Since all the folks in Gitmo, likewise Khandahar and Abu Ghraib and a host of unnamed torture centers at home and abroad have been told (along with dissidents at home and abroad who are as yet not under arrest) that they have no rights whatsoever and will be brought before a military tribunal....

And since Mr Bush has an actual military title and military rank, and loves to be photographed wearing military uniforms, he should face several Summary and General Courts Martial,for charges ranging from unauthorized flights aboard military aircraft (Air Force One would fit just nicely, as well as the Navy jet from the infamous Mission (not quite) Accomplished flight.to treason, dereliction of duty, gross incompetence and many many counts of murder of American military personnel and foreign military and civilians.

If he was grounded by a flight surgeon in 1970 something, and since he has obviously had no treatments for any medical problems which would result in such an action...

And now the Surgeon General pronounces him in reasonable health, at least physically, and not actually insane,,,

No medical conditions that would result in being grounded would miraculously be healed in 30 years without some form of treatment.

That leads up to his mental state, if he is not "mentally ill" per se, but suffers from what they now list as "conditions", the only military flights he would be allowed to board would be medical evacuation transports, AND he would have to be restrained, and possibly sedated, during those flights.

The suggestion that he "took the stick' during his Tomcat flight and his acknowledgment of the possibility, would result in charges of gross negligence and reckless endangerment in the counts of all the personnel aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, the President himself and the pilot of the fighter jet, being brought against him and against the pilot of the jet.

The pilot would have known that he wasn't legally entitled to fly that aircraft, and the standing orders are that you never NEVER let an unqualified person take charge of the aircraft under your command... REGARDLESS OF THAT PERSON'S RANK RELATIVE TO YOUR OWN.

Since Mr Bush got his Air National Guard rating in a plane which was obsolete back then, there would be no way in Hell he could have enough experience to be allowed to fly a modern craft.

(remember, his apologists said that was why he got the stateside assignment, his craft was being phased out and he wasn't trained or rated on an actual combat plane)

And there is still the issue of desertion during the VietNam conflict, a lot of people I have met spent a good deal of time in federal custody for not fulfilling their Service Obligation for national guard or reserves, even after ACTIVE COMBAT DUTY.

Why stop with a procedure that would at most strip him of his office and his pension?

He will be out of office in 2 years and 2 months anyhow.
His pension is negligible. He spent far more than a hundred times the full amount of his salary, benefits and pension just being propped up in the office.

or a Liberal, liberals actually apologize for being right.

I am an Anarchist, but above all a Christian. The second fuels the first.

Mr Bush and Company, their New World Order, all spell antichrist to me.
The whole underlying nature of government is one of an individual or group exercising power over other individuals or groups.

The basis of Kingship is the basis of Slavery, "we are more powerful than you, so you must do our bidding"

Begin the investigations,

in that order.

Freepers and RW lurkers-
Exit plan is not to be confused with
"cut and run".

Bush is a bully, a terrible president and needs to be removed, but he is a human being -- badly mislead and certainly dangerous -- but he is just a man.

He is one of the sorriest excuses of a man or human... Bush that is. He SHOULD be held accountable for the deaths of many fine young men and women, plummeting the country into the worst debt ever and for his blatant lies and stupidity. His legacy will not be what he wants. Don't give it to him. Impeachment now, complacency NEVER!!!

The Lord is my shelter. With Him I shall not want.

