh, Mark Benjamin, Peter Daou, Tim Grieve, Alex Koppelman, Katharine Mieszkowski, Michael Scherer, Walter Shapiro

  • 7/9/07 Joan Walsh: Now, impeachment deserves a whole blog post of its own (at least), but the short version is: I think it's a waste of Democrats' limited political capital. (As usual, Digby says it best.) If Bush critics in the House and Senate can't muster the votes to limit his escalation of the war, how will they impeach him? I hope Congress continues to investigate all of this administration's scandals, and if more evidence of wrongdoing emerges, and more Republicans show some courage and integrity in turning against the lawless Bush-Cheney cabal, I will be happy to change my mind about impeachment. Until then, I think it's the wrong move for the Democratic leadership to push right now -- I think their priorities have to be stopping the war, winning the White House and retaining control of Congress in November 2008 -- and I think Sheehan's threat to run against Pelosi is misguided. It just shows how much work the left has to do to build a voter base that understands the importance of avoiding circular firing squads. Sam Seder

SeeingTheForest: Dave Johnson

  • 7/3/07 Dave Johnson: No Choice But Impeachment
    The Democrats in Congress have been trying to avoid having to face what we are dealing with in this country at this time. We have a President asserting that he is above the law. He is backed by an authoritarian political movement that feels that laws should not apply to them, either. They have been and are working to destroy the agencies of government and fracture each and every one of the institutions of civil society. They have politicized the system of justice in the country to the point where we don't just wonder, we know that people are prosecuted or left alone based on their political affiliations. They have launched aggressive war. The pendulum is not swinging back. This is not a normal time. This is not business as usual. We can't think that impeachment will get in the way of "getting things done." This is about principles and the Constitution. This is about Rule of Law and democracy. This can no longer be avoided.

Smirking Chimp: Jeff Tiedrich Susie Josh Marshall

  • Josh Marshall 7/25/07: in recent days, for the first time I think, I've seen new facts that make me wonder whether the calculus has changed. Or to put it another way, to question whether my position is still justifiable in the face of what's happening in front of our eyes. 

TalkLeft: Jeralyn Meritt, Big Tent Democrat

  • Jeralyn Meritt 7/30/07: Generally, I'm inclined against impeachment proceedings as an unnecessary usurption of Congressional time and money that could be better spent elsewhere. 
  • Big Tent Democrat 7/3/07: The question is should Democrats seek it KNOWING it is impossible and knowing that the political consequences will be extremely negative in 2008, knowing that it will completely derail all attempts to end the war. Steve Benen Pamela Leavey, Ron Chusid Steve Soto, TR

TheNextHurrah: KagroX, MimiKatz, Emptywheel

  • Emptywheel 7/6/07: The punishment for the abuse of the pardon power is clear: impeachment. Just as the punishment for Libby’s obstruction was clearly 30 months. If we’re going to complain about the commutation itself, we have no business letting Bush off with nothing more than censure.
  • MimiKatz 7/15/07: We are going to have to demand impeachment from the bottom up; there is no other way.  We need to find one strong voice in Congress who will show some real courage, will put country above party, above career, above self.  One candidate would help too. As with global climate change, what is at stake here is no less than the kind of future we are leaving our children.  The generation that stood up to Nixon in Congress is gone, but the generation that stood up to him in the streets is not, and surely their children care enough about the future to act.  If we, here, now, do not act within the next few months, our democratic form of government and our very future is at risk and may be lost.

TheNation: Katrina Vanden Heuvel, David Corn, Tom Engelhardt, John Nichols, Peter Rothberg Randi Cenk Uygar Steve Clemons Spencer Ackerman

  • Spencer Ackerman 6/8/08: The absence of reprisal for the architects of disaster is practically an invitation for a future castastrophe. While this is obviously an oversimplification and not meant as an explanation for the Iraq war, it must carry some significance that senior Bush officials remember, for instance, Bob McNamara going to the World Bank instead of quietly into that good night. No one should believe that the next administration — and those yet to come — won’t take notice when Condoleezza Rice takes a seven-figure salary at some consulting firm while ever more flags cover ever more coffins. Dave Lindorff Tom Tomorrow Thom Hartmann Laura Rozen

Washington Monthly: Kevin Drum Matthew Yglesias

  • 12/16/08: The harsh reality is that [Iraq] was not a noble undertaking done for good reasons. It was a criminal enterprise launched by madmen cheered on by a chorus of fools and cowards. And it’s seen as such by virtually everyone all around the world — including but by no means limited to the Arab world. But it’s impolitic to point this out in the United States, and it’s clear that even a president-elect who had the wisdom not to be suckered in by the War Fever of 2002 has no intention of really acting to marginalize the bad actors. Which, I think, makes sense for his political objectives. But if Americans want to play a constructive role in world affairs, it’s vitally important for us to get in touch with the reality of what the past eight years of US foreign policy have been and how they’re seen and understood by people who aren’t stirred by the shibboleths of American patriotism.


Results Matter

  • ciotog17's picture
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Whether Bush and Cheney are impeached does not really matter to me. What matters is that they are prosecuted. It is quite evident that crimes were committed. The only thing impeachment would accomplish is the formal recognition of the disgraceful way they misgoverned this country. That's not what I want, and that's not what most Americans want. We already know they are a disgrace, we don't need the Senate to tell us. So I don't think we want them impeached or censured or made to stand in the corner with conical hats on their heads. We want them to pay. We want them held accountable — personally, legally, financially and historically accountable — so this kind of outrage won't likely be tried again any time soon. If they close out their lives in federal prison, that would be just about right.

I've read arguments on this site (and elsewhere) from both the rabid impeachment supporters and the timid anti-impeachment crowd, and I can't say that either is completely right. We can't just do nothing. Rome lost its republic when it did nothing to counter the actions of men who craved more power than had been constitutionally possible to amass. Do nothing and soon enough we will have a tyrant that makes Bush look like a pussycat. Yet impeachment has its problems too.

The thing about impeachment is that any attempt to pursue it would likely be met with opposition from some Republicans who would try to turn the proceedings into a political circus, levelling charges that the Democrats are interested only in settling past scores. The dilatory, grandstanding antics of a few Republicans would serve only to push any vote on articles of impeachment into late 2008, and as for a trial in the Senate — well, let's say the Senate hasn't proven itself able to cope with meeting tight deadlines lately.

So while I cannot advocate impeachment per se, that does not mean I wouldn't favor a Congressional investigation of the many mistakes, crimes and incompetencies that Bush-Cheney and Co. have committed. Au contraire. Such an investigation should be focused not to score political points or boost Democrats' re-election chances, but rather to buttress a federal indictment that would be filed against Bush, Cheney and the rest of the criminal conspiracy once they are out of office.

Using Congress' investigative and oversight powers to provide evidence for their eventual prosecution could be done in a way that would show people the Democrats were merely following the law and pursuing justice, not being vindictive for their own political gain. I think that the tone of such hearings would be about as important as any information gleaned from the investigation. If Democrats could refrain from gloating, casting aspersions or other triumphalist behavior and stick strictly to the impartial exposition of the facts, they might be amazed at how much Republican support they could garner for a post-election prosecution.

Done right, the investigation of the crimes committed by the Bush Administration would, I believe, lead to a modicum of national healing of the great divisions Messrs. Bush and Rove have engendered. A politically tinged witchhunt, though, leads only to more rancor and discord.

I come from Illinois where sometime next year, our former governor, George Ryan, will go to prison for his corrupt activities. The way that he was prosecuted (by a fellow Republican, as it happens) was that evidence steadily mounted up against him until NOT prosecuting him for his crimes would have been a greater crime in itself. The same thing can happen at the national level, and indeed it must happen if we are to enjoy a democratic (small d) future. That's why a premature and ill-advised impeachment procedure would not be in the country's best interests at this time, while the very same investigation (more thorough, one would hope, since the deadline is not as pressing) that would be part of any impeachment should be undertaken with dignity, impartiality and probity. Let's hope such an investigation begins immediately.

Juan Cole for Cheney's impeachment

  • CactusPat's picture
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

In the credit cited above by Bob, Libby's Lies, Cheney's Lies, Juan Cole provides a complete timeline of the Niger uranium lie, complete w/pictures...

"I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat for 23 years and I don't like them now in my own country." - retired American diplomat Joe Wilson