 God Bless Us Everyone,

DJ RobRemix

OK, impeachment for what? If you are going to say that it is for the reasons for invading Iraq, let me help you out here. We have had troops in Iraq since 1990 with the first gulf war. Now, Clinton authorized, half assed i should say, the troops there to defend the no fly zones. Now, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, the UN and all the rest of the congress and presidents have said for years Hussan was a bad person with weapons of mass distruction. The UN had them documented and accounted for right up until this war. I feel that the persons who should be held responsible for this war falls on many persons shoulders; Clinton and her husband too, the UN, France, Germany, and Russia. They are the ones that allowed this whole terror world fall down around us. Clinton was so wrapped up in blowing up building in Oklahoma and taking down families at Ruby Ridge and Waco, that the let the worlrds most dangerous persons get away. Instead of taking Sudan up on his offer in the mid 1990's, he let him go. Clinton showed the world how spineless he was in Somolia by backing out without fighting, when we were there feeding those starving peeple. He removed the teeth from troops that went to Kosivo and Hatie and Bosnia by sending them with strict orders not to get involved and having troops not carry ammo for thier weapons. He decresed our militaries strenght to the lowest point since the Korean war, cut our military budgets and allowed the militarty to detereorate to the point of being ineffective. Why would the Commander in Chief do that to his Army? It all has to do with the One World Order, where the social elite, the Illuminate, the Counsil of Foreign relations wants to have us policed, guarded and contolled by one government. To argue another point, Clinton dogged the draft, there for, he should have never been able to run for any governmental office what so ever and should have been locked up in federal jail. Plus, think about this, everytime Clinton got introuble or wanted to take the light off of what he was doing, someone or something got blew up. think about it; The world trade center and the Murorrow building happened when she and her husband were being indicted for land scandels. Asprin factories got blown up and embassies got blown up when he was getting a blow job in the white house.

Bush Sr, Clinton and the UN should have taken care of Hussan when he broke the resolutions after the Gulf war but Bush Jr did what the rest were scared to do. We know he had Chemial biological weapon because we sold them to him in the 1980', France, Germany and Russia sold him technologies and North Korea bought from Iraq.

Our government can see a dime on the ground with satalites, and we know where all his weapons of mass distructions went to. Unfortunatly the UN, France, Germany, Russia had thier hands in it from the beginning. Why else were they flying in and out of Iraq days before the war? Why else do you think that US troops were not allowed to go through the northern regions of Iraq through Turkey? Collen Powel gave us that answer in a news briefing at the start of the war and during the hearings, he showed many trucks driving north out of Iraq. And now, where are they?

The point is this. We can not just point fingers at one president and say he messed up. The mistakes started years and years ago. I want to know still, how did Bush and Cheany lie? What grounds for impeachment, other then you dont agree with the war?

there was no block for moderate as I am able to see both sides of a coin. WMD have been admitted to by the Clinton Adm and there is documented use back in 1988 when he used them against the Kurds, as documented in the book, Blood and Belongings. Clinton even said that Bin Laden and he admitted to the first trade center bombing.

Clinton allowed his government agencies to run around the US terroizing people, from Waco to Ruby Ridge to Ok City. The proof in that is the Senate hearing in 1999 about Waco. Of course Billary was not convicted because all her records were in the building in Olk City.

I was in the Army, constanly training for the Biological weapons that Hussan had. SO, my imformation was from our government, not from out side sources. If your a CNN fan, as the reporters why they were taking Chemical bioolgical weapons gear with them and using them during both wars? How come there was photos and mew clipings of the weapons he had? How come the UN had them numbered, documented and accounted for, that is until the oil for Food Program?

Dont be so narrow minded that you lose focus. There is more than one side of the story here.

What do Joe McCarthy, Monica Lewinsky and Watergate have in common? All three triggered highly publicized investigations by Congress. All three series of investigations were followed by a change in party control of the White House, and control of Congress by the party leading the investigation. Two, of course, led to impeachment motions, while the third led, eventually, to Censure of the headlined "investigator," McCarthy.

From a progressive point of view, at least, only the Watergate investigation was serious and substantive, but that is less important in the current debate (on impeachment or not) than noting the political effects of highly publicized Congressional investigations, in which the incumbent government appears to have committed egregious abuses.

The Incoming Democratic Congress should take note. Democrats will not win by being wimps; they will not win by saying only that there are more important issues--than past (and current) abuses--that Democrats must address. Do the "leaders" of the Democrats want to continue as the majority party? Do they want to win the White House in 2008? This is a no-brainer: the abuses are there, and they must be stopped.

Yes, it is true that Congress should raise the minimum wage promptly, and Congress should demonstrate that Democrats can govern where Republicans have not, but it is even truer that Congress must stop, and reverse, the all-pervasive and radical increase in executive power which Bush and Cheney have arrogated to themselves, and to the whole executive branch. Do Democrats really want to allow Congress to remain what it has become: a body subordinate to an executive, with the executive claiming it is answerable to no one?

Congress must investigate; it is required by its Constitutional role of oversight to carry out investigation of abuses. That Congress, under the Republicans, refused to investigate is all the more reason why Congress should investigate now, and with no holds barred. That means subpoenas when necessary, and pursuing judicial support when the executive claims "executive privilege." I agree with the Congressional Democratic leadership, Reid, Pelosi and Conyers, that to start out with an impeachment inquiry is the wrong strategy. Perhaps I disagree on the reason: it is the wrong way to frame the issue.

The Democratic Congress should investigate; it should insure that the investigations are highly publicized, and I'm sure they could be--this is, after all, one way for Senators and Congressmen to gain prominence that might propel them even to the White House. The important point to the investigations will be to establish:

a. that the abuses have taken place, and that almost all American voters can no longer dismiss them, or ignore them.
b. that the abuses are unconstitutional and/or illegal, and therefore must be stopped, by law.
c. that any laws that permit Constitutional abuses must be repealed.
d. that officeholders, including the President and Vice President, must be punished for these abuses in any way appropriate, to prevent the abuses from becoming Constitutional precedent.

Now, the above could lead to impeachment, but it could lead to a formal vote of Censure, instead, especially if the investigations take a substantial part of President Bush's two years remaining. A vote of Censure, with a bill of particulars could lead, instead, to President Bush's, and VP Cheney's indictments for criminal acts, after they leave office. What is most important in Constitutional terms is that Congress establish that the authority claimed by Bush does not constitute part of the President's Constitutional powers.

Whether or not a formal trial for impeachment takes place, however, if the Democrats fearlessly pursue investigations into Bush's crimes and into the crimes of the past congressional majority, and if they substantiate what we all are pretty certain are there--high crimes, abuses of Constitutional authority, and corruption--then a real Democratic sweep could come in 2008, and with it the possibility of finally electing a truly progressive government at all levels.

Douglas C. Smyth

Another count for impeachment of both should include the W signing statements. Bush has no legal right to exempt himself and the executive branch from legislation. It is a high crime that he does so. His use of signing statements (as opposed to how they have been used by past Presidents) is a high crime.

Any actions taken by the Administration in defiance of legislation is another high crime, even if in accordance with a signing statement. Gonzales has the duty to prosecute such high crimes. His position supporting W signing statements and his refusal to prosecute are also high crimes.

The Constitution requires Congress to declare war. We attacked Iraq, a soverign government, based upon a half-assed Congressional resolution, which is not a Declaration of War. The Administration went to war on the basis of doctored, clearly phony intelligence that led to the unconstitional resolution. Those in Congress who voted for the resolution and who vote to fund the unconstitutional war against Iraq, along with the Administration who committed troops for the war against Iraq without a Declaration of War have committed a high crime. Any who supported the resolution and the Administration that used a resolution to go to war (for regime change) committed a high crime and should be impeached.

It is critical that we insist on declarations of war, and not simply permit Congress and the President to bypass the language and clear intention of the Constitution regarding the need for a Declaration of War.

I agree with you. Dennis Kucinich is one who stood by, saying, "let's examine"" while everyone else said, "let's go!!"

He's not the only one, though.....

Hillary didn't come to that conclusion, yet. She's STILL pro-war. (When it was a mistake to begin with.)

Doesn't interfere with her getting votes, however....

They have taken no concrete action. They do not want to touch this issue so we must demand that they do!!!

RE: Spying program on Americans.  FBI worries who leaked it? How about every federal employee sworn under oath to protect and defend the Constitution?  NSA has a whole city (in Maryland) of employees who talk about their work, etc.? The son of the U2 downed flier Powell captured over Russia said there can be few secrets. Our enemies know before the citizens do. That's why a democracy has to be open. We have to protect ourselves from criminal activity and treason both from within and without. Getting angry about "leaks" of illegal actions by our own government is just a fear tactic by those who are doing it. Ask why this agency is angry about the "leak". Did they do an illegal thing in the first place and also violate their oath of office?  Yes...Gonzales has to be impeached for high crimes against the Constitution and  Bill of Rights. Who are the FBI protecting and loyal? The Republican Party only? Give me back my tax dollars. I refuse to pay their salaries if they are out to destroy me and my country!

Why are the Democrats stonewalling the impeachment hearings?

High crimes and misdemeanors is an old English law term meaning Abouse of power. The excuse that the actions of the Bush administration do not rise to that level are a complete lie.The democrats are using that as an excuse to refuse to do the job that they were elected to do